Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-01November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 1, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and ~eter T. Way (arrived at 7:35 P.M.). BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. ;t. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The m~eting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve Items 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followingirecorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.! Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Resolution to take Wyngate Road in Wyngate Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. Reques~it dated October 20, 1989, to have Wyngate Road taken into the System was redeived from James M. Hill, Jr., Virginia Land Company. The following resolution was approved by the vote shown above and set out below. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code 3~3.1-229, the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation be and is hereby r~quested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to ~inal inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the f~llowing roads in Wyngate Subdivision: ~ Wyngate Road: '~ Beginning at Station 9+85, a point i~ common with the edge of pavement of Hydraulic Road (Route 6761) and the centerline of Wyngate Road, thence in a southwesterily direction 1,290 feet to Station 22+75, the end of the cul-de-Sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the VirgiDia Department of Trans- portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50t: foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of thei{Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 883, page 296, and Dee~ Book 921, page 712. Item 4.2. Resolution to take Fitzwood Dr~ve in Fitzwood Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. RequeSt dated March 5, 1987, was received from William S. Roudabush of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc., to have Fitzwood Drive taken into the State System. T~e following resolution was approved by the vote shown above. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code 3~.I-229, the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to f{nal inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the foi~lowing roads in Fitzwood Subdivis ion: ~ November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Fitzwood Drive: Beginning at Station 0+10, a point in common with the edge of pavement of U. S. Route 250 and the centerline of Fitzwood Drive, thence in a northeasterly direction 510 feet to Station 5+20, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans- portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these ~equested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 797, page 566, Deed~Book 860, pages 390 and Deed Book 948, pages 721 through 724. Item 4.3. Department of Planning and Cdmmunity Development 1989 Second Quarter Building Report was received as information. Item 4.4. Letter dated October 19, 198 , from Mr. William H. Spencer, IV, President, United Way, concerning funding for the elderly by JABA, was received as information. Item 4.5. Copy of Planning Commission ~inutes for October 10 and October 17, 1989, received as information. Item 4.6. Letter dated from Mr. Oscar K.. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, the Department of Transportation, re: abandonments, was received as follows: "October 20, 1989 As requested in your resolutions dated September 13, 1989, the following abandonments from the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective October ~0, 1989. ABANDONMENTS Route 9005 (Meriwether Lewis Elementary 'School - From Route 678 South to Route 678 North :! Route 9773 (Stone Robinson Elementary School) - From Route 729 to 0.07 mile Northwest Route 729 LENGTH 0.06 Mi. 0.07 Mi." Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Gift~. Mr. Perkins said it has been his privilege for the past three and one- half weeks to have hosted one of the Japanese~teachers visiting Albemarle County. He asked Ms. Hutcheson, the coordinator of the program for the school system, to introduce the teachers from Japan Ko the Board. Ann Hutcheson introduced to the Board MRS!! Takashi Nakamura, the group leader and an elementary school teacher; Mr. ¥oshitaka Goto an elementary school teacher; Mr. Periyuki Shamata, a middl~ school teacher; and Mr. Kinji Takagishi, a high school teacher. Mr. Perkin~~ then presented each teacher with a gift, a book entitled "Mr. Jefferson's!!Country." Mr. Nakamura said the visit has been a good experience and he will ~eave with many good ideas for Japan's school system. He thanked the host f~milies for their kindness. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: SP-89-82. Guiseppe Ancona. For a gift/craft/antique shop on 7.45 acres zoned ~, Rural Areas. Property on east t side of Rt. 29 North approximately 500 feet north of Piney Mountain Restau- rant. Tax Map 21, Parcel 16A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and 26, 1989.) Mr. Ron Keeler gave the staff report as ~ollows: November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 200 Character of the Area: Two buildings and a storage shed exist on the site which is served by a gravel parking area with three entrances. Two residences exist adjacent to site, one behind it and one to the south. This property does not have public utilities. There is an existing septic system but no running water. Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting a special use permit to operate his business which involves the crafting and selling of concrete lawn statues and the sale of antiques. One of the two existing buildings is used for the sales and display of the antiques and the other is used as the workshop for the production of the statues. Approximately 1000 statues covering about 5000 square feet of display area are located at the front of the property along Route 29. The applicant has stated the following jlustification for this request: 'Existing site has been used as antique shop and fruit stand since early 1960's; current occupant has operated gift and craft store for three years.' The applicant was originally served notice by the Zoning Adminis- trator in April, 1988, that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordi- nance as he had recently established a new business without proper permits or zoning clearance. Subsequent letters stated that the previous use of the site as a fruit stand does not qualify it as a non-conforming use and the previous activity of selling antiques had been expanded, changed and extended in ~th 'the volume and intensity of use and it involves new and differen~ products and items for sale. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator not~.y~ed the applzcant on May 25, 1989, that he had thirty days to apply ~0r a special use permit to operate this business. Although this bq~iness has been established, staff has reviewed the application as ill the operation does not presently exist. The Comprehensive Plan includes the folli~wing standards to guide commercial development: !~. 1. Concentrate and cluster highway-oriented commercial activities to minimize traffic hazards and advers~ visual impacts. A use of this type would be permitted by'right on property zoned C-i, Commercial. A commercial establishment in this particular location would not be in accordance with the intent of the Rural Areas as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Also, the Comprehensive Plan has designated substantial amounts of commercial land in Hollymead, Piney Mountain and th~ Urban Area where this business could be located. 2. Provide linear landscaped areas alofig public roads and property lines. In addition, the Board of Supervisors ha~ stated their intent to protect Route 29 north of the South Fork~ilRivanna River as a land- scaped corridor. Except for a small shrdb, there is no landscaping which screens the parking lot and displa~ area of the business. The applicant has stated that he does not wan, t to install landscaping because it would lessen the visibility of~ the property from Route 29 and therefore hurt his business, l~ The Virginia Department of Transportation. has stated: There currently are three gravel dr~,veways that serve the various uses on this property. The ~epartment recommends that the access be upgraded to a single p~ved commercial entrance. A 200-foot long taper lane is required for this entrance and the Department recommends a 200-foot!, long, 12-foot wide right turn lane, with a 200-foot long tapeM lane. Other Actions in the Immediate Vicinity: In the past, the Board of Supervisors has denied two rezonings of property zoned Rural Areas to -om November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) commercial designations which were in the immediate vicinity of this property and also not located in the Urban Area. In those cases, staff recommended denial based mostly on the fact that the 'substan- tial' and 'excessive' commercial zoning existing in the Route 29 North area and the properties had been designated as Rural Areas (see ZMA-80-04 for CVR, Inc. and ZMA-82-13 for M. Romanac and G. Spathopulos). In June, 1983 the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit for a gift, craft and antique shop also located outside the Urban Area approximately three-fourths of a mile south of the Ancona property (see SP-83-22 for Peggy Boland). However, in that case and with most special use permits for a gift, craft and antique shop, there was a condition of no outdoor display. The applicant's business seems to rely on its outdoor display area and the high visibility of it from Route 29. In conclusion, this special use permit application is not in accor- dance with the Comprehensive Plan's intent to locate commercial uses in the growth areas and, therefore, staff recommends denial. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to apprpve this special use permit, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The following conditions shall be 5~gun within 60 days and completed within 90 days of Board ~{ Supervisors approval: a) Construction of a 200-foot lohg, 12-foot wide turn lane with a 200-foot long taper lane; aslI recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation; b) Access shall be upgraded to a "i~ingle paved commercial entrance as recommended by Vmrg~nma Department of Trans- portation; 2) Site plan shall be submitted for a~proval within 60 days of completion of condition No. 1; 3) Display area shall be limited to not more than 20 samples no closer than 20 feet from the Route ~9 right-of-way; 4) Storage area shall be no closer tha~ 30 feet from the Route 29 right-of-way and to be screened by a six-foot opaque fence with plantings at 15-foot intervals along such fence; 5) Landscaping shall be installed to screen the parking area from Route 29; ~ 6) Health Department approval of the s~ptic field." Mr. Climiberg said the Planning CommissiQn, at its meeting on October 3, 1989, unanimously recommended denial of this ~etition. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Fred Heblich representing the applicJnt came forward to speak. Mr. Heblich asked that the Board defer action on ~his tonight. After the Plan- ning Commission meeting, Mr. Heblich said he ~ried to contact Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, to discuss the issue of non-comforming uses. Ne said he thinks the staff's report misrepresents the effort he has made to discuss Mr. Anacona's options with the Zoning iAdministrator. Mr. Heblich said he tried on more than one occasion to talk wiCh Ms. Patterson and she was not in her office. He said that Ms. Patterson did~ leave a message with his office, which stated that "it would be more appropriate to call the County Attorney". Mr. Heblich said he has discussed ~this matter with both Mr. St. John and Mr. Bowling, neither of which he believes has the authority or the facts held by the Zoning Administrator concer~ing what use is non-conforming and what would be acceptable on th~s property.~ He said that a fruit stand and antique shop were operated on this property f~ many years. He said his client has two businesses: the antiques operaltion and the statuaries. November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 202 Mr. St. John said it was on his advice that Ms. Patterson referred Mr. Heblich to the County Attorney's office. The existence of the business currently on this property is the subject of a pending court procedure brought by Ms. Patterson against Mr. Ancona in order to suppress the zoning violation. This case is scheduled to be heard November 19, 1989. Since litigation was involved, Mr. St. John said, he thought it was best for Mr. Ancona's lawyer to discuss the problem with Ms. Patterson's lawyer. Mr. St. John said he does not think the pre-existing use has anything to do with the request for the special use permit now before the Board. When a use is grandfathered because it pre-existed the Zoning Ordinance, a special use permit is not needed to continue that use. He said the question of what activity, and to what extent that activity, was grandfathered is a question for the Zoning Administrator to decide, and not the Board. He said the Zoning Administrator has made her decision; if the applicant feels himself to be aggrieved, he can appeal her decision through the Board of Zoning Appeals and then the courts. For the Board to consider the pre-existing use in its decision concerning this special use permit, Mr. St. John said, would be to inject an irrelevant and confusing issue int°] the matter. He said this request for a special use permit must be judged on its merits: is what the applicant is requesting appropriate for a special use permit at this site? Mr. Heblich said that Mr. Keeler interjected the issue of whether the use was non-conforming. He said that Mr. Keeler,.~ in the staff's report, also represented to the Board that the Zoning Admi~nistrator was waiting for Mr. Ancona to make some sort of overture. Mr. H~blich said the Zoning Admini- strator listed different activities taking p~ace on the property and stated that Mr. Ancona violated the Zoning Ordinance.'. Mr. Heblich said he and Mr. Ancona would like to know if all the activiti~es violate the Zoning Ordinance, or if only some activities are in violation. :'~Given this information, Mr. Ancona could decide whether to pursue a speci!al use permit, move his business somewhere else, or if he can continue to oper~ate,~ some part of the business, perhaps the antique business, as he is now. ~ If the question is what the applicant ca~ legally do under the existing situation without a permit, Mr. St. John said':~ the Board cannot answer this question. He said it is not the function of !this Board even to investigate this question. Mr. St. John said that under ~'!~he law, he who asserts that he has a grandfathered right has also the burden.ii to show exactly what is grand- fathered; the burden is not on the Zoning Administrator to define what is grandfathered and what is not. Mr. Heblich said he agrees with Mr. St. John. Mr. Heblich said he is asking the Board to defer action on this request, so that Mr. Ancona can discuss the use of his property with the ZoniRg Administrator and find out what is acceptable. Then, perhaps, it will n~t be necessary to pursue this request for a special use permit. Mr. Heblich said that he and his client do not know, at this moment, what will be allowed on this property. Mr. St. John said he does not think the Board has to tell Mr. Heblich and Mr. Ancona what uses are grandfathered on the:iproperty. Mr. St. John repeated that it is up to the applicant and his attorney to prove that a particular use is grandfathered. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Heb}ich if he intended to ask the judge on November 19 for a continuance of thi~ case, because this application may be pending before the Board. Mr. Heblich~'said he plans to ask for a continuance, not for the reason cited by Mr. S~. John, but because he has a jury trial scheduled for November 19. Mr. Heblich said there are certain things Mr. Ancona would like to do with his property. Mr. Heblich said his client realizes that the special use permit is a problem and if it were granted wi6h the conditions recommended by staff, it would create insurmountable economiC' problems for Mr. Ancona. Mr. Heblich said his client is looking for other~}°cati°ns' He is also looking for other ways to organize his business so that he might be able to stay at the same location. Mr. Heblich said he askin~i for the deferral simply to give his client time to investigate his options. ~ Mr. Bowie said the applicant was served n. Otice by the Zoning Administra- tor in April, 1988, eighteen months ago, and h~ is just now trying to work things out, a few weeks before the court date.