Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-16November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held .on November 16, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, 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 approve Items 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept Items 4.3 through 4.7 on the Consent Agenda as information. There was no further dis- cussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by thefollowing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of November, 1988, were approved by the vote shown above. Item 4.2. Request to advertise for an amendment to Section 4-38 of the County Code to reduce the age at which dogs and cats mustlbe vaccinated from six months to four months. Staff recommended that a public hearing be set for December 14, 1988, on this amendment. The request was approved by the vote shown above. Item 4.3. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for!iFiscal Year Ended June 30, 1988, for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (ion file in Clerk's office) was received as information. ~ Item 4.4. Letter dated November 7, 1988, from Henry F. Winschenk, President, Community Planning Coalition, with attached petitions in opposition to the expressway concept being considered for Route 29 North, was received. Item 4.5. A copy of Planning Comission Minutes for November 1, 1988, was received as information. Item 4.6. Notice dated November 7, 1988, from the State Corporation Commission of an application filed by Clifton Forge-Waynesboro Telephone Company to extend its radio paging and two-way mobile services, was received as information. Item 4.7. The County of Albemarle's Financial Reportifor-the period July 1, 1988, through September 30, 1988, was received as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT : FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1988 TO SEPTEMBER~30, 1988 November 16, 1988 (Regular (Page 2) Night Meeting) 7 GENERAL FUND 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 42,015,027 2,153,930 39,861,097 - 5.13% 3,720,515 624,993 3,095,522 - 16.80% 73,000 3,544 69,456 - 4.85% 2,162,057 0 2,162,057 - 0.00% 47,970,599 2,782,467 45,188,132 - 5.80% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 3,164,574 911,461 2,253,113 + 28.80% JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1,102,322 294,774 807,548 + 26.74% PUBLIC SAFETY 4,277,145 1,447,605 2,829,540 + 33.85% PUBLIC WORKS 1,718,206 350,442 1,367,764 + 20.40% HEALTH AND WELFARE 2,885,221 741,037 2,144,184 + 25.68% EDUCATION 25,295,750 6,275,979 19,019,771 + 24.81% PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 1,695,778 480,243 1,215,535 + 28.32% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,313,054 338,026 975,028 + 25.74% TRANSFERS 4,098,057 2,231,303 1,866,754 + 54.45% NONDEPARTMENTAL 2,420,492 107,791 2,312,701 + 4.45% TOTAL 47,970,599 t3,178,661 34,791,938 + 27.47% SCHOOL FUND 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL 409,493 51,602 357,891 - 12.60% 16,180,811 3,279,402 12,901,409 - 20.27% 362,987 0 362,987 - 0.00% 25,081,076 6,270,270 18,810,806 - 25.00% 42,034,367 9,601,274 32,433,093 - 22.84% ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT FIXED CHARGES ADULT EDUCATION TRANSFER 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD TOTAL 757,727 249,235 508,492 + 32.89% 26,295,805 3,399,789 22,896,016 + 12.93% 338,966 76,626 262,340 + 22.61% 3,010,752 868,174 2,142,578 + 28.84% 4,346,279 1,782,173 2,564,106 + 41.00% 7,274,388 1,091,505 6,182,883 + 15.00% 10,450 1,470 8,980 + 14.07% 0 0 0 + 0.0O% 42,034,367 7,468,972 34,565,395 + 17.77% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES 418,500 173,780 244,720 41.52% COMMONWEALTH 300,000 0 300,000 0.00% NONREVENUE RECEIPTS 2,886,902 0 2,886,902 0.00% FUND BALANCE 4,626,458 0 4,626,458 0.00% TRANSFERS-IN 2,047,256 2,047,000 256 99.99% TOTAL 10,279,116 2,220,780 8,058,336 21.60% 8 November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 239,571 44,303 195,268 + 18.49% JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 0 0 0 + 0.00% PUBLIC SAFETY 1,245,945 0 1,245,945 + 0.00% PUBLIC WORKS 1,344,525 26,831 1,317,694 + 2.00% EDUCATION 5,385,542 2,930,506 2,455,036 + 54.41% PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 1,336,263 5,146 1,331,117 + 0.39% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 594,485 432,927 161,558 + 72.82% TRANSFERS 132,785 0 132,785 + 0.00% TOTAL 10,279,116 3,439,713 6,839,403 + 33.46% OTHER FUNDS 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 0 0 0.00% SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 57,080 10,702 46,378 18.75% MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 1,015,000 201,976 813,024 19.90% CDBG-AHIP 0 46,216 (46,216)+ 0.00% TJ HEALTH EDUCATION 0 4,281 (4,281)+ 0.00% GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 182 (182)+ 0.00% FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 158,247 242,883 39.45% DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 26,638 (26,638)+ 0.00% TIPS 1,669 0 1,669 0.00% RAGGED MOUNTAIN 303,781 0 303,781 0.00% CBIP SEVERE 377,550 223 377,327 0.06% FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 8,771 (8,771)+ 0.00% PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLOGY 0 0 0 0.00% DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 22,500 0 22,500 - 0.00% SUMMER SCHOOL FUND 113,579 48,540 65,039 42.74% COMMUNITY EDUCATION 263,636 60,237 203,399 22.85% ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 5,937 0 5,937 - 0.00% CHAPTER I 474,354 0 474,354 0.00% CHAPTER II 63,423 0 63,423 - 0.00% MIGRANT EDUCATION 34,991 0 34,991 - 0.00% CAFETERIA FUND 1,394,845 66,962 1,327,883 - 4.80% JOINT SECURITY FUND 1,941,259 321,292 1,619,967 - 16.55% JOINT DISPATCH FUND 616,826 146,869 469,957 - 23.81% JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 195,066 431 194,635 - 0.22% TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 218,500 20,325 198,175 - 9.30% MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 27 9,973 - 0.27% JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND 0 61 (61)+ 0.00% STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 463,036 26,905 436,131 - 5.81% FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT 143,140 0 143,140 - 0.00% VISITOR CENTER FUND 0 16,934 (16,934)+ 0.00% DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,043,666 184,303 1,859,363 - 9.02% TOTAL 10,160,968 1,350,122 8,810,846 - 13.29% OTHER FUNDS 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 2,414 (2,414)- 0.00% SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 57,080 8,072 49,008 + 14.14% MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 1,015,000 223,234 791,766 + 21.99% CDBG-AHIP 0 55,301 (55,301)- 0.00% VICTIM/WITNESS GRANT 0 764 (764)- 0.00% T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 6,422 (6,422)- 0.00% GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 7,680 (7,680)- 0.00% FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 122,783 278,347 + 30.61% DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 12,296 (12,296)- 0.00% TIPS 1,669 1,669 0 + 100.00% RAGGED MOUNTAIN 303,781 28,311 275,470 + 9.32% CBIP SEVERE 377,550 41,786 335,764 + 11.07% FED. JOB TRAINING PART. ACT. 0 2,856 (2,856)- 0.00% DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 22,500 1,658 20,842 + 7.37% November 16, 1988 (Regular Night.Meeting) (Page 4) SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND 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 113,579 63,365 50,214 + 55.79% 263,636 94,006 169,630 + 35.66% 5,937 2,000 3,937 + 33.69% 474,354 56,365 417,989 + 11.88% 63,423 17,947 45,476 + 28.30% 34,991 5,019 29,972 + 14.34% 1,394,845 106,211 1,288,634 + 7.61% 1,941,259 459,459 1,481,800 + 23.67% 616,826 142,916 473,910 + 23.17% 195,066 14,568 180,498 + 7.47% 218,500 54,128 164,372 + 24.77% 10,000 0 10,000 + 0.00% 0 0 0 + O.OO% 463,036 50,230 412,806 + 10.85% 143,140 85,655 57,485 + 59.84% 0 16,934 (16,934)- 0.00% 2,043,666 184,303 1,859,363 + 9.02% 10,160,968 1,868,352 8,292,616 + 18.39% Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-92. McDonald's Corporation. To install a drive-in window at an existing restaurant in Shopper's World on U.S. Route 29 North, zoned PC-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Tax Map 61M, SeCtion 12, Lot lC. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1988.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this item indefinitely at the applicant's request. There was no further discus- sion. 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. 6. ZMA-88-12. Phillip Sansone. To rezone approximately 45 acres from R-l, Residential, to R-10, Residential. Property located on the east side of Rt. 20 North approximately 1/2 mile north of its intersection with Rt. 250 East. Tax Map 78, Parcels 8 and 58I. Rivanna District. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1988.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: This property is currently known as the Wilton Estate (parcel 8), and is developed with a private residence and several accessory structures. Parcel 58I is undeveloped and completely forested. Properties zoned RA, Rural Areas and R-l, Residential exists to the north and west. Properties zoned R-15, Residential exist to the east. To the immediate south, properties zoned HC, Highway Commercial exist with frontage on Route 250 East. Staff Comment: Comprehensive Plan: The subject properties are recommended in the current Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development. The Planning Commission has endorsed a medium density residential designation for this property in the current Comprehensive Plan revision. Staff's opinion is that the Comprehensive Plan need not be amended to extend medium density zoning to the property for the following reasons: This property has been identified by staff and Planning Com- mission as an area to expand medium density residential in order to compensate for existing medium density properties which have been deemed "not developable" or have otherwise developed since the 1982 Plan was ad~0pted. This property would serve as a "transition density" from the commercial frontage on Route 250 (south of the property) to the proposed low density expansion area ~long Route 20 North (north of the property). lO November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Commercial development and high density residential border this property to the south and east, therefore, the proposed density is comparable to surrounding development. Site Characteristics: As noted earlier, there currently exists a single family residence on the Wilton property, while the adjacent parcel 58 remains undeveloped. Soils on these properties have few limitations for development except along existing streams where moderate restrictions exist due to drainage and depth of bedrock. The terrain of this property is characterized by moderate slopes, with very limited area of critical slopes. According to current Federal Flood Insurance maps no flood plain exists on these proper- ties. Transportation: The two subject parcels are currently served by a private road. The applicant has stated his intent to restrict access by the subject parcels to the existing private road upon site development. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that there is adequate sight distance at the entrance of the private road. Further, the Department has commented that 'the existing private driveway serving this property is offset to the north of the intersection of Route 20 and Route 1421.' The Department recommends that access to serve this property align directly with Route 1421 or be offset a sufficient distance from the existing intersection. In the opinion of staff, this issue can be resolved at the time of site development. In the opinion of staff, this request is in conformance with the current recommended Comprehensive Plan revisions. Staff would also recommend acceptance of the attached letter of proffers as outlined by the applicant. The accompanying special use permit is a request fo=i:a private school and professional offices. The applicant has stated that the remainder of this property will be de~z~eloped for residential use consistent with the rezoning. ~ Regardless of the outcome of the accompanying specia} use permit petition (SP-88-76) staff recommends approval of this rezoning petition." Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 18, 1988, had unanimously recommended approval of rezoning 15~.acres centered around the existing complex of buildings, subject to the ~pplicant's proffer with a stipulation that a plat of the 15 acres be made available to the Board prior to their taking action. Mr. Home said the currentapplicable proffer dated November 10, 1989, in a letter addressed to Mr. Horne is as follows: 1. To not have retail stores and shops on a single'ilfloor, compati- ble with the residential characteristics of the district, with a gross floor area not exceeding 4,000 square feet. Parking structures located wholly or partly above gradel~ Mobile home subdivisions. Mobile home parks. 2. We would grant access to only one common entrance off of Route 20, approximately where the entrance is currently located. At the time of improvements on the property, the e~trance will need to be upgraded as the code requires at our !expense. Mr. Home said the Planning Commission reviewed the ~equest for the entire acreage, but unanimously recommended that only fifCeen acres be rezoned. There was a concern about how the medium densitM would be buffered from the low density, since there is no defined plan of development as yet. Also, since the Comprehensive Plan has not been amended, ~he Planning Commis- sion felt it would be wiser to only rezone the acreage necessary to operate the school, even though they were sympathetic with the proposed use. Mr. Horne said the intent is to operate the school with the ex~sting buildings, and the applicant needs this rezoning in order to do that..~ He said staff supports this request independent of the special use permit request. November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Lindstrom asked if the special permit would bind the property, or could the applicant choose to develop that portion that is rezoned under R-10 zoning regulations. Mr. Home said they could. The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Charles Caldwell, Administrator of Lafayette Academy, came forward to speak. He said the school is presently located at The English Inn. The new location will be leased to Lafayette Academy, The Garnett Day Treatment Center, and Central Virginia Psychiatric Associates. The Academy is a private school for students with emotional or learning disabilities. Students receive psychotherapy from the Garnett Day Treatment Center and Central Virginia Psychiatric Associates. The present enrollment is 28 with anticipated enrollment of approximately 60 students. Students are brought to the school by Albemarle County or Charlottesville schools and taken back at the end of the day. Mr. Caldwell said their inten- tion was to use the property to house the three corporations mentioned, which would render educational and psychotherapeutic services to County residents as well as surrounding areas. The estate house would house the professional offices as well as the administrative offices for all three corporations. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Caldwell if the proffer meant to say they would not have mobile home subdivisions and mobile home parks and no retail stores or shops at all and no parking above grade. Mr. Caldwell said that was correct. Mr. Bowie asked if the second proffer meant that the only entrance would be from Route 20, and the entrance would be upgraded. Mr. Caldwell said that was correct. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are any current plans for the development of the property beyond the existing buildings. *Mr. Caldwell said not at this time. He said one of the advantages of the .site if the school should grow sufficiently in the future is the ability to~ add on to the existing struc- tures. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant was agreeable to the action the Planning Commission took. Mr. Caldwell said they were. There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowie asked ~f the Board could hear the staff report for the special use permit before proceeding with this petition. The Chairman directed Mr. Horne to proceed with the staff report. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-88-76. Phillip Sansone. To allow for a private day care school and professional offices. PRoperty, located on the east side of Rt. 20N approximately 1/2 mile north of i~s intersection with Rt. 250 East. Tax Map 78, Parcels 8 and 58I. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1988.~ Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as foilows: "Staff Comment: Approval of the professional offices portion of this request requires the R-10 zoning which has been requested by the applicant with ZMA-88-12. The Privi~te School may be approved under the existing R-1 or proposed R-10!~.zoning. The applicant is proposing to utilize t~e existing Wilton property as private school (Lafayette Academy) add a treatment center (Gar- nett Day Treatment Center) for children!i~ith learning disorders. This request is also to allow for professional offices which will house the Central Virginia Psychiatric ~ssociates. Approximately fourteen doctors (psychiatrists) will 1Q~ate their professional offices on this property. The professidnal psychiatric offices are regarded by the applicant as a needed o~ accessory service, helping resident students deal with their emotidnal needs. The Garnett Day Treatment Center will employ the psychiatrists of the CVPA for professional services. The applicant has estimated that approxi- mately 50 percent of the psychiatrists' ~ime will be devoted to counseling children seeking professiona~services at the Garnett Day Treatment Center. The remaining 50 percent of the psychiatrists' time will be devoted to professional practice and serving the public in general. Due to the current anticipated non-school related 12 November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) office use by CVPA (50%) staff has treated the professional office use as a separate special use category (17.2.2(11)). The Commission should note, however, that the physical location of the offices on site is necessary for the school itself. The applicant has stated that the percentage of CVPA time devoted to the school and treatment center is anticipated to increase in the future. It could be argued, therefore, that the offices are now or will become accessory uses instead of separate principle uses. Lafayette Academy has been in existence for approximately 10 years; educating students with learning disorders. The Academy is cur- rently located on the grounds of the English Inn in Charlottesville. Due to expansion and changes in the program, the applicant feels that the setting at "Wilton" would be beneficial not only to the child's educational needs but also to their emotional needs. Lafayette Academy also provides educational services to the Garnett Day Treatment Center and, in turn, The Garnett Day Treatment Center provides professional services needed by Lafayette Academy. Without these professional services the Academy has found it most difficult to educate these students when dealing with their emotional needs. Approximately 60 students will attend this facility, ranging in age from seven to 18 years old. The large house located on this prop- erty will be used to house the professional offices and the adminis- trative offices for the Lafayette Academy, Garnett Day Treatment Center, and CVPA. The smaller existing accessory structure will be utilizedas classroom space. An existing swinmning pool and a garage that is to be converted to a gym will provide recreation facilities. There will be no new construction of buildings at this time. Future expansion will more than likely require additional construction. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Board of Supervisors to make findings that the proposed use: will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property; will not.change the character of the district; and will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff offers the following in light of this section:': The entire facility's spatial needs can be accommodated by existing structures. Staff recognizes the need tO locate such facilities with in the Urban Area, in close proximity to public facilities and compat- ible densities. The applicant has proffered to restrict the dev~ilopment of this facility to a specific acreage, leaving the remaining acreage for medium density residential." Mr. Horne said that the staff noted to the Planning dommission that approval of this request would reduce the amount of potentially developable medium density residential property in that area. However, staff found the request to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval subject to three conditions: This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non- transferable; Administrative approval of the site plan; Enrollment shall be limited to a specific number~ of students. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meetin~ on October 18, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of this request wit~ the following conditions: ~ This special use permit is issued to the Lafayette Academy and Garnett Day Treatment Center and is non-transferAble; November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) lB 2. Administrative approval of the site plan; Enrollment shall be limited to 60 students. Total students, staff and clients shall be limited by Health Department approval; Any additional residential development of this property will require connection to public water and sewer and at that time the private school and professional offices will be required to connect to public utilities also. Mr. Home said staff discussed the first condition recommended by the Planning Commission with the County Attorney, and he concurred with staff that it would not be wise to limit the transfer of the special use permit to these particular corporate entities. Therefore, staff's recommendation is that this condition be amended stating that the use of the property be in general accord with the description stated in the records given to the Board of Supervisors. He said that would ensure that, if the Board approves a private school and professional offices here, it would not be akarate academy or some other type of school not described. Should there be a transfer between corporate enti- ties, the use would remain the same. Mr. Lindstrom said despite what the staff report says, it seems this rezoning is predicated on the assumption that the Comprehensive Plan will be amended as proposed by the Planning Commission. No one knows that that will happen. He said the fifteen acres with a special use permit would be a school. If the applicant chose not to use the special use permit, it would be fifteen acres of R-10 surrounded by about forty acres of R-1. He said he has reservations about this application because it is assuming compatibility with surrounding uses and assumes those uses will be zoned R-10. Mr. Bain said that was a concern the Planning Commission had as well according to their minutes. Mr. Home said that in order to develop anything more on this property, it would be necessary to connect to public utilities. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have a prOblem with the application as presented. However, if this area stayed low,density residential, and the fifteen acres were rezoned to R-10, he is concerned about what would happen if the applicant presented a site plan for a townhouse development on that fifteen acres. Obviously utilities are a requisite to take advantage of that zoning. He wondered if the Board would be able to deny extension of utilities to property zoned R-10 if the applicant decided not to use the special use permit. Mr. St. John said that concern would be removed if the applicant agreed that what takes place on this property would be exactly what has been presented here tonight and nothing else. Mr. Lindstrom said that would eliminate his concern. Mr. Caldwell said the request for R- 10 is only for the purpose of locat- ing the professional offices on the property. He said they would be willing to limit the office use to what has been described in their application. Mr. Lindstrom said that would really be a third proffer. Mr. Caldwell said that was acceptable to him. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve rezoning 15 acres centered around the existing complex of buildings, as proffered in the letter dated November 10, 1988, addressed to John Horne from Charles Caldwell, Administrator of Lafayette Academy, Inc., and verbally clarified by Mr. Caldwell at this meeting and including a third proffer stating: "The property would be used only for the school and professional offices as described in the application presented to the Board at its meeting on November 16, 1988." There was no further discussion. 