HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 15 90 PC MinutesMAY 15, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 15, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
Present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Phil
Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter
Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were:
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David
Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
24, 1990 and May 1, 1990 were approved as corrected.
- - - 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)1. 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.
Deferred from April 3, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that it would be inappropriate to approve
an expansion of the school at this time given the concerns
of the public. However, staff does recommend that one
additional structure be approved to compensate for the loss
of living space currently provided by 'Hill House.' With
the prohibition of students which are a danger to
themselves, others, or the community at large, security
concerns would be addressed. Therefore, staff recommends
approval subject to ... conditions."
Ms. Huckle asked why the proposed dormitory houses were so
far apart. (The applicant answered this question later in
the meeting and explained the houses are separated because
the boys are segregated according to age groups.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Herbert Beskin,
Attorney; Ms. Eleanor May, Vice President of the School's
Board of Directors; Dr. Tom DeMayo, School Psychologist; and
Mr. John Knight, Director of the School. Mr. Beskin
described the operation of the school including the types of
May 15, 1990 Page 2
students which the school serves and the licensing
procedure, the physical layout of the existing facilities
and the proposed changes, and the concerns of the community -
Specific significant comments included the following:
--The school has been deemed a residential facility for
children by the licensing agencies. State license allows
for 24 children which are referred by the Department of
Social Services, other kinds of youth agencies, Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Courts, and by school systems.
--Court referred children are not ones who have been
"committed" by the courts, but rather are those who request
to be placed at the school. Court referrals comprise
approximately 14% of the school's enrollment and that is not
expected to increase. "Mildly conduct disordered" children
comprise approximately 10% of enrollment which is expected
to remain the same.
--The school serves several areas and approximately 13%
have been from Charlottesville, Albemarle County, or
adjacent counties over the last three years. The school
does not serve many local children because local children
with the need for this type of service are placed in similar
facilities farther away from home to reduce the temptation
to runaway to get back home.
--It has been the school's policy for several years NOT
to admit "severly conduct disordered children," and that
will continue to be the policy.
--The school retains the right, at all times, to remove
a child if he becomes a danger to himself or others.
--The primary goal of the school is to return the
children to the community with an increased awareness of
self, obligation to the community, and the rights of others.
--The closest neighbor is approximately 850 feet
distant from the proposed new building with a buffer zone of
approximately 350 feet of woods.
--This request would allow the school to replace its
existing dormitories in three stages --one this year
requiring an increase of 2 students; one next year with no
increase in enrollment; and one in 1992 with an increase of
4 students.
--The replacement buildings offer significant
advantages for both the school and the community in the
following ways: Traffic on lit. 810 would be eliminated
because there would be no commuting from the Hill House to
the main campus; The new dorms will allow for increased
supervision and control of the students.
--An increase in enrollment is being requested because
of funding needs. Additional students will allow the
addition of a Crisis Intervention Counselor, an evening and
weekend cook, the replacement of the school van, an increase
in staff salaries and the purchase of additional educational
supplies.
/Is"
May 15, 1990 Page 3
--There have been no runaways since August 1989 and no
destruction of property in the last four years.
--The County Policy Department has commented that the
school is well run and poses no threat to the community.
--The school has implemented two new policies to
increase security: (1) There are now four random bedchecks
each night; and (2) A 24-hour hotline has been implemented
so that administrators of the school can be reached at all
times.
--The primary allegations which were a part of the 1986
inspection report were determined to be "unfounded," and
those persons who had been placed on temporary leave pending
an investigation, were reinstated.
--An unannounced inspection made by the State on March
30, 1990 found no violations of any kind and also found that
corrections requested in the previous report had all been
made.
--Future expansion of the school should not be a
concern to the community because that will be in the hands
of the County through the special permit process.
--The school will welcome three community
representatives on its Board of Directors and also suggests
the establishment of a school/community liason committee.
--Concerning the school's legal status, Mr. Beskin
explained that the Zoning Administrator, in 1979, classified
the school as an educational institution which at that time
was a use by -right in the RA. zone, thus no special use
permit was required.
--The school acknowledges that the Hill House special
permit is no longer valid. The Zoning Administrator has
postponed action on that issue until the completion of this
special permit request.
