Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-19July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 182 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 19, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie (arrived at 7:55 P.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:34 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting 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 accept the Consent Agenda items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Item 4.1. Copies of Planning Commission Minutes for July 6 and July 11, 1989, were received as information. Item 4.2. Police Department's Quarterly and Semi-Annual Crime Statis- tics, received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-89-42. Marion R. Buswell. For a home occupation Class B permit, zoned %fR. Property on the west side of Route 678, approxi- mately three-tenths mile north of the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 678 (Owensville Road). Tax Map 58, parcel 84G. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 4 and July 11, 1989). Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant has requested an indefinite refer- ral. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and..seconded by Mr. Bain to defer SP-89-42 to October 4, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrdm, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 6. Appeal: Alderman Road Water Improvements Preliminary Site Plan. The Albemarle County Service Authority proposes to locate a 500,000 gallon water storage tank on a proposed 1.49 acre parcel. The pro- posed development is to have access over a private road to the University Heights Apartment Complex. Property located at the end of Colonnade Drive, zoned R-15. Tax Map 60, parcel 40C8 (part) and 40C6 (part). Jack Jouett District. July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 183 Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: Staff Comment: The Planning Commission at its meeting of March 21, 1989, reviewed this proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal requires a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow for construction on slopes of 25 percent or greater. The Service Authority has submitted a waiver request that states their construction standards, and public interest served by granting a waiver. The Engineering Department has commented on the Service Authority's waiver request. The Planning Staff believes that this request will be consistent with sound engineering and design practices. Staff believes that the public interest served, an increase in fire protection and water supply, is sufficient justification for a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordi- nance. The Service Authority has contacted adjacent property owners and has revised the plan to minimize the impact on these properties. Staff finds the plan in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and recommends a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan subject to the following conditions. Conditions of Approval: The final site plan will meet the condi- tions of the Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions: 1) The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a) b) c) d) e) Department of Engineering approval of a grading and drainage plans and calculations; Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control permit; Planning Department approval of landscape plan; Approval of staff of subdivision plat creating the proposed 1.49 acre tract. Staff approval of landscape easements and drainage easements. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 21, 1989, unanimously approved the preliminary site plan subject to the conditions recommend by the staff. Mr. Lindstrom said he has visited the s~te and the right-of-way for the proposed waterline lies along an existing dr{veway. He asked if any addi- tional width would be required and said he u~derstood that the Planning Commission discussed limiting the width of the required easement to 20 feet, so no more clearing of the property would be necessary. Mr. Cilimberg said the access to the water tank does not lie al0hg the driveway and added that one of the property owners could address this during the public hearing. The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Bdward R. Slaughter, Jr. repre- senting the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Rutledg~' Vining, came forward to speak. He said his clients own property which encompasses .45 acres of the site which is proposed to be taken for the water tank. ~{e said Mr. ¥ining wished to make a brief statement. Mr. ¥ining addressed the Board and said he has owned and lived on this property for 40 years. He said the Board shohld soon receive a letter from Ms. Julia Campbell. While he agrees wholeheartedly with Ms. Campbell's opinion in this matter, he wished to emphasiz9 that the two landowners were acting independently of each other. Mr. Vining said the plan before the BoarR is not strictly what was voted upon by the Planning Commission. He said he had complained of having a full 25-foot easement run down two sides of his narrow lot and he had asked if at least five feet of these easements could be p~aced on the adjoining lot. Mr. July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) ~ ]_8Zi (Page 3) ¥ining said the extra five feet would take several hundred white pine trees and hemlocks. He said he thinks it is unreasonable for his property to bear the full 25-foot easement when his neighbor's property has nothing but scrub on it for about 500 feet from the property line. Mr. Vining said that Mr. Brent had claimed that he would withdraw the'25-foot easement planned along the private road and ask for a 20-foot easement instead, but the new plat still shows a 25-foot easement along that side of his property. The only difference is that five feet of this easement is now called a construction easement, which would still take his trees, i Mr. Vining said Mr. Brent made the following statement at the Planning Commission: "the location of the tank and pipeline is fixed" and that "engi- neering studies have determined this to be the only acceptable site for the tank based on soil conditions, steep slopes and relation of the distribution system". That is a false statement, Mr. Vin~ng said, unless "acceptable" means "acceptable to Mr. Heischman". Mr. Vining said it is clear from the staff's letters and memoranda concerning this water tank that Mr. Heischman has controlled the selection of the site forilthe~ tank, beginning with his application for a building permit. Mr. Vining said a site was selected, then a potential buyer showed some interest in Mri Heischman's property, a buyer who did not want to buy the property