Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-04November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 322 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 4, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom 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 7:33 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 Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve 4.1 and 4~2 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Hunter's Way Gas Main Easement Deed, authorize Chairman to execute. The following memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, dated Octo- ber 23, 1987, was received: "Enclosed is a letter from the office of the City Attorney requesting execution of an Easement to allow construction of a gas main in Hunter's Way in Albemarle County. This !roadway has been dedicated to the County of Albemarle, but has yet to ibe taken into the state system. I have reviewed the contents of the deed and would recommend that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors be authorized to execute the deed. I have confirmed with the Virginia Department of Transportation that execution of the deed will in no way jeopardize the acceptance of Hunter's Way into the .Secondary System. If this could be placed on the Board of Supervisors meeting for November 4, 1987, it would be of great assistance to all involved." The Chairman was authorized to execute the following easement by the vote shown above: THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this 4th day of November, 1987, by and between COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, hereinafter "County", and CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corpora- tion, Grantee, hereinafter "City", whose address is P. O. Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of $1.00, cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the County does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and MODERN ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, a perpetual easement and right of way to construct, replace, maintain, and repair a two (2) inch natural gas main within the roadway known as "Hunter's Way", a more particular description of the location of said right of way is designated by the broken line running from point "A" to point "B" on a plat entitled "Gas Easement Plat Hunter's Hall" prepared by Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc., dated July 24, 1979, and revised to show the five (5) foot gas line easement September 2, 1987, which plat is hereto attached and made a part of this deed. 323 November 4, 1987 (RegUlar Night Meeting) (Page 2) The County does further GRANT unto the City the right to construct slopes, cuts, fills and ditches in connection with the installation and maintenance of the right of way, and to convey natural gas over, under and across said property surface. Hunter's Way, over which the aforementioned eas~ement passes, is more particularly described on plat attached to certificate of plat and dedication dated September 26, 1979, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 688, page 621. Reference is herebymade to the~.aforesaid certificate of plat and dedication for a more complete description of the property over which this easement and right of way pass. The conveyance of this easement and right of way includes a perpetual right of ingress and egress for the aforementioned purpose. As evidenced by its acceptance and recordation of this deed, the City covenants that it will perform the installation of the natural gas main in a proper and careful manner. Disturbed portions of Grantor's property will be restored to a condition comparable to that which existed prior to such installation, except that no flowers, shrubs or trees within the easement will be replante~ or replaced if damaged or destroyed. In consideration of the granting of this easemeht, the City covenants that at such time as Hunter's Way is to be-taken into the State road system, the City will, at the request of the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation, quitclaim all'of its rights in this easement. Item 4.2. Appropriation for the purchase and installation of fire detection equipment at the Scottsville and Crozet Branch 5ibraries, was requested through the following memorandum from Mr. MelviJ A. Breeden, dated October 19, 1987: ~ "In 1984 the Board of Supervisors appropriated $3,30~ for the pur- chase and installation of fire detection equipment a~ the Scottsville and Crozet Branch Libraries. ~ This project was delayed for several years and in the meantime the appropriation lapsed and was not reappropriated. The project has now been completed at a cost of $3,275 which needs to be ipaid to the City of Charlottesville as fiscal agent for the Jefferson Madison Regional Library." The following resolution was adopted by the vote recorded above: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle, County, Virginia, does hereby appropriate $3,275.00 f~om the Capital Improvement Fund to be used for the purchase and installation of fire detection equipment at branch lii~raries; and FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date. Item 4.3. Memorandum dated October 20, 1987, from Mr Guy B. Agnor, Jr., entitled "Proposed Fire Safety and Prevention Education Prggram", was received as information. ~ "The County's Inspections Department has been discussing with the State's Department of Fire Programs the need for an educational tool which would promote fire safety and prevention in theihome, school and work place. The State has offered to totally fund a 40 minute television tape for this purpose which would be produced and devel- oped entirely within Albemarle County. November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) ~ ~ 324 County Inspections staff, primarily in the fire prevention area, would provide the manpower to prepare the storyline and script, working on the project after normal work hours. The completed product will ultimately be available for distribution by the State, to localities, schools, civic groups, etc. for fire safety and prevention educational purposes. We will keep you informed as the project progresses. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call." Item 4.4. Department of. Planning and C6mmunity Development's Third Quarter Building Report for 1987, was received as information. Item 4.5. Letter dated October 15, 1987, from Mr. Philip J. Bray, Attorney, The Potomac Edison Company, transmitting copy of The Potomac Edison Company's application filed with State Corporation Commission to revise fuel or and cogeneration rate'tariffs, was redeived as information. Item 4.6. Letter dated October 19, 1987, from Mr. Stephen H. Watts, II, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, transmitting copy of Commonwealth Gas Ser- vices, Inc., application filed with the Stats Corporation Commission to revise its tariffs, was received as information. Item 4.7. Copy of Planning Commission ~inutes of October 20, 1987, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-87-73. Ben Boyajiian (Deferred from October 7, 1987). Mr. Horne reminded the Board that thus special permit is for a drive-in bank to be located on Route 250 West, in front of UniversitY Heights apartments. Both staff and the Planning Commission recommended that this request be denied, Mr. Horne continued, base~ on concerns about sight distance and the circulation of traffic on the site. , To address these concerns, Mr. Horne sai~, Mr. Boyajian submitted the following proffer dated November 3, 1987: ~ "Ms. Lettie E. Neher Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 RE: SP-87-73 Ben Boyajian Dear Ms. Neher: The concerns which were raised regarding circumstances that may lead to the drive-in being used for other than a bank happen to be concerns of mine as well; therefore, I voluntarily proffer that I would abide by a condition placed on the properties subject to the above referenced petition as follows: The special use permit be issued strictly for a drive-in bank and no other uses be placed on this drive-in without the Board of Supervisor's approval; None of the following businesses can be placed on this drive-in: a) automobile laundries b) automobile service stations c) convenience stores d) light warehousing e) fast food restaurants 325 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Thank your for your consideration.. Sincerely, [Signed] Ben K. Boyajian Owner West Ivy Shops" Mr. Lindstrom said that Condition No. 2 is redundant: under Condition No. 1, the drive-in could be used for no other business without the Board's approval, including the businesses listed under Condition No. 2. Mr. Horne said he believed that Mr. Boyajian intended to proffer that the drive-in window would not be used for any business other than a bank without the approval of the Board. In addition, the two properties in the application would not be used for the businesses listed in Condition No. 2, regardless of whether a drive-in window was involved. Mr. Way asked Mr. Boyajian to clarify this matter. Mr. Boyajian said hit intention was to assure the Board that the drive-in window would be used for a bank only. He said the second condition was intended to make the first condition more specific, to assure Board members that theiproperty uses they objected to would never come to pass. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Boyajian intended the properties subject to the special permit not be used for any business but a drive-in bank ~ith the approval of the Board. Mr. Boyajian said "no"; he intend&d that the drive-in be used only for a bank. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the record made clear the intent of the applicant. Mr. St. John said "yes". He added that he would interpret the two conditions in the following manner: the first condition applied to the drive-in; the second condition to the properties included~iin the permit whether or not the business used a drive-in window. Since both conditions used the phrase "on this drive-in", Mr. Lindstrom said, hq could not understand how Mr. St. John and Mr. Home could distinguish between the two. Mr. Lindstrom said he believed that the proffer should be iclearer. Mr. Boyajian asked Mr. Home to explain his intent t~ Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Home explained that the firsg condition promised that no other uses would be placed on the drive-in window without the Board's approvaL. The second condition, he said, promised that the property itself wouTM not be used for the businesses listed. For the record, Mr. Boyajian said,/ he would like to add theatres to the list. Mr. Lindstrom said Condition No!. 2 should read: "None of the following businesses can be placed on this property subject to the special use permit". Mr. St. John agreed that this amendment would bring the proffer closer to the intent of the applicant as expressed in the record. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned that the present goning of this property permits a number of very intensive uses that could generate a lot of traffic. He said that Mr. Boyajian has proffered that most of these intensive uses will not be allowed on this property, even though they are permitted by-right. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the benefit to the County of elimi- nating these intensive uses justifies the special permit, ~espite the problem of sight distance raised by the staff. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by M~. Bowie to approve SP-87-73 with the proffer as presented with Condition No. i amended to read: "None of the following businesses can be placed on the property subject to this special permit:". There was no further discussion, goll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley,~'~Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. Naming the Auditorium. To receiv~ comments from citizens for naming the Auditorium in the Albemarle County iOffice Building on McIntire Road. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and Octo- ber 27, 1987.) ~ November 4, 1987 (Regular~Night Meeting) 326 (Page 5) Mr. Way said the Board received a letter from Cmdr. James A. Bond of the County Police suggesting that the 'Auditorium be named after the late Deputy Tom Wolf, who was killed in the line of duty while responding to a domestic problem in 1951. Mrs. Cooke added that Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, who first brought the naming of the Auditorium to the Board's attention, suggested that it be named "Lane Auditorium", since the County Office Building was once Lane High School. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak to this item on the agenda. Since no one rose to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board, suggesting that Board members may need time to think over the suggestions. Members of the Board agreed to place this item on the agenda for a January, 1988 meeting. Agenda Item No. 7. Dog "Leash" Law. TO receive public comments from citizens on the enactment of a Dog "Leash" LAw which would apply, without exception, to the urban areas of the County as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, to the communities of Crozet and Hollysead, and the village of Scottsville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 27, 1987.) ~ Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor if he wished to,address this issue before the public hearing began. During August and SePtember, Mr. Agnor said, the Board has heard from many citizens concerning leash laws and their enforcement. The current leash law was expanded to cover Hollymead subdivision and the Board authorized the addition of another Animal Control Officer to the Police Department. Tonight, Mr. Agnor said, the Board wished to hear if County residents wanted the leash law extended throughout the growth areas of the'~ County: the urban area surrounding the City and the communities of Crozet,~' Hollymead and Scottsville. Mr. Agnor explained that the ordinance dommonly referred to as the "l~sh law" prohibits dogs roaming from the owner's property, unless the dog is under' the immediate control of the owner. Although this ordinance has been inte=~ preted to mean that dogs must be on leashes Whenever they are not on their owner's property, he said, "immediate control" could mean voice control. Mr.. Agnor said there are currently 25 areas in the County in which the ordinance applies. The normal procedure, he said, is for a majority of property owners to sign and present a petition to the Board.~ The hearing tonight, he said,-'is to help this Board decide whether to impose this ordinance upon the growth areas of the County without petitions or requests from property owners in those areas. Mr. Agnor then used a map to show the boundaries of each of the growth areas. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Roger Flynt, President of Minor Ridge Homeowners' Association, addressed the Board. He said this Homeowners' Association would like to see an ordinance adopted that required a dog to be on a leash whenever it was not on the owner'sJproperty. He asked what his rights are under the present ordinance, if he, were walking late at night and a dog bothered him. Once the ordinance is in effect, Mr. Agnor said, Mr. Flynt could call an Animal Control Officer to come ~nd take the dog. Or, he said, Mr. Flynt would be within his rights to identify the dog and have a warrant issued against the owner for violating the laW. Mr. Flynt asked why the ordinance did not require that the dog be on a leash. Mr. St. John said that the state law ~nabling the County to adopt this ordinance used the wording "under the control of the owner" and the County could not change State legislation. Ms. Joan Graves, President of the Berkeley Community Homeowners' Associa- tion, addressed the Board. She said her group polled 167 adult residents of the Berkley Subdivision and found 138 of them to be in favor of the dog leash ordinance and 21 against. Ten people refused to sign and four could not be reached. Mr, Way asked if Mrs. Graves was asking that a public hearing be held on adopting a dog leash ordinance for the Berkeley subdivision. Mrs. Graves said "yes". Mr. Victor Junke, a resident of Berkeley-subdivision, spoke. When he lived in Four Seasons, he said, he was bitten;by a dog. Since he has lived at 327 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Berkeley, he said, he and his wife have been terrorized by dogs, even on his own property. To identify these dogs for an Animal Control Officer, as the County Executive suggests, he or his wife would have to follow these animals and risk being attacked. Mr. Craig Carpenter, a resident of Franklin subdivision, addressed the Board. He said a large dog belonging to a neighbor attacked his wife 'and child and, on another occasion, chased his son into the house. He said he no legal recourse; the courts will not do anything until someone is bitten. He said he does not understand why the Countylwill not adopt a County-wide leash law. Mr. Bowie said he was aware that there was a vicious dog in Franklin and he is surprised the Court did nothing. Mr. Carpenter said that an Animal Control Officer visited the owner and told Mr. Carpenter later that, had the dog not been chained, he would have had to kill him~ The Court allowed the owner to keep the dog, Mr. Carpenter added, because the owner installed a silent electronic fence around his property. UnfortunatelY, Mr. Carpenter said, the fence does not work well during thunderstorms or when the batteries are dead. Mr. Randy Raines, a resident of the Hollymead subdivision, addressed the Board. He charged that the County's laws against vicious-dogs protect poultry more effectively than people. While a dog may be shot if it is only chasing chickens, it must actually bite a person to be termed "vicious". Ever after a dog has been determined to be vicious, that dog may continue to live in the County if its owner takes what the law calls "proper provisions", although these provisions are not defined. The owner becomes criminally liable only after a second attack. He urged that the Board strengtheh the County's laws against vicious dogs. !~ Ms. Karen Brazell addressed the Board and said her daughter was bitten by a dog near the Key West subdivision. She called the County Police and asked them to work with the dog warden to make sure the dog didi~not have rabies. The police said the Animal Control Officer could not check about the dog until Monday, leaving her and her daughter to wonder for severa% days whether the dog had rabies. She asked what the procedure was to determine whether a dog was rabid after an attack. When a citizen reports that a!