Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-07536 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meetin (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 7, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:32 P.M.) and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 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 off'red by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the items on the consent agenda as information. Item 4.6 was to be pulled and discussed later in the meeting. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way NAYS: None. I Item 4.1. Letter from the Department of Transportation dated August 9, 1988, was received as follows: "As requested in your resolutions dated July 6, 1988i, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective August 9, 1988. ADDITIONS FIELDBROOK Route 1331 (Hearthglow Lane) - From Route 652 to a North cul-de-sac. 0.28 Mi. Route 1332 (Hearthglow Court) - From Route 1331 to a South cul-de-sac. 0.04 Mi. MILL CREEK Route 1150 (Mill Creek Drive) to Route 1151. From Route 742 0.25 Mi. Route 1151 (Copperstone Drive) - From Route 1150 to a North cul-de-sac. 0.36 Mi. Route 1152 (Mill Creek Court) - From Route 1151 to a West cul-de-sac. 0.~0 Mi. ; Route 1153 (Stone Mill Court) - From Route 1151 to a Northwest cul-de-sac. 0. I1 Mi." Item 4.2. Copies of Planning Con~nission Minutes forlAugust 16 and August 23, 1988, were received for information. Item 4.3. Letter dated August 18, 1988, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, re: the closing of Route 781 (Sunset AVenue) was received for information. Mr. Roosevelt informed the Board that: ~ September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 537 "The City has advised me that they plan to physically close Sunset Avenue on Tuesday, September 6, 1988. I have made arrangements to improve an entrance onto private property near the City/COunty line, within the County, to be used as a turn-around for traffic approach- ing this point from the south. This construction will be completed by September 2, 1988. On September 6, residency personnel will install a barricade across Route 781 prior to the bridge at the City/County line and place signs at the intersection of Routes 781 and 631 to notify traffic of the closing of the road. Maintenance funds will be used for this work." Item 4.4. Copy of letter dated August 19, 1988, from Mr. J. A. Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer, addressed to Mr. Mark Lorenzoni, regarding the closing of portions of Routes 601 and 676 on September 3, 1988, for a road race was received for information. Item 4.5. Copy of the Monthly Bond Program Report from Arbor Crest Apartments for the months of June and July, 1988 was received for information. Item 4.6. Copy of Press Release dated August 25, 1988, stating that Delegate Ford C. Quillen of the House Committee on Privileges and Elections has scheduled a public hearing on September !4, 1988, at 1:30 P.M. in Richmond for the Subcommittee studying School Boards and Fiscal Independence was received for information. (This item will be discussed later in the meeting.) Item 4.7. Received from the State Corporation Commission of Virginia (and on file in the Clerk's Office) are the following documents, received for information: a) b) c) d) e) Statement showing the Equalized AsSessed Value as of January 1, 1988, of the property of Water Corporations in the Commonwealth and the state taxes extended for the year 1988. Statement showing the Equalized AsSessed Value as of January 1, 1988, of the property of Electric Eight and Power Corporations in the Commonwealth and the state tax~s extended for the year 1988. Statement showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of January 1, 1988, of the property of Telephone ~nd Telegraph Companies in the Commonwealth and the state taxes e~tended for the year 1988. Statement showing the Equalized As~iessed Value as of January 1, 1988, of the property of Gas and Pipe Line Transmission Corporations in the Commonwealth and the state taxes extended for the year 1988. Statement of assessed values for L~cal Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies for 1988. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-49. James J..Wright.· Request for a permanent double-wide mobile home on two acres on east wide of Route 663, past its intersection with Route 664. White Hall Distkict. (Deferred from July 20, 1988.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The area is primarily residential, with woods occupying the remainder of the land. The property itself is relatively flat and entirely wooded in deciduous trees. One dwelling to the south is slightly visible. There-are nine mobile homes within a one mile radius of this property. ~ Staff Comment: Four letters of objectioh have been received concern- ing this petition. Concerns range from general objections to the possible effect on property values and proximity to a candidate for the Virginia Registry of Historic Landmarks. 538 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) The applicant intends to purchase the land if the Special Use Permit is approved. The applicant further intends to reside in the mobile home and not use it as a rental unit. Should the Board approve this petition, the staff recommends the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for the district in which it is located; 3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 4. Provision of potable water supply and seweragefacilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department ~of Health, if applicable under current regulations; 5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction Df the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meet%ng on July 12, 1988, unanimously recommended approval with amendments to the staff's recommended conditions. Condition #3 was revised to read: "Mobile home shall be placed on a permanent foundation and have a shingle-type roof". The first sentence of condition #5 was amended to read: "Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping or other screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator, with particular attention being provided by the zoning administrator to screening from the northern property line". Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked the appllicant if he wished to address the Board. Mr. James J. Wright said he would comply with all the recommended conditions. With no one else present to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. B~wie, to approve SP-88-49 with the conditions recommended by the Planning !Commission. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motio~ carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. LindstCom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ (Note: Conditions of approval are set out in full bglow:) 1. Albemarle County Building Official approval; 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; ~t 3. Mobile home shall be placed on a permanent foundation and have a shingle-type roof; ~ 4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage ~acilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department df Health, if applicable under current regulations; ~ 5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping~iand/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction oB the Zoning Administrator, with particular attention being ~rovided by the Zoning Administrator to screening from the northern property September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 539 line. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: An amendment to Section 4-19 of the County Code commonly called the "Dog Leash Law" to include Key West/Cedar Hills as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23 and August 30, 1988.) Mr. Agnor summarized the statistics presented to the Board on July 13, 1988, and said 65 percent of the residents favored including the Key West/ Cedar Hills area under the auspices of the dog leash law. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. Becky Pence said she has lived in the Key West/Cedar Hills neighbor- hood for 19 years. She said residents brought this issue before the Board in 1981 and were told to handle the problem at ~he con~nunity level. She said this approach has not worked. She said people who walk their dogs on leashes are attacked by dogs running loose; one woman even broke her arm after being knocked down and bitten by unleashed dogs while she was walking her dog, leashed, on the road. She said residents are afraid to walk through the subdivision without arming themselves with sticks or golf clubs. She asked the Board to approve the request of the majority of the residents of the Key West/Cedar Hills neighborhood and include this area under the protection of the leash law. ~ Ms. Karen Brazell said she has lived inilthe Key West subdivision for two years. She said dogs running loose in the neighborhood have bitten her daughter, attached her husband as he jogged,~chased children on bicycles and have bitten one other child. She said this has made her children afraid and she does not think this is fair. Since no one else wished to speak to th~s request, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bowie said he spent three months campaigning from door to door last fall and the only place he was bitten by a dQg was in Key West. He said he supports adopting the dog leash ordinance fo~ this area since a majority of the residents want such a law. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 4, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code by adding Key West/Cedar Hills as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND !AND REENACT THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, CHAPTER !4, ANIMALS AND FOWL ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, :SECTION 4-19 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Article II, D~ision~ 2, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code be amended and re~acted by the following addition as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large: Division 2. Runnin Sec. 4-19. In certain areas. (28) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivisi the office of the clerk of the in Deed Book 353, pages 193 to 202, Deed Book 371, page 474, Large ~n as platted and recorded in circuit court of the county, 197, Deed Book 365, page eed Book 388, page 514, Deed Book 393, page 417, Deed Book 410, page 577, Deed Book 420, page 259, Deed Book 505, page 607, Deed Book 530, page 351, Deed Book 543, page 114, Deed Book 661, page 44, Deed Book 692, page 453, and Deed Book 809, page 623. 540 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to consider a request from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to abandon a section of Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) 1.88 miles in length to public use, in order to allow the closing of access to Sugar Hollow Reservoir property after dark was received for informa- tion. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23 and August 30, 1988.) Mr. Agnor said the caretaker of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir and adjacent landowners have had problems with people trespassing on the reservoir after dark, building fires, drinking alcohol and possibly using narcotics. Although the property has been posted and violators are arrested, the problem persists. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority asked VDoT for permission to gate Route 614 at the entrance to the reservoir property to close the property after dark. VDoT responded by saying the road could not be gated unless the section of the road beyond the gate were abandoned and the responsibility for its maintenance transferred to the Rivanna Authority. Mr. Francis Fife, Chairman of the Rivanna Authority~ asked that the Board grant the Authority's request for abandonment of the section of Route 614. He said it is the duty of the Authority to protect the drinking water of the County and the City. Too often in today's society, he said, we wait until a disaster has occurred before we restrict an act. He said there is trash all around the reservoir and an old building on the far side of the dam was set on fire. He said the opportunity for polluting, littering and damaging the property is greater under cover of darkness. He asked that the Board approve the request and allow the Authority some measure of control over the trespass- ers before the problem gets any worse. ~ Mr. Gene Potter, Director of Operations for the Rivanna Authority, said Mr. George Williams prepared a statement for the Board, W~ich he is unable to deliver due to an illness in the family. Mr. Potter said he would like to read this statement on behalf of Mr. Williams and proceeded to do so. He said the Authority has worked with the County police and neighboring landowners to make installing a gate unnecessary. These efforts have not solved the prob- lem. In the month of August alone, there were 24 incide~Es of trespassing after dark, four incidents of over-night camping with fir~s, one firearm was discharged and five incidents of boating and swimming, all violations of the watershed protection ordinance. ~! Mr. Potter said the Authority is willing to commit up to $6,000 a year to maintain the portion of the roadway requested for abandonment. He said County parks close at night and the Authority feels closing the .~ntrance to the reservoir is a logical course of action and is endorsed b~ the National Park Service. ~ Mr. Sterling Williamson addressed the Board and said he and his sister own a small piece of property in Sugar Hollow. He said he is concerned that installing a gate at the entrance of the reservoir will encourage trespassers to congregate on his property and that of his neighbors, iHe said the Author- ity proposes to put the gate 3000 feet from the reservoir~and suggested that it be placed closer to the reservoir. Less of the road would then have to be vacated and the Authority could spend less money on maintenance. Mr. Gale Pickford addressed the Board and said he isi~representing the White Hall Hunt Club and Mr. and Mrs. Billy James, who al~o own property near the proposed location of the gate. He said Mr. and Mrs. 3ames believe that installing the gate will not solve the problem, but merel~ cause it to shift to their property. He said Route 614, after it leaves th~ reservoir property, serves several property owners who live on the mountain. Me asked if one property owner should be allowed to fence off a right-of-May used by other property owners. He said the U. S. Department of Interior ment with ten permittees and installed the gate now on Rou arrangement has worked rather well, he said, the U. S. De~ Interior has become more demanding in its regulations, whi the White Hall Hunt Club to look with jaundiced eyes at a~ tal regulation of this right-of-way. In many cases, he sE only access for some property owners and in all cases, thJ right-of-way suitable for hauling timber. reached an agree- te 614. While the artment of the ch causes members of y further governmen- id, this road is the s road is the only September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 541 Mr. Pickford said there is no evidence .that any of the trespassers have been prosecuted. He said the property owners are the ones being punished by having their right-of-way gated. He said there are laws in existence to take care of the problem and he does not think the caretaker is availing himself of them. He said he is also concerned that the $6000 yearly cost to maintain the roadway will be passed to the customers of the Rivanna Authority. He said section 33.1-151 of the Code of Virginia states that the motion to abandon must be brought by a landowner. He asked if the Rivanna Authority can be called a landowner and said he has seen no deed of title to the Sugar Hollow reservoir property. In order for a road to be abandoned according to the statute, he continued, the Board must find either that the road is no longer necessary or that its abandonment is in the best interest of the public. He said many people use the roadway and believe that its abandonment will be detrimental to them. He said there must also be alternate routes available if the road is to be abandoned; in this case, there are no such routes. Mr. Pickford said Mr. Fife told the Board that someone might slip in and poison the water supply. Mr. Pickford said he does not think a gate will keep out such a person. He said he thinks another way should be found to protect the water supply, a way that does not inconvenience the landowners in the area. Mrs. Cooke asked if there were any permanent residences served by this portion of the road, cases in which a landowner might use the road every day. Mr. Pickford said he is not sure; there are buildings on some of these parcels but he does not know if they are permanent residences. Mr. Bowie asked if anyone lived between>the gate that is already on the property and the gate proposed by the Rivann~ Authority. Mr. Pickford said "no", but the first gate was installed by mutual agreement and this second gate is an imposition. Mr. Clarence Jones addressed the Board and said he holds a key to the gate installed by the Department of the Inte=ior. He said he already has to go through two of the Park's gates to reach his property and he does not want to have to go through a third gate. He said?he would rather the police department enforce the law and bring the trespassers to court. In answer to Mrs. Cooke's earlier question, he said there{are no permanent residences served by this roadway after it enters the r~servoir property. Mr. Meredith Shifflett said he owns a piece of property on the mountain and has a cabin there he uses for a vacation home and hunting lodge. He said he does not live there permanently, but visits as often as once or twice a week. He presented a petition signed by citizens who oppose the request for abandonment before the Board today. Ms. Polly Buxton, a resident of Sugar Hollow and a member of the Neigh- borhood Watch Association, addressed the Board. She said a lot of traffic passes her house around 2:00 A.M. on its way~from the reservoir. She said she thinks something needs to be done to protect the caretaker and his family. If a gate will protect them from the roughnecks~trespassing around the reservoir, then she supports it. Ms. Tammy James addressed the Board and said she and her husband own the property adjacent to the location proposed for the gate. She said she and her husband plan to build a house for themselves on this property within the next few years. The gate will be within 25 to 50 feet of her driveway, she said, which means the roughnecks who usually trespass on the reservoir property will now litter and loiter on her property. Ms. Jan Matthews addressed the Board and said she is married to the caretaker. She said she sympathizes with the landowners who own property near the reservoir. Nearly every night, her husband must get up at 2:00 A.M. and go after some trespasser. Every morning, he ~has to pick up the trash these people leave behind. She said the Police Department has helped, but the County is too large for the police to respond rapidly sometimes. She said the trespassers are making the reservoir dangeroup and ugly; they leave broken glass and cans all over the place. She asked!that the Board approve the request of the Rivanna Authority. 