if a wa{er tank were built on it. Then, Mr. Vining continued, a flurry of letters an~ memoranda testify to Mr. Heischman's intention of moving the state and he offered to buy the land for the water tank and staff would apply the condemnation procedures to take the property. Mr. ¥ining said this second site ~as a good way from his boundary, yet somehow the water tank is now to go on h~s property. So, Mr. Vining said, it is not true that this is the only acceptable site for the water tank, because the engineers found another location ibefore they settled upon this one. i Mr. ¥ining said that Mr. Keith RittenhoBse, a member of the Planning Commission, raised the question of whether t~e small landowner was being treated fairly. Mr. ¥ining said he and his ~ife believe that the law is being applied in an outrageously uneven way in thi~ case. He said that, unlike Mr. Heischman, he has not been a part of the planning and negotiating that eventu- ally decided the location of the water tank. ~ (Mr. Bowie arrived at 7:55 P.M.) Mr. Vining said he has been told that h~s property is very valuable, because it is close to the University of Virginia and zoned for apartments. Yet the amount he has been promised by the st~ff for compensation, he contin- ued, does not seem to acknowledge that this t~nk would damage his property in any way. He said this water tank would take ~lhe heart of his property, a half-acre of a two and one-half acre lot, and! would make his driveway useless to him. Mr. Vining said he thinks the water tank should be placed on the site orginally selected. I Mr. Slaughter spoke again and said his c~ient is appealing the approval of a site plan, not the condemnation of his property. He said the water tank was originally to be placed on the Route 250 ~ide of Lewis Mountain, above the University Village, near the center of the prpperty Mr. Heischman later contracted to sell. As it became clear that ~otential sites for apartment units would be taken up by the water tank, Mrl Slaughter continued, the location of the tank moved around the mountai{. While this would be a matter between Mr. Vining, Mr. Heischman and the Alb~arle County Service Authority (ACSA), the water tank now lies in the line o~ sight between the mansion owned by Mrs. Campbell and the Rotunda of the University of Virginia. He said the tank could have been better screened in the o~iginal location and would not be so apparent to tourists. Mr. Slaughter then read from the minutesland~records of the ACSA. From a memorandum dated June 3, 1988, written in conjunction with a request for contract for counsel, Mr. Slaughter read: "WRen S. W. Heischman announced plans to build a retirement complex on Old Iv~~ Road, discussions were held between Heischman and the ACSA about providing water service to this project. In order to satisfy fire code requirements, H~ischman would have to build a pumping station at the bottom of his elevated~site to pump water to a storage reservoir on the site. ASCA and Heischman agreed that a storage reservoir could be built elsewhere in the Alderman Road Pressure Zone (ARPZ) and benefit July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 185 the entire zone rather than just this project. Heischman offered to contrib- ute an amount equal to what he would have to spend for on-site facilities to the construction of an off-site reservoir ... ACSA engaged Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern to do preliminary location work for the storage reservoir. A suitable site was found on an undeveloped portion of University Heights which belongs to Heischman but is under auction to a Mr. Bart Frye. Mr. Frye is opposed to a reservoir being constructed there, although he cannot build on the property without improved water service, which the reservoir would pro- vide. If Mr. Frye exercises this option, the purchase price will be deter- mined by the number of apartment units which can be constructed on the site. It appears that ACSA will have to condemn this site ... Heischman is ready to proceed with development of his retirement community and must finalize plans for water service before he can obtain site plan approval and begin work. In a recent discussion, we agreed to the following: 1. Further investigation should be undertaken to see if a more suitable tank site can be found to reduce the total project cost; 2. Additional funds should be sought from the City to more fairly apportion cost to benefits; and 3. An agreement should be prepared in an attempt to divide equally between Heischman and ACSA the portion of the total project cost which will not be borne by the City, using recent cost estimates by Wine Associates [which are advisors to Mr. Heischman]. The following scenario comes close to accomplishing this: Heischman will construct and pay for the water transmission line between Alderman Road and the reservoir. He will also install and pay for the trans- mission line between the reservoir and Colonnade Drive. Heischman will perform and pay for the pipe work for the reservoir, including all necessary foundation work. The cost of the land for the reservoir will be borne by Heischman. ACSA will condemn, if necessary ..'.. Time is now critical, since the County will not allow Heischman's development to proceed until a contract is made with ACSA." Shortly after this memorandum was written, Mr. Slaughter said, the ACSA and Mr. Heishman entered into an agreement embodying the language of the memorandum and then they set off to find a less expensive site for the water tank. Throughout this entire procedure Mr. ~' ' , iiVlnlng and his wife were never consulted. Mr. Slaughter said he does not think this was done in an attempt to conceal anything; instead, no one really Chought that the Vinings were involved, nor did anyone realize that the road belonged to the Vinings and not Mrs. Campbell. Moreover, the water tank was originally to be far away from the Vining's property. : Mr. Slaughter said the matter began to ~ interesting in October, 1987, with a letter from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern to Mr. Tom Wyant, Mr. Heischman's representative. Mr. Slaughter re~d from the letter as follows: "We understand that the property owner feels ~hat the tank site as shown may adversely affect plans for development of the remainder of the parcel. In order that we can explore alternatives to thei?present design, it would be very helpful to have the conceptual drawing of thei'proposed development." In August, 1988, the Vinings received a letter asking their permission for surveyors to come on their property. Nothing iwas mentioned about locating the water tank on their property. In December, 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Vining were finally shown the site that had