~dog has bitten someone, Mr. St. John replied, whoever answers that call must take that dog into custody to be examined for rabies. Ms. Brazell said-this was finally done, on Monday. She said she was worried that next time':this happened to someone, the dog might disappear before it could be caught. Mr. St. John said this was a manpower problem. Since this manpower problem~occurred two days out of seven, Ms. Brazell remarked, something should be ddne. Mr. Bowie said the Board was told that if an Animal Control Officer were unavailable in the case of a dog attack, a police officer ~Would be immediately dispatched. He asked for more information on the situati°n described by Ms. Brazell. ~ Mr. Jeff Allen, past President of the Ashcroft Associiation, addressed the Board. He said he believed that the laws controlling dogs~ were adequate for the County and he supports the wording of the current ordinance. He added that this issue is one of the most divisive facing the community. Extending the ordinance into the growth areas will prevent many confrontations between neighbors, he said, and will put the problem where it belongs, in the hands of law enforcement officials. Ms. Mary Beth Wagner addressed the Board and expresse~ her support for extending the leash law into~the urban area. She said shelwould also support a County-wide leash law and cited a case in which a cyclist was killed on a rural road when a loose dog forced him into the path of an oncoming truck. Ms. Pat Wiseburg, a resident of Ashcroft, addressed t~e Board and asked if Ashcroft were part of the growth area. Mr. Agnor said ~no". She asked if Ashcroft could be included in the urban area. Mr. Way said "no", but that she could start a petition to have Ashcroft included with the ~ubdivisions that have leash laws. The only other option, Mr. Way said, would be if the Board were to adopt a County-wide leash law. November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Mpet.~ng) (Page 7) 328 Ms. Liz Nottingham, a resident of Hollymead, addressed the Board. Earlier, she said, she had asked that the Board consider appointing a task force to examine the vicious dog ordinance and see if it could be improved. She asked if the Board had done this. Mr. Way said "no". Ms. Nottingham said she had talked with Mr. John Purcell, an Assistant Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, to ask him what the County could do to strengthen the laws against vicious dogs. She said Mr. Purcell told her that local governments could do whatever they deemed appropriate for their areas and that the State did not often intervene in such legislation.~ She urged that the County do something soon to strengthen its ordinances honcerning dangerous and vicious dogs. With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mrs. Cooke said she has supported a County-wide leash law since she has been on the Board. She recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance now before them and hopes to have a County-wide ordinance in effect soon. Mr. Bowie said he does not believe that~a leash law would have made any difference in any of the incidents he heard described during the public hearing. However, he said, he does believe that all County property, includ- ing schools, should be included under the leash law. He said the vicious dog laws should be improved to protect citizens and the ordinances must be better enforced. He said he also supports the tasklforce recommended by Ms. Nottingham. He said he will not support a C~unty-wide leash law. Unless the County is willing to invest~uch more in enforcement, Mr. Lindstrom said, a County-wide leash ordinance will have little effect. He said he also questioned the efficacy of such an ordinance in the growth areas. He suggested deferring action on this matter until staff can estimate the cost of strengthening Animal Control to the point ~at which this ordinance may he enforced effectively. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to ~efer action on this item for one month until staff could present a report on ~he manpower and budget necessary to enforce the ordinance. There was no second to the motion. Mrs. Cooke said the matter should not be deferred; she believes the - growth area needs a leash law now. She said ~he supports an inwestigatio~l into the costs of implementing a County-wide ileash law, but something must be done for the urban areas of the County now. ~ Mr. Bain said he supports appointing a t~sk force to study the problem of vicious dogs. He would also like to examine the possibility of requesting the General Assembly to pass legislation enablingl the County to strengthen its laws against vicious dogs. He said he agrees with Mrs. Cooke: a leash law should be imposed upon the urban areas of the County as soon as possible. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to adopt the ordinance in the growth areas defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke andlMr. Henley. NAYS: Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Lindstrom said he still wanted the imformation requested earlier from Mr. Agnor. (Note: At 9:10 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:16 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Service charge to return dogs to owners. Mr. Agnor said staff has recently learned that State law does not allow counties to impose such service charges. Agenda Item No. 9. Appointment to Albemarle County School Board. To receive comments from citizens on the appointment to fill the Samuel Miller 329 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) District seat on the Albemarle County School Board. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 27, 1987.) Mr. Way asked everyone who wished to speak to limit themselves to three minutes each. Before anyone addressed the Board on the merits of a particular candidate, Mr. Way said, there was someone who wished to make some general comments on the appointment. Ms. Lindley Gough, the President of the Albemarle Education Association, addressed the Board and listed the qualifications she would like the Board to consider when appointing someone to the School Board. These qualifications include: a knowledge of education issues; an inquisitiv~ attitude; a willing- ness to make decisions based on what is best for education, rather than what is inexpensive or expedient; and, a willingness to study the system of County education before suggesting major changes. Proceeding in alphabetical order, Mr. Way asked if anyone wished to speak on behalf of Mr. Roy Barksdale. There were no comments. Mr. Way then asked if anyone wished to speak on behalf of Mr. Patrick Coffey. Mr. Coffey addressed the Board. He said his qualifications included a background in both education and business and teaching in college, middle school and high school. He said he has also worked with disadvantaged youth and supervised the training of teachers. Mr. Walter Mehring addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Coffey. He said he taught with Mr. Coffey at Walton Middle School. He credited Mr. Coffey with putting together an excellent reading program and working well with both children and teachers. He said Mr. Coffey would be a good addition to the School Board. ~ Mr. Gordon Walker also addressed the Board on behalflof Mr. Coffey. He said Mr. Coffey possessed the moral conviction and fiscal~restraint necessary to be a good member of the School Board. Mr. Jim McVay then spoke on behalf of Mr. Coffey. HA said the most important attributes of a member of the School Board are financial expertise and knowledge of the educational system. He credited Mr.!Coffey with both of these traits and added that Mr. Coffey has the ability to,negotiate and the willingness to commit much of his time to the School Board. Mr. Way then asked if anyone present wished to speaki~on behalf of the next applicant, Mr. James Duffee. Mr. Duffee addressed the Board on behalf o~ his application. He said his qualifications include a willingness to be an advocate for children and to work closely with the Board.~ Too often, he said the School Board decides education issues on the basis oflpolitical or finan- cial expediency, rather than considering what is best forlthe children. Since there was no one else present to speak on behalf of Mr. Duffee, Mr. Way asked for comments on the next applicant, Mr. Clifford Haury. Mr. Haury addressed the Board. For the past six years, he said, he ~as served communit~ schools: as a volunteer in the classrooms of Murray and ~eriwether Lewis Schools; as Vice-President and President of the PTO's for !both schools; as a member of a planning committee for an Ivy area school in ~986; as a member of the Building Advisory Committee for the new Meriwether Le~is school; and as a member of the Parent Advisory Committee for both schools. He is also a faculty member of the Piedmont Community College. He said he would work for parity in County schools. Mr. Chuck Brown addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Haury. He said he has worked with the applicant on many school-related projects and believes Mr Haury would bring valuable experience and a professional attitude to the School Board. As a member of the faculty of Piedmont CommUnity College, Mr. Brown said, Mr. Haury is well aware of the successes and failures of the County's system of secondary education. Mr. Greg Shasby also spoke on behalf of Mr. Haury. He said that he and Mr. Haury share the belief that the quality of life in a community is directl] associated with the quality of education in that community~ He said Mr. Haur~ would act in the best interests of the children and therefore the community. November 4 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 330 (Page 9) Mr. Way then announced that the next applicant was Mr. George Kliefoth and asked if anyone cared to speak on his behalf. Mr. Kliefoth addressed the Board, describing his qualifications for the<position. He has his Master's degree in Education, been an Assistant ProfeSsor at Princeton University and has taught in many military schools. For the past 11 years, he said, he has managed the local Virginia Employment CommisSion office. This position has made it possible for him to see what happensito County residents who are not academically or intellectually prepared for the world of work. Mr. Kliefoth says this is the group that concerns him mosk: the 25 to 40 percent of the students who do not finish school or receivelsuch a poor education they cannot compete in the workplace. Speaking on behalf of Mr. Kliefoth, Mr.~Gary Williams read a letter from Mr. Ronald Enders, President of Workshop Five. Mr. Enders wrote that he worked with Mr. Kliefoth for eleven years and commended him for his interest in County students. Mr. Enders recommended Mr. Kliefoth for the opening on the School Board on the basis of his experience in the employment market and on the Private Industry Council. Mr. Tom McGinn spoke next on behalf of Mr. Kliefoth. As a human resources manager for his business and a member of the Executive Board of the Private Industry Council, he said, he has many opportunities to judge the product of the County school system, its students. He said he believes the schools must improve in order to produce empIoyees who can do the job in the mncreasingly competitive marketplace. He recommended Mr. Kliefoth for the School Board because he understands the relationship between good schools and continued economic progress. ~ Mr. Way then announced that the next applicant was Mr. William Leach and invited him to speak on his own behalf. Mr. ~Leach described his qualifica~ tions, which included a Master's in student ~ersonnel and counseling, teaching at the high school level, serving on the faculty of a four-year liberal ar. ts college and serving as Dean of Students and ~ssistant Registrar on the ~ two-year community college level. He promis~d the Board that he had both the time and the ability demanded by a position on the School Board. Ms. Claire Leach, the wife of Mr. Leach,~ addressed the Board on behalf, of her husband. She said she supported him not !only as his wife, but as a fellow educator. She said Mr. Leach was dedicated