HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 24 88 PC MinutesMay 24, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 24, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson;
and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Planner; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Steve
Cresswell, County Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 10, 1988 were approved
as submitted.
Tire Center at Riverbend Final Site Plan - Proposal to locate Phase II
consisting of 6,526 square foot tire sales and service center and Phase III
consisting of a 5,000 square foot day care center. An 11,200 square foot
furniture store (Herndon House) presently exists on the 3.08 acre site as
Phase I. Access is to be from South Pantops Drive and Riverbend Drive.
A total of 95 parking spaces will serve the development: Zoned PD-SC,
Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, located in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of South Pantops Drive and Riverbend Drive,
across from Pantops Shopping Center. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17G. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
In response to Mr. Stark's question about the height of the fence, Ms.
Patterson explained that no specific height is required by the Ordinance,
but the Commission can require a higher fence if it is felt to be
justified.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. He addressed the issue of the
fence height and stated that he felt there would be little danger of
young children climbing a 4-foot high fence. He also pointed out that
the traffic around the day care center would be parking lot traffic
and would be moving slowly. However, he indicated he would not object
to a requirement for a higher fence. He added that it was his intention
that the fence between the day care center and the tire center be
opaque and the remainder of the fence would be open...
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was a brief discussion about the height and type of fence to be
required. Mr. Stark expressed concern about the danger to the children
caused by the traffic and suggested that a 6-foot high fence be installed.
It was finally decided a 5-foot high fence would be adequate and would be
o277
May 24, 1988
Page 2
opaque adjacent to the Tire Center. It was decided it would be left to
staff to determine if the fence should be opaque at any other point..
GIs. Patterson suggested the following for added condition No. 3:
Play area fence shall be a minimum of five feet in height and
shall.be opaque adjacent to the Tire Center and elsewhere as
determined by staff.
Mr. Stark moved that the Tire Center at Riverbend Final Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading may commence with issuance of an erosion control permit.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. Planning staff approval of plat for 1) off -site drainage easement,
and 2) revision to Riverbend Drive right -of --way.
3. Play area fence shall be a minimum of five feet in height and
shall be opaque adjacent to the Tire Center and elsewhere as
determined by staff.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
LTS Parcel Distribution Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate
a 44,000 square foot building with a Maximum height of twenty-five (25)
feet. The proposed use is a parcel distribution center/truck terminal.
This property will have access from Hunter's Way Road, and be served by
159 parking spaces; 21 additional spaces are proposed as loading spaces.
This property is located in the
. Hunter's Hall Subdivision at the terminus of Hunter's Way Road.. Tax .
Map 79, Parcels 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H, U and 4K (combined). Zoned.LI, Light
Industrial. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Pat Ford. He stated he was available
to answer the Commission's question9. He also pointed out that the applicant
was requesting administrative approval of the final site plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The :pain topic of discussion for this proposal centered around the
applicant's vehicle washing procedure and the plan for discharging the _
affluent into the stream. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had
been aware of the problems which might arise from this procedure at
the time the special permit had been reviewed. fir. Ford stated the
i 4
May 24, 1988 Page 3
applicant was addressing that concern and was in contact with the State
Water Control Board. Mr. Ford explained briefly how the water treatment
facility would work which would neutralize the affluent before its release
into the stream. He confirmed that this disposal system was completely
separate from the domestic drainfield. He explained that the affluent
would be reduced to "domestic strength" .at the time it was discharged
into the stream. Mr. Ford stated the applicant would have no problems
meeting the requirements of the State Water Control Board.
It was determined the applicant was using a similar process at their
current facility.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any carwash facilities had been approved in the
County which were not on public water and sewer. Mr. Horne replied,
"Not to my knowledge."
Ms. Diehl asked if the County Engineer had commented on this proposal.
Mr. Pullen stated that both .the County Engineer and the Watershed .
Management Official felt that if the applicant could meet the requirements
for issuance of a permit by the State Water Control Board they would
be satisfied. Mr. Steve Cresswell, representing the County Engineer's
Office, confirmed this. He added that his only concern was that the
stream in question flows under Rt. 250 and to the south is a cattle farm.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the Commission had been "sandbagged." He
said he felt it was envisioned at the time of the special permit that
the uses on the property would be limited to those which produced
only domestic waste,.and this was the Commission's interpretation of
the applicant's proffer. He stated that proffer limited the use
of the property and not the type of treatment that might be proposed
for the waste. He said this issue had not been anticipated at the
time of the special permit review. (Staff stated it had not been
discussed at the Board's review either.) He felt the Commission was
being put in an awkward position.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would like more information from the State Water
Control Board as to what would be required.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the site plan with the carwash
facility.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed with Commissioners Diehl and Bowerman. Mr. Wilkerson
asked Mr..St. John to comment on staff's opinion that this proposal
is not a violation of the proffer on the property..
Mr. St. John stated he did not fknow what the Commission had been led to
believe about the proffer bu0staff required that proffer because they
were concerned about groundwater, their concern would be alleviated by
the proposed treatment procedure for the waste. He stated he could
not answer the question of whether or not the Commission feels the proffer
is being violated because that was a determination the Commission would
have to make.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that this applicant had not made the proffer on
the property and he was not implying that the applicant had attempted to
mislead the Commission.
May 24, 1988 Page 4
Mr. Bowerman continued and stated "we have to live with the proffer that's
on the property." He felt it was a question of whether the Commission feels
that the applicant's proposal is substantially in accord with the proffer.
He added that it would have been better for the Commission to have been
made aware of the situation at the time of the special permit hearing.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would favor either a deferral until more information
could be obtained from the State dater Control Board, or approval with
the carwash being deleted.
Mr. Ford asked if the staff could be allowed to approve the car wash
facility administratively once State Water Control Board requirements
have been met. Mr. Bowerman responded that the Commission would not go
along with that request.
Mr. Bowerman stated that.the major point was, based upon the original
proffer, that uses on the property be limited to those which produce only
domestic waste. He recalled that both the Commission and the Board had
been concerned about that issue because the site is not served by public
sewer.
Ms. Diehl agreed. She added she was uncomfortable with the statement
in the staff report that "since this is being discharged into: a stream
instead of a septic area, it's no violation of the zoning proffer."
She stated she felt it was a violation of the intent with which the
proffer was developed.
Mr. St. John brought up another issue, i.e. where are the vehicles to be
maintained? Mr. Ford responded that this would be done on site also,
but the waste would be taken care of by a separate system than that of
the car wash.
Mr. Horne stated that if the Commission did not wish to proceed with the
car wash facility, the applicant should decide whether or not to
proceed with the rest of the plan, deleting the wash facility at this point,
or whether they prefer deferral of the entire site plan.
Mr. Ford replied that the applicant wished to proceed with the application.
He asked what procedure would then be necessary to add the car wash
later. Mr. Horne explained that the applicant would need to request an
amendment for the site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was interested in how the oil, etc. would be disposed
of from the maintenance operation.
It was determined that the floor drains from the maintenance area would also
connect with the water.treatment facility, but the actual oil removed from
the vehicles would be kept in a tank and hauled away from time to time.
Domestic waste from the facility would go into a septic tank,.while the
water from the carwash and floor drains would be treated and discharged into
the stream.
N
May 24, 1988
Page 5
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that if the applicant chose to proceed without
the car wash facility at this time, the maintenance operation would also
be in question because of the floor drains' connection to the same
treatment procedure.
There was some confusion about the connection between the maintenance
operation and the car wash operation. Mr. Ford stated that two
separate devices would be used for breaking down the waste, i.e. an
oil separator for the maintenance operation and.a different separator
to treat the car wash waste. However, Mr. Bowerman was under the impression that
any oil spilled on the floor of the maintenance area would drain into
floor drains that connected to the car wash discharge system. A representa-
tive of the applicant explained how the oil separator would work for
the maintenance operation and it was finally determined that the water
that would be separated from the oil would be discharged into the stream
also. Mr. Bowerman asked if that did not also require a State Water.
