Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-05July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 143 (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 5, 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, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Ronald L. Keeler, Chief of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:42 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to accept the Consent Agenda items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. None. Mr. Way. Item 4.1. County Executive's Financial Report for May, 1989, was received as set out below: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1988~TO MAY 31, 1989 GENERAL FUND: REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 42,043,289 39~139,654 3,723,158 3'{101,535 109,440 50,734 2,492,428 2!~464,818 48,368,315 4~756,741 88/89 EXP/OBLIG APPROP ~YTD EXPENDITURES 2,903,635 - 93.09% 621,623 - 83.30% 58,706 - 46.36% 27,610 - 98.89% 3,611,574 - 92.53% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH AND WELFARE EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPkRTMENTAL TOTAL SCHOOL FUND: REVENUES 3,176,385 2~629,212 1,103,980 ~.~i028,525 4,383,193 ~.050,355 1,795,751 1~504,403 2,907,438 2~.575,192 25,367,126 23~205,702 1,696,508 13508,581 1,314,778 li176,176 4,153,596 3~832,339 2~469~560 2~1260~026 48,368,315 43~'770,511 1988/89 RECEIPTS EST. REVENUE ~YTD 547,173 + 82.77% 75,455 + 93.17% 332,838 + 92.41% 291,348 + 83.78% 332,246 + 88.57% 2,161,424 + 91.48% 187,927 + 88.92% 138,602 + 89.46% 321,257 + 92.27% 209~534 + 91.52% 4,597,804 + 90.49% BALANCE COLLECTED YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 426,493 ~1287,086 16,420,426 14,~569,707 362,987 1154,134 25~330~705 23/!169~243 42,540,611 38,1180,170 139,407 - 67.31% 1,850,719 - 88.73% 208,853 - 42.46% 2,161,462 91.47% 4,360,441 - 89.75% July 5, 1989 (Regular Night (Page 2) EXPENDITURES Meeting) 144 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD YTD YTD ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT FIXED CHARGES ADULT EDUCATION TRANSFER TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: 749,288 26,575,974 341,016 3,037,002 4,553,452 7,273,251 10,628 0 649,983 21,841,214 322,374 2,740,339 4,820,820 6,184,854 10,933 0 99,305 + 86.75% 4,734,760 + 82.18% 18,642 + 94.53% 296,663 + 90.23% (267,368)- 105.87% 1,088,397 + 85.04% (305)- 102.87% 0 + O.00% 42,540,611 1988/89 EST. REVENUE 36,570,517 RECEIPTS YTD 5,970,094 + 85.97% BALANCE COLLECTED YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH NONREVENUE RECEIPTS FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES 418,500 ~ 411,375 527,040 ~ 0 2,886,902 !,178,902 4,665,810 4,654,910 2,102,795 2,047,000 10,601,047 ~,292,187 88/89 EXP/OBLIG APPROP YTD 7,125 - 98.30% 527,040 - 0.00% 1,708,000 - 40.84% 10,900 - 99.77% 55,795 - 97.35% 2,308,860 - 78.22% BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 239,571 1,297,745 1,396,532 5,385,542 1,336,263 812,609 132,785 10,601,047 261,824 113,231 410,513 4,355,859 404,734 529,228 132,785 6,208,174 (22,253)- 109.29% 1,184,514 + 8.73% 986,019 + 29.40% 1,029,683 + 80.88% 931,529 + 30.29% 283,381 + 65.13% 0 100.00% 4,392,873 + 58.56% OTHER FUNDS: REVENUES 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION MODERATE REHAB. GRANT CDBG-AHIP T J HEALTH EDUCATION GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT TIPS E. D. PROGRAM CBIP SEVERE FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT DRUG EDUCATION GRANT SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 45,344 28,540 1,015,000 0 0 0 401,130 110,900 1,669 440,463 377,550 33,731 16,771 28,786 113,579 263,636 5,937 474,354 63,423 45,991 1,394,845 1,941,259 1,177,638 658,462 195,066 218,500 10,000 0 463,037 143,140 67,734 2,043,666 11,780,151 15 20 506 111 1 135 247 8 20 6 69 342 3,656 28,540 754,952 224,294 ,323 ,721 573 164 669 215 222 771 125 286 067 787 2,788 300,682 9,256 22,772 1,199,173 1,675,336 49,109 613,043 57,133 214,321 143, 62, 1~778, 9,!140, 343 342 145 140 O9O 204 242 41,688 - 8.06% 0 + 100.00% 260,048 74.38% (224,294)- 0.00% (15,323)- 0.00% (20,721)- 0.00% (105,443)+ 126.29% (264)+ 100.24Z 0 + 100.00% 305,248 - 30.70% 130,328 - 65.48% 24,960 - 26.00% (3,354)+ 120.00% 22,500 - 21.84% 44,512 - 60.81% (79,151)+ 130.02% 3,149 - 46.96% 173,672 - 63.39% 54,167 - 14.59% 23,219 - 49.51% 195,672 - 85.97% 265,923 - 86.30% 1,128,529 - 4.17% 45,419 - 93.10% 137,933 - 29.29% 4,179 - 98.09% 3,657 - 63.43% (342)- 0.00% (47,108)+ 110.17% 0 + 100.00% 5,644 - 91.67% 265,462 - 87.01% 2,639,909 - 77.59% July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 145 OTHER FUNDS: 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 45,344 7,134 38 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 28,540 26,350 2 MODERATE RE}lAB. GRANT 1,015,000 700,965 314 CDBG-AHIP 0 224,294 (224 T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 14,595 (14 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 42,696 (42 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 147,436 253 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 110,900 62,561 48 TIPS 1,669 1,668 E. D. PROGRAM 440,463 302,873 137 CBIP SEVERE 377,550 340,800 36 FED. JOB TRAINING PART. ACT. 33,731 19,733 13 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 16,771 14,074 2 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 28,786 17,674 11 SUMMER SCHOOL FUND 113,579 63,968 49 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 263,636 419,635 (155 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 5,937 7,577 (1 CHAPTER I 474,354 385,150 89 CHAPTER II 63,423 46,928 16 MIGRANT EDUCATION 45,991 38,313 7 CAFETERIA FUND 1,394,845 1,205,739 189 JOINT SECURITY FUND 1,941,259 1,719,029 222 JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 1,177,638 50,349 1,127 JOINT DISPATCH FUND 658,462 587,555 70 JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 195,066 80,572 114 TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 218,500 106,319 112 MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 6,343 3 JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND 0 0 STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 463,037 55,256 407 FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT 143,140 108,108 35 VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,734 62,090 5 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~043~666 1~778~741 264 TOTAL 11,780,151 8,644,525 3,135 ,210 + 15.73% ,190 + 92.33% ,035 + 69.06% ,294)- 0.00% ,595)- 0.00% ,696)- 0.00% ,694 + 36.76% ,339 + 56.41% 1 + 99.94% ,590 + 68.76% ,750 + 90.27% ,998 + 58.50% ,697 + 83.92% ,112 + 61.40% ,611 + 56.32% ,999)- 159.17% ,640)- 127.62% ,204 + 81.19% ,495 + 73.99% ,678 + 83.31% ,106 + 86.44% ,230 + 88.55% ,289 + 4.28% ,907 + 89.23% ,494 + 41.30% ,181 + 48.66% ,657 + 63.43% 0 + 0.00% ,781 + 11.93% ,032 + 75.53% ,644 + 91.67% ~925 + 87.04% ,626 + 73.38% Item 4.2. Copies of the Planning CommiSsion Minutes for June 13 and June 20, 1989, were received as information. Item 4.3. Notice from the State Corporation Commission, dated May 12, 1989, on an application filed by Bennett Tou=s, Inc., for a license to broker the transportation of passengers by motor vehicle, received as information. Item 4.4. Letter dated June 20, 1989, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, to Mr. Bradley F. Peyton III, concerning the placement of Seven Oaks FArm on the Virginia Landmarks Register, received as information. Item 4.5. Superintendent's Memo No. 138i~, dated June 21, 1989, from Mr. S. John Davis, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Mr. M. E. Cale, Associate Superintendent for Financial and Support Services, re: Fiscal Year 1989-90 Monthly Plan State Funds (on file in Clerk's office), received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-89-28. Richard & ]Geraldine Muller. To allow for the transfer of four development rights. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcels 16 and 16A, is located on the east side of Route 20 approximately one-half mile north of its intersection with ~oute 610. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 Jnd June 27, 1989.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer to August 2, 1989, since the Planning Commission!nad not yet acted on the re- quest. Roll was called and the motion carried~ by the following recorded vote: July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. 146 The Vice-Chairman took up Agenda Item No. 7 since the applicant for Agenda Item No. 6 was not present at this time. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-89-05. Ann Horner. To rezone 2.836 acres from R-2 to C-1. Property, described as Tax Map §6Al, Section 1, Parcel 46A, is located on the south side of Jarmans Gap Road at the intersection with Rt. 1201. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 1989.) Mr. Keeler said the request had been changed to request rezoning from R-2 to CO instead of C-1. He gave the staff report as follows: "Character of Area: This site is vacant pasture land encumbered by flood plain and building site restricti6n. From available informa- tion, it appears that about 1.5 acres o~ the 2.836 acres of the property is outside of the one hundred year flood elevation and the 100-foot development prohibition of section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. From field inspection, it d~es not appear that topo- graphic features of this site reasonabl~ delineate the extent of one hundred year flood. Field verification~as to the extent of the flood plain should be required for any development. The Planning Staff would not be supportive of encroachment into either restricted area provided that reasonable usage of The property is otherwise achievable (it should be noted that property boundaries were estab- lished in 1983, after adoption of secti6n 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District). This property is currently ~oned R-2, Residential. Ail surrounding properties are currently zoned for and developed with residential uses. Applicant's Proposal; Justification for ~equest: The applicant requests unfettered C-1 Commercial Zonihg. The applicant has been made aware of citizen opposition but ha~i'not sought to improve the posture of the petition through voluntary proffered zoning restric- tion or a change of request to a less intensive commercial designa- tion. The owner has stated that the request has been made 'to market the property for its highest and best use' Justification for the request is that the 'Comprehensive Plan, both that existing and that which is being reviewed, suggests the best use of this property to be for Commercial or Communi!