to improving education in the County and promised that if he were appointe~ to the School Board, he wouldJ have his family's support as well. Mr. Way announced .that Mr. Steven Plaskon was the next applicant and invited him to address the Board. Mr. Plaskon said he has been involved in ~tion since 1970 and has worked with elementary and middle school chil- dren, education majors, classroom teacher, school administrators and other educators. Currently, he said, he is an Associate Professor of Education in the Curry School of the University of Virginia. He said his experience in different education systems, private and public, local and national, would enable him to evaluate proposals presented toithe School Board objectively and knowledgeably. Ms. Fay Taylor, a former educator and mother of one child in County schools, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Plaskon. She said she is concerned about the School Board and the policies it adopts and believes that Mr. Plaskon would be an asset. Mr. Plaskon works while other people play, she said and added that he would work tirelessly to insure that the children of the County receive good educations. Ms. Sue Foss spoke next for Mr. Plaskon. A kindergarten teacher, she said she endorses Mr. Plaskon for the positio~ because she believes he is as concerned about education as she is. She agreed with Ms. Taylor that Mr. Plaskon was tireless and said he had theenergy it took to stay abreast of the latest advances in education. Moreover, she Said, Mr. Plaskon is an expert in early childhood education, an area which is changing every day. Mr. Donald Baugh, an Associate Professor-of Educational Research at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Plaskon. He said he knows of no one who knows more about 331 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) education than Mr. Plaskon, a man who has written, spoken and published widely in the field of education. He highly recommends Mr. Plaskon for the School Board. Mr. Dick Brandt, a colleague of the applicant's for 12 years, addressed the Board. He said that Mr. Plaskon is a very hard-working, energetic and well-organized man and one of the best faculty members at the Curry School of Education. Mr. Way thanked all the applicants and those who supported them. He said the Board must now wait seven days, as required by State law, before making the appointment and would await the recommendation of Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Agricultural/Forestal Districts and letter from City Council. Mr. Way asked that the Board discuss the following letter from City Mayor Francis L. Buck before establishing the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. "October 21, 1987 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Lady and Gentlemen: The City Council has requested that I write to you regarding a concern which Council has regarding the creation of more agriculture and forestry districts in Albemarle County at this time. Recently a large agriculture and forestry district was created by you in the southern area of the County. Another one is Under consider- ation in the Earlysville area as we understand it. It seems to us that the continued creation of these districts at this time severely decreases the options available in the County for solving our future transportation problems. The City Council, at your ~equest, joined with you to present a singular position to the Virginia Department of Transportation with regard to the study of the 29 North corridor. We have withheld taking action on other Virginia DepartMent of Transpor- tation projects which may be affected by the results ~of the 29 North corridor study. Therefore, we would ask you to post~one any land use decisions in the County which might affect the solutions to our common transportation problems until such time as th~ results of this study are available. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, (Signed) Francis L. Buck, Mayor" Mr. Lindstrom said he was unsure whether City Council!knew of the details of the statute applicable to agricultural/forestal districts. He said the impression he received from the letter is that City Council believes the County is using these districts as "roadblocks" intended to obstruct any proposed bypass of Route 29 North. Mr. Lindstrom said he informed Mayor Buck that the statute provides that the establishment of such aidistrict does not necessarily mean the Board will prohibit the land from being used for a highway. The statutory procedure of establishing an agric61tural/forestal district, he continued, is completely separate from the provisions pertaining to taking action to indicate disapproval or objection to a proposed seizure of land by a state agency within a district. In other words,~Mr. Lindstrom said, by establishing agricultural/forestal districts, the Board is not making any statement about what it might do if the State proposed to take the land. Mr. Bowie said he does not think the Board is blockin~ anything, just allowing residents to use their land as they see fit. 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 332 (Page 11) Mr. Lindstrom said the establishment of Agricultural/Forestal districts is consistent with the longstanding County policy of preserving land for agricultural use. He added that such districts are also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He does not believe the Board should reject proposed Agricultural/Forestal districts; new districts pose no problem to any proposed highway. Mr. Bain suggested that the Chairman send a letter to City Council explaining the procedure for establishing Agricultural/Forestal districts. Mr. Way agreed. Agenda Item No. 11. Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District (formerly Head of the Hardware and Red Hill Districts). The core of the proposed district is located mostly on the west side of Rt. 29 South, and on the northeast side of Rt. 708. Other parts of the proposed district are located on the west side of Rt. 29 South and on both sides of Rts. 692 and 696; on the east side of Rt. 29 South, south of Rt. 692; on the west side of Rt. 708 and extending to Rt. 637; and on Rt. 745 west of Rt. 29 South. The district is comprised of Tax Map 73, parcel 24, 38, 39B, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; Tax Map 74, parcel 26, 28; Tax Map 86, parcel 13, 13A, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 25, 26, 27; Tax Map 87, parcel 2, 3, 10, 13A, 13E; Tax Map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 14, 23, 24, 26B, 40, 4lA, 42, 42A; Tax Map 99, parcel 29. The district contains about 6,004.810 acres owned by twenty~four land- owners. The Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee on September 15, 1987, recommended unanimously to aPprove both the Red Hill and Head of the Hardware Districts as proposed for a time period of ten years before the initial review. They also recommended that the two proposed districts be combined into one district to be called the Hardware District; that the Planning Commission should consider moving the North Garden Village boundary so as~not to conflict with the proposed district; and to disregard the proposed North Garden Village boundary to allow the entire Mcott parcel (Tax Map 87, Parcel 3) to be included in the agricultural district. The Albemarle County Plamning Commission on October 6, 1987, recommended unanimously to approve the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District as applied for (with a ten year time period) with the deletion of Tax Map 73, Parcels 45, 46 and 48 because approval of the small parcels would be inconsistent with the intent of the district. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and: October 27, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Summary: The Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee on September 15, 1987, recommended unanimously to approve both the Red Hill and Head of. the Mardware Districts as .proposed for a time period of ten (10) years before the initi.al review. They also recommended: that the two proposed districts be combined (to be called the Hard- ware District); that ~he Planning CommisSion should consider moving the North Garden Village boundary so as hot to conflict with the proposed district; an~ to disregard the ~roposed North Garden Village boundary to allow the entire Scott parce~ (Tax Map 87, Parcel 3) to be included in the agricultural district~ The Albemarle County Planning Commissionion October 6, 1987, recom- mended unanimously to approve the HardwaCe Agricultural/Forestal District as applied for (with a ten yearitlme period) with the deletion of Tax Map 7B, Parcels 45, 46 a~d 48 because approval of the small parcels would be inconsistent withlthe intent of the district. Two commissioners did not support the deletion, but voted for the motion. ~ Location: The core of the proposed Hard~are Agricultural/Forestal District is located mostly on the west s~de of Rt. 29 South and on the northeast side of Rt. 708. Other pa~ts of the proposed district are located on the west side of Rt. 29 S~uth and on both sides of Rt. 692 and' Rt. 696; on the east side of Rt.~29 South and south of Rt. 692; on the west side of Rt. 708 and extending to Rt. 637; and on Rt. 745 west of Rt. 29 South. 333 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Acreage: The total acreage is 6,004.810 acres owned by twenty-four landowners. .Zoning: Most of the proposed district is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Part of the proposed district (part of Tax Map 86, Parcel 27, Sutherland, and part of Tax Map 99, Parcel 29, Jones) is zoned VR, Village Residential. Comprehensive Plan: Most of the proposed Hardware District is located in Rural Areas III and IV. Parts of three parcels are located within the North Garden Village growth area (Tax Map 86, Parcel 27 Sutherland, Tax Map 99, Parcel 29 Jones, and Tax Map 87, Parcel 3 Scott). Agricultural and forestry are appropriate land uses in the Rural Areas, but conflict with the goals of the growth area. The Planning Commission is currently working on a five-year revision of the Comprehensive Plan. In recent work sessions,'the Land Use Subcommittee recommended alteration of the North Garden Village boundary by extending the village to the north around Red Hill Elementary School, and to the southeast along Rt~ 692. Also, they recommended deletion of the village designation from.~all of the southwest quadrant of Rts. 29/692 (Sutherland farm area), and dele- tion of part of the southeast quadrant (Jones farm area). The Sub~ committee recommended retaining a village designatioh in the north- west quadrant (Scott farm area) except for critical Slopes. The Subcommittee was aware of the pending agricultural/f6restal district application. (NOTE: The Planning Commission, at its public hearing on the proposed agricultural/forestal district, recommended that Scott's farm be included in its entirety in the agricultural- forestal district. The Planning Commission stated its intention to review the proposed North Garden Village boundary in the northwest quadrant.) Issues: Bypass Route: An early proposed route for a western bypass was shown in this area traversing Ragged Mountain Farm on Rt. ~37 and then following Rt. 708 and Rt. 710 to Rt. 29. Virginia D~Partment of Transportation is now undertaking a two year study toi evaluate possible bypass alternatives. Approval of the distrigt could have an effect on a bypass route in this area. Small Parcels: Several small parcels are included i~ the district which are currently being used residentially (See Attachment #3 which follows). All parcels within an agricultural/forestat district may qualify for land use taxation only if they otherwise meet the requirements for that program. Therefore, small parcels may or may not qualify, depending upon the land use and acreage.