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 public hearing for SP-88-76 was opened at this time. Mr. Caldwell said he would have no problem with the amended condition that Mr. Horne had 14 November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) recommended. He said their main concern is to have the professional offices to help care for the students. There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was then closed. Mr. Bowie said since the third proffer on the applicant's zoning request had been made, the restriction of the first condition recommended by the Planning Commission would not be necessary for this request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve this petition subject to the following conditions: 1. Administrative approval of the site plan; 2. Enrollment shall be limited to 60 students. Total students, staff and clients shall be limited by Health Department approval; 3. Any additional residential development of this property will require connection to public water and sewer and at that time the private school and professional offices will be required to connect to public utilities also. There was no further discussion. 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. 8. SP-88-69. Richard Thomsen, Jr. To allow the trans- fer of two division rights. Property located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 635 and Rt. 688, Parcel 27 has access to the east side of Route 688 approximately 1200 feet north of its intersectibn with State Route 635. Tax Map 72, Parcel 13. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1988.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Staff Comment: The Reveille Subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1984. This subdivision created 11 lots from two existing parcels. The applicant is now requesting that a 21.126 acre parcel be granted two developmentirights in order to allow for subdivision. The applicant is requesting that a development rightilthat was originally assigned to Tax Map 72, Parcel 27E be transferred to Parcel 27. This transfer can be approved administratively by staff. However, one development right will not allow for th~ division of this parcel as it was initially created as an exempt~ilot of greater than 21 acres. In order to allow for subdivision thy applicant is requesting that a development right be transferred f~om a non- adjacent parcel (parcel 13) to parcel 27. Staff strqngly recommends against this approach (i.e. transferring developmeRt potential from non-contiguous tracts) and would recommend that this proposal be reviewed as a request for an additional development right and not a transfer of development rights. Should this special use permit be granted it should not be considered a transfer of development rights but instead the granting of an additional developmen~ right that does not affect development potential for parcel 13.i Staff believes that had the applicant created parcel~!27 of suffi- cient size, one development right may have allowed f~r the division of this parcel into one small lot with a residue of ~1 acres or greater. Granting of this development~right is only~to serve the interest of the purchaser of the parcel and is inconsistent with the public interest. Currently the rate of growth in th~ rural areas exceeds the desired levels and the granting of this ~ecial use permit would only continue that trend. November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 15 Special Use Permit Criteria: 98. 9b. 9C. 9d. 9e. The parcel consists of 21.26 acres. Approximately five acres of this parcel are relatively flat bottom land. The existing vegetative growth consists of new woodland growth, mostly hardwood with some mature pine and hardwood stands on steeper slopes. Approximately four acres of bottomland is currently actively farmed. This parcel contains five soil types: Hayesville, Ash,, Riverview, Chewacla and Elioak. The Hayesville, Ash,, and Elioak occur on the steep slopes and in the front of the property. Ail are listed as moderately high or high on their potential for commercial wood growth; however, on all soil types care must be taken on steep slopes to avoid erosion and steep grades can limit the use of machinery. The Riverview soil is listed as the most productive soils in the Piedmont and some of the Chewacla is listed as highly productive if ade- quately drained. Best uses are for grasses used for grazing. It is estimated that four acres of low ground is currently in active agricultural production and has been for some time. Another two acres was in crop or hay production up until 10 years ago, but is now in new woodland growth. The remaining acreage has been forestal with approximately eight acres of that timbered as recently as 1982 or 1983. Of the 2010 acres within one mile of this parcel, 41 percent or 824 acres enjoys land use taxation and can be assumed to be in agricultural or forestal land use.i This property is not located in a developed rural area as only 28 percent of the parcels within one mile of this property were five acres or less on the date of ~doption of the Zoning Ordinance. This property is located outside the designated growth areas. Crozetlies two miles to the northland is the closest growth area. This development would create one additional lot and would have a negligible effect on capital improvements programming. Route 688 is currently non-tolerable. The additional develop- ment rights should have little impact on the roads. If three or more lots use the same entrance then it should be a private street commercial entrance and not~a driveway. The current amount and quality of the existing vegetative cover is such that it provides an effective filter for the filtration of harmful items from the water supply. It is estimated that no more than 11,500 square feet, 0.26 acres would be disturbed during the construction phase. This is based on the following assumpti*ns - 3500 square feet for a single residence with an additiona~ 3000 square feet for the second proposed residential site. !!14000 square feet of driveway/parking for the single residence with no more than an additional 1000 for the second residence. Pervious cover will be no more thani 3500 square feet which includes roofs and patios since the, driveways will not be paved. Septic systems are to be located not less than 150 feet from any stream. No dwelling shall be located less than 200 feet from any stream. On the steep slopes away from the river soils are Hayesville and/or Ashe Loam; these soils are deep and well-drained. However, these soils have a severe hazard of erosion. These soils have moderate to moderately rapid percolation rates. November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 9f. The road to serve this development will be in the zero to five percent range of slope. The dwellings will be constructed in areas not to exceed 15 percent in slope. 9g. Duration of development will be four to six months and will be sequential rather than simultaneous. The granting of this special use permit would increase traffic on a non- tolerable state road, be inconsistent with agricultural uses in the area and move quality soils into a residential use. This application does not meet the criteria for a special use permit as outlined in Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff recommends denial of this special use permit. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this special use permit it should be viewed as the granting of an additional development right for parcel 27 and not a transfer of development rights. Development potential for parcel 13 should be unaffected by the granting of this special use permit. Should the Planning Cox~ission and Board of Supervisors choose to grant this special use permit staff recommends the following: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Subdivision of Tax Map 72, parcel 27 shall be in general accordance with a plat prepared by Tom Lincoln dated August 2, 1988; 2. Subdivision plat shall be reviewed by Planning Commission." Mr. Home said that the granting of this special use permit would increase traffic on a non-tolerable state road, be inconsistent with agricul- tural uses in the area and move quality soils into a residential use. He sai this application did not meet the criteria for a special use permit as out- lined in Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 18, 1988, recommended denial of the petition by a vote of sLX to one. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard Thomsen came forward to speak. He said he has one development right that exists' in the subdivision, and he is asking for only one additional development right. Regarding moving quality soils into a residential use, Mr. Thomsen said the property has five different soil types. The two most productive of those soils are flood plain soils and would be unaffected by this subdivision. They~would continue to be ! farmed as they currently are. Regarding Mr. Hornes statement that this request would increase traffic on a non-tolerable road, ~e quoted the Virgini~ Department of Transportation as stating that "the additi6nal development rights should have little impact on the roads". He said!what he was trying t¢ accomplish is to allow the Farina family to live in close proximity so that Mr. and Mrs. Farina could take care of Mrs. Farina's parents when they retire. He said if the Board could not consider the request as a'.transfer of a devel- opment right from one parcel to another, he would like t6 make a couple of proffers. One is to grant additional right of way of up to 15 feet to allow widening and improvements to Route 688 and Route 791, which are both non- tolerable and heavily travelled. The second proffer wou~d be to restrict development of Parcel 13 to four development rights instead of a potential eight. He said this would give the Board the opportunity to decrease the allowable density in this area. ~ Mrs. Carolyn Farina said she and her husband had bought the property about four years ago. They bought as much as they couldimfford which was enough to build a house on and enough for her parents to,build on and move here when they retire. She said they were not aware of the complexities of development rights until she began the process to obtain ~approval. Mrs. Farina said the County's land use regulations are very cQmplex and difficult for a lay person and a novice to understand. Just recently they had been tol~ they had no development rights on their property at all Wnd would need two November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) development rights. They simply wanted to be able to bring their elderly parents here and have them live next door so. they could take care of them. Mr. Ed Robb said he was the person responsible for the division of the property. He said he knew he had a considerable amount of frontage which could have been developed by right when he developed this property. However, it was against his belief in the use of rural property to do that. He said this was the first property he had ever developed, and he recognized that ignorance was no excuse. He said the original intent in subdividing the property was to have two dwelling units on this parcel. He said there are restrictions on this property preventing further subdivision, but the Farina's are not planning to subdivide further. He asked the Board if at all possible to grant the Farina's an additional development right, since that was the original intent when the property was subdivided. Mr. Tom Wyant, a neighboring property owner, opposed the special permit. He said Routes 688 and 791 were both unpaved~ narrow, and non-tolerable to additional traffic. He said he empathizes with the people who bought the lot in good faith. However, he is asking the BoArd to follow the Planning Commis- sion's reconunendation and deny the request. There being no other citizens present t6 speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Bowie asked the County Attorney if the proffer limiting the develop- ment rights to four was enforceable. Mr. St. John said it was binding and enforceable since the parties who were making the offer and own the parcel were present in the room. Mr. St. John said the proffer mechanism, per se, applies to a rezoning. A better way to state this is that conditions to the special use permit have been offered or agreed to. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that it is enforceable as long as the Board remembers how it was accomplished. Mr. St. John said he was not saying that a future Board could not decide they were not going to enforce it. Mr. Bowie asked if there were really eight development rights usable on this property. Mr. Home said the staff could not verify eight development rights. They could say there were at least two usable development rights. Mr. Lindstrom said he was sympathetic td the Farinas. However, he was not in favor of granting a development right ~to solve their problem, because he could not distinguish this case from any dther. He said he is interested in Mr. Thomsen's scheme if the development ri. ghts can be verified. He would also like to see a proposed set of restrictive covenants that would apply to Parcel 13 to preclude subdivision beyond development rights that are part of the special permit. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this request until December 7, 1988, to allow the staff time to examine Parcel 13 to determine how many development rights it ~as or could have, and what benefit would be derived from Mr. Thomsen's ~oposal to restrict the parcel to four development rights. 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. 9. SP-88-77. University Village Limited Partnership. To allow a nursing home to be operated in conjunction with the University Village Retirement Center. Property located on the n~rth side of Rt. 601 (Old Ivy - Road) between Ivy Gardens Apartment and Huntington Village. Tax Map 60, Parcel 53. Jack Jouett District. (Advertise~ in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1988.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report: November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) "Staff Comment: University Village Limited Partnership proposes construction of a nursing care facility with a 40 bed capacity. This facility will employ approximately 26 people. A Certificate of Public need has been issued by the State DePartment of Health permitting a twenty-nine bed Intermediate Care Facility (ICF)/ Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). In addition to the 29 bed nursing facility, an eleven bed Home For Adults (HFA) will also be located in the facility. The nursing facility will provide services typical of a licensed Medicare/Medicaid certified facility. The HFA section is planned as a home for those requiring assistance in everyday living activities, but not requiring skilled or intermediate nursing care. Staff has determined that this request does not affect traffic generation proffers on Parcel 24C. Section 5.1.13 of the Zoning Ordinance contains supplementary requirements for nursing care facilities. This facility is to be located within the University Village Retire- ment Center. This site is surrounded by residential uses/zoning in every direction. This use would seem compatible to the particular area. Fire flow to this site is 1200 g.p.m, at 20 PSI after installation of a storage tank on adjacent property. The fire officer has stated that the fire flow is adequate, but the proposed facility will require a sprinkler system. This site will be served by the Charlottesville Fir~iDepartment located on Ridge Street, a travel distance of approximately three miles. The site will receive rescue squad service f~rom the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad located on McIntire Road, again a travel distance of approximately three miles!~ Generally, this area will require vehicular transport to local ~etail services centers. The applicant is proposing to provide selected retail service at the Retirement Center at some future datei~ As stated earlier, the applicant has previously received a Certifi- cate of Public need from the Virginia Department of Health for the operation of-the nursing care facility. This item shall be incor- porated as a condition of approval in case other suc~ approvals are required. ~ The Planning Commission should also make note that the Board of Supervisors approved a special permit for a similar ~equest on October 20, 1982. After receiving an extension, thei~approval eventually expired on April 20, 1986. · In the opinion of staff, this request is an appropriate use on this property, and is compatible with adjacent residential~ use. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the f~illowing condi- tions: 1. Nursing home facility shall be limited to 40 beds. Future expansion shall require amendment to this special permit; 2. Approval of the appropriate state and local agencies." Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 18, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of the request with the conditions suggested by the staff. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Tom Wyant was present for the applicant and spok~i in favor of this request. He said he agreed with the conditions in the staff report and hoped that the Board would grant the special use permit. November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 19 There being no other citizens present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said the request seemed to be consistent with the adjoining retirement village and was recommended by the staff as well as the Planning Commission. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the request to allow a nursing home to be operated in conjunction with the University Village Retirement Center subject to the same conditions as those recommended by the Planning Commission and set out below. There was no further discussion. 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. Nursing home facility shall be limited to 40 beds. Future expansion shall require amendment to this special permit; 2. Approval of the appropriate state and local agencies. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-78. Estelle Jackson. To allow a single-wide mobile home on 2.022 acres, zoned RA. Property has access on a private road and is located on the north side of Rt. 706, ~2/10 miles west of its inter- section with Route 631. Tax Map 89, Parcel 79F (part of). Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1, 1988 and November 8, 1988.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report: "Character of the Area: The area surrounding this property is in residential and forestal use. The property itself is located at the end of a private easement serving several dwellings. The property has a large clearing in the middle surrounded by mature trees in three directions. Currently, there are~three mobile homes within a one mile radius of this property. Staff Comment: Two letters have been received concerning this petition. One letter states a concern of possible property devalu- ation. The second letter states concerns of possible drainfield contamination of drinking water on an adjacent parcel. However, there is not opposition to the placement of the mobile home. From field observations the proposed location of the drainfield is located either below grade or at the same grade as the adjacent property. However, the Health Department must approve the drain- field location and installation. The mobile home will not be visible from any state road and is effectively screened from all properties by existing vegetation with the exception of the residence of the applicant's son. Should the Planning Commission and the BOard of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located~ Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator with 2O e November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) particular attention to possible leaching onto adjacent prop- erties and approval by the local office of the Virginia Depart- ment of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Mobile home is to be located not closer than thirty-five feet to the southern property line, forty feet to the eastern property line and sixty feet from the western property line; Existing vegetative buffer shall not be cut. Screening shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator should it die; The mobile home shall not be rented." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 1, 1988, unanimously recommended approval with the conditions in the staff report, but reworded No. 5 as follows: "Mobile home is to be located not closer than seventy-two feet to the southern property line, eighty-five feet to the eastern property line, and one hundred feet from the western property line." Mr. Horne said the concern from a neighboring property owner about possible drainfield contamination had been reviewed in the field by staff. They found the drainfield flows in the opposite direction from that neighbor- ing parcel. Mr. Way opened the public hearing at this time. The applicant, Mr. Ellison Jackson, said he had talked to the property owner who wrote the letter regarding water contamination. He said they had walked the property together, and he had shown his neighbor where the drain lines would be installed. Mr. Jackson said his neighbor was satisfied. He said he had no problem with the reworded recommendation because the property lines are well within those boundaries. Since there were no others present from the public to speak regarding this request, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to SP-88-78 subject to the conditions recommended by ilthe Planning Com- approve mission and set out below. 1. Albemarle County building official approval; 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; 3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level tQ base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty days Of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator with particular attention to possible leaching onto ~djacent proper- ties and approval by the local office of the Virginia Depart- ment of Health, if applicable under current regulations; me Mobile home is to be located not closer than 72 feet to the southern property line, 85 feet to the eastern property line and 100 feet from the western property line; Existing vegetative buffer shall not be cut. S~reening shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Zoning A~ministrator should it die; ~ The mobile home shall not be rented. November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 22L (Page 16) There was no further discussion. 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. SP-88-87. Susan C. Purinton. To operate an antique shop on 13.913 acres, zoned RA. Property located to the west of Rt. 625 adjacent to the James River Runners at Hatton. Tax Map 136, parcel 12. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1988.) Mr. Home presented the staff's report: "Character of the Area: Access to this property is a driveway shared with another property. Both properties are developed with dwellings and outbuildings. The property is adjacent to and at a much higher elevation than James River Runners. The property is adjacent to the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District to the west. Staff opinion is that an antique shop would not be inconsistent with the intent of the Agricultural/Forestal District. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to initiate her antique business at this site, then move the business to a permanent loca- tion in Scottsville at some future date. A garage structure of about 600 square feet would house the antique shop. Initially, the business would be operated on weekends and by appointment. The days of operation may expand in spring and summer months due to visitors to the Hatton Ferry and James River Runhers. The other dwelling sharing the driveway has recently been sold and the applicant has not met the new owner~ Generally, staff discourages mixing of commercial and residential uses on an access easement, however, in, this case the antique shop is not expected to generate substantial~traffic. A maintenance agreement will be recommended by staff, however, no improvements to the driveway are recommended. Also, due to relatively low traffic, staff does not support the final sentende of the Virginia Department of Transportation's comments (Staff comments regarding use of the driveway and minimal improvements assume temporary usage): This section of Route 625 is currently tolerable. A mini- mum of 250 feet of sight distance is required for the entrance to the south and only 215!ifeet of sight distance exists in this direction. The sight distance problem is due to the bank across the road and it appears that all the sight line is within the right of ~ay. To obtain adequate sight distance in this direction would require grading and clearing of the bank. The existin~ entrance is hardsurfaced and the Department recommends thatiit be upgraded to a commer- cial entrance. The Department als~ recommends a sign island in the center of the entrance to properly channelize traffic. Staff opinion is that a small antique shop would not be objection- able in the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire five years from date Of approval; 2. Business limited to existing garage building; 3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements in accordance with comments of October 19, 1988; provided that no sign island shalllbe required; 4. Building Official approval; Staff approval of maintenance agreement for shared driveway." 