542 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Joseph Jones addressed the Board and said he does not think anyone has prosecuted or convicted the trespassers. When he was a teenager, fishing was prohibited near the dam and he used to sneak into the reservoir and fish there. He said he and all his friends knew that if they were caught, they would just be asked to leave the property; nothing serious would happen to them. Perhaps if the police started arresting trespassers and locking them up, the problem would be solved. Mr. Jones said this road is used to haul timber and cattle to and from the properties above the reservoir. In 1985, a flood washed out a section of the road below the caretaker's house, he said, and he knows it costs more than $6000 to repair this road. He said he does not want the right-of-way abandoned because he does not believe the Rivanna Authority can maintain the roadway. Ms. Carol Maslow, a resident of Sugar Hollow, addressed the Board and said she thinks the top priority should be protecting the watershed. She said there is also a problem with drunken and speeding drivers on the road under discussion. She said she has never seen a policemen patrolling this road. She said there must be some way to protect the environment of Sugar Hollow and the water supply. Mr. Carl Ayers, President of the White Hall Hunt Club, said he is con- cerned that abandoning the road will devalue the properties situated above the reservoir property. He said he does not think the road ~ill be maintained properly. He also presented a petition signed by citizens opposing the abandonment. Mr. Hal Ferneyhough addressed the Board and said the one residence inside this gate, below the reservoir, is surrounded by filth. ~If the gate is going to be installed, he said, this residence should be cleangd up, too. Mr. Tucker Landry addressed the Board and said he lives downstream of the Sugar Hollow reservoir. He said he helped start the Neighborhood Watch Association in the area about three or four years ago. }~e said he thinks the ordinance must be enforced and the trespassers must be a=rested. A year or two ago, he said, there was an incident involving trespassers on the reservoir property. After 13 calls to the Police Department, the policemen finally arrived two hours later. Mr. Landry said the delay was 4~e to problems with the 911 dispatch system, which was new at the time. If ~01icemen could patrol the area randomly at night and arrest the trespassers, ha! said, this would alleviate most of the problem and the gate would not be ~geded. He said he is tired of drunken drivers tearing up and down the road in i'.~he middle of the night, playing their stereos as loudly as possible and sh6uting obscenities out the windows. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Potter or Mr. Fife to descri~e the function of the caretaker. Mr. Potter said the Rivanna Authority operates a chlorinator and a corrosion inhibitor as part of the water works at ~be Sugar Hollow Reservoir. In addition, the caretaker must operate the ~iood control gates as the water level changes, pick up trash and clean deadwoo~i~from the perimeter of the reservoir, and maintain the structures on the property. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Authority has considered ~aying the caretaker more money and adding law enforcement to his duties. Mr.~IPotter said members of the Authority do not believe caretakers have the training to act as enfor- cers of the law. He said the Authority has also considered hiring an off-dut~ deputy or policemen to act as a law enforcement officer, but this would cost the Authority $18 per hour. Mr. Lindstrom said he does n~t believe a gate would be as effective as having someone live on the property who is paid and trained to deal with lawbreakers. d Mr. Jim Ward addressed the Board an said he would l~ke to know what the Authority means when it says the gate will be open duringldaylight hours. He said this is the only trout stream in the CountY. People~!start fishing for trout one hour before sunrise, he said, and if that gate ~s not open, the people are going to trespass on the property of the adjoining landowners. September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 543 Mr. Larry Tennison addressed the Board and said he lives in Sugar Hollow. He said trout fishing is important to the residents of this area; he even sees people in wheelchairs along the stream during trout season. He said he thinks people are upset because the County is considering closing access to public land. He said he does not want to see a few "bad apples" spoil things for everybody else. Since no one else wished to speak to this abandonment, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Agnor said he would like to point out that some of the trespassers have been arrested and even convicted, and the problem has diminished somewhat as a result. He said it is difficult to catch the trespassers, because a lot of them have scanners and can tell when the police are on their way. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that a gate will not solve the prob- lem. He said he would have the possibility investigated of hiring a security guard to patrol the area at night and to enforce the ordinance. He said he thinks this might be more effective than something passive like a fence, that can be jumped over, driven through or bulldozed over. Mr. Bowie asked if everyone who owned land above the reservoir property would have a key to the gate. Mr. Agnor said, "yes". Mr. Bowie asked if members of the White Hall Hunt Club would ha~e keys. Mr. Agnor said, "yes". Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John is the Board could guarantee that this section of the road, if abandoned, would be ~aintained. Mr. St. John said he does not think the County has the legal grounds to abandon this road, simply because criminals use this road to arrive at ithe place where they con, nit crimes. Under the statute, Mr. St. John sai~, he does not think the Board can use VDoT to solve a problem that should be i~ the province of the Police Department. If the Board does abandon this ~ection of the roadway, the road bed then becomes the property of the Rivanna Authority. If maintaining the road proves burdensome for the Rivanna Authomity, the property owners must assume the responsibility for its maintenance. Moreover, he said, according to the common law of easements, a gate canno~ be built across the road because the road becomes a private easement for the p~operty owners as soon as it is abandoned, and all the owners would have to ~gree to a decision by one owner to put a gate across a private 'easement. Regardless of the legality of abandoning this section of the roadway, Mr. ~{. John said, there is no way the Board can guarantee its maintenance, unless ~he Rivanna