~y Service businesses servicing the growing residential populg~ion in this area of the community'. I Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive P!an states that: 'The main thrust of land use planning for commercial uses is to strengthen the downtown area of Crozet as a shopping ar~a. An area has been designated (almost all of the historic center and a substantial portion of the expanded town center) to ~nable the central business area of downtown Crozet to increase in s~ze and, therefore, be the shopping center of Crozet. Unless such ~ommercial expansion is encouraged, the downtown function will b~ supplanted by a suburban type shopping center located somewhere o~tside of the community. The area designated in the downtown for ~ommercial use is intended to include commercial office uses as wel~ as the traditional retail and service uses characteristic of a CBD~ This should help comple- ment the historical and commercial area ~f the downtown. An addi- tional ingredient to the future success ~f strengthening the down- town will be the County's position with ~egard to commercial zoning on Route 250 West outside of the community; it will be necessary to limit such development to commercial fundtions that are solely orientated to the highway and not to local and convenience shopping and services or offices. New comm~ercial!.idevelopment in the downtown area will be a combination of filling in ~etween existing buildings, conversion of buildings from other uses ~o commercial and develop- ment of new building complexes'. July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 147 The Land Use Plan for Crozet recommends commercial designation for this property as well as properties to the east which are currently zoned and developed for residential uses. The proposed Comprehen- sive Plan recommends Community Service uses for these properties. Neither Comprehensive Plan proposes specific uses nor specific zoning categories. Staff Comment: In this current request, County ordinance and policy are supportive of commercial designation for this property. How- ever, the exact nature and extent of commercial development is to be determined by legislative act of the Board of Supervisors. The remainder of this report will address issues raised by the public. 1. Rural Setting: Objection has been raised that commercial development would be contrary to the rural setting of Crozet. Crozet has been designated for urban deyelopment in the Compre- hensive Plan since 1971. 2. Traffic Increase: Any commercial designation would increase traffic over existing zoning conditions, unless accompanied by voluntary restriction as to the intensity of development. The Virginia Department of Transportation (~VOoT) stated that 'this request in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This section of Route 691 is currently non-tolerable. A change in zoning from R-2 to G-1 would result in an increase in t~affic from this property. VDoT recommends that the entrance to this property align across from the western intersection with Route 120~.' Due to the relatively small acreage and shape of the area subject to the development, comparative traffic generation figures gte difficult to predict due to the varying character of C-1 uses. 3. Rezoning Premature: Comment has been made that other areas in Crozet are currently zoned for commercil! usage but not developed accordingly and that such development s~Ould occur prior to addi- tional rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan contains no incremental schedule for development. In the case df Crozet, other public comment has favored additional commercial zoning outside of the designated growth area under the opinion~~ that adequate commercial zoning does not exist within the designated growth area. 4. Speculative Rezoning: Comment has ~een made that this rezoning is sought primarily to benefit the property owner as opposed to the general public. The Comprehensive Plan ~recommends commercial usage of this property at some date during th~! effectiveness of the plan (i.e. 20 years). Therefore, there should be some perceived public interest served by such designation. HQ~ever, the Commission and Board have not favored speculative rezon!ings where sensitivity of development is an issue. ~.. 5. Development within flood plain or restricted development area: As stated under Character of the Area in!~, this report, staff opinion is that regardless of the outcome of this petition reasonable usage of the land can be afforded without encroachment into areas restric- ted to development. 6. Commercial zoning inappropriate in residential area: As stated earlier, properties to the east, although currently zoned and devel- oped residentially, are recommended for ~ommercial redevelopment by the Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the north, west and south, however, are intended to remain (or be f~rther developed) as resi- dential. While the flood plain area pro~ides increased development setback to buffer residential propertiesii!to the west and south, certain C-1 uses may prove inappropriate~to the area due to noise, hours of operation, appearance and other factors. Under Commercial Land Use Standards, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that 'com- mercial office uses should be employed as transitional areas between residential areas and heavier commercial~or industrial areas'. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is ~hat unrestricted C-1 zoning may prove inappropriate to the area. Th~ Comprehensive Plan July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) recommends commercial usage of the property. Staff recommends that CO, Commercial Office, zoning would be more appropriate for the following reasons: 1) The Commercial Office zone is intended as a transitional zone between residential areas and more intensive commercial and indus- trial zones. As such, uses in the CO zone are intended to be compatible to adjoining residential areas. 