been selected ~'and learned that it would be on their property line. Mr. Slaughter said the record shows that a suitable site was found between Route 250 and the Campbell mansion. I{e said that any difference between the cost of the first and the present~iSites would have to be offset by the cost of buying the property from the Vinings. But, he said, the Vinings are not interested in selling their property and would prefer to live out their days there. Mr. Slaughter said the community would be far better served if the tank were placed in the first locationil out of the line of sight of the University and onto the property of one of the people who will benefit the most from the water tank. :~' Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of th9 Albemarle County Service Authority, addressed the Board. For decades, i!ihe said, the area west of the City has been served by water lines of differ~nt~ sizes and types, in different locations. Due to differences in elevation, ~ertain areas cannot be served by the storage tanks located in the urban area. ilIn 1983, the ACSA developed its first capital improvements program. At that ~ime, the consultant-engineer recommended that a two million gallon water s~orage tank be built on the July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 186 western side of Lewis Mountain and that water be pumped from Barracks Road to the mountain. Eventually, ASCA officials realized that this plan was not feasible, because the only water available to the Lewis Mountain area would be the water supplied by the pumps, which would stop if the electric power were cut off. He said there are no water storage tanks in the Alderman Road Pressure Zone. Mr. Brent said the ACSA continued to look for opportunities to provide adequate water service to this area and when Mr. Heischman appeared with his proposal for University Village, it included a pumping station and storage tank that would serve only the University Village development. The ACSA initiated discussions with Mr. Heischman to see if he would be interested in spending the money he would have to spend on=site for a facility that could serve the whole region. Mr. Brent said the ACSA also negotiated with the City, which agreed to fund part of this project. He said ACSA then entered into an agreement with Mr. Heischman, in which Mr. Heischman agreed to give land if his land was needed for the erection of the tank, and to split with ACSA the difference between the cost of the project and the City's contribu- tion. Mr. Brent said three engineering studies were undertaken to determine where the water tank should be placed. The conclusion of all three studies was that the water tank should be located approximately in the area in which it was ultimately sited. Mr. Brent said that preference was given to Mr. Heischman's property because he had offered to donate that property. However, the engineers concluded that, to optimize the hydraulics and minimize the size of the tank, the tank would be best situated on the property under discussion. He said the engineers have considered numerous sites, and they decided that the site before the Board is the most cost-effective site and ideal from the standpoint of an engineer. Surveyors were sent to the Vining's property and were not allowed on the property until the County Attorney issued a statement saying that the ACSA had the same authority Sn these circumstances as does VDoT. Mr. Brent said that ACSA originally proposed a 25-foot easement for the water line. Since there is a row of evergreens within this easement, he said, he agreed to narrow the easement to 20 feet and prohibit any activity that would damage the trees. He offered to answe~i questions. Mr. Bain asked if the elevation of the ~ank had to be the same, no matter where around the mountain it was located. M~. Brent said "yes", that the tank had to be at elevation 750, and that this site was the most advantageous site along this ring of elevation. Mr. Bain asked what other criteria, besides cost, determined the suit- ability of this site for the tank. Mr. Brent said the site was also suitable because of the hydraulics of the pipe line, the minimal amount of excavation that would be required, and the size of the tank that could be built in this area. Mr. Brent said the ACSA is primarily concerned about the hydraulics between the pumping station and the tank, and the tank into the rest of the system, particularly the higher elevations. Mr. Vining said he did not refuse to allow the surveyors on his property. Instead, he refused to allow a bulldozer on his property, which would have gone up a steep slope and ruined his land. H& said he objects to the County's granting Mr. Heischman condemnation powers to~buy land on which to erect his tank. Mr. Vining said this is a misuse of eminent domain. Since no one else wished to speak to this appeal, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said there are two major issues associated with this appeal: site plan issues, such as the visibility of the site from the Univer- sity; and whether eminent domain has been exeCcised properly in this case. He asked Mr. St. John if the Board were in a position to deal with both of these issues. Mr. St. John said this is a unique site plan circumstance in that the ACSA does not own the land yet, nor has the ACSA filed a certificate to initiate condemnation proceedings. He said hd has held the opinion before July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 187 that the ACSA, the County and the School Board as governmental agencies have the standing to apply for this kind of review. Mr. St. John said he does not think that considering whether the water tank should be on this property is outside the scope of this kind of site plan review. Even though this site plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. St. John said, he does not think this compliance forecloses the Board's review. Mr. Lindstrom said he has visited the site and studied the report by Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern. He believes that the tank will not be visible from lower on the slope in the summertime when the leaves are on the trees. However, he said, most people look at this mountain from the grounds of the University and he thinks it is likely that the tanks would be visible from this perspective. Wherever this tank is located, he thinks the Board should use its authority to convince ACSA to make the tanks as invisible as possible. He said the aesthetic impact is part of the reason for not con- structing on 25 percent slopes, a requirement the Board is being asked to waive. If the Board is to waive this condition, he said, it may be legitimate to waive it on the condition that there be some particular kind of