[ Ail parcels within an agricultural/forestal district may not be developed to a more intensive use while in the district. In Albemarile's Agricul- tural/Forestal District Ordinance, 'more intensive use' is defined as a division of land into parcels under 21 acres, other, than family divisions. Again, small parcels may or may not give ~p development rights under this definition. The state law does not, specify a minimum parcel size, but does list factors to consideC in determining whether property should be included in a district: 1. The agricultural and forestal significance 6f land within the district and in areas adjacent thereto;i 2. The presence of any significant agricultura~ lands or significant forestal lands within the district and in areas adjacent thereto that are not now in activelagricultural or forestal production; November 4 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 334 The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district and in areas adjacent thereto; 4. Local developmental patterns and needs; The comprehensive plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations; The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district for agricultural and forestal uses; and 7. Any other matter which may belrelevant. Time Period: The property owners are proposing a ten-year time period before initial review. The state law was changed effective July 1, 1987, to extend the permitted time period before initial review of a district from four/eight years to four/ten years. In the past, the Board of Supervisors has chosen not to specify a time period before the initial review. 7The amended law requires that the ordinance shall state any conditions to creation of the district and shall prescribe the period before the first review of the dis- trict. In prescribing the period before the first review, the Board shall consider the period proposed in the application. If the time period proposed in the application is changed by the Board, then notice must be published and sent to all landowners in the district at least two weeks prior to adoption of~the ordinance creating the district. Growth Area Conflicts: The Board should consider the conflict which arises when an agricultural/forestal district is proposed within a L growth area. There is currently one exjmple of such a conflict where the Hatton District extends into the Scdttsville Village growth area~ There is an opportunity to change the N~rth Garden Village boundary under the current Comprehensive Plan re¥iew, and thereby avoid a conflict. ~ Advisory Committee Recommendations: Th~ soils report prepared, by Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, ~Soil Conservation Service is_ on file in the Clerk's office. The Committee's recommendations are givgn in the summary on page one of this report. Other pertinent commenCs were: One member questioned whether the ~irginia Department of Trans- portation is moving so quickly on a western bypass because of the proliferation of agricultural/~orestal districts. One member had no problem with the ~property owner's desire for additional protection, from a bypass or whatever. There was concern that small parcels may develop while in the agricultural/forestal district. One member suggested the Board of Supervisors may want to ask the ~roperty owner to relinquish his development rights while in th~ district~ The motives of the owners of small parcels were questioned, but the Committee was willing to accept small parcels into the district. The Committee has consistently recommended the maximum permitted time period. Regarding the Scott property, there was concern that a large parcel with a small corner in a growth area would have to be excluded from an agricultural district. It was felt that property owners could not be forced to develop their land by designating it as a growth area. There was discussion that some of the soils on the property were very wet and unsuitable for 335 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) development. A letter was read which stated that the owner was willing to accept whichever recommendation the County feels is wise for future planning. However, there are no plans to develop the property in the next decade. Planning Commission Recommendations: The Planning Commission's recommendations are given in the summary on page one of this report. Other pertinent comments were: There was discussion regarding the effect of the district on adjacent parcels. It was determined that a district may affect a special use permit application of an adjacent property. The Commissioner disagreed whether small parcels are inconsis- tent with the intent of the districts. There was discussion that the Commission should devise a policy for the inclusion of small parcels. The three parcels which were deleted presently contain one house. There is a possibility that~other houses could be built, since the property is already s6bdivided. The Commission recommended that the entire Scott parcel be accepted into the district. They decided to revise the Land Use Subcommittee's recommended Village boundary in the northwest quadrant of Route 29/692 by deleting Scott's farm from the Village and decided to review the area between Scott and Route 29 at a later date. Reasons stated for the rev{sion were: The proposed North Garden Village area is st{ll subject to change; ~ There are limitations on the developability ~f the northwest quadrant; There is a recommendation to substantially expand the North Garden Village so that the loss of 50-60 acres would not be detrimental; ~ - The deletion of the northwest quadrant wouldiprovide a better transition from village area to agricultural~forestal district. · Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Hardware District as recommended by the Planning Commission four a time period of ten years. Several of the applications noted on attachment #3 were received after thirty days of the date the notice was first published and, therefore, require the specific consent of the Board of Supervisors. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - (Note: Parcels with an asterisk are not currently enrolled in the land use tax program.) Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District Tax Map/Parcel Number Acreage/Total Acreage Owner 88-4 144.000 D. H- Bass 88-5 460.867 88-5A 25.030 88-41A 4.500 88-42A 19.550 88-42 76.744 730.691 74-28 150.000 150.000 J. ~. Heyward 88-23 96.960 96.960 L.B., Jr. & ~. T. 88-26B 159.080 D. ~. van Roijen 88-40 25.500 184.580 87-13A 30.640 30.640 A.P. McClung 88-24 147.080 147.080 J.F. Jr. & J. H. Wolfe 73-24 558.900 558.900 H.C. Page, Jr. 73-42 38.000 38.000 S.L. Magