Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-02January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 252 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 2, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the County Executive, Mr. Tucker. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Tucker said nominations for Chairman will be accepted at this time, but that no second to the nominations is required. Mr. Perkins nominated Mr. Bowie for Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. There being no other nomina- tions, the nominations for Chairman were closed. Roll was called and the election of Mr. Bowie as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for 1991 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowie. Mr. Bowie thanked Mr. Tucker and welcomed him to his first meeting as County Executive. Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Mr. Bowie asked for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Way nominated Mr. Perkins as Vice-Chairman to the Board of Supervisors. There being no other nominations, the nominations for Vice-Chairman were closed. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to close the nominations and elect Mr. Perkins as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for 1991 by acclamation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Bowie thanked the Board for allowing him the chance to continue serving as Chairman for another year. He said he enjoys the position and appreciates the opportunity to continue to work for the Board. Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerks. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to reap- point Miss Lettie E. Neher as Clerk, Mrs. Ella W. Carey as Deputy Clerk and Mrs. Patricia L. Morris as Deputy Clerk for calendar year 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie thanked the Clerk and Deputy Clerks for their support during the past years. January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 253 Agenda Item No. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 1991. Mr. Way asked if the Board would consider starting its night meetings at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. This would allow an extra half-hour before the night gets too late. Mr. Bowie said he could support the recommendation. Mr. Bain said he could support it, but is concerned that it may be too early for some of the public, especially if they had to travel a long distance. Mr. Bowie suggested the Clerk take that into consideration when scheduling an item for the agenda. Mr. Bowerman said he could support the time change. He thinks the Board should be just as concerned with getting the meeting over at a reasonable time as discussing the issues. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it is a good idea. Mr. Perkins said he has no problem withthe time change. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set aside the first three Wednesdays of every month as the Board of Supervisors' regularly scheduled meeting dates for calendar year 1991, that on the first and third Wednesday, the meeting shall commence at 7:00 p.m., and on the second Wednes- day, the meeting shall commence at 9:00 a.m., all meetings to be held in the County Office Building on McIntire Road. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Request- ed by Citizens. Mr. Bowie said the Planning Department has suggested that the Board hear zoning text amendment petitions by citizens on June 19 and December 18, 1991. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, that the Board will hear zoning text amendment petitions from citizens on June 19 and December 18, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of. Mrs. Humphris suggested that there be a section which states that any rules of procedure not covered by these sets of rules will be governed by Robert's Rules of Procedure. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to readopt the current Rules of Procedure with the following addition: "H. Any rules of procedure not covered by these sets of rules will be governed by Robert's Rules of Procedure. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint Mr. Donald J. Wagner to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board, to serve the unexpired term of Mr. Mark Osborne, with said term to expire on April 16, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Way, to appointers5.4 Betty Starke to the Equalization Board for calendar year 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint Mr. Edward H. Deers, Jr., to the Equalization Board for calendar year 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to reappoint Mr. John Stewart Darrell and Mr. James R. Skove to the Industrial Development Authority, with said terms to expire on January 19, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to recommend Mr. Jay Graves to the State for appointment to the Rockfish State Scenic River Advi- sory Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie suggested the Board discuss the future of the Fiscal Resource Committee at its January 9 meeting and ask the Chairman of that committee, Mr. Bill Kehoe, to be present and make comments at that time. The other Board members concurred. Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie requested that Item 12.2 be pulled-for discussion under Other Matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the consent agenda, with the exception of Item 12.2, for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Item 12.1. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1990, was recevied for information. Item 12.2. Letter dated December 20, 1990, from Secretary John G. Milliken, Virginia Department of Transportation, addressed to Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman, re: the Board's request for a rehearing of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision on Route 29, was received as follows: "December 20, 1990 The Honorable Frederick R. Bowie Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Dear Mr. Bowie: January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 255 This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 14, 1990 with the attached resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requesting a rehearing of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's (CTB) decision on Route 29. The CTB has established the following procedure for consideration of your request in accordance with Section 33.1-18 of the Code of Virsinia. The Board of Supervisors should provide the Virginia Department of Transportation any new information, not previously submitted, which they feel was not available for consideration by the Commonwealth Transportation Board prior to the November 15, 1990 location approval of Alternative 10. In addition, you should provide reasons for the Commonwealth Transportation Board to reconsider the issue. Any new information should be submitted at least 30 days prior to the February 21, 1991CTB meeting, and may be submitted to my office for distribution to the Board. At that time, a representative of the Board of Supervisors may speak before the CTB with a maximum time limit of 30 minutes. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider any new informa- tion presented and render a decision on the rehearing at a future meeting. If you have any questions concerning the Commonwealth Transportation Board's procedure for this rehearing, please advise. Sincerely, (SIGNED) 3ohn G. Milliken" Item 12.3. Letter dated December 12, 1990, addressed to Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller, Director, Department of Historic Resources, stating that PIEDMONT has been placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and has been endorsed for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, was received for information. Item 12.4. Copy of letter dated December 12, 1990, addressed to Mr. T. K. Woods, Jr., from Mr. James Christian Hill, National Register Assistant, Department of Historic Resources, stating that ARROWHEAD appears to meet the criteria for listing on the Register. Mr. Hill goes on to say that the Department staff is not able to prepare the necessary paperwork since its work program is fully scheduled for the remainder of the year. Mr. Bowie asked if the Department of Historic Resources will have to start the process from the beginning when it eventually puts this property on its schedule. Mr. Tucker said "no", the Department does not have to start over, the process will just take longer. This letter means that the request for Arrowhead will probably be held over until the next fiscal year before all of the paperwork is completed for its nomination to the national register. Item 12.5. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of Application by Pactel Paging of Virginia, Inc., for a Certificate to Provide Radio Common Carrier Paging Service throughout the Commonwealth, was received for informa- tion. Item 12.6. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for December 11, 1990, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-90-03 and SP-90-25. David & Mary Spradlin. (Defer to February 6, 1991) Mr. Bowie said a letter has been received from the applicant requesting that thess items be deferred until February 6. January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 256 Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has informed the applicant that the Board may refer the special permit back to the Planning Commission depending on the action it takes on the zoning text amendment. The Planning Commission re- viewed the special permit based on different language in the zoning text amendment. The applicant has indicated that he may not want the request returned to the Commission. That is an issue the Board will have to discuss after taking action on the zoning text amendment. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission discussed the special permit. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes". The Commission considered the special permit request separate from the zoning text amendment. Mr. Bowerman asked if approval of the zoning text amendment by the Board would affect the special permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the zoning text amendment now being proposed is more specific as it relates to Supplemental Regulations that apply to this type of use. He does not know if the new language would make a difference to the Commission with regards to its recommendation. The new language does include regulations that were not a part of the zoning text amendment discussed by the Planning Commission when it considered the special permit. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer ZTA-90-03 and SP-90-25 to February 6, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. ZMA-90-20. Stanley P. Wilcox. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 2.05 ac from C-1 Commercial to Planned Development-Shopping Center. Property located on west side of Rt 240 between Rt 240 & Carter St. Property to north is Crozet Foods. Tax Map 56A(1), Parcels 53, 54, 54A, 55, 56 & 57, White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 17 and December 24, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The property is currently developed with four buildings occupied by retail and office uses at the front of the site and a single-family residential unit to the rear. The Windham devel- opment, which includes Crozet Foods and Sovran Bank, is located immediately adjacent to the north. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 17,314 square foot shopping center to be served by 97 parking spaces. This includes the Blue Goose building which is proposed to be preser- ved. The remaining buildings on the site will be removed. The exact uses for the site have not been determined, however, the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing businesses on the site into the shopping center. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for community service on the Land Use Map. In addition, the Plan presents other recommendations for the Crozet growth area. Staff opinion is that this rezoning petition and the site plan are consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Section 8.5.3 of PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - GENERALLY requires an applicant for a planned development zoning district 'to meet with the planning staff and other qualified offi- cials to review the application plan and original proposal prior to submittal' in order to assist in bringing the application into con- formity with various planning and zoning regulations and policies and to determine appropriate variations from such regulations and poli- cies. The applicant met with the staff on several occasions prior to the submittal of the proposal and has incorporated the following items in accordance with staff's recommendations: January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 257 Street furniture and landscaping in a plaza setting in the shopping center. Replacement of the existing sidewalk along Route 240. Elimination of the existing on-street parking spaces on Route 240. Preservation of the Blue Goose building which is a potential historic site. At this time, in accordance with Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordi- nance, this rezoning petition is forwarded to the Planning Commission which 'shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors,' and specifically, recommendations shall include findings as to: The suitability of the tract for the general type of the PD. District proposed in terms of: relations to the Comprehensive Plan; physical characteristics of the land~ and its relations to surrounding area; As was discussed earlier in this report, staff opinion is this propo- sal is consistent with the land use designations and specific recom- mendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Crozet Growth Area. In addition, the proposed site plan is physically compatible with the existing land uses including Crozet Foods and Sovran Bank which are adjacent to this site to the north. The Post Office is across Route 240 to the east and the land to the west, zoned R-2 Residential, is primarily vacant. Relation to ma~or roads, utilities~ public facilities and services; The applicant has provided for a 25-foot, two-way travelway connection between Route 240 and Carter Street which will continue to provide access to Crozet Foods. Staff opinion is that the additional traffic generated by this project will not be substantial as the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing businesses into the shopping center as well as new tenants which have not yet been finalized. Presently there is approximately 11,250 square feet of office and retail space on the site and the proposed shopping center consists of 17,314 square feet. Public water and sewer connections are available for the site and the applicant has agreed to contribute to the cost of constructing the proposed Lickinghole Runoff Control Basin. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements~ contracts, deed restrictions~ sureties~ dedications, contributions~ guarantees, or other instruments~ or the need for such instruments or for amendment in those proposed; The applicant has provided documentation that he is the contract purchaser of the six parcels under review in this rezoning petition. It should be noted that these parcels will eventually be combined should this rezoning be approved. As a result, staff is requesting the Planning Commission to authorize administrative approval of future subdivision activity on this site provided no waivers or variances are necessary. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case~ based on determination that such modifica- tions are necessary or justified by demonstration that the public purpose of the PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. The only technical issue which must be addressed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the review of the rezoning petition is the applicant's request for relief of Section 25.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum of three acres for the creation of PD-SC districts. The six parcels under review in this rezoning consist of 2.05 acres. The applicant has stated: January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 258 Previously, as part of our Windham development (located in~nediately to the north of these six parcels) new buildings for Sovran Bank and Crozet Foods were constructed on parcels of land which total 1.05 acres. While those parcels are now under separate ownership, certainly the nature of those parcels is consistent with PD-SC zoning. This planned small-scale shopping center is designed to coordinate with these neighboring parcels so as to appear as one shopping center to the consumer public, and would, if considered together, exceed the three acre requirement. The regulations of PD-SC districts are intended to encourage planned commercial centers with carefully organized buildings, service areas, parking areas and landscape areas. Staff opinion is that the develop- ment is consistent with the intent and regulations of the PD-SC district and, therefore, recommends approval of the waiver of Section 25.3. Summary and Recommendation: Staff opinion is that the proposal is consistent with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, recommends approval of this rezoning petition with administrative approval of the site plan subject to conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 11, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-90-20 with a waiver of Section 25.