~ Mr. Heblich agreed, but said November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) his client is an immigrant from Italy and does not have the most sophisticated knowledge of local government and zoning regulations, something Mr. Ancona has in common with many County citizens. For a long time, Mr. Heblich said, his client was under the impression that the only thing he was doing wrong was operating without a business license, which he got, thinking that would take care of the problem. With no further comments from the applicant, and with no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowie said that Mr. St. John's comments have made it clear to him that the court, not the Board, should decide which uses are grandfathered on Mr. Ancona's property. When he considers the request for the special use permit aside from the matter of grandfathering and given the Board's recent insistence on screening and berms for other businesses along Route 29 North, Mr. Bowie said, he cannot support granting a special use permit, if the applicant is unwilling to comply with the screening requirements. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to deny the request. Mr. Way said he can support the motion,i!isince denying the special use permit will not prevent the applicant from d~scussing his options with the Zoning Administrator. There was no further discussion. Roll ~as called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: zTA-89-12. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolutioh of Intent to amend Article 1, General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance tO include recent provisions added to the Code of Virginia. (Advertised in the~Daily Progress on October 20 and October 26, 1989.) Mr. Keeler said this amendment would br.~ng Article I, General Provisions, of the Zoning Ordinance into compliance withi~new State Code provisions. The change to Section 1.6 would bring the Zoning~iOrdinance into compliance with the new Comprehensive Plan. The public hearing was opened. There b~ing no members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and secohded~, by Mrs. Cooke to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Article I, General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to bring same into compliance withilnew State Code provisions, all as set out in the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried ~by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messcs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ~AND REENACT ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF[THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BRING SAME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH N%W sTATE CODE PROVISIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Sqpervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVIS~IONS, of the Zoning Ordinance, be amended and reenacted by the additio~ of subsections 1.4.9 and 1.4.10, and by the rewording of 1.5 and 1.6, all as follows: 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT ~ovember 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of li- censed airports; and 1.4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia. 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are simi- larly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suit- ability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and fut6re land and water require- ments of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements oflthe community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, play- grounds, recreation areas and Other public services; for the conservation of natural resourcps; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties ~and their values and the encouragement of the most apprqpriate use of land throughout the county. 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance! and districts with reason- able consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoniing ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encDurage the realization and implementation of the ComprehenSive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouragedii in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services ~nd utilities are available and where such development willilnot conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other ~ural objectives; and devel- opment is not to be encouraged Rn the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation O~ agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conser- vation of natural, scenic and h~storic resources and where only limited delivery of publicli services is intended. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: ZTA-89-13. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolution ~f Intent to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas, of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the statement of intent and subdivision of land, and uses permitted. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 26, 1989.) Mr. Keeler said this amendment was discuss'ed earlier this afternoon and some changes were suggested. After making the~e changes, staff will again present this amendment to the Board. He said that Mr. St. John also wished to review the language in the amendment concerning pre-existing easements. The public hearing was opened. There being no members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was immedilately-closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer this item to November 8, 1989, to allow the County ~ttorney to review the language. Roll was called and the motion carried by ~he following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.i Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: ZTA-89-14. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the defini- tion of public garage. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 26, 1989.) Mr. Keeler said this zoning text amendment, an accompaniment to ZTA-89-13, would allow public garage to remain as a use in the Rural Areas. However, the definition of public garage would be changed to delete the following activities which staff believes to be inappropriate to the Rural Areas: the equipping, renting, selling, or storing of motor vehicles. The public hearing was opened. There being no members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Article III, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordi- nance by amending the definition of "Public Garage", as set out in the follow- ing ordinance. AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion carried ~by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. ~i!; AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ii~,AND REENACT ARTICLE III, DEFINITIONS, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF!'"PUBLIC GARAGE" BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article III, DEFINITION~!~ of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted by the rewording of the definition for "Public Garage", as follows: Garage, Public: A building or portion ~hereof, other than a private garage, designed or used for servicing ~r repairing motor driven vehicles. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Z~A-89-15. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolutionjof Intent to include temporary mobile classroom in all districts under the ~rovision that relates to public uses and buildings. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 26, 1989.) Mr. Keeler said this request is from thg Department of Education. Staff is of the opinion that temporary uses should~ be provided to all public uses. The public hearing was opened. There b~ing no members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in all zoning districts to include temporary or mobile facilities under "public uses". Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~.s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~' AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE TEMPORARY OR MOBILE FACILITIES UNDER "PUBLIC USES" ORDAINED by the Board of S~pervisors of Albemarle County, BE IT Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended in all zoning districts to include "temPOrary or mobile facilities" under public uses, these amendments to be in the following sections: I November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 20.~ Rural Areas District, Section 10.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right Village Residential, Section 12.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right Residential, R-l, Section 13.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right Residential, R-2, Section 14.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right Residential, R-4, Section 15.2.1.11, Permitted Uses by Right Residential, R-6, Section 16.2.1.12, Permitted Uses by Right Residential, R-10, Section 17.2.1~12, Permitted Uses by Right Residential, R-15, Section 18.2.1.12, permitted Uses by Right Planned Residential Development-PRD, Section 19.3.1.7, Permitted Uses by Right Planned Unit Development-PUD, Section 20.3.1.7, Permitted Uses by Right Commercial, C-l, Section 22.2.1.b.18, Permitted Uses by Right Commercial Office-CO, Section 23.2.1.8, Permitted Uses by Right Highway Commercial-HC, Section 24.2.1.36, Permitted Uses by Right Planned Development-Shopping Centers-PD-iSC, Section 25.2.1.3, Permitted Uses by Right Planned Development-Mixed Commercial-PD-MC, Section 25A.2.1.3, Permitted Uses By Right Light Industry-LI, Section 27.2.1.12, Permitted Uses by Right Heavy Industry-HI, Section 28.2.1.21, Permitted Uses by Right Wording for all of the above noted sections shall be: "Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and~roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal ageneies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, ma~n or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (~ference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). Agenda Item No. lla. Appointments: Advisory.:. Council on Aging. Mot-~on was offered by Mr. Ba±n and second, ed by Mrs. Cooke to reappoint Mrs. Betty L. Newell, term to expire on June !}, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. llb. Appointments: Jof~t Airport Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. John C. Lowry, term to expire on December 1, [992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded votel AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. llc. Appointments: BOC~ Code Board of Appeals. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reappoint Mr. John Hood, term to expire on August 21, 1~94. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote~i AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. lld. Appointments: Co,unity Services Board. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reappoint Dr. W. D. Buxton, term to expire on June 20, i992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:' AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Agenda Item No. lle. Appointments: Board. 