Control Permit. Mr. Ford responded that the State Water Control Board
had advised the applicant that a permit was needed only for the car wash
facility.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the type of disposal explained by the
applicant for the maintenance area waste was the same as is currently
in use by the car dealerships and service stations in the area, and
those do not present a problem. Mr. Horne pointed out that 99% of
those uses are on public sewer.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the Commission would be satisfied if the applicant
received State Water Control Board approval. Mr. Bowerman responded
that he was unsure. Mr. Jenkins felt this was an important question.
Mr. Horne stated he did not feel the Water Control Board would offer
a great deal of explanatory comments.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt this proposal was not consistent with the
original proffer because it would require an exception to the proffer.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not approval the proposal with the discharge
into the stream, and even if the State Water Control Board should
issue a permit, approval would require a change in policy because the
proffer is already in place.
Mr. Stark stated that even if all other requirements were met, he did
not feel this proposal would be consistent with the re -zoning on the
property.
Mr. Jenkins agreed.
Mr. Wilkerson stated that had this information been presented at the time
of the special permit, he would not have supported it.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the site plan was based upon the special
permit and that the special permit was inconsistent with the original
rezoning.
May 24, 1988 Page 6
Mr. Horne clarified that it was inconsistent in regards to the
discharge issue only -and the applicant could proceed without the
car wash operation if he chose to do so.
Mr. St. John stressed that if the applicant chose to proceed, it was
at his own risk because there is no assurance that the car wash
will be approved at a later time.
ifr. Horne asked.if the Commission considered the "washdown water"
from the maintenance bays as non -domestic waste also. 2fr. Bowerman
responded affirmatively. Mr. Horne asked if this water were
discharged to a drainfield and not to the stream, would the Commission's
position remain the same. Mr. Bowerman felt that decision would
be made by the Health Department.
Mr. Ford pointed out that a truck -terminal had been a specific use permitted
by the original proffer which would require this same type of discharge.
Mr. Bowerman agreed this was a good point and stated "It's possible an
omission has occurred."
Mr. Ford asked that it be made clear that it was not the applicant's
intent to "hide" this information. Mr. Bowerman stated that was not
being inferred, but that now that this information has been brought
to light, it creates a problem.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant would still consider this location
if the maintenance and car wash operation were disallowed. A representative
of the applicant (not Mr. Ford) indicated they would not.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the UPS,'tarcel Distribution Center Preliminary Site
Plan be denied because it does not comply with the proffer on the property
in that it proposes discharge of other than domestic waste.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl asked if it would put this application in a better posture
if it were deferred until such time as the proffer was accommodated within
the site plan. She suggested the applicant might be able to contract
out the maintenance and car wash operations. Mr. Wilkerson pointed out
the applicant had already indicated an unwillingness to consider this.
possibility.
Mr. Horne pointed out that there seemed to be insufficient information from
the applicant which would establish whether the discharge from the maintenance
area could be discharged into a drainfield. He stated he was under the
impression .the car wash facility was not..crucial, but the maintenance
operation was. He asked if the Health Department approved this discharge
into a drainfield, would the Commission still feel this was inconsistent
with the proffer? He felt this was a crucial distinction.
Ms. Diehl stated she would be in favor of deferral until more information
was available.
May 24, 1988 Page 7
The Chairman called for a substitute motion.
Mr. Jenkins withdrew his motion for denial. Mr. Wilkerson agreed.
Mr. Wilkerson moved for indefinite deferral of the UPS Parcel Distribution
Center Preliminary Site Plan until more information is available on
the discharge from the maintenance operation.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
J.W. Sieg Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 42,800 square foot
wholesale distribution center on 8.76 acres. The site is to be served by
an existing frontage road which the applicant plans to improve. Private
well and septic system is also proposed. Property, located on the west
side of U.S. Rt. 29S, approximately 0.4 mile south of the I-64 underpass.
Zoned HC, Highway Commercial in Neighborhood 5. Tax Map 75, Parcel 55D.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. .
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Fritz also
answered Ms. Diehl's question about the measurements of the landing pad.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Riddle. She stated this was
a by -right facility in an HC zone. She stated the applicant has offered
to construct a right turn lane off Rt. 9 to a frontage road which will
alleviate a safety hazard caused by weaving traffic. She stated also
that the applicant would be upgrading the frontage road from a 14-foot
pavement width to a 24-.foot width. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question,
Ms. Riddle stated the applicant was not proposing to change any of the
road profile.
Mr. Bill Daggett, architect for the applicant, was also present to answer
questions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons, all residents of Sherwood Farms, addressed the
Commission and expressed concerns about increased traffic and the
possibility of trucks protruding beyond the medium: Mr. Douglas
Valentine; Mr. Dale Jessen; and Mr. Melville Perry. Mr. Jessen also
suggested that signs should be posted in an effort td. slow down the
traffic. There was also some concern voiced about the maintenance
and car washing operation for this proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked about the "total array of truck length" and the hours
of operation.
Mr. Carter Herr, Vice President of J.W. Sieg, addressed the Commission.
He stated the longest truck is 43 feet, the length of a tractor trailer,
and he also confirmed that the company has two tractor trailers which
enter and exit the site each day. He stated the trucks leave between
the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. and return between the hours of 2 p.m. and
7 p.m. He confirmed that this proposal was an expansion for storage
119_1
May 24, 1988
Page 8
purposes and truck deliveries would not be increased in the immediate future.
In response to Mr. Stark's question about maintenance of the vehicles,
Mr. Herr stated regularly scheduled maintenance is done at the facility,
and larger scale maintenance is contracted out and done off site. He
explained regular maintenance included oil change and .tire change and
that trucks were washed once a week.
Regarding the size of the drainfield, Mr. Fritz stated the drainfield was
sized for the number of employees (29) and the use was approved as well
as the size.
Ms. Riddle added that the septic field was sized for domestic use only
and nothing would be discharged on site related to the truck washing.
She explained that the water would be collected in tanks and hauled away..
She confirmed this would be shown on the final site plan. She confirmed
this included oil waste also..
Ms. Riddle also addressed some of the concerns mentioned by the public.
Regarding the conduits on the highway, she stated the final design has
not been completed but the applicant is aware of the problem.
She also stated that there is sufficient room at the crossover for a
truck to turn without protruding if the truck is pulled into the cross-
over diagonally.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the high speed at which traffic travels
on this road and the possible problems that the large trucks from this
operation might create at the intersection. She felt this would create
a hazard and suggested the possibility of a lower speed limit along this
section of highway. She was also concerned about the grade of the landing
pad and hoped that the landing pad would have a low enough angle to accom-
modate trucks without sliding. Ms. Diehl also expressed concern about
this area developing further without public water and sewer.
Mr. Jenkins asked Mr..Cresswell to comment on the road issue. Mr.
Cresswell stated he could see no particular problem with the development
of the site as proposed. He stated the Highway Department had looked
at the proposal extensively and 4tEs not feel there is any major safety -
related problem, though they are a little concerned about the pavement
category on the frontage road because of the heavy usage by trucks.
He also stated the Highway Department would not lower the speed limit
because it would not be enforceable. He suggested it would be advisable
to have "Trucks Entering Highway" signs posted to alert traffic.
It was determined staff would contact the Highway Department and make
them aware of the Commission's concern and ask that signs be posted.
Mr. Daggett stated the applicant would have no objection to the placement
of warning signs. He also noted that the applicant's trucks would be
leaving the site before 7 a.m, in the morning and therefore would not
be involved in the morning rush hour.
Mrs. Perry, a member of the public, expressed concern about the exit and
entrance ramp onto I-64 and the danger caused by a configuration. of
cross -traffic.
May 24, 1988 Page 9
Though Ms. Diehl was in favor of the Commission reviewing the final site
plan, Mr. .Daggett explained that the applicant was under some pressure
and he was concerned about the time that would be involved for
Commission review. He addressed Ms. Diehl's concerns and stated that
the design of the waste treatment procedure is a standard engineered
approach. In regard to the road improvements, he stated the applicant
has agreed to work with the Highway Department on all road details. He
requested that staff be granted administrative approval.