Authority signs a contract agreeing to maintain the roadway. In defense of the Rivanna Authority, Mr.! Way said, the roads they main- tain are often kept in better shape than thos~ maintained by the State. Mr. Bowie said he thinks these vandals p~se a threat to the public safety. He said the Roman legions lost to th~ Vandals because the Romans tried to hide behind walls. He said he wouldi like an estimate on the cost of hiring a night-time security guard, with poli~e powers, to patrol the proper- ty. Mr. Way said he is not prepared to approve the abandonment tonight because he feels there may be alternatives th~ Board should explore. Mr. Bain said he does not want to vote o~ this request until he is sure of the legality of the abandonment. He said he would also like more, specific information on the nature of the problem, whe~ the trespassing usually occurs and what kind of people are violating the ordinance. If the violations taper off during the w~nter, Mr. Lindstrom said, perhaps the Authority should consider the cos9 of having a a security guard during the remaining seasons. He said he wou~d also like to know if the Police Department could do anything that woul~ be more effective than what it is doing now. ~ Mr. Perkins said he is ready to vote tonight not to abandon this section of Route 614. Just because we have a few ban~ robbers, he said, we do not close all the banks. He said he thinks the C~unty has enough policemen that 544 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) an officer could check on the property as part of a regular beat, instead of waiting for a call. Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Authority could discuss these issues at its September meeting and provide the information requested by October. Mr. Bowie added that he would like an estimate from the VDoT of the cost for maintaining and removing snow from this section of Route 614. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to defer the public hearing or any action on the abandonment until the regular day meeting in October. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. (At 9:10 P.M., the Board recessed and then reconvened at 9:22 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearimg to: a) Add to Moorman's River Asricultural/Forestal District. Proposal to add to an existing 8,034 acre agricultural/forestal district located in the vicinity of White Hall, Owensville and F~ee Union. The proposed addition consists of various parcels located on State Routes 601, 614, 658, 662, 674, 675, 676, 678, 680 and 829, and contains 2,200.421 acres. White Hall District{. b) Add to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District. '.Proposal to add to an existing 5,222 acre agricultural/forestal district located on Route 22 between Keswick and Cismont. The proposed addition con- sists of Tax Map 64, Parcels 12 and Tax Map 81,1!iParcel 63, and contains 699.010 acres. Rivanna District. c) Adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section;2.1-4 of the County Code by adding certain parcels to Subsection (gi~ entitled "Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District" and by a~ing certain parcels to Subsection (e) entitled Keswlck Agr~cultura!/Forestal Dxstrmct. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23, and Augus~ 30, 1988.) Mr. Home presented the staff's report and said additional parcels have been proposed to be included in the Moormans River and Ke~wick Agricul- tural/Forestal Districts. In addition to the usual benefits agricultural/ forestal districts bring the County, Mr. Horne said, the establishment of the Moormans River Agricultural/Forestal District would prote~t a water supply watershed. He said property owners are proposing to add ~,269.032 acres to the Moormans River District, bringing the total number off'acres to 10,303.381, making the Moormans River District the largest agricultur~l/forestal district in the County. This addition must be reviewed at the time previously estab- lished for the review of the Moormans River District, which was approved on December 17, 1987, for a period of four to eight years. ~he Planning Commis- sion at its meeting on August 9, 1988, unanimously recommended that the addition to the Moormans River Agricultural/Forestal District be approved as submitted. ?i Mr. Horne said the addition proposed to the Keswick ~gricultural/Forestal District contains 639.010 acres in two parcels, bring the itotal number of acres in the Keswick District to 5,921.240. He said the I~eswick District was approved on September 3, 1986, for an undetermined period i~f time between four to eight years. Mr. Home said this area contains excellent hardwood forests, wildlife habitat, agricultural soils and is being evaluated for designation as a National Register Historic District. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 9, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of the addi- tion to the Keswick District. !i Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board always approvgd a set period of time for the review of the agricultural/forestal districts~and usually the period was the maximum allowable, ten years. Mr. Home sa~d the Board chose September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 545 not to set a definite period of review on the early agricultural/forestal districts. Mr, Lindstrom said he understood that the Board could have set the district to be reviewed in four years; if the review were not set for four years, it would automatically be reviewed in ten years. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie said they thought the Board set a specific period of time for review. Mr. Horne said he would check. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, a representative of the Piedmont Environment Coun- cil, addressed the Board. She thinks all the property owners in these dis- tricts know that the term of their particular district will be as close to eight years as possible, the original stipulation in the State Code. She said she owns land in the Moormans River Agricultural/Forestal District and will be happy to answer any questions about that particular district. Since no one else wished to speak to these applications, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopted the following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2, 1-4, subsections (e) and (g) as follows: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same hereby is, emended in subsections Ge) and (g) by the addition of certain parcels, the amended sections r~ading as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (e) The district known as the "Ke~wick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the folldwing described properties: Tax map 63, parcels 24, 39, 43; tax map ~4, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8, SA, 9, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 12, 13, 13A; tax ~map 65, parcel 13; tax map 79, parcels 46, 46A; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2A, 3Al, 3G, 3I, 4, 61D, 88, 164, 169, 169A, 174, 176, 182, 182A, 183, 183A, 190, 192, 194; tax map 81, parcels 1, 63. AYES: NAYS: (g) The district known as the "Mo6rman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7Al, 8, 11, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A, 34B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 7B, 8, 8B, 8E, 8H, 8J, 8K, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C,i 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 7DF, 70G, 70H, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 7lA, 73B, 74A, 76, 77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1, 80, 84; tax map 30, parcels 10, iOA, 12, 17A, 18E; tax map 41, parcels 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, 50, 67, 67B, 68, 70, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 8'~ 8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map 43, parcels 1 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18C, 18E, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 2lA, 23A, 23D, 2~ 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, 33D, 3~ tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 264 ~0G, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43, 43A, lB, 2, 3, 3A, 3C, 4C, 4D, 18F, 18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 25A, 25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 45, 45A, 45C, 45D, 58,; 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30B, 31, 31D, 31F, 31G; tag map 59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. Roll was called and the motion carried~y the following recorded vote: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MeSsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. 546 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge for issuance of a grading permit prior to final site plan approval. Mr. Horne presented the following staff's memorandum, dated August 24, 1988: "Westminister Canterbury of the Blue Ridge is requesting that the Board approve the issuance of an erosion control permit under section 7-7 of the County Code. Specifically, they are requesting that they be allowed to grade their site prior to approval of the final site development plan. Current procedures utilized by the Site Review Committee require that applicants receive tentative approval by all agencies necessary to sign the final site development plan. The Soil and Erosion Ordinance states that no erosion control permit may be issued on a site that requires a site plan until the approval of the final site development plan. This has been a long-standing procedure under the Soil and Erosion Ordinance and was instituted in response to serious problems relating to premature or inappropriate grading of sites prior to actual development review and development of the site. As the Board will recall, the site plan section of the Zoning Ordi- nance was amended in 1987 to institute a preliminar~ and final site development plan procedure. The preliminary site deVelopment plans can be drawn by persons other than registered surveyors or licensed engineers and do not require many of the detailed engineering and design features required on a final site developmen~ plan. This was instituted in response to the Land Use Regulation Committee and its recommendations. With this procedure, the staff de~eloped adminis- trative guidelines that required review and tentati~ approval of the final site development plan by all agencies necessary to sign and approve that plan prior to the issuance of an Erosiq,.~ Control Permit. Obtaining those tentative approvals can occupy one ~ four months from the point of preliminary site plan approval. .~ Since instituting the preliminary and final site plan procedure, the staff has regularly dealt with requests by individual developers to either grade additional areas on their sites that were not proposed for immediate development or to begin grading prior i~o receiving tentative approvals of the final site development p~n. The staff has routinely rejected these requests and informed the applicants that their only relief would be through the Board of~ Supervisors under Chapter 7 of the County Code. This type of r~quest has been particularly prevalent in the late summer and fall o~f the year with developers wishing to avoid the onset of bad weather and accomplish much of the grading in anticipation of construction '.in the spring and summer. Dealing with these types of requests has begun to occupy a considerable amount of staff's time. In response to this perceived need by the development community, the staff developed a preliminary procedure for the Planking commission to review and approve, concerning grading on certainl sites under certain conditions prior to final site development p~ian approval. When the Planning Commission reviewed this recommendation, they stated that while they had no particular problems wi{h the content of the procedure, they felt that the problem was not seyere enough to merit any change in the current procedures. The Com~aission, there- fore, stated that they did not support any changes a~ this time and would continue to monitor the situation. Without su~.h a procedure, there currently are no guidelines for the staff, Commission, or the Board to use in evaluation of a request such as that ilby Westminster Canterbury. ~I In response to the individual request by Westminster !iCanterbury, the staff would recommend denial of the request. The st~,ff can see no demonstration by the applicant and can identify no f~ that would be unique in distinguishing this request other developers. It would appear that the request would have met the criteria for application under th mended guidelines, but cannot demonstrate any public served by issuance of this waiver of the normal proc~ .ctors on its own rom requests by .y this applicant staff's recom- purpose to be dures. Much of September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 547 the staff concern arises fromthe knowledge that many other develop- ers would wish to have this type of waiver and unless unique, distin- guishing characteristics of the Westminster Canterbury request can be identified, the Board, staff, and Commission may be subject to repeated and numerous requests for such waivers. The staff does not intend to minimize the value of the convenience and costs savings that would be available to this particular applicant, but is merely pointing out that any waiver of established procedures should be granted only when there has been a demonstration of some public purpose or unique distinguishing characteristics of a particular application. Should the Board choose to approve this waiver, the staff would recommend the following conditions: ~ Acquisition or demonstration of ability to acquire off-site easements for the entrance onto Route 250 East and ability to close or alter access easements through the property." Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished to address the Board. Mr. Rick Richmond, President of Westmin~ster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, addressed the Board. He said he is not asking the Board to change its policy, but he thinks Westminster-Canterbury is facing a unique problem. As of today, he said, half of the 120 units proposed to b~ built have been reserved. In other words, he said, nearly 100 people haveildecided to sell their homes and move to Westminster-Canterbury. In order toiilkeep the project on schedule, so these people will have somewhere to go after!ithey sell their homes, he said, his subcontractor has told him that the property must be graded and footings poured before winter. He said the top of th~ hill needed to be graded by about fifteen feet and a loop road built. !'i He said the situation faced by Westminster-Canterbury is unique because all the information necessary for site plan ~pproval was delivered to the County over 30 days ago. He said the Planning Commission is scheduled to review the site plan on September 23. If We ahead with the grading until the end of the several months behind schedule. Since no one else wished to speak to th public hearing and placed the matter before Mr. Lindstrom said the approval of West~ rezoning carried with it the condition that tminster-Canterbury cannot move eptember, the project will fall s request, Mr. Way closed the he Board. inster-Canterbury's request for ~he Planning Commission review the site plan, rather than have it approved administratively. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horn, why the Commission felt it necessav~y to review the site plan. Mr. Home said the Commission was concerned about the design of the road connect- ing the project to Route 250 East. He said ~he residents of Ashcroft subdivi- sion were also worried about the configuration and appearance of the buildings and the Planning Commission thought the residents should have the chance to address the site plan at a public hearing. ~i Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to supuort this request, but he does not think this situation is unique enough to avoid setting a precedent. He said the residents in Ashcroft might be disturbed~if they saw bulldozers at work on the site before the Planning Commission had ~een the site plan. Moreover, he said, the effectiveness of the review might 5e compromised if such a fundamen- tal part of the project is allowed to proceed, before the review takes place. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board has ever a~Proved such a request. Mr. Horne said the Board did grant a waiver in the cas~' of the Branchlands PUD, but the grading was needed to build roads that would .serve the public. Mr. St. John said the Erosion Control Ordinance does not ~rovide for waivers to the re- quirement that a site plan must be approved ~efore a grading permit can be issued. He read from the Ordinance: "Any p~son who is aggrieved by any action of the director of engineering in disapproving plans and specifications · shall have the right to apply for an receive a review of such action by 548 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) the board of supervisors." In the case of Westminster-Canterbury, Mr. St. John said, no site plan has been disapproved. Mr. Bowie said he would also like to support this request, but does not see how this request is different from that of any developer building a housing development. He said the residents of Ashcroft subdivision have been promised a chance to see the site plans and he does not think it would be right to allow grading to begin before they have this chance. Mr. Bain said he realizes that the Planning Commission will not review the site plan for three weeks and this delay may be critical for Westminster-Canterbury. Nevertheless, he said, he does not believe granting the waiver would serve a public purpose and he is concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Way said he is concerned that the Board would be giving Westminster- Canterbury "special treatment" if it were to approve the request for the waiver. A motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by M~. Lindstrom that the request of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge for grading prior to approval of a site plan be denied. There was no further~,~discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded ~ote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~rom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution for the Virginia HouSing Development Authority (VHDA) re: Midway Housing Project. ' Mr. Horne said units of the Midway Housing Project ~re being rehabili- tated as part of the Community Development Block Grant p ,~ogram being under- taken by AHIP. He said the staff recommended approval o~ this project and the application for VHDA funding. ~i Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Francis Fife, Vice-President of the Midway Housing Project, addressed the Board and asked that the Board continue its support oil housing projects for low-income citizens. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie, to author- ize the Chairman to sign certifying to the Virginia Housing Development Authority the Board's approval of the proposed multi-family residential housing development called Midway Housing Project. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution to Approve Moving th~ Batesville Polling Place. Mr. Agnor said the Electoral Board asked the Board to approve the reloca- tion of the Batesville Polling Place from a private residence to the Batesville United Methodist Church. Funds needed for thei!move include $1500 for a ramp for handicapped voters and the cost of notifying all registered voters in the precinct of the new location. The budget f~r Staff Services will pay for the costs of the ramp and the Registrar's budget will take care of the notice to voters. Mr. Jim Heilman, Registrar, said he would be glad toianswer any ques- tions. : Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by ~r. Bain, to adopt the following resolution: September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 549 BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby concur in the moving of the Batesville Polling Place from Charles Page, 3r.'s house to the Social Hall of the Batesville United Methodist Church. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-88-2. Public Hearing to amend the permitted uses of 29.0, Planned Development Industrial Park District was received for information. (Deferred from August 17, 1988.) Mr. Horne said there are three uses currently not allowed in the PD-IP that are allowed in areas zones LI, Light Industrial, and HI, Heavy Indus- trial. These uses include motorcycle and off-road recreational vehicle sales and service, food processing plants such as meat packing and rendering plants and temporary events sponsored by local, no~-profit organizations. Mr. Lindstrom said he was a member of %~e Board when the PD-IP district was adopted into the Zoning Ordinance and heidid not envision the PD-IP district would be used for kennels, motorcycle sales, junkyards, or many of the uses available either by-right or specia~ permit in areas zoned LI and HI. He said he is not as worried about the few uses that this amendment would add, as he is about the multitude of uses alreadyiallowed under the designation PD-IP. Mr. Horne said the staff was relying oniits ability to judge the appro- priateness of a particular site for a particular use after an application has been submitted. He said he feels uncomfortable trying to predict industrial uses, because there are so many different industries and new ones are started all the time. Mr. Bowie suggested that this matter be put on the agenda for a day meeting to give members of the Board time to~discuss it further. A motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom aid seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer this amendment to October 12, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments: a) BOCA Code Board of Appeals. No name was offered for appointment. b) Community Action Agency. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to appoint Dr. Rose MarYe Chioni as a member of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board of Directors. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. c) Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals. No name was offered for appointment. ~ d) Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation. No name was offered. 550 September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) e) JAUNT Board of Directors. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to reappoint Robert W. Tucker, Jr. as a member of the JAUNT Board with the term to expire on September 30, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. f) Jefferson Area Board on Aging. No name was offered. g) Library Board. No name was offered. h) Jordan Development Corporation. No name was offered. i) Social Services Board. No name was offered. j) TJPDC Regional Comprehensive Plan Advisory committee. No name was offered. k) Transportation Safety Com~nittee. No name was offered. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr~ Bain, to reappoint Mr. Werner K. Sensbach as the University of Virginia representative on the Planning Commission, term to expire on December 31, 19881 There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the. Agenda from the Public and Board members. Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that it was to discuss Item 4.6 of the consent agenda, which notified the Board that the House Committee on Privileg- es and Elections will hold a public hearing on "School Boards and Fiscal Independence" on September 14, 1988, at 1:30 P.M. Mr. BoWie said he thinks either the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman should represent the Board at this public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out the appropriateness of the Chairman represent- ing the Board at such a hearing, since he is also a former Chairman of the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom also suggested that the staff draft a resolution stating the Board's opinion on the matter. Mr. Lindstrom said he and Mr. Perkins met with Mr. R~y Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, last week to discuss the Millington Bridge an the Moormans River. He said the VDoT had a video presentation on the ~ridge that convinced him the bridge is ~n worse shape than he was led to bel~eye. He said he and Mr. Perkins argued to the Commissioner that the magnitude i"of the project was unjustified. He said Ms. Connie Kinchloe, the Culpeper representative on the State I{ighway Commission, said the bridge is dangerous an, must be replaced and the road is dangerous as well, but the area is beauti~'ul and something should be done to minimize the impact of the project. Bo~ Commissioner and Ms. Kinchloe had visited the site. Mr. staff then showed some plans, which neither the citizens, Lindstrom had even seen before, for rusticated versions o~ Bridge, some with brick veneer, wood railings and winding h the Highway ochran of the VDoT Mr. Perkins nor Mr. a new Millington ~approaches. Mr. Lindstrom said the Highway Commissioner told the group he could decide the appeal right away or, since the Board and citizens were misinformec September 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 551 about the design of the bridge, he could defer action and send Mr. Cochran to meet with the Board and present these alternate designs. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the Highway Commissioner will decide in favor of the VDoT, if the Board cannot work out something with Mr. Cochran. Mr. Way said the Governor's Conference on Housing, which is being touted as the most significant housing meeting ever held in Virginia, will be held in Williamsburg on September 28, 29, and 30, 1988. Mr. Way suggested that either a member of the Board or staff attend this conference. Mr. Lindstrom said he would go. After some discussion, it was decided that a member of the staff should go as well, so Mr. Agnor said he would ask someone to attend. At the request of the Chairman, at 10:52 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and property acquisition. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.