2 07~ Land Use Classification Appeals Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to reappoint Mr. Samuel Page and Mr. Montie Pace, terms to expire on September 1, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: October 19 (A), 1988; January 18 (N), March 22, April 5 (A), April 12, Oc~ober 2 (A) and October 4, 1989. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for April 12, 1989, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for OctOber 4, 1989, Pages 12 to End and found one item to be corrected. On Page 19, at the end of the third para- graph, change "of the Committee" to "of the Board and the Mayor." Mr. Way had read the minutes for October 2, 1989, and found a typo- graphical correction. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of OcDober 4, 1989, Page 1 to Item 12 on Page 10, and found them to be in order. !~ Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and sec~nded by Mr. Bowie to approve the minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried bY the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. : Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie reported on a conference he 5ad attended last week with the Virginia Department of Transportation. He said he learned several disturbing facts at the conference. First, he said, he'would like to provide some background information. Since World War II,{Virginia is one of only four states that has exceeded what the federal government considers a reasonable rate of growth. Mr. Bowie said that Virgini~ is now the twelfth fastest growing state in the United States. Since 1980, the per capita income, or taxable income, in Virginia has risen from 8~ percent to 107 percent of the national average. Mr. Bowie said the increasing population and the rising per capita have combined to give the Commonwealth of Virginia great increases in revenue over the past nine years. Localitie~ are receiving none of this additional revenue. ~ The first disturbing fact he learned at~'the conference, Mr. Bowie said, is that the Commonwealth plans to use its roRd building program to spur addi- tional economic growth. Mr. Bowie said that state officials claim this growth is necessary to solve the problem of unemploy~ment; however, industrial growth is not occurring in areas with high unemployment rates. Mr. Bowie said the road building program, with its attendant growth, threatens Albemarle County, even though the County enjoys a low rate of dnemployment. Mr. Bowie said another disturbing fact was revealed in the opening address given by Ms. Vivian Watts, the Secret!ary of Transportation for the Commonwealth. According to Ms. Watts, the Commonwealth can no longer afford to build the roads it needs; local governmen~ must pay their share. Mr. Bowie said that representatives of VDoT suggested several ways that local governments could raise revenues for road prd~ects, such as impact fees and conditional zoning. Of course, only localiti~s in Northern Virginia have been empowered to use these methods of raising revenue. 2 November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Bowie said he also asked about the status of the environmental impact statements for the proposed bypass and received evasive, non-commital answers. Mr. Bowie said his impression, after the two-day conference, is that the County "has a rough row to hoe". Mr. Bain said that the members of the Board who plan to attend the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) meetSng have a job to do. Mr. Way said members of the Board should also voice these concerns during its meeting with the area legislators, i Mr. Bowie said that improvements to Route 58, which reaches from Portsmouth to Danville will cost $600 million; the State has allocated $40 million. He said residents in counties through which this road passes will have to pay an additional 20 cents per $100 yalue of real property in taxes for the next 20 years to pay off the bonds fdr the road. Mr. Lindstrom said these policies are p~rt of the "New Jerseyfication" of Virginia: 'the State is doing everything it Gan to encourage industries to move to Virginia, without doing anything to iielp local governments accommodate the pressures of rampant growth. ~ Miss Neher said that members of the Sol~d Waste Task Force wish to make a presentation to the City and County. Mr. Way suggested that the presentation be made on December 13 1989, during the regularly scheduled day meeting. Not-Docketed: At 8:42 P.M., Mr. St. Jo n said an executive session would be necessary to discuss the case of Spradlini!iVS. the Zoning Administrator. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing legal matters under State Code Section 2.1-344.a.7. Roll was called and the motion carried b]y the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. , At 8:53 P.M., the Board reconvened into iopen session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to !certify that the executive session was in accordance with State Code Section 2.1-344.a.7, by adopting the following resolution: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board.iof Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that':the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia Ia~ were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as. were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting w~re heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board i.of Supervisors. November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) VOTE: ~YES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to November 6, at 8:00 A.M. At 8:55 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn to November 6, 1989, at 8:00 A.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. CHAIRMAN