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Sanford Wilcox, representing the applicant, said the applicant proposes renovating an existing building in combination with new construction that would allow the downtown area of Crozet to undergo a private revitalization. The applicant is trying to be sensitive to the character of downtown Crozet, but still enable it to grow and be a productive focal point for the community. Although the building has approxi- mately 97 off-street parking spaces, only 12 parking spaces exist today. Construction of the parking spaces would free up an entire lane along Route 240 that is currently being used for parking and would improve the traffic flow in the Crozet area. The project is designed to basically present two front views, thereby allowing the neighbors on Carter Street to look at the front of a building instead of the back. The lower level of the building is designed for three business entrances to face the back side. The applicant proposes to contribute to the regional stormwater detention project. The applicant's main thrust is to conform with the Comprehensive Plan, reduce pressure on building along the scenic highway and establish a precedent for growth in the rural areas and forget about the more urbanized areas. The project is difficult, but it can be done economically with the help of the County and the interest of the public. He is before the Board asking for its' approval of the request and a waiver of Section 25.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. He introduced Mr. Raymond Gaines, architect for the project, who is present and can answer questions Board members may have. Representing Citizens for Albemarle, Mr. Roy Patterson said they endorse the project and urge Board approval. The project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and would reduce pressure for development along the Route 250 scenic highway. The project will be good for Crozet. There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the project will be an improvement to Crozet. Mr. Perkins offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve ZMA-90-20 with a waiver of Section 25.3 (Area Required for Creation of PD-SC Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 259 Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-90-24. South Pantops Land Trust II & Hurt Investment Company (Defer to February 6, 1991). Mr. Bowie said a letter has been received from the applicant asking that this request be deferred until February 6. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer ZMA-90-20, at the request of the applicant, until February 6, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. SP-90-99. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (Deferred indefinitely by the Planning Commission). Mr. Bowie said it has been the normal practice of the Board to delete an item from the agenda without prejudice instead of deferring it indefinitely. Mrs. Humphris said the reason this petition is being deferred is to allow the applicant to address certain issues raised by the Planning Commission. She asked if it is permissible to add a question to the list of items being requested. She intends to ask the question when the petition comes before the Board. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes". Mrs. Humphris asked "How far is the substation planned to be from any dwelling?" She also noted that in Item #5 "kv" should be "kva". Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to delete SP-90-99 from the agenda without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. SP-90-104. The Wrenson Corporation. Public hearing on a request to amend SP-90-47 to allow 1 additional parcel & its accompanying development right to be utilized in the Rural Planned Development approved August 1, 1990. Additional parcel is 2.831 ac zoned Rural Areas in southeast quadrant of 1-64 & Rt 635. Tax Map 72, Parcel 18, Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 17 and December 24, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The property is a mixture of wooded and open land with rolling topography. Four dwellings are currently located on the property and have individual entrances onto Route 791. Several other residences are located in proximity to the site. The property runs parallel to 1-64 with an overall length of approximately two miles and a depth of one-half mile. The parcel which is to be added to the previously approved Rural Preservation Development consists of 2.83 acres. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling located near Route 635. This parcel is the only land between the approved Rural Preser- vation Development and 1-64. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide the property in accordance with SP-90-47. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add a parcel which was not part of the original special use permit in order to allow all four of the existing dwellings which have access to Route 791 to remain. The total number of dwelling units will increase by one with the approval of SP-90-104. The applicant proposes to include a parcel of land in the Rural Preservation Development which was not part of the original special use permit. Inclusion of this parcel allows for the relocation of the entrance road to a point where greater sight distance may be obtained as well as allow for the realignment of the entrance road so as to avoid a drainage swale. The possibility of this parcel being included January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 260 in the future was stated by the applicant during the review of SP-90-47. The additional parcel will be added to Lot 1 which was shown on the original special use permit. The existing dwelling on the additional parcel may remain and serve as the single dwelling for Lot 1, or the existing dwelling may be removed and a new dwelling constructed. The development right from the additional parcel will be placed on Lot 30 which will allow all four of the existing dwellings to remain. Ail of the existing dwellings have separate entrances to Route 791 and approval of this request will not result in additional traffic on Route 791 when compared to existing levels. Under the previous special use permit one dwelling would have to b~ removed from Lot 30 so as to not exceed the allowed development potential. In staff opinion, the current special use permit request is consistent with the previously approved Rural Preservation Development. Inclu- sion of the additional parcel allows for a better alignment of the entrance road which was required as a condition of approval for SP-90-47. Based on the above comments staff recommends approval of SP-90-104 subject to the following condition: Recommended Condition of Approval: 1. Compliance with conditions of SP-90-47." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 11, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-104 subject to the condition recommended by the staff. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Stoner, representing the applicant, said he has no additional comments to make and is present to answer any questions Board members may have. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perkins said he has a problem with the existing house being torn down. Although the house may not be of the same character planned for the other lots, it is a nice house. This may not be a low income house, but the Board has just been through the process of approving a low income housing project. He thinks it would be a waste to tear the house down so that a one-quarter million dollar house could be built there. He would like to see a provision where the house would remain. Mr. Stoner said the applicant plans to move the house from its existing location to another lot. The house is a modular home and is relatively easy to disassemble and move to another location. From the applicant's perspec- tive, the financial ramifications of buying the lot and removing the house entirely would be prohibitive because of the cost involved. The cottage will be retained and the house will be moved to another neighborhood where its use will be compatible with the surrounding neighbors. The house will not remain on one of the lots in this subdivision beCause the lot prices will be more than a house of that nature could sustain. There is the need to improve the entrance and provide the additional sight distance and safety features and also to maintain a certain consistency aesthetically within the subdivision. An option could be negotiating an arrangement whereby this house could be moved to a location in the proposed Crozet Crossing subdivision. Mr. Perkins asked if the staff can make sure that the house is not torn down. Mr. Tucker said the staff can work with the applicant in relocating the house. If the Board so desired, a condition could be added to the special permit. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-90-104 subject to the following condition recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Compliance with conditions of SP-90-47. Mr. Bain said he thinks the applicant will relocate the house as was stated. He does not think it is appropriate to put conditions on a special permit that do not relate to the use of the land. He agrees that the house should be saved, but not as a condition of the approval. January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 261 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Bain's comments and Mr. Perkins con- cerns and suggested that staff informally work with the applicant in the relocation of the house. Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: November 7(A) and November 8, 1990. Mr. Way had read the minutes of November 7 (A) and November 8, 1990, and found them to be acceptable. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From Board Members. Regarding Item 12.2 from the Consent Agenda, Mr. St. John said he had a telephone conversation with Secretary Milliken's administrative assistant who informed him that the intent of the December 20 letter is that the Board can submit any argument it wants the Commonwealth Transportation Board to review in its consideration of a rehearing. The submitted information is not limited to new material, but the Secretary does want any new material 30 days in advance. The CTB interprets Virginia Code Section 33.1-18 as giving them discretion on whether to grant a rehearing. Mr. St. John said his interpreta- tion of the statute is that it mandates a rehearing, but he does recognize that it is open to both interpretations. It is his opinion that the statute is ambiguous. Mr. St. John said the intent of the February 21 meeting is to allow a representative of this Board to appear before the CTB and argue why a rehear- ing should be scheduled. The CTB does not consider the February 21 meeting to be a rehearing. He recommends that this Board proceed in accordance with the letter. Whomever appears before the CTB will be given one-half hour to make a statement. Mr. Bowie said he would be happy to make the presentation to the CTB. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board needs to submit all its arguments to the CTB prior to February 21 or just new material. Does the Board have to "show its entire hand" in advance? Mr. Bowie said he thinks if this Board informs the CTB that it has no new material and that it will not tell them in advance the arguments the Board will use, then the CTB will use its discretion and say they are not going to grant a rehearing. Mr. St. John said that is also his analysis of the situation. As a matter of strategy, he thinks this Board should send in advance any arguments it has. If there is material already in the record which this Board thinks contradicts the CTB's conclusion, then that material should be sent to Secretary Milliken. At this point the CTB is the decision-maker and this Board is in an adverse position. Mrs. Humphris said there are two separate issues addressed in Secretary Milliken's letter. One issue is new information not previously submitted and not available for consideration by the CTB prior to November 15 and the other issue is providing reasons for the CTB to grant a rehearing. She thinks that the Board should provide the reasons for asking the CTB to reconsider the issue. Mr. St. John said he thinks that information should also be sent to the CTB in advance. It is much better that the CTB have a chance to go over any written material in advance of the meeting. Mr. Bowie said personally he is not aware of any new material. There may be some facts that can be countered. One issue that he thinks needs to be addressed is the change in prioritization of the project after the motion January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 262 was made by the CTB. As a matter of fact, that was not the motion made. The motion specifically referenced CATS improvements and then the bypass. Mr. St. John said that is something that the Board can argue. It is not new material, but it was not something that could be argued at the hearing because it happened after the fact. Mr. Bain said he thinks the County Attorney should prepare a legal memorandum or the equivalent thereof based on what Board members saw happen at the various stages, first in Lexington and then in Northern Virginia that led up to the vote, what the CTB considered, what they did not consider, and what questions did not get answered. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to have the County Executive and County Attorney make the presentation on behalf of the Board on February 21, complete with charts. She thinks the CTB has heard from this Board enough times and it would make a good case to hear from these other two representatives. Mr. Bain said he thinks the CTB may pay more attention to a legal memo- randum if it goes right down the line listing in order the mistakes that were made during the process. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the entire Board should attend the February meeting and she agrees that the presentation should be in a legal format~ She thinks that the letter from Secretary Milliken is carefully phrased to allow them to move in any direction that they choose. She thinks that the County Attorney is the best person to grasp their attention to show how serious the Board is in wanting a rehearing. Mr. Bowie asked if any other group has filed for a request for a rehear- ing. Mrs. Humphris replied "no" because the governing body made the request. Mr. Bowie said he likes the idea of a legal memorandum, but he does not know who should present it. He would think that elected officials carry more weight than employees. Mr. St. John said it could also be counter-productive for him to make this presentation. Sending in the attorney is an implied threat and they will interpret it as such. The CTB knows that this Board cannot turn this into a court proceeding absent some blatant violation of procedure. Mr. Bain said he thinks the information should be prepared in chronologi- cal~order showing what the CTB was supposed to do and did not do following the t%ree year study. Included in that information should be how the CTB answered questions, did not answer questions and was misl~/~on the questions from staff. Mr. St. John said he agrees that is the kind of information that should be included in the document and he will help put it together. Mr. Bowie said there is plenty of time to discuss who will make the presentation on February 21. He then suggested that the County Executive, Planning staff and County Attorney prepare something in writing for the Board to review at its January 9 meeting. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that any omissions and errors that were committed during the procedures be addressed in the Board's presentation. He thinks it is incumbent to demonstrate that the Board believes that the CTB is proceeding upon a course of action which will make sure that the County's adopted CATS Plan does not work and more importantly that it is not given an opportunity to work. He believes that the data shows that with all of those improvements in place, there was a strong case for that being more than adequate to handle traffic problems in the year 2010. He thinks it is in the best interest of the state and of this locality to proceed first with the CATS Plan before any right-of-way acquisition or anything else happens on the potential bypass. Mr. Bowie said that is what he meant when he talked about the CTB changing priorities. Mrs. Humphris said it becomes very clear in the record exactly what VDoT staff set out to do, to make it so the County cannot implement the CATS Plan, therefore the Plan will fail, thus allowing them to go to Alternative 10, a western bypass, at a much earlier date than might have been necessary, were it ever to be necessary. Mrs. Humphris said there are lots of questions that were never answered, such as why the Meadow Creek Parkway, which is acknow- ledged by everyone to be the keystone to the whole plan, cannot be moved into January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 263 the primary road plan since that is the only way the plan will