22 November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17)' Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 1, 1988, recommended approval with the staff's conditions, but changed No. 2 by adding the words "... and not more than 300 square feet in the dwelling." Mr. Bowie asked what would be involved in the Virginia Department of Transportation's recommendation that the existing entrance be hardsurfaced and upgraded to a commercial entrance. Mr. Home said there would be some widen- ing of the existing entrance, sight distance improvement requirements, and maybe some drainage improvements. Mr. Bowie asked if staff felt a commercial entrance was necessary. Mr. Home said it had been fairly routine for commer- cial entrances to be required for businesses. Mr. Bowie said the commercial entrance requirement seemed fairly stiff for a business operating on weekends and by appointment only. The public hearing was opened at this time. The applicant, Mrs. Susan Purinton, said she intended eventually to open an antique shop in Scottsville. In the interim she plans to begin in this location. She said she would be open on weekends by appointment. Mr. Lindstrom said if the hours are left open for full time use, he feels a commerical entrance should be required. Mr. Lindstromlnoted that Mrs. Purinton could choose to limit her hours of operation to specific times as a condition of this request. Mrs. Purinton said that was what she had in mind, but she had thought of expanding the hours in the summer time. She wondered what would be involved in obtaining a commercial entrance. Mr. Horne said it would require some grading to the south within the right-of-way to obtain better sight distance. He said sometimes the pipe structure under the entrance has to be brought up to Virginia Department of Transportation stan- dards as well. Mrs. Cooke asked Mrs. Purinton if it was her intent~to do business by appointment only during the week and to be open for drop~in customers on the weekends. Mrs. Purinton said that was what she eventually wanted to do. Mr. Bowie said if the business is only open on weekends, there should not have to be a commercial entrance. Mr. Home suggested that the third condi- tion be replaced with onestating the general times Mrs.~Purinton wanted to conduct business. ~ Mr. Way said he is familiar with the driveway, and it would be perfectly adequate without the commercial entrance, in his opinion,.lespecially with limited hours of operation. There being no one else present to speak to this application, the public hearing was then closed. ~ Motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr.,~Bowie to approve SP-88-87 subject to the conditions suggested by the Planning Commission, but changing No. 3 to read: "Hours of operation shall be unlimited on weekends and by appointment only on weekdays." (The conditions o~ approval are set out below.) There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom NAYS: None. This special use permit and all authority grantE shall expire five years from date of approval; Business is limited to existing garage building than 300 square feet in the dwelling; Perkins and Way. d hereunder and not more Hours of operation shall be unlimited on weekends and by appointment only on weekdays; 4. Building Official approval; 5. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for shared driveway. November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 23 Agenda Item No. 12. SP-88-90. Albemarle County Fair, Incorporated. To amend a condition of SP-87-109 to permit continued usage of North Garden site for annual County Fair, zoned RA. Property consists of 50 acres and is located on the north side of Rt. 692, about 600 feet west of U. S. Rt. 29 South. Tax Map 87, parcel 3. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1988.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report: "Staff Comment: The Albemarle County Fair had projected an attend- ance figure of about 16,000 persons. The actual event was far more successful, with an attendance of 25,000 people, which was more than 50 percent higher than the original estimate. Physical improvements as reflected in the site plan were adequate to accommodate the nearly 17,000 vehicles over the six day period. Due to coordinated efforts by Fair officials, the Albemarle County Police Department, and Virginia Department of Transportation, traffic control and other operational measures managed traffic without accident or injury. Traffic congestion occurred one evening as a result of (human) operational problems. Changes in parking procedures corrected this problem. Staff is unaware of any other problems and no complaints were received from residents in the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following revised condi- tions: ~h~s-~pee~a~-use-perm~e-~-~ssned-fer-a-per~d-~-~ne-year beg~nn~ng-~n-~988-and-end~ng-~n-~989v Such events shall be limited to six consecutive days excluding Sunday. Hours of operation shall be limited to 4:00=.~P.M., to 11:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 11~-00 P.M. on Saturday with no operation Sunday ("Operation" shall mean the period of time during which the fair is open to the public and shall not include set up, dismantling and restoration activities.) This permit is issued for the conduct of the Albemarle County Fair by the Albemarle County Fair, Incorporated, and shall not be used for any other event requiring~ispecial use permit pursuant to Section 10.2.2.42 and 5.1.27 off'the Zoning Ordinance; The applicant shall notify the Albemarle County Police Depart- ment, Virginia Department of Health, and servicing fire and rescue squads 60 days prior to eac~ event and shall make adequate arrangements for the conduct of the event with each of these agencies; The applicant shall submit a preliminary plan in accordance with Section 32.4.2 of the Zoning O~dinance for Planning Commission review no later than June 1, 1988; Traffic management shall be as approved by the Albemarle County Police Department, Virginia Department of Transportation and Albemarle County~Planning Department, with the final responsi- bility being that of the Police Department." Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 1, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of thi~ request with the amended conditions. ~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing on thi~ application. Mr. Jim Crosby, Vice President and Director of the Albemarle County Fair, said the Planning Commission asked if the Fai~ could operate with a restric- tion of four years. He said their applicatio~ had been to simply remove the one year restriction and let the permit run ap long as a lease could be negotiated with the owner of the property. H~ said the lease currently runs 24 November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) for another four years with an option to renew. He said the owner of the land was pleased with the operation of the Fair and the way the grounds were left, and had no problems with the Fair continuing to use that site. He said The Daily Progress reported that a permit had been submitted to make this a permanent site. That was not true and could never be under the terms of the lease with the owner. He said the conditions of the lease require that everything be removed from the site with the exception of a small building that houses the electrical distribution panel. He said that building can be removed to another site, if at some point permanent fair grounds are found. Mr. Bowie said there was concern about the rain, and there was a rain just before the Fair began. He asked Mr. Crosby what the effects were on the ground. Mr. Crosby said this site met the supreme test of nature. He said the pouring rain on Sunday and Monday had drained and dried by Tuesday for the opening. He said the only problems encountered from soil was the last night when ride operators were moving the equipment. One particular truck of tremendous weight had to have a wrecker to get it out. He pointed out that the same thing happened at the Crozet Park and at the Fifth Street site for the same ride operator. Mrs. Belle Woodson said her closest friends were connected with the Fair, but she is still opposed to this site as a permanent location. She said she did not know until tonight that this would not be a permanent location. She said she does not want to see North Garden grow, and shelwill fight it as long as she has breath. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he would suggest a minor change in the language recommended by the Planning Commission in the first condition by setting a specific date to eliminate any misunderstanding. The first sentence of Condition No. 1 should state that the permit is terminated on December 31, 1992. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve SP-88~90, with the following conditions: 1. This special use permit is issued for a period of four years beginning in 1989 and would terminate on December 31, 1992. Such events shall be limited to six consecutive days excluding Sunday. Hours of operation shall be limited to, 4:00 P.M., to 11:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on Saturday with no operation on Sunday ("Operation" shall mean the period of time during which the fair is open to the public and shall not include set up, dismantling and restoration activities.) This permit is issued for the conduct of the Albemarle County Fair by the Albemarle County F~ir, Incorp- orated, and shall not be used for any other event requiring special use permit pursuant to Section 10.2.2.4~ and 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The applicant shall notify the Albemarle County!~i. Police Depart- ment, Virginia Department of Health, and servicing fire and rescue squads 60 days prior to each event and shall make adequate arrangements for the conduct of the event with each of these agencies; .... · 3. The applicant shall submit a preliminary plan i~ accordance with Section 32.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for~iPlanning Commission review no later than June 1, 1989; 4. Traffic management shall be as approved annuall~ by the Albemarle County Police Department, Virginia DeP~artment of Transportation and Albemarle County Planning Department, with the final responsibility being that of the Poli~e Department. There was no further discussion. Roi1 was called an the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,! Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) '(Page 20) 25 Agenda Item No. 13. House Joint Resolution 125 Fees, Statement. Development Impact As a result of the Board's direction at a recent meeting, Mr. Way submit- ted a draft statement to be presented to the Committee holding public hearings on this question. He said since the Board would be meeting on November 30, members of the Board might like to take some more time to look over the statement. Mr. Lindstrom said he had some minor comments, but would prefer to discuss it at the next meeting. The Board agreed to defer any discussion until November 30, 1988, so members of the Board would have more time to review the draft statement regarding Development Impact Fees. Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Mr. Way said that in recent years the Chairman and the Vice Chairman had served as a committee to make recommendations to the Board on various appoint- ments. The Board members agreed that Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way would meet and then make recommendations on pending appointments. Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1986, and October 3, 1988. No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. John Carter asked for redress of approximately $1,400 in monetary damages due to the failure of the County to give equal time for advertisements to opponents of the meals tax which was on the ballot for referendum during the recent general elections. He said an Attorney General's opinion on this matter issued February 6, 1980, clearly stat~s that money expended by govern- mental agencies in informing the public abou~ controversial issues belongs equally to the proponents and opponents. He!said he contends that this was public money, and the County was required by!the Attorney General's opinion to offer the opponents equal advertising space.~ He asked that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next Board meeting for resolution. Should the Board fail to act or to deny redress, Mr. CaCter said his group would be forced to seek redress in the courts. Ms. Susie Waldon said she had already spoken to Mr. St. John, but she also wanted to ask the Board members to appeal the U. S. District Court's decision regarding the nativity scene on CoUnty property. She said the Constitution of the United States was made for a moral and religious people. If the nativity scene on the lawn is thought'~to be an endorsement of Chris- tianity by the County, following that reasoning, Ms. Waldon said County employees should not celebrate Easter or Chr{stmas on County property. She said if the symbol of Jesus' birth is deemed~as endorsement of religion, then the County should stop using U. S. currency and coinage because both refer to God. Following that argument, she asked if the Board would stop pledging allegiance to the flag because the pledge refers to God. She said that is ridiculous, of course. She said the creche case should be resolved between the supporters and believers of Jesus Christl,and those who "ballyhoo" his divinity. It is not the business of the U. ~. District Court. She said religious bigots in this country are actuall~ attacking Christianity and have used the U. S. District Court to further their shameless cause. Ms. Waldon said she was speaking tonight for the sentiments of other Christians in this community. They do not wish to compromise on the true message of Christmas. If it were not for Jesus, she said there wou~d be no need for Christmas. She said Christians will continue to rejoice in ~he birth of Jesus, and they want to be free to celebrate and exhibit adulation of the Lord. She asked the Board to appeal the decision of the Court an~ quoted Thomas Jefferson as saying, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God, and the~ are not to be violated but with His wrath." 26 November 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Way said the Board had been informed that there are thirty days from the Court's decision to make a decision, and the Board would consider Ms. Waldon's request along with information from the County Attorney. Ms. Waldon asked how the public would know of the Board's decision. Mr. Way said it would be in a public meeting, but he did not know at this time which meeting that would be. Ms. Waldon said she would like to come back and address the Board. She said if the County removes the creche, that is the first attack on the First Amendment. Religious freedomswill be at stake. When a nation does not have morality backing it, and the people are not of moral principles, she said that nation will go the way of the Third World countries. She said she is not a native of this country, but she has adopted this home because she is so proud of it. And she wants it to remain free and blessed. Mr. St. John reminded the Board not to wait until the last minute and have to make a decision under the constraint of in~nediate necessity. The sooner the Board could make a decision of whether or notto appeal after the necessary deliberations, the better. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn to November 17, 1988. At 10:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn to November 17, 1988, at 2:00 P.M. There was no further discussion. 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.