2) The Comprehensive Plan states that i'the area designated in the downtown for commercial use is intendedlto include commercial office uses as well as the traditional retail and service uses character- istics of a CBD' 3) Some letters of objection have indi6ated that office usage would be more tolerable than unrestricted C-1 zoning. (The majority of objectors would prefer the property to remain residentially zoned). Staff recommends that the property not receive C-i, Commercial zoning, but that CO, Commercial Office, zoning would be appropriate. The Commission should determine as to whether or not CO zoning is acceptable to the applicant. Should the applicant choose to pursue C-1 zoning, staff recommends denial of ZMA-89-05, Ann Horner." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 27, 1989, by a vote of four to two, recommended denial of the petition. The public hearing was opened at this time. Ms. Virginia Gardner, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. She said the applicant has agreed to apply for CO zoning in order to keep peace with her neighbors and address the concerns of the Planning staff. Mr. Leonard Tosto, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Board. He said there are no businesses or stores on Jarman's Gap Road and he feels a commercial use along this road would be obtrusive. He does not think Route 691 could handle any traffic. He said rezoning this parcel to CO would be premature, because this lot is separated from the existing commercial area by residential lots, which will keep this parce~ from forming part of the commer- cial area for a long time. He said any commsrcial development of this prop- erty would be undesirable in what is a residential neighborhood. Mr. Jon Mikalson also spoke in oppositidh to the petition. He said the property in question is surrounded by propertj~y zoned residential. Allowing a commercial development on this property woulg~.'.divide the neighborhood, he said. ~ Mr. Peter McClellan addressed the Board ~'~nd said that he and other landowners live on property nearby that also i~ecommended for commercial development in the Comprehensive Plan. Neve~igheless, he said, these homeown- ers are fixing up their old houses and planning to raise families. He said rezoning the applicant's parcel to CO would 3.~opardlze the residential charac- ter of the area. ~f~ There being no other members of the public present to speak concerning this petition, the public hearing was closed .~nd the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Perkins asked what kinds of offices ~ould be built on the property. Mr. Keeler said the uses by-right under CO zoning included public use and public utility; administrative and business offices; professional offices, including medical, dental and optical; financial institutions; churches and cemetery; libraries and museums; and accessory uses which occupy no more than 20 percent of the floor area of the office building. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Keeler if he is eonfident that the Planning Commission and staff, by requiring that the al.plicant screen the business and obey the setback requirements and other Count' regulations, could insure that any by-right CO use of this property could be' reasonably well-integrated with the residential setting. Mr. Keeler said "ye~" July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 14 Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes that approving this request may change the character of this neighborhood. But Crozet is slated to be a Con~nunity in the Comprehensive Plan, he said, and in order to be a viable Community, Crozet must have the necessary cox~ercial and office development. Mr. Bowie said he sympathizes with the adjoining property owners, but the Board has denied requests for additional commercial zoning outside the growth area on the basis that the commercial development must take place on the property planned for such zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bain said he has a problem approving a request for rezoning when he has no idea how the property would be used. Nor does he think the roads in the area can support commercial development. Nevertheless, he said, he realizes that commercial development is intended for this property under the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Gardener what use~her client had in mind for the property. Ms. Gardener said the applicant plans to sell the property. Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant's decision to request that the property be rezoned to CO rather than C-1 restricts the speculative nature of the proposal to uses that are appropriate to a transitional zone. He said the residents will be further protected by site plan review. He said he supports the request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the request for CO zoning as requested by the applicant at this meeting. Mr. Perkins said he considers this to be a case of speculative rezoning and the property lies in the middle of a residential area. He said he would feel more comfortable approving the request ~f he knew what business or commercial use would be established on the property. He thinks the Board should either deny the request or return it to the Planning Commission, since the applicant now asked that the property be~rezoned CO instead of C-1. He said he cannot support this request. Roll was called and the motion carried hy the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and M~i. Lindstrom. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. ~; ABSENT: Mr. Way. ~ Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-06. John Gruss. To allow a veterinary hospi- tal on property zoned RA. Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 7, is located on the west side of Rt. 743, approx, il000 feet south of its intersec- tion with Rt. 663 at Earlysville. White Halll District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 1989.)ii Mr. Keeler gave the staff report as follOws: "Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted a site plan with this special use permit. It indicates that the proposed clinic is to be located a minimum of 56 feet from the nearest existing property line. Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance states that 'Except where animals are confined in soundproofsd, air conditioned build- ings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be located closer than five hundred feet to any residential or agricultural lot line. In no case shall any such structure or area be located closer than two hundred feet to any agricultura! or residential lot line.' Section 5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance stat~s in part: 'In review of any use by special use permit, the Commission and Board of .Super- visors may vary or waive any provision of this section as deemed appropriate in a particular case.' The ~roperty to which the proposed clinic will be closest is ownedl.~by the Earlysville Union Church and has one structure on it which~i'is currently not in use. July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 3_5 The proposed clinic will be located approximately 104 feet from the nearest occupied residential lot. The dwelling on the residential property is located approximately 220 feet from the proposed clinic. The applicant has submitted a report which states that the maximum sound level at the nearest residential property line will be 33 decibels. The limit allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is 40 Db. The applicant must either give the 'a-weighted' equivalent of the 40 Db limit or must compute a projected maximum sound level from the proposed hospital in decibels to compare with the 40 Db limit. Staff is of the opinion that a reduction in setback should be allowed if an acceptable report is prepared stating that the sound will be below the 40 Db level at the nearest lot line. This is due to the use of the property by the Earlysville Union Church and the distance to the existing dwelling. Two letters have been received concerning this petition. One letter is in support of the proposed project, i>The other letter states concerns of setting a precedent that will allow for further commer- cial enterprises, and traffic generation. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that adequate sight distance can be obtained at the proposed entrance location. In addition the applicant has agreed to,construct a 100 foot long right taper lane. The applicant is proposing to purchase ~ portion of Tax Map 31, Parcel 7. The proposed property line id to be located a minimum of 165 feet from the veterinary clinic, s~aff believes that this is a condition that the owner of Parcel 7 is~willing to accept. A reduction in setback should not prohibit residential use of the property or set a precedent allowing fo~ additional special use permits on the property. Staff recommends approval of SP-89-06 f6r John Gruss with the following conditions. Recommended Conditions of Approval: Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Noise measured at the nearest lot line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; Submittal of a certified engineers':report to insure that sound shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest lot line; 3. Staff approval of site plan; 4. Staff approval of subdivision plat." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 21, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the conditions in the staff's report, with Condition #1 changed to read as follows: Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. Noise measured at the nearest lot line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels. Mr. Lindstrom asked if approval of this special permit would apply to the entire parcel or to the portion shown in the Site plan. If the Board approves this request, Mr. Keeler said, he would suggest specifying that approval applies only to the portion of the property s~own on the site plan. Mrs. Cooke opened the public hearing. M~. Gruss came forward to speak. He said he would need six acres to build the proposed clinic if he were to comply with the 200-foot setbacks; he is plan~ing to build the clinic on a three-acre site. He said he has consulted wi~h an architect who specializes in veterinary clinics and who has told him that the level of noise will not exceed 40 decibels at the property line even ~f the clinic is only 56 feet July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) away from that property line. Mr. Gruss said there will be no outside runs for the animals; everything will be enclosed. He said the clinic will be designed to fit in with a residential area, rather than a business area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Gruss would object to the addition of a condition stating that the clinic must resemble the one shown in the plans presented to the Board. Mr. Gruss said "no". Mr. Bowie asked if animals would be boarded at the clinic. Mr. Gruss said "no" and added that only sick animals, or animals recovering from an operation, will be kept overnight at the clinic. Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Gruss would object to a condition stating that no animals will be boarded at the clinic. Mr. Gruss said "no". There being no other members of the public present to speak to this application, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Keeler how staff arrived at the establishment of 200-foot setbacks. Mr. Keeler said this requirement was based largely on staff's experience with residents complaining about the noise from boarding kennels. In his opinion, Mr. Keeler continu~ed,-staff has been overly cautious in applying these setbacks to veterinary clihics as well as boarding kennels, because clinics have aroused few complaints.i! Mr. Bain pointed out that the applicant can also take advantage of new soundproofing technology, which may not have been available to the builders of older clinics and kennels. He suggested that staff consider amending some pf these setback requirements under certain circumstances. Mr. Keeler agreed that it may be appropriate to have separate setback requirements for board{ng kennels and veterinary Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and s~conded by Mr. Bowie to approve the petition subject to the conditions as .set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded?~vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. ~indstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. Noise measured at the nearesn lot line shall not exceed forty decibels; Submittal of a certified engineer'si report to insure that sound shall not exceed forty decibels at ~he nearest lot line; 3. Staff approval of site plan; 4. Staff approval of subdivision plat; 5. No animals shall be boarded except hospitalized animals; Structure to be built in accordance!with the rendering shown at the July 5, 1989, meeting of the Bq~rd of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: 1985-1990 Year of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for July through December. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 1989.)11 Mr. Agnor presented the proposed CIP for!July through December of 1989-1990, which includes 27 projects totali~ $11,971,583. Mr. Agnor said the cost of one project, the Southside Schoolli! has decreased from $4,753,800 to $4,134,000, which decreased the total costi~iof the CIP from $12,591,383 to $11,971,583. This reduction decreases the amount the County must borrow under the school bond issue, from $10,981,383 to $10,361,583. Mr. Agnor then offered to answer any questions from the publi~c concerning individual projects. " Mrs. Cooke opened the public hearing. July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 15 Mr. Tom Pelton of the Daily Progress asked about the computer upgrading project, estimated at $106,500. Mr. Agnor said this project is a five-year program which will update the hardware and software in the County's data processing center. Since no one else from the public wished to comment upon the CIP, Mrs. Cooke closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the Capital Improvements Program for July through December, 1989, as presented to the Board with amendments. Mr. Lindstrom said he had a problem with the cost of the computer up- grade. He said Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie studied the project and convinced him that the County will recover the cost of upgrading the computer. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. ~indstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Capital Improvements Program July - December 1989 Board of Supervisors Proposal PROJECTS II. Administration Courts 1) Circuit Court Clerks Microfiim Reader Education i 2) Crozet School (Project Total iS4,561,995) 3) Hollymead Roof 4) Murray School Asbestos Removal 5) Red Hill School Roof Repairs~.i 6) Rose Hill School Roof Repairs 7) Southside School 8) Stony Point Asbestos 9) Stony Point Improvements 10) Yancey Asbestos 11) Yancey Improvements 12) Underground Tanks Schools 13) Repairing - Meriwether Lewis 29,908 3,689,995 176,000 99,000 30,000 7 300 4,134 000 54 000 1,260 900 95 000 734 300 75 500 12,000 III. Fire, Rescue and Safety 14) Scottsville Rescue Ambulance 36,000 IV. Highways and Transportation 15) Revenue Sharing Road Projects 16) Sidewalk - Rio Road 17) Meadow Creek Parkway - Engineering 250,000 55,000 116,000 Libraries 18) Gordon Avenue Library Drainage Improvement 6,250 VI. Miscellaneous 19) Computer Upgrading 106,500 VII. Parks and Recreation 20) Southside School Gymnasium 21) Stone Robinson Playground 22) Southside Regional Park 134,000 20,000 691,000 VIII. Utilities I~rovements 23) King George Circle Storm Sewer 24) Four Seasons Drive Storm Sewer 25) Berkeley Storm Sewer - Phase II 26) Woodbrook Channel Improvements 27) Southside Transfer Station 2,700 4,100 7,630 4,500 140~000 TOTAL - JULY - DEGI~IB~R 1989 ........ $11,971,583 July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) RESOURCES: 1. General Fund Appropriation $ 1,000,000 2. Rescue Squad Repayments 20,000 3. Fire Department Repayments 40,000 4. Sale of McIntire School 55,000 5. Carry Over Balance - General Fund 370,000 6. Interest Earnings 125,000 7. School Bond Issue Proceeds 10,361~583 TOTAL .............. $11,971,583 153 Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to appropri- ate $11,971,583 for the Capital Improvements Program projects from revenues as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Perkins. FISCAL YEAR: 1989/90 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding of First Half of 89/90 Capital Improvement Projects Expenditure Cost Center/Category 1900012200800700 1900021010800730 1900032030800500 1900041000950036 1900041000950038 1900041000950039 1900041000950043 1900041000950044 1900041000950045 1900060100950042 1900060203800650 1900060203950041 1900060203999999 1900060205800902 1900060206800901 1900060207800902 1900060208800902 1900060211312400 1900060211312350 1900060211580000 1900060211800200 1900060211800650 1900060211999999 1900060211800903 1900060213312400 1900060213312350 1900060213580000 1900060213800200 1900060213800650 1900060213999999 1900060213800903 1900060214312350 1900060214360000 1900060214580000 Description · Amount Information Ser-Computer Upgrade Circuit Court-Microfilm Reader 29 Scottsville Rescue ~bulance 36 Southside Transfer Sitation 140 Rio Road Sidewalk ~ 55 Meadow Creek Parkway-Engineering 116 $106,500.00 ,908.00 ,000.00 ,000.00 ,000.00 ,000.00 1900060214800200 1900060214800650 1900060214800750 Highways-631/659 Intersection 65,000.00 Highways-631/Two Bridges 75,000.00 Highways-631/Pen Park Intersctn 110,000.00 Schools-Underground!~anks 75,500.00 Crozet Elementary-Construction 3,439,995.00 Crozet Elementary-RoUte 810 200,000.00 Crozet Elementar~-C0htingency 50,000.00 Hollymead Elementar~Roof 176, Meriwether Lewis-Elementary Repairs 12, Red Hill Elementary~Roof Repairs 30, Rose Hill Elementar~Roof Repairs 7, Stony Stony 000.00 000.00 000.00 300.00 Point Elementary-Engineering 3,911.20 Point Elementaty-Planning 32,415.64 Stony Point Elementary-Miscellaneous 4,794.30 Stony Point-Furniture & Fixtures 70,000.00 Stony Point Element~ r-Construction 1,065,678.86 Stony Point Elementa~-Contingency Stony Point-Asbestos Removal Yancey Elementary-Eh ineering Yancey Elementary-Planning Yancey Elementary-Mi cellaneous Yancey-Furniture & F xtures Yancey Elementary-Co ~struction Yancey Elementary-Contingency Yancey-Asbestos RemoVal Cale Elementary-Plan~ing E Cale lementary-Adve~tising Cale Elementary-Miscellaneous Cale Elem-Furniture & Fixture Cale Elementary-Construction Cale Elementary-Landi? 84,100.00 54,000.00 3,784.45 23,955.21 4,100.00 60,000.00 592,460.34 50,000.00 95,000.00 103,000.00 493.02 40,000.00 200,000.00 3,839.249.66 35,257.32 July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 154 1900060214999999 1900060303800903 1900071000950013 1900071001999999 1900073020950036 1910041043800975 1910041040800975 1910041047800975 1910041049800975 Cale Elementary-Contingency Murray School-Asbestos Removal Stone Robinson Playground Southside Park-Contingency Library-Gordon Avenue, Drainage Four Seasons Channel Berkeley Storm Sewe~-Phase II King George Circle Storm Sewer Woodbrook Channel ImP. Total 50,000.00 99,000.00 20,000.00 691,000.00 6,250.00 4,100.00 7,630.00 2,700.00 4,500.00 $11,971,583.00 1100093010930004 1100093010930202 Trans-CIP from Gen'l Fund Bal Trans-Storm Drainag~ from Gen'l Fund Bal Total $ 351,070.00 18,930.00 $ 370,000.00 Revenue 2900051000512004 2900019000190305 2900019000190304 1900015000150210 1900051000510110 1900015000150101 1900041000410300 1910051000510110 2100051000510101 2100051000510103 Agenda Item No. 9. Mary L. Mikkelsen. Description Amount General Fund Appropriation Rescue Squad Repayments Fire Department Repayments Sale of Real Estate. Carry Over Balance from Gen'l Fund Interest Earnings VPSA Bond Issue Carry Over Balance from Gen'l Fund ITotal Approp from Fund BaI for CIP Approp from Fund Balance for Storm Dralnag~ $ 1,000,000.00 20,000.00 40,000.00 55,000.00 351,070.00 125,000.00 10,361,583.00 18,930.00 $11,971,583.00 $ 351,070.00 18,930.00 $ 370,000.00 Request to revoke p~rmit SP-88-45. Henry Pope and Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, said Mr. Pope and Ms. Mikkelsen received a Class A Home Occupationi?ermit for their pottery and kiln operation from a prior Zoning Administrator, who issued this permit on the basis of his determination that the kiln was a tool rather than an accessory structure. In May, 1988, this determinationi~as overruled by Mr. Charles Burgess, who was then the Zoning AdministratOr. and Mr. Pope and Ms. Mikkelsen applied for a Class B Home Occupation Permit,lil. which was approved by the Board on August 17, 1988. She said the Board appr0~ed this request with eight conditions, three of which required action on'the part of the applicant. Ms. Patterson said the applicant has complied with parts of two of the conditions: the applicant has relocated the propane tank ~to meet required setbacks and submitted a statement of compliance from the State Air Control Board. Ms. Patterson said the applicant has not moved th~ kiln to comply with visual standards and setback requirements. The kiln~is still located between 25 and 40 feet from Route 601. Ms. Patterson said c6nditions #2 and #3 required that the kiln be moved and that it be housed in a ~tructure that is compatible with surrounding structures. She said the kiln re~ains unchanged, a loose, mortar structure covered with plastic. She said condition #6, which required a statement of compliance from the Air Control ~oard, also required an engineer- ing report to prove conformance with section ~.14, Performance Standards. The applicants have not yet met this part of the ~ondition. She said Mr. Burgess wrote to the applicants on March 9, 1989, urging that they comply with the conditions of the special use permit within 3~ days. She said the applicants then moved the propane tank, but did not comply with the other conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said he has received several phone calls from an adjoining property owner who is concerned about the kiln. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a public hearing for this request for Septemb~ Mr. Bowie said he is willing to hold a p~ applicant the chance to talk. He said the Co~ which has been in existence for 11 years. Fo~ .r 6, 1989. .blic hearing just to give the nty authorized this business, 11 years, he said, the July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 15 applicant has complied with the County's regulations. He does not think it is fair to threaten the applicants with revocation of the special use permit and the loss of their business just because the County has changed its interpreta- tion of the regulations. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that no one will comply with the conditions of special use permits, if they are not enforced in this case. Mr. St. John said he has some serious questions concerning the history of this case. But, he said, the applicants applied for a special use permit and agreed to run their business according to its conditions instead of taking the County to court. Under these circumstances, Mr. St. John concluded, the Board must deal with what amounts to a violation of those conditions. There was no further discussion. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments. The consensus of the Board was that appl~ications for membership to various boards and commissions would be divi~ed among Board members next week for consideration before appointments are ma~e. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minute~: July 20, September 7, October 12, October 19(A), October 19(N), October 31ii/i November 9, November 16(N), November 17(A), November 29, December 14 andi!December 21 1988; and January 4, 1989. ~:'~ ' Mr. Bain had read the minutes for July Z0, 1988, Pages 10 - End; October 19(N), 1988, Pages 10 - End; and November 16(~), 1988, Pages 1 - 12 and found them to be in order with minor typographical ~orrections. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for October 12, 1988, Pages 25 -~End and made a minute book correction on Page 27, paragraph 5, adding th~ word "not" before "appropriat- ed'' on the sixth line. On Page 31, the secoqd paragraph should have the word "exists" added after the work "link" in line lone. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for September 7, 1988, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for October 19, Pages 1 - 10 and made a minute book correction adding the word "spend, after "tourists" in the seventh line of the third paragraph on Page 2. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for December 14, 1988, Pages 13 - End and found ~hem to be in order. He had read the minutes for January 4, 1989, Pages 8 181~and made a minute book correc- tion on Page 12, paragraph five, changing the~iword "understood" to "misunder- stood''. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and secon,~ed by Mr. Lindstrom 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, Mr. L'indstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not L~sted on the Agenda from the Board and Public. I Mr. Bowie said the Audit Committee wouldlbe meeting with the auditors in a pre-audit interview the last week of July. He would be glad to relay any input other Board members may have. July 5, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 15 Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the lapel microphones for Room #7. Mr. Agnor said he was trying to find a mute button so Board members could speak without being heard if they so desired. He said he would give the Board an update next Wednesday. Mr. Bowie acknowledged a thank you letter from Rev. and Mrs. Hart as an exception to the letters the Board usually receives. Mr. Perkins had distributed a listing of the number of administrators in the School Division published from the Virginia State Department of Education. He said Albemarle County has 43 administrators, and two others which were not on the list. Augusta County has 33 administrators, and Rockingham County has 26. Mr. Perkins said those are counties with comparable student enrollment figures. He wondered if the priority of our school system is to educate children or to build a hierarchy. He said hR considers anyone who is a central office employee not assigned to a particular scb~D.l as an administra- tor. Mr. Bain said when he was on the School Board an~e{ore he was on the School Board, some of the people on this lis~ were nev%C~ considered as admin- istrators. He asked Mr. Perkins if the enrollment figures for Augusta and Rockingham Counties were available. Mr. Bai~ said he had requested staff to provide those figures for all grade levels f~om both counties for comparison m ~!~ purposes when the Board had discussed this ~tter before. Mr. Agnor said staff would make those figures available. ~ Mr. Agnor said in past years the Board ~as taken off the last meeting in August for a summer break, and some Board me~bers have asked him if that could be done this year. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and sec6'nded by Mr. Lindstrom to cancel the regular Board meeting scheduled for AuguSt 16, i989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded~!vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. ~indstrom and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 9:10 ~.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.