construc- tion undertaken to reduce the intrusion of the tank upon the landscape. As for the issue of eminent domain, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks there is some indication that the reason for moving the tank was to avoid interfer- ing with construction plans on Mr. Heischman'is property or that of his con- tract purchaser. He does not think ACSA mad~ the decision necessarily to favor Mr. Heischman over Mr. Vining, but to find the most economical site. Nevertheless, he said, since Mr. Heischman would reap the most benefit from the water tank, it may not be fair to use any of Mr. Vining's property for the water tank. If the Board has the authority to address this issue, Mr. Lindstrom said, he would not be comfortable approving the site even if the tank can be built to blend into the mountainside, without having a better understanding of how this site was chosen, rather than one a hundred yards away. · Mr. Bain said that Mr. Heischman could build a facility on the University Village property that would benefit this property alone and do nothing for the rest of the urban area. He said he is also qoncerned about the cost of locating the tank somewhere else on the mountain and whether moving the tank might make it less effective. Mr. Lindstrom said he has seen a plat of!i'~Mr. Vining's property and the planned water tank infringes only marginally iupon the property. Because the property is so narrow, the tank will prove tol-ihave a major impact in the future, however. He said it does not seem that it would be difficult to move the tank the marginal distance necessary to remove it completely from Mr. Vining's property. He is not sure he understands why the tank was located here instead of 100 yards or so up the mountaSn. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a concrete tank wO'uld be less visually intrusive. Mr. Brent said he could not say which is prettier, a concrete or a steel tank. Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Vining claims that ACSA offered them a price for the property upon which the tank would be located, with the words "take it or leave it". He asked if this claim is correct~ or if ACSA attempted to negoti- ate a fair price for the property. Mr. Brent~said the property was appraised. The Vinings considered this appraisal to be too low, so they had the property appraised themselves. Mr. Brent said ACSA does not consider this second appraisal acceptable. He said the first appraisal yielded a value of $57,000; the second appraisal, $185,000. He said this difference presents quite a gap for negotiation. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the ACSA investigated the site with the visibility of the tank in mind, rather than just the cos~ of the site. Mr. Cilimberg said staff considered the potential for screen:lng and this site presented the best potential. He said the review to determine whether the site complied with the Comprehensive Plan was based on this ~ite plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks a concrete tank set back into the mountain would be less visible than a steel tank standiDg on the surface of the moun- tain. He said it would also be easier to screen a tank set into the mountain. July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 188 Mr. Bain said he thinks that tucking the tank into the mountain as Mr. Lindstrom suggests would denude even more of the landscape. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like staff to study the impact of setting the tank in the mountain versus putting it on the surface of the mountain. Mr. Bowie said he is more concerned about the condemnation proceedings than the design of the tank. He said that delaying action may give the Vinings and the ACSA more time to negotiate a price for the property. He said Mr. Slaughter has read into the record that the site for the tank was moved because the property is of more value to the present owner without the water tank. Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Brent has stated that the site was chosen because it was less expensive than the other location. He said he would like this clarified by the staff and he will support a deferral for this reason. (Mr. St. John left at 8:34 P.M. and returned at 8:38 P.M.). Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this appeal to August 2, 1989, to allow the ~lanning staff time to compare the three possible sites from the standpoint of aesthetics, cost to construct, availability, engineering, and visual impact ifrom the University of Virginia area; and to allow the County Attorney to re~iew the file regarding the question of eminent domain powers by a private property owner and the process leading to condemnation procedures. Mr. St. John said that he and the Deputy County Attorney represent both the Board and the ACSA. He asked if this presented a problem for the Board. Members of the Board expressed no reservations on this subject. Mr. Brent said the ACSA received bids on this project on June 22, 1989. By August 4, 1989, the ACSA will have to reject these bids or award the contract. If the work is not underway soon, Mr. Brent said, he thinks the project will lose the support of the private Sector and if built, will have to be funded entirely by the public. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion based on the site review itself. He said he does not share the concern expressed by other members of the Board over the condemnation process. 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. 7. SP-89-46. James & Muriel Foley. For a day care facility on 2.133 acres, zoned RA. Property on the south side of Wisteria Drive in the North Pines Subdivision, off Route 606. Tax Map 20, parcel 205. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily PRogress on July 4 and July 11, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as f~llows: "Character of the Area: North Pines subdivision consists of 124 lots with an average lot size of 2.89 ac{es. This property is occupied by a four bedroom dwelling on a ~ooded site. Adjoining properties are adequately screened from ~he site by deciduous trees. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes tQ! operate a day care facil- ity for a maximum of nine children. Hou~B of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday thrd~gh Friday. No employees would be involved. The site is served b~ public water. The dwelling is accessed by a paved driveway which has adequate area fOr turnaround and temporary parking. ~S applicant stated that the children are dropped off and picked up atll staggered intervals to alleviate the possibility of congestion, i Virginia Department of Transportation hasil commented that Wisteria Drive is a private road and the request c~uld result in some July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 189 increase in traffic but not of a significant amount to be detri- mental to the area. This use would generate an additional 36 vehicle trips per day and the homeowners maintenance agreement should be revised accordingly. No letters of objection were received. Staff's opinion is that the proposed day care operation would not adversely affect adjoining properties or the residential character of the neighborhood, based on lack of objection from property owners in the area. Staff recommends approval of this proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Enrollment is limited to nine children; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Virginia Department of Health review and approval of septic system for additional demand; ~ 4. Staff approval of revised roadlmaintenance agreement." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 6, 1989, had unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions recom- mended by the Planning staff. Mr. Bowie asked how many of the 124 proPerty owners in the North Pines subdivision were notified of the request. Mr. Cilimberg said that only the seven adjoining property owners were notified. Mr. Bain asked if approving this request could lead to many more requests for daycare centers in this area. Mr. Cilimberg said this daycare center could be considered a service for the North ~%nes subdivision; if a limited need existed in this subdivision for such a Service, then the staff could limit the number of day care centers operating in the area. The public hearing was opened, and the a~plicant came forward to speak. Mrs. Foley said she has been caring for children in her home for three years. Sometimes these children are from the neighb0khood, sometimes they are not. She said she would like to have the day care aenter open until 10:00 P.M. to accommodate a client with children who teache~ piano lessons in the evening. She said most of the residents in the subdivii~ion know of her business and she foresees no objections. She said she has spoken with the chairman of the road maintenance committee and was told that the c~mmittee had received no objec- tions to the day care center. Since no one else present wished to spea~~ to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matt~r before the Board. Mr. Bowie said he supports the appllcatl0n. He questioned the need for the fourth condition recommended by the Plann{ng Commission, because he thinks if the increased traffic on the private road is acceptable to the subdivi- sion's road maintenance committee, then the C6unty should not ask that the road maintenance agreement be revised. Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about a!lowing the day care center to be open until 10:00 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom suggested~ that the applicant be allowed to have only five children at the day care center after 6:00 P.M. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Mr. Bowie suggested that the fourth condition be revised to state: "Staff approval of revised road maintenance a~reement or notification from the ! subdivision s road maintenance committee that isuch revision is not required". Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP-89-46 with the conditions set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrsi.. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 190 Enrollment is limited to nine children; Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; Virginia Department of Health review and approval of septic system for additional demand; Staff approval of revised road maintenance agreement or notifica- tion from the subdivision's road maintenance committee that such review is not required; and, No more than five children after 6:00 P.M. (The Board recessed at 9:23 P.M. and reconvened at 9:33 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-47. David & Joseph Wood (James Garth). For an auto rentals and sales on .828 acres, zoned C-1. Property on the west side of Rt. 29 North at its intersection with Dominion Drive (Rt. 851). Tax Map 61M, parcel 12-1H. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 4 and July 11, 1989.) The applicant was not present. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to defer SP-89-47 to August 2, 1989. 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. Agenda Item No. 9. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4, "Agricultural and Forestal District" of the Albemarle County Code by the addition of a new subsection (q) entitled "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District." The proposed district contains approx. 2363.775 acres and is located in the vicinity of Doylesville and Sugar Hollow on State Routes 614, 672, 673, 674 and 810. White Hall District. On May 23, 1989, the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of the district as submitted. (Advertised in t%e Daily Progress on June 27, July 4, and July 11, 1989.) Mr. Way said there were additional property owners who wished to have their land included in this Agricultural/Forestal District, according to Ms. Sherry Buttrick. Mr. Way called for public comment. Since no one wished to speak concerning this agricultural/forestal district, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer action to September 6, 1989. 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. 10. Public Hearing: To consider a request from the Nelson County Board of Supervisors to renumber Route 6 from Avon to Route 250 as Route 151, and to renumber Route 151 from Avon to Route 250 as Route 6. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 4 and July 11, 1989.) Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has no problem with the proposed switch in the numbering of Route 6 and Route 151 between Avon in Nelson County and Route 250. He noted that the section of Route 6 in, Albemarle County is both a Virginia Byway and a County Scenic Highway. He said staff recommends that the same designation run with the renumbering to Route 151, which would require an amendment to Section 30.5.2.2, SA-Highways, of the Zoning Ordinance, referenc- ing State Route 151. July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 191 Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT supports the request of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors. ~ The public hearing was opened, and no one from the public was present to speak. Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. i Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and!iseconded by Mr. Bowie to renumber Route 6 from Avon to Route 250 as Route 151;~and to renumber Route 151 from Avon to Route 250 as Route 6. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ii AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt a resolution of intent to amend Section 30.5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance as set out below. 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. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir- ginia, has granted a request from the Nelson County Board of Supervi- sors to renumber Route 6 from Avon to ROute 250 as Route 151, and to renumber Route 151 from Avon to Route 250 as Route 6; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tha~ the Board of Supervisors does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 30.5.2.2 as follows: c. Virginia Route 6 from the corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville westward through ~everat-d~s¢on~nno~s-port~on~ of Albemarle County. Route 151 in Albemarle County; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning Commission se~d its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 10a. Authorize Chairmah'~to Sign Agreement for the Route 810 Project. Mr. Tucker said that revenue sharing fu~ds and school project funds were to be used to improve Route 810 along the front of the property where the new Crozet Elementary School is to be built. He said that VDoT cannot make these improvements in time for the opening of the school, so it was suggested that the School Board take on the project. In order for this to happen, he said, VDoT has stated that there must be an agreement between the Board of Supervi- sors and VDoT. Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT could not ehter into an agreement with the School Board. He asked that the Chairman sign an agreement to administer the improvement planned on Route 810. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks members of the Board should see the agree- ment before agreeing to authorize the Chairman to sign it. Mr. Roosevelt said he needs an assurance that the County wishes :~o enter in an agreement with VDoT to build the Route 810 project and that 'the Board will administer the project. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to author- ize a request to enter into an agreement withithe Virginia Department of Transportation in which Albemarle County woul~ administer the Route 810 July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 192 Project instead of the School Board; and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement upon the Board's review and approval of same. 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. 11. Request from Ronald T. Castelino concerning the Stormwater Detention Basin in Camelia Gardens. Mr. Ronald Castelino came forward to speak. He said there is a poorly- maintained stormwater detention basin located on his property and that of his neighbor. He said this detention basin has not been maintained since the subdivision of Camelia Gardens was developed. This lack of maintenance has blocked the water pipes, made the basin useless, infested the area with mosquitos and flooded his backyard. He said the maintenance agreement re- quires each homeowner to contribute a share fair to the maintenance of the detention pond. He said he has tried for two years to get his neighbors to help pay for the maintenance, but the majority of the property is owned by the developer, Dr. Lee, who refuses to maintain the detention basin. On August 21, 1987, Mr. Castelino said, he contacted the County Engineer- ing Department and Mr. Tom Trevillian then framed a maintenance plan for the stormwater detention basin. Mr. Castelino said he submitted this plan to Dr. Lee and the rest of the homeowners; the maintenance was to cost each homeowner between three and four dollars a month per lot. Mr. Castelino said that Dr. Lee responded that he was unwilling to abide.by the maintenance plan, because the maintenance was too expensive. Mr. Castelino said he returned to the County Engineer on May 2, 1988, and asked if there were an alternative to maintaining the detention basin. Mr. Castelino said he was told that the homeowners could contribute approximately $14~000 to a regional basin and then have the detention basin in their subdivision'filled in. He said that Dr. Lee refused this plan, too. Mr. Castelino said it has been expensive for him to try and make his neighbors comply with the maintenance agreement. He said he hired an attorney in an attempt to find the most effective way of dealing with this problem and was advised that solving this problem throug~the courts would be very expen- sive. When the County approved this detention basin in 1989, no one stipu- lated who was to maintain the basin if a homeowners' association was not formed. This put the entire burden on the lot owners whose land adjoins the basin. He said that Mr. Richard Moring, the County Engineer, has also encour- aged Dr. Lee to help with the maintenance of the basin, but to no avail. Mr. Castelino asked the Board to help in~ this matter, because the burden of maintaining the detention basin is too great for one or two homeowners. He said the approval of the subdivision required, l that a stormwater detention basin be built that would have been twice the.' size of the basin that was actually built. He said he also believes thak this basin should lie on community, rather than private, property. He! said he is concerned about liability should someone hurt themselves in or around the basin. He said children play in and around the basin, and it~iwould only take one slip of the foot for a child to be injured on the rocks all around the basin. Mr. Castelino said the State Water Control Board requires at least a 15-foot access around a stormwater detention basin. The basin in Camelia Gardens does not meet this requirement. He asked that the i~Board solve this problem by doing away with this detention basin and routing the water to the Birnam Wood basin as suggested by Mr. Trevillian. If thei~Board is not willing to remove this basin, he said, he would ask that the Board insure that the basin is maintained properly. ~i~~ Mr. St. John asked if the detention basi~ were part of Mr. Castelino's lot or adjacent to the boundary of his lot. Mr. castelino said the majority of the basin is on his lot; the rest is on a ~eighbor's lot. Mr. St. John said that is contrary to the policy under which these basins are usually approved. He said the basin should have been~ owned property. on its own lot, on commonly July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 193 Mr. St. John asked if a homeowners' association for Camelia Gardens has ever been formed. Mr. Castelino said "no". Mrs. Cooke said she would like to know why this detention basin was approved if it is only half the size of what was required for this subdivi- sion. She asked that staff find an answer to this question. Mr. Way