Ms. Diehl stated she would like a condition to be added addressing the
treatment of the waste water. It was decided condition l(e) would be
added as follows: "There shall be no discharge of waste from maintenance
or vehicle washing facilities."
Mr. Horne confirmed staff would request that the Highway Department
install appropriate signage.
A member of the public expressed concern about the danger which could
occur with trucks protruding into the intersection during times of
limited visability, such as pre -dawn. Mr. Valentine, also a member of the
public, suggested that the intersection might be lighted.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the J.W. Sieg Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans;
b. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of plans for
frontage road improvements and intersection improvements at U.S.
Route 29.
e. There shall be no discharge of waste from maintenance or vehicle
washing facilities.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
It was determined the motion contemplated staff approval of the final site
plan.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed (4:1) with Ms. Diehl casting
the dissenting vote.
The meeting recessed from 9:25 to 9:35.
Henry J. Eiden Subdivision Plat - Proposal to subdivide a 141.325 acre
parcel into a 50.696 acre parcel with a 90.629 acre residue. The new parcel
is to have access over an existing 50 foot access easement. Property,
located on the north side of Rt. 665, approximately 1 mile west of Rt. 664.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 18, Parcel 16, White Hall Magisterial District.
1.71J_
May 24, 1988 Page 10
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
The major issue of discussion for this application centered upon the
road maintenance agreement. In this regard, the staff report stated:
"Mr. Eiden has submitted a revised maintenance contract for the private
road which was not approved by the County attorney. ,The County Attorney
did not approve of this newmaintenance agreement because he did not
find it to be equitable. The proposed agreement divides the respon-
sibility three ways with two parcels sharing one --half the cost and the
third parcel (not owned by the applicant) responsible for one-half
the cost."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Eiden was present but offered no additional comments.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Charles Hamilton, a participant in the maintenance agreement and owner
of property "to the right" of the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He objected strongly to being required to pay 50% of the maintenance costs
for the road since he made only 1.2 trips per day on the road. He indicated
the road was used more by the applicant and the nursery operation.
Mr. Brooks, an adjacent property owner, asked what was the current commercial
use of the property by the applicant.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Regarding the possible commercial use of the property by the applicant, Mr.
Fritz explained that the Zoning Administrator had determined that there
is no commercial use of the property and the nursery usage was considered
an agricultural use.
The Chairman asked �1r. St. John to.comment on the maintenance agreement.
Mr. St. John stated he believed the only reason the application was before
the Commission was because he would not sign the maintenance agreement.
He confirmed that the original agreement was as described by Mr. Hamilton.
He stressed that that agreement is already of record. He explained that
it was his function, as County Attorney, to protect the County from the
possibility of having to take over the maintenance of the road at some
future time. He stated it was not his function to determine the fairness
of the agreement. However, he added: "But if I see something that on
the face of it seems to me unfair, I am reluctant to approve it under
those circumstances unless one of two things happens. ... If the owner
who is dividing this land into two parcels can get thisman's signature
on a new agreement, whatever it says --it's none of my business how they
want to share it --but if they can't get this man's agreement, then I
question you to give me guidance as .to whether you want me to look at
the fairness of it or just say 'Well, this agreement protects the County
and it's not my function to look at the fairness or unfairness of it.'"
NA.
May 24, 1988
Page 11
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. St. John approved the agreement itself, but the County
did not require the signatures.
Mr. St. John replied: "I don't think the agreement itself is worth the paper
it's written on unless it has signatures on it because people who are supposed
to become bound by it are not bound unless their signature is on it." He
further explained that the agreements were not signed when presented to him
in the event that he might make suggested changes or disapprove the agreement,
but the parties who will participate in the agreement are listed in the
caption of the agreement. He stated he makes certain that the owner of
each piece of land that is to be served by the agreement is listed.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "It seems to me that if the usage on the road increases
due to re -subdivision or other development activity along it, then the
maintenance agreement should be re -drawn to reflect that and should be
equitably distributed among the users of the road. Now whether it's your
decision to do that by length of road they use, or by trips per day,
or by type of usage --whatever we've done in the past has worked very well.
Clearly, when you got this you didn't think it was equitable and consistent
with what we've done in the past."
Mr. St. John stated: "I didn't know if it was equitable --if the Hamiltons
agreed to it there is nothing inequitable about it."
Mr. Bowerman stated it was his understanding that the agreement had to be
acceptable to the County and it had to be equitable, though the County
could not require all the signatures... Mr. Horne confirmed this was correct.
Mr. St. John stated it was his interpretation that the Commission was
directing him to use his sense of equity in these matters and if his
sense of equity did not suit the applicant, the applicant could appeal
to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission had not been.i.nvolved in the matter
of maintenance agreement equitability. He asked what would happen if
the parties named in the agreement chose -not to sign it, i.e. what happens
to the subdivision? Mr. Horne felt that was the material question.
Mr. St. John agreed and stated: "I"ve gotten guidance from you, which I
understood you to say that on a case -by -case basis we either do not
require those other people on 'the other side of the road' to sign.. If
there is no inequity in it, we'll allow .... The question is, 'Do you
approve a private road where a re -subdivision takes place without everybody
re-signing it?' and if it's not inequitable to do that, I'll go ahead and
do it."
Both Mr. St. John and Mr. Horne confirmed that up to this time the Commission
has approved subdivisions that do not have everybody re-signing the
agreement.
Mr. Bowerman allowed the applicant to comment.
a 97
�,Iay 24, 1988 Page 12
Mr. Eiden stated that :Ir. Hamilton had misrepresented the facts. He stated
the split was not 5U--5U. He explained that the old agreement specifies
that the complete cost "of the improvement and the care is on my side of
the fence." He stated the Haniltons were required to split only the
cost of gravel, which is a minor part. He pointed out that the nursery
was in existence when.he bought the property and Mr. Hamilton had helped
to build the nursery. (Mr. Hamilton disagreed with this statement.)
He also stated there was no other business on the property, though he
does maintain an office at his horse. Mr. Eiden asked that the record
show that if "it finally came to the point where they were arguing over
how much it cost them, I would pay for it all." Mr. Eiden felt Mr. Hamilton
was prejudiced against the application.
Mr. St. John stated, "under these circumstances, I am inclined to approve
this new agreement."'
Mr. Hamilton was allowed to comment.
He stated he was not opposed to the subdivision. He statedhe still felt
the agreement was inequitable and he would pursue legal action.
Mr. St. John stated the only thing the County looks for in these agreements
is (1) that it is plainly stated that the roads are private and not to be
maintained by the County or the Commonwealth of Virginia;.and (2) that there
is a mechanism where a majority of the owners of the lots in a given sub-
division can decide what the standard of maintenance is and can force the
minority dissenters to pay their fair share through civil action.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Horne to comment.
Mr. Horne replied: "I think Mr. St. John has the best avenue of approach
here, that we should not, except in extreme examples, get involved in the
equity of a situation. What's crucial is that the County is protected
and that there are adequate measures within the agreement so that we
know that the road can be maintained in a suitable condition. I think
the staff has to go back and re -think some of our procedures to insure
that the Commission is not presented with another case where they are asked
to arbitrate in a situation like this."
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Henry J. Eiden Subdivision Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. County Attorney approval of a road maintenance agreement.
b. Staff approval of technical notes.
c. Notarized signature of property owner on plat.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
V-991
May 24, 1988
Page 13
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on
St. Rtes. 614, 674, 678, 676, 601, and 658 in the Owensville/White Hall/
Free Union area. 1,946.109 acres. Planning Commission receives application.
No action necessary.
and
Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - Located on St. Rt. 22
between Keswick and Cismont. 699.01 acres. Planning Commission receives
application. No action is necessary.
Mr. Horne presented the staff report.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Diehl, that the two additions be
forwarded to the Advisory Board. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
adt�-17� e �11
John Horne, Secretary
DS