--The Comprehensive Plan has as one of its Human
Services strategies to "support services which promote
positive youth development." The special permit process
allows private schools and homes for the developmentally
disabled in the Rural Areas. The Code of Virginia
"encourages" these types of uses.
--Mr. Beskin presented a petition of support and also a
letter of support from the Greene County Department of
Welfare. He also presented photographs showing the proposed
location of the new structures.
--The proposed changed will result in better protection
for the community.
--Dr. DeMayo described the history of the school and
the types of children it serves. He described the three
categories of the conduct disordered classification, i.e.
mildly, moderately, and severely, and the type of behavior
associated with each category. Mildly conduct disordered
was described as truancy from school, shoplifting, and lying
/76
May 15, 1990 Page 4
and severely conduct disordered was described as being a
possible danger to self and others. He stated that
Adventure Bound is not now admitting, has never admitted,
and never will admit severely conducted disordered children
because it's treatment program is not equipped to serve the
needs of these children. (This issue was discussed several
times during the hearing. It was noted that the
determination between moderately disordered and severly
disordered was difficult to make, but that Adventure Bound
does not serve even moderately conduct disordered children.)
--The children served by this school are no different
than troubled children from earlier times; they are just now
given more sophisticated labels and are treated with more
sophisticated methods.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Knight to explain how an increased
enrollment of two children would effect the schools needs
(as opposed to the increase of 6 children as described by
Mr. Beskin). Mr. Knight explained that two children would
allow the addition of a Crisis Intervention Counselor, a
weekend cook, a new van, and educational supplies. He
stressed that two additional children was critical because
the 90-91 budget had been based on an increase of two.
It was determined Mr. Knight had been associated with the
school since October, 1988 and Director since July, 1989.
Mr. Johnson asked if the classifications for the children
were defined in writing and established and controlled by
the State. Mr. Knight responded that the State did not set
standards for all the school's procedures but did set
requirements regarding educational records, social and
psychological studies on the children, medical records, etc.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Knight if the school could live with
condition No. 4--School shall not accept conduct disordered
students, who are a danger to themselves, others or the
community at large. --or if there was a better way to address
this concern. Mr. Knight responded that there is a written
definition for the categories of conduct disordered which
appears in "DSM3R." Mr. Knight stated that the school does
not accept severely conduct disordered boys (e.g. those who
have been involved in extreme property damage, arson, etc.).
Dr. DeMayo read the definitions of mildly, moderately and
severely conduct disordered as they appear in the document
referred to by Mr. Knight. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's
question about the school's policy in relation to the
moderately disordered, Dr. DeMayo stated the school attempts
to choose those children whose "behavior did not appear
dangerous to staff or other youngsters in the Adventure
/ / I
May 15,1990 Page 5
Bound community." He stated the mild to moderate evaluation
was a subjective one, but the severely disordered
classification was not appropriate for Adventure Bound. To
answer Mr. Rittenhouse's original question, Mr. Knight
explained that a restriction to only mildly disordered
children might result in the rejection of one child per year
and though the school would like to retain the discretion to
make that determination, the school could live with such a
restriction.
(Note: Approximately 20 persons indicated their support for
the request by a show of hands.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Ronald Hodges, representing three property owners,
addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the
request. Mr. Hodges reasons for objection are made a part
of this record as Attachment A. The County Attorney
commented on Mr. Hodges allegations that the County did not
follow proper notification procedures. It was Mr.
Bowling's determination that the item had been properly
publicized because it had been advertised at the time of the
original hearing and at that time had been deferred to a
date specific. Regarding the issue of one property owner
(Mr. Gibson) not having received notice, Mr. Bowling stated
that the staff had followed the proper procedure in mailing
Mr. Gibson's notice to the current address of record in the
County Real Estate records and departmental files reflect
that notice was mailed to said address and was returned by
the post office. Mr. Bowling stated further that since Mr.
Gibson was present at the public hearing the issue was moot.
Regarding the issue that no notice had been posted on State
Route 687, it was determined that the applicant had placed
notice as directed by the Zoning Office, i.e. "next to the
driveway going into the site," but had not placed notice on
Rt. 687 because the applicant was unaware that the property
fronted on Rt. 687. (It was determined that the property
did abut Rt. 687.) Mr. Hodges quoted from Section 33.8.11
of the Zoning Ordinance: "If more than one such road abuts
the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same
manner as above for each section abutting road." It was Mr.
Bowling's opinion that the applicant had not complied with
the section of the Ordinance quoted. Mr. Hodges stated:
"As long as it's understood, both by the applicant, the
Commission and the County Attorney, and ultimately the Board
of Supervisors, that we are not waiving any procedural
requirement whatsoever --as long as Mr. Bowling can agree
that we put that in the record, and if it's his
recommendation to proceed on that basis, we are are prepared
to do so and we would be delighted for you to try to address
the merits." Mr. Bowling stated that Mr. Hodges statement
was preserved on the record. The Chairman asked the
applicants if they wished to proceed with the hearing,
/'y1?
May 15, 1990
Page 6
knowing that there was a "highly technical" defect in the
notice requirement. Mr. Knight indicated the applicant
wished for the hearing to proceed. Mr. Bowling concluded:
"It is my recommendation that we proceed, but with our eyes
open."
Mr. Hodges continued his lengthy presentation during which
he elaborated on those items listed on Attachment A.
The following persons of the Boonesville community expressed
their opposition to the request: Mr. Keith Ford, Mr. Lloyd
Gibson, representing the Boonesville community; Ms. Kathy
Davis; Mr. Ned Slaughter, representing Mr. Hunter Lewis,
owner of Treon Farm. Without exception the basis for
opposition was a concern for personal safety and security
based on previous incidents involving some of the school's
residents. Mr. Slaughter stated that Mr. Lewis would not
oppose the request if conduct disordered children were not
admitted, though he did share the community's fears.
Mr. Knight was allowed final comments. He explained that
the inspections that are performed periodically look for
compliance not only with state and federal regulations but
also with local restrictions and ordinances. Mr. Knight
made this explanation to point out that a limitation imposed
by the County which would allow only mildly conduct
disordered students would be enforceable. He stressed that
the proposed changes would result in greater safety for the
community. Mr. Knight stated also that he had sent two
separate letters to surrounding neighbors asking for their
comments and he had received no response. He explained the
school's method of dealing with runaways. He stated he was
unaware of any incident, over the last four years, which had
caused harm to any member of the community.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse listed the options available and the results
of each:
--If the special permit is not granted enrollment will
be reduced to 16;
--If the special permit is granted
applicant, the enrollment will increase
two years and three new structures will
--If the special permit is granted
staff, the enrollment will remain at its
but one new building will be allowed to
House.
as requested by the
to 30 over the next
be built;
as recommended by
current level of 24
replace the Hill
Y79
May 15, 1990 Page 7
Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant to comment on the
effects the various possible enrollments would have on the
school. Mr. Knight responded that a reduction to 16 would
mean a substantial reduction in the number of staff,
including the elimination of the director's position, a
corresponding reduction in supervision of the children, and
a tremendous reduction in the services provided to the
children. For an enrollment of 24 (as it currently is), he
explained that the Crisis Intervention Counselor could not
be added, nor could the weekend cook. Regarding night
supervision, it was determined that regardless of the
enrollment, there would be one overnight counselor present
in each dorm.
Mr. Johnson asked staff to comment on Mr. Hodges claim that
the students enrolled at the school do not fit the
definition of the developmentally disabled. Mr. Bowling
responded that that was a determination for the Zoning
Administrator to make. However, he noted that under the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, at least 86% of
the students at the school qualify under that act. He
explained: "And as I understand that Act, that dovetails
into a home for the developmentally disabled."
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff had considered the
establishment as a "private school in terms of its category
under our definitions in the Ordinance." He added: "It was
originally accepted as an application for Home for
Developmentally Disabled as well as private school, but the
actual recommendation as presented correlates directly with
a private school."
In response to Mr. Grimm's question about the category
"group home," Mr. Cilimberg stated staff had considered the
establishment to be a private school because of the numbers
involved.
Ms. Huckle asked if it was possible to condition the permit
so that no conduct disordered children would be admitted.
Mr. Bowling responded that was possible, but enforcement of
such a condition would be difficult.