ever work. She does not think the Board will be at a loss for issues to address. Mr. Bain said the key is putting all of that information together in a rational straight forward manner and sending it to them in advance. Mr. Bowie said the Board may want to work up a team effort such as organizing the information into three groups and having someone different present each segment of information. If the presentation is going to be 30 minutes, it needs to be well-documented and charts should be prepared. Mr. Bowie suggested that Board members call the County Attorney with information it wants to include in the presentation. He asked that an outline of the issues be drafted for review at the January 9 meeting. Mr. Perkins asked what position the local state representatives have taken on the issue. He asked if the Board could expect any help from them. Mr. Bowerman said Delegate Van Yahres has a meeting scheduled with the Governor and Secretary of Transportation next week. Mrs. Humphris commented that Delegate Van Yahres sent her a letter asking her to provide him with information which she has not had time to do yet. She has been working on this issue for 13 years. In all of these years, the state representatives have never taken a position or lifted one finger to help Albemarle County and she does not think they will now. It is clear that these representatives are not listening to the citizens of the County or the citizens of the City because they have all overwhelmingly made their opinions known. Mr. Bowie reiterated that anybody with input should pass it on to the County Attorney. Mr. Bowerman said he would be glad to also meet with Delegate Van Yahres and make his points of view known. Mrs. Humphris said it is her feeling that Delegate Van Yahres is interested in hardship cases, but those are unknown at the present because there is no corridor or line drawn for the proposed route. There are people who have had their homes on the market for two years and been unable to get a buyer because of this proposed road. She intends to relay this information to Delegate Van Yahres. Mr. Bain said he thinks that since Delegate Van Yahres is meeting with the Governor and Secretary of Transportation that Mrs. Humphris should take him up on his offer and meet with him. Mrs. Humphris agreed. There was no further discussion. Mr. Bowie said he has two items for discussion at the Joint Meeting with the School Board on January 9: one item is the Pay/Classification Plan Study and the other item is Capital Improvements Program funding for the Urban Area Elementary School. He asked Board members to contact the County Executive by Friday if they have any additional items to add to the agenda. Mr. Way said this past weekend, in the midst of the ice storm, he receive( several calls from constituents asking what he was going to be able to do about the power outages. He obviously could do nothing. Some of these people were without any electric power for three days and some were without electri- city longer. He would like to know what can be done in this type of emer- gency. Who would have the authority to open up a school to provide a warm place, if that became necessary? He knows of nothing available in the County to deal with this situation. He would like to have this added to a future agenda for discussion. Mr. Tucker said the function of the part-time Emergency Services Coordina- tor, funded by the Board several months ago, is to handle this type situation. The position is currently being advertised and hopefully someone will be hired in the near future. That person will coordinate and make sure there are plans to cover a disaster. Technically, the Executive Director of E-911 is the director and head coordinator for disaster events. Mr. Way said no one he called knew of anything that could be done. Mr. Bowie said he would also like to know what can be done right now if a small disaster occurs. There should be some place to call, not staff at home, that can get some help. January 2, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 264 At the request of Doris S. Davis, Chairperson of the Social Services Board, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution supporting VACo's position on the proposed consolida- tion of Administration in Social Services: WHEREAS, Albemarle County has maintained a Department of Social Services since 1936; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County is satisfied and pleased with the social services being delivered to its citizens; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is initiating plans for the consolidation of local social service agencies due to current fiscal constraints; and WHEREAS, such restructuring would be unwise and unjustified without proper study, evaluation and planning as to the impact on client services, cost effectiveness and local citizen participation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia General Assembly to establish a joint committee to study and analyze the appropriateness of consolidation of local social service departments and evaluate the overall advantages and disadvantages to the state, localities and citizens. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. In reference to a letter from an inmate at the Joint Security Complex concerning smoking, Mrs. Humphris said the Jail Board made a carefully consid- ered decision to continue to ban smoking at the Jail because of the problem of having non-smokers breathe secondhand smoke which is not a healthful condition. The Jail does not have the facilities to segregate smokers from non-smokers, nor does it have the manpower to take smokers outside for smoke breaks. Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. There being no fUrther business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m. CHAIRMAN