said that Mr. St. John, Mr. Castelino and the staff should research this together, determine the County's responsibility and see if the Board can do anything about the problem. Mr. St. John read from an agreement that was recorded along with the plat for the Camellia Gardens subdivision: "the declarent [Mr. Lee] declares for himself and for each lot owner and hereby covenants, and each owner of the lot by acceptance of the deed covenants, and agrees to pay a pro rata share of the cost of repair and maintenance of the stormwater detention system . . until such time, if any, when a public authority or agency agrees to assume the responsibility, whenever a majority of the owners of said lots or whenever the County of Albemarle or some other appropriate public authority or agency shall deem such maintenance or repairs are necessary". Under this agreement, Mr. St. John said, the County has enforcement powers. He said the agreement also states what the standards of maintenance will be. Mr. St. John said he thinks the Board can authorize staff to revoke the Occupancy permits of those build- ings still owned by the original developer. He recommended that the Board take this action tonight, with the revocation of the permits to take effect at the end of the term of lease for each rental'unit. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the third party involved: the renters occupying the houses owned by Mr. Lee. Mr. Bain said he thinks the County should have the basin filled, reroute the stormwater to the BirnamWood basin and charge Dr. Lee for the cost. Mr. St. John said he does not think the Board has the power to assess each lot owner for the regional basin, because that is not in the agreement. He said the Board can assess each lot owner for the cost of maintaining the Camelia Garden basin. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that staff work up a list of the options avail- able and then notify Dr. Lee that the Board will consider these options at its meeting on August 2, 1989, to give Dr. Lee a chance to state his case. Mr. Bowie agreed and said he thinks the~iBoard should hear the other side of the argument. Mrs. Cooke said she wants staff to addrJ~s the issue of why the stormwater detention basin was not built to the requirements of the County in the first place. If people do not comply with the County's regulations, she said, she thinks the Board has the right to t~ke whatever action is necessary to make them comply. '~ Mr. Lindstrom said it appears that the d~veloper never complied with the subdivision plat. He asked Mr. St. John to consider the possibility of the Board reviewing the subdivision plat and requiring that the developer connect this subdivision to a regional basin and fill~!in the Camelia Garden basin, at his own expense, because he did not meet the conditions of the subdivision. Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, addressed the Board. He said there is a letter on file from the designer of the 4etention basin, Mr. Greene of Roudabush and Greene, stating that the basin ~ad been reduced during construc- tion, but that he believed the pond will stili big enough to perform its function. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and Seconded by Mr. Bain to defer discussion until August 2, 1989, to allow the iCounty Attorney and staff to prepare a written list of options from engineering and legal aspects address- ing the following: -why the basin was not built according t~ the original specifications; -whether the subdivision plat conditions ~ere met; July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) -if the County can ask the developer to connect to a regional basin and fill in this pond at his expense. 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. 194 Not Docketed: Mr. Roosevelt said he would like to discuss the Route 620 bridge project and revenue sharing funds. He said he had recommended allo- cating, and the Board had agreed to allocate', $320,000 to this project in the 1989-90 Secondary Road Improvement Budget. He said that YDoT does not recog- nize the Route 620 project as part of the Six Year Road Plan and his supervi- sor has directed him to transfer this $320,000 to other projects in the Six Year Plan. If revenue sharing funds are used to finance this project, Mr. Roosevelt said, the project does not have to'be listed in the Six Year Plan, because revenue sharing funds can be used for any project that is a valid improvement. He said that VDoT does not question the validity of the improve- ment planned for Route 620, but the project is not part of an approved six year plan. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board may decide to revise the Six Year Plan to include Route 620, which means going throughlthe whole process, which he does not think is feasible. He said he has succeeded in obtaining $100,000 in maintenance replacement funds to put towards the Route 620 project, which leaves about $220,000 left to fund. Mr. RooMevelt recommended that the Board withdraw its resolution adopted last week which distributed $226,000 of additional revenue sharing funds among Route~ 601 and 656 and that the Board designate this $226,000 in combined State and County funds to Route 620. Mr. Roosevelt said he would then transfer the $320,000 allocated to the Route 620 project in the Secondary Road Improvement Budget to Routes 601 and 656. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to amend the revenue sharing resolution adopted on July 1~, 1989, as set out below. 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. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ~as been advised that its request for matching Revenue Sharing Funds remaining from the 1988-89 fiscal year allocations has been approved in the amount of $113,000; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tha~ the County of Albemarle proposes that the matching Revenue Sharing Funds be allocated to the Route 620 project instead of the followihg projects as requested on July 12, 1989: 1. Route 656, construct turn lanes! at Georgetown Road - $60,00o. 2. Route 601, bridge over Buck Mountain Creek - $53,000. Agenda Item No. 12. Authorize Chairman to sign Advanced Allocation Agreement for the Scottsville Rescue Squad. Mr. Tucker said the Board had approved ai $36,000 advance to the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad recently i~ the Capital Improvements Program budget. He said the County Attorney'~ office is preparing a six year agreement placing a lien on the equipment to be purchased with the advance. The Board is requested to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement so that the Director of Finance may make payment. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to authorize the Chairman to sign the following agreement ~ccording to the County Execu- tive's memo dated July 11, 1989. July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 195 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. THIS AGREEMENT, made this 19th day of July, 1989, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. (the "Rescue Squad"); WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the operation by the Rescue Squad of a rescue squad company to protect human life during the period of this agreement and the purchase by the Rescue Squad of a new ambulance for use during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to the Rescue Squad in August, 1989, the sum of Thirty-six Thou- sand Dollars ($36,000.00). The County, by agreement dated October 15, 1987, gave the Rescue Squad Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25~000.00), of which Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) is still owned. The sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to the REscue Squad for a period of four (4) years, beginning July, 1990, with a balance of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) due in the fifth year (July, 1994). Thus at the end of the fifth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Forty-Six Thousand Dollars ($46,000.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the service agreement with the Rescue Squadildated October 15, 1987. If at any time during the term of ~his agreement, the Rescue Squad is no longer in the business of p~oviding rescue squad services, the Rescue Squad agrees to convey its interest in the ambulance and the ambulance purchased with funds per She October 15, 1989 agreement to the County at no cost to the County ~o long as the County, or its assigns, will use the ambulances for re~cue squad purposes. Not Docketed: Mr. Cilimberg said the P~anning Department's schedule for hearing Zoning Text Amendments was posted in ~rror this year and is inconsis- tent with the Board's adopted policy. He sa~d three applications have been received and the applicants expect to be hear!d by the Board in the near future. Mr. Cilimberg asked the Board to consider hearing these requests in light of the circumstances. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and Seconded by Mr. Bain to place the three Zoning Text Amendment applications on the Board's agenda for September 13, 1989. Roll was called and the motion ca,tied by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess=s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Not Docketed: Mr. Way requested an ExecUtive Session to discuss member- ship on the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee. Mr. Bowie said he had a property matter also to be discussed in Executive Session. At 10:41 P.M., motion was offered by Mr.. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing identifiable personnel according to Virginia Code Section 2.1-344A.1 and to discuss public property where the value would~be affected by public discussion according to Virginia Code Section 2.1-344A.3~ 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. The Board reconvened into open session aG 11:01 P.M. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adop~ the following certification: July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 196 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of 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 law 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 were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 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. Appointments. Each Board member nominated an appointee from his District to the Fiscal Resources Advisory Committee as follows: Samuel Miller District: Rivanna District: Charlottesville District: Scottsville District: Jack Jouett District: White Hall District: Leroy Yandey F. Anthony Iachetta Shirley Munson Forrest H.~ Marshall, Jr. John H. Birdsall, III Vernon W. 3ones, Jr. Mr. William J. Kehoe was nominated as Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. Dwight D. Johnson was nominated as representative at large. Mr. Way said there is one more representative at large to'~be nominated, which the Board will do sometime in August. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint the foregoing nominees to the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee. 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. 15. Other Matters not bisted on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bain said he would prepare a written report for the Board concerning his recent trip to the National Association of Counties annual meeting. Mrs. Cooke said that staff has prepared a report on the plans for Court Square as these plans relate to the donation of a park bench. She said she would like to discuss this matter at the next meeting. Mr. Perkins requested that a public hearing be set to receive comments on the disposition of the old Crozet Elementary School. July 19, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 197 Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to set a public hearing on September 20, 1989, to receive comments on the disposition of the old Crozet Elementary School upon the opening of the new school. 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. Mr. Way asked staff to investigate the situation at Pancake Falls (Route 631) on the Hardware River and discuss with Mr. Tom Maxwell, Acting Police Chief, possible solutions to the problem of loitering there. He said the "no parking'' signs had been pulled down. Mr. Way asked staff to check with Mr. Dan Roosevelt about getting those replaced and the possibility of getting guard rails installed. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: October 19(A), November 9, November 16(N), December 7(N), December 14, and December 21, 1988; January 4, January 11, February 1 and May 22(A), 1989. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for January 11, 1989, Pages 1-11 and found a minor typographical error. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for February 1, 1989, and corrected the last paragraph on Page 1 to delete the words "with a bank". Mr. Way had read the minutes for December 21, 1988, and corrected Page 9, paragraph 14, to change the word "prefer" toi"preferred". On Page 16, the second sentence of the next ~ ' to last paragraph is corrected to include the word "of" between the words "some" and "the". Mr.: Way had read the minutes for January 4, 1989, Pages 1-8 and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded 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, Mess=s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no'further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 P.M. CHAIRMAN