Mr. Jenkins stated he had problems with such a condition
because it was an effort to tell the administrators of the
school how it should be run.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that regardless of the Commission's
action, the school could still exist with at least 16
students. Mr. Johnson also commented on the school's need
/1?0
May 15, 1990 Page 8
to operate in terms of "incremental units," and the school
has determined that an enrollment of 30 provides the most
economical, effective method of handling between 16 and 30
students, i.e. at that level of enrollment they can provide
more services and have a better school. Mr. Johnson noted
that he had visited the school, unannounced, and found the
"cleanliness and organization to be immaculate." He stated
also that students he had came in contact with had been
friendly and polite. He also noted that he was unable to
see any neighboring residence from the school property.
There was a discussion about whether or not a time limit
could be placed on a special permit. Though it was noted
that time limits are placed on permits occasionally (e.g.
the County Fair), Mr. Bowling stated there is a legal issue
involved when an applicant makes a substantial economic
investment. Mr. Bowling stated that as a general rule
special permits "run with the land and are not personal to
any one applicant."
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-90-16 for Adventure Sound, Inc. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan submitted by
John Knight dated February 19, 1990;
2. Albemarle County Fire Official approval;
3. Enrollment is limited to thirty (30) students who shall
reside on site;
4. School shall not accept severely conduct disordered
students, who are a danger to themselves, others or the
community at large.
Mr. Johnson explained that he felt the enrollment of 30 was
more efficient ,and "by authorizing the three buildings now,
we let them do reasonable planning and avoid them having to
come back to continue this request,"
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Grimm stated he could not support the motion as stated,
but could support staff's position, i.e. enrollment of 24
and one replacement building.
Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the motion. She
/ 00/
May 15, 1990 Page 9
indicated she could support one additional building for 10
students rather than 8. She stated the applicant would then
have the right to request additional structures later and
this would allow time for the community to evaluate the
facility. She stated she perceived that a lot of the
community's problems with the school had occurred before Mr_
Knight had become Director.
Mr. Jenkins stated he felt the applicant's proposal was
valid and the basis for the request was valid. However, he
stated that though he felt the fear expressed by the
residents was made worse by emotion, he could not support
the motion.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was not yet prepared to support an
enrollment of 30 because it was his feeling that "the
interests of the school at this point, long term, and the
interests of the citizens that surround it, would not be
best served by our jumping from 16 minimum, that would
accompany a denial of the special permit application, to
30." He felt the citizens needed an opportunity to
understand the school better and the school needed an
opportunity to convince the residents. He felt staff's
recommendation for the addition of only one building at this
time would allow the school to relocate the existing
students and bring them under better supervision and
organization. He stated the only question in his mind was
one of whether to allow an additional 2 students. He stated
that the school had stated that it would benefit from an
increase of 24 to 26 and he felt the community would also
benefit because of increased staff which would provide
better control and atmosphere. He concluded that he could
not support this motion for an increase to 30.
The previously stated motion for approval failed to pass
(2:4) with Commissioners Johnson and Andersen voting in
favor and Commissioners Grimm, Jenkins, Huckle, and
Rittenhouse voting against.
Ms. Huckle moved that SP-90-16 for Adventure Bound, Inc_ be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan of a single
building to be located in general accord with sketch
submitted by John Knight dated Befruary 19, 1990;
2. Albemarle County Fire Official approval;
/ S?Z
May 15, 1990
Page 10
3. Enrollment is limited to twenty-six (26) students who
shall reside on site;
4. School shall not accept conduct disordered students, who
are a danger to themselves, others or the community at
large. (Note: This condition was later amended to read:
School shall accept only mildly conduct disordered students,
who are not a danger to themselves, others or the community
at large.)
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
There was a discussion about the wording for condition No.
4. Ms. Huckle's original motion was exactly as presented by
staff and staff explained the intent of the condition was
to exclude "severely" conduct disordered children, but to
allow moderately or mildly conduct disordered. Mr. Fritz
suggested that the Commission might wish to reword the
condition as follows: "School shall not accept severely
conduct disordered students who are a danger to themselves,
others or the community at large." Ms. Huckle indicated she
was agreeable to this change in the wording of condition No.
4. There continued to be discussion as to the wording and
particularly whether or not it was the Commission's intent
to also exclude the moderately disordered classification.
The following wording was finally decided upon: "School
shall accept only mildly conduct disordered students who are
not a danger to themselves, others or the community at
large." Mr. Bowling pointed out that this condition would
be difficult to enforce.
There was a discussion about the difference between allowing
only one new house at this time as opposed to two or three_
Mr. Keeler pointed out that "with the limit on enrollment
the number of houses becomes irrelevant."
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the motion anticipated one
additional dwelling at this time and the applicant would be
required to return to the Commission to receive permission
for the second unit, even if no increase in enrollment was
proposed.
Mr. Johnson stated he felt it would be worthwhile to approve
two buildings at this time so the applicant would not have
to make a separate application.
It was pointed out that that was not a part of the motion on
the floor.
May 15, 1990
Page 11
Ms. Huckle noted that Mr. Johnson's suggestion would result
in the applicant's having more of a vested interest in the
property.
The previously stated motion for approval for 26 students
and one additional structure passed (5:1) with Commissioners
Grimm, Andersen, Huckle, Rittenhouse and Johnson voting in
favor and Commissioner Jenkins voting against.
The meeting recessed from 10:20 to 10:30.
Because of the anticipated time for the remaining items on
the agenda, it was decided the last two items would be
deferred to May 22.
Ms. Anderson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-90-33
for Hillsboro Baptist Church and SP-90-35 for Covenant
Church of God be deferred to May 22. The motion passed
unanimously.
CPA-90-02 Wendell Wood - Review for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan for an area in Neighborhood One, west of
Rt. 29 and north of Berkmar Drive Extended and Hilton
Heights Road. Deferred from April 10, 1990 meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Benish presented the staff report.
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed a history of the request. The staff
report explained that "the staff and applicant have
different interpretations of the location of the...intended
parcel -based boundary between the Regional Service and High
Density Residential use. ... Therefore the purpose of this
review is to have the Commission determine whether this
request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive
Flan for Zonation by defining this boundary between Regional
Service and High Density Residential. Staff's
interpretation of the land use map in this area is that the
boundary reflects the existing zoning on existing parcels.
... The applicant's interpretation is that the boundary
between the Regional Service and the High Density
Residential lies along an imaginary line extending due north
from Berkmar Drive Extended... based in part on the statement
within the Plan which states that no commercial development
should occur west of the extension of Berkmar Drive." The
staff report addressed the impact of the applicant's
interpretation and also attempted to provide more
information on the rationale behind both interpretations.
The staff report concluded: "Staff's position remains that
the proposal's location is inconsistent with the Plan based
on staff's knowledge of considerations that went into the
May 15, 1990
Page 12
Plan's development. However, staff recognizes that this
intent was not carried forward clearly in the Plan's text or
land use map for Neighborhood 1."
Mr. Johnson interpreted that the boundary line shown on the
map included with the Comprehensive Plan "goes straight on
up --a straight extension of Berkmar Drive." Mr. Benish
pointed out that the land use map in this area is very
general in nature, particularly due to the scale of the map
and "the line depicting Berkmar Drive is not accurate to the
alignment of Berkmar Drive." Mr. Cilimberg stated that was
the determination the Commission is being asked to make;
The issue before the Commission was defined as follows: (1)
To define for staff the boundary; and (2) Based on that
decision, to determine if the applicant's request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Benish explained that the primary impact was an 8-acre
difference in terms of the two interpretations, i.e. the
applicant's intepretation would result in a loss of 8 acres
of high density residential area which would be a loss to
the holding capacity of the growth area.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about any type of designation
on land that drains to the watershed. Both Mr. Cilimberg
and Mr. Benish explained that was not an issue because "all
areas designated in the urban area drain away and are not in
the watershed area."
Mr. Cilimberg also explained that it the Commission should
find that the request is not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, but determine that a review of the Plan
is in order, then staff was recommending that such a review
be undertaken concurrently with the rezoning request.
Mr. Rittenhouse outlined the possible actions the Commission
could take, i.e. (1) Agree that the applicant's
interpretation is correct; (2) Agree that staff's
interpretation is correct and decide not to entertain a
Comprehensive Plan amendment; or (3) Agree that staff is
correct, but agree to consider a Comprehensive Plan
amendment in which case staff would present the analysis of
such an amendment along with the applicant's request for
rezoning, which has already been submitted to staff.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. He explained the
basis for the applicant's interpretation of the boundary,
May 15. 1990 Page 13
i.e. "if you draw that line straight, the tj acres would be
in compliance with the pink line on that map." (Mr.
Rittenhouse acknowledged that was the issue --the fact that
the Table in the Comprehensive Plan and the map were not
currently in agreement.) He stressed that his request had
been amended since its origination, i.e. it has been "pulled
back to the Berkmar Extended." He pointed out that the
County had hired an engineer to locate the road and the
location was "looked in." (Mr. Benish again pointed out
that the location of Berkmar Drive Extended is shown as a
straight line on the map but it is actually a wavy line. He
stressed that "everything on this map is schematic because
of the scale." He pointed out that the actual alignment of
Berkmar Drive is different in a number of places.)
Mr. Mike Davis, representing Wal-Mart (the anticipated use
for the property in question) addressed the Commission. He
gave a history of his company and described the company's
philosophy. (It was pointed out that Mr. Davis' comments
would be more appropriate for a rezoning presentation.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated: "Since there is nothing written
directly in the Comprehensive Plan that covers this other
than alluded to by 'east and west of the Berkmar Extension,'
the fact is the map shows it directly as a straight line,
notwithstanding scales involved. The fact that the dispute
apparently is coming up because of interpretation relative
to the number of high density homes that might be eliminated
and although by calculation here it's up to 160, ... this
represents within the total of Neighborhoods I and VII, this
represents a maximum of 3.4% or down to 1.7%. So it's a
fairly small number percentage wise --the effect is fairly
small looking at the community as a whole. It seems that
the most logical thing to do here is to go ahead and accept
the map, consider it extends straight on and then proceed
with the appropriate rezoning methods."
Mr. Johnson moved that "as indicated by Map 20 in the
Comprehensive Plan, all references to Berkmar Road Extended
be considered as a straight-line extension so shown."
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
It was clarified that Mr. Johnson's motion was based on
agreement with the applicant's interpretation of the
boundary and therefore the rezoning request would address
all other issues of the proposal.
/A6
May 15, 1990
Page 14
Ms. Andersen stated she could not support the motion as
stated because she felt "that those who knew the intent of
the road and those who paid attention to the wording at the
very least thought that we had a nebulous situation on our
hands."
Mr. Grimm indicated he was in agreement with the motion.
Commissioners Rittenhouse and Huckle indicated they would
support Ms. Andersen's position and also that they would
support staff's interpretation and a Resolution of Intent to
consider an amendment to the Plan.
The previously stated motion for approval failed to pass
(3:3) with Commissioners Grimm, Jenkins and Johnson voting
in favor, and Commissioners Andersen, Huckle and Rittenhouse
voting against.
Ms. Huckle moved that the applicant's request was not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the
Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider an
amendment to the Plan.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
The motion passed (5:1) with Commissioners Grimm, Andersen,
Jenkins, Huckle and Rittenhouse voting in favor and
Commissioner Johnson voting against.
CPA-90-03 Wendell Wood_- Change in land use designation in
the Hollymead Community from Industrial Service to Regional
Service and High Density Residential west of Route 29 and
south of Airport Road. Deferred from April 10, 1990
Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Henish presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "Staff and the Planning Commission have recently
entertained Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests in the
Hollymead Community and has recommended that no action be
taken at this time for several reasons. Staff is of the
opinion that circumstances are similar as regards this
request and that there has been no change in circumstance to
warrant any further review of Plan amendments for Hollymead
at this time."
The applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, addressed the Commission.
He explained that the proposal had originated with the
Airport Authority and the Service Authority based on a need
i97
May 15. 1990 Page 15
for public sewer to serve the airport. He explained that
the cost of extending the sewer line is too great to be
borne by the Airport and the Service Authority, so this
applicant is offering to extend the sewer line. He added
that the applicant also proposes to build a road from the
runway to Rt. 29 which would relieve some of the traffic
problems on Airport Road. He explained that he planned to
use the property as a mobile home park along with supporting
commercial uses. He stated this was the County's
opportunity to have public sewer extended to this area at
the cost of the developer and at the same time provide a use
that is needed in the County (a mobile home park). He
Pointed out that this request was different from previous
requests because it is a request for a "category change" and
not "an addition to the master plan." He stressed that no
Public opposition to the proposal has been expressed.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Wood if he was willing to commit the
property for a mobile home park for an indefinite period of
time, or if it was his intention to use it as a mobile home
park only until such time as the land becomes more valuable.
Mr. Wood responded that he was not willing to place a
permanent easement on the property, but he would be willing
to commit to a certain time period such as 12 or 15 years.
He stated also that he would be willing to delay commercial
development on the property for 10 years, though he had to
have the rezoning approved at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this was not an issue for
consideration during a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
discussion.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County
Service Authority, addressed the Commission. He stated that
the Authority was neither endorsing or opposing the plan,
but only wanted to the Commission to be aware that the
Airport had contacted him a year ago to try to find a
solution to the problem of the need for increased sewer
service at a minimum cost to the airport. He stated that
the Authority does not plan to build the line but if a
developer or the airport extend the line to serve their
needs, then the Authority is in a position to oversize the
line to accommodate the entire drainage basin. He
acknowledged problems with failing septic systems in the
Deerwood Subdivision and stated that public sewer would be a
necessity for that community at some time in the not too
distant future.
May 15, 1990 Page 16
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
There was a brief discussion about the uses which would be
allowed with the existing zoning on the property. Mr_
Cilimberg commented on the basis for the existing
designation.
Mr. Benish reminded the Commission that it was being asked
to reopen the Comprehensive Plan for further study, a Plan
that was adopted only 11 months ago.
Ms. Huckle moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan not be adopted at this time for the
reasons stated in the staff report and also because this
property is in the Airport Overlay Zone and therefore is not
suited for residential development.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
It was determined that a portion of the property lies
outside the Airport Impact Area.
It was noted that a negative action on the part of the
Commission could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
In response to Mr. Jenkins' questions, Mr. Cilimberg stated
that the Comprehensive Plan undergoes a full review and
update every five years, but an annual report on the Plan is
also prepared each year, the purpose of which is to report
on the status of new trends and changes and to evaluate
whether some amendments may be necessary. He continued:
"We envision --it may not be until the five-year review of
the Plan, or it may be next year --that the Hollymead area
will be re -studied after the bypass study is complete, after
the traffic model is complete, and after the public
facilities plan is completed. I think that was referenced
clearly on your decision on the other amendment in
Hollymead, the larger one. It's a very logical area to look
at for expansion or changes over what might be designated
now."
Mr. Johnson stated: "I would be very hesitant, under any
circumstances, to try to schedule any activity or decision
predicated on the completion of a Bypass Study. If this
happens within the next decade I think we'll be quite
fortunate." He noted that it might be appropriate to
AH
May 15, 1990 Page 17
"strike while the iron is hot" and all the adoption of a
Resolution of Intent would mean is that the issue would be
studied and the issues could be weighed more heavily. He
felt it might be shortsighted not to study the issue
further -
Ms. Andersen indicated she agreed with Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support staff's position and
therefore support the motion.
The previously stated motion (i.e. not to adopt a Resolution
of Intent) failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Grimm,
Huckle and Rittenhouse voting in favor and Commissioners
Andersen, Jenkins and Johnson voting against.
Ms. Andersen moved that a Resolution of Intent to study an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan be adopted.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
The motion failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Andersen,
Jenkins and Johnson voting in favor and Commissioners Grimm,
Huckle and Rittenhouse voting against.
There was some discussion as to how the Commission should
proceed with the request. The possibility of a Motion to
Reconsider was discussed so that the item could be voted on
by a full Commission. No such motion was made.
The Commission failed to take affirmative action on this
request and, therefore, the request was technically
defeated.
ZMA-89-16 J.W. Townsend - The applicant is petitioning the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 12 acres from R-1,
Residential, to LI, Light Industrial. Property, described
as Tax Map 32, parcel 22B is located on the west side of
Route 29 approximately 3/10 mile south of the North Fork
Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The staff and applicant were requesting deferral to June 19,
1990.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA-89-16 be
deferred to June 19, 1990. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further busin sq, he mee ing adjourned
at 11:55 p.m. / // _ _ Y, f
D5 `V. Win/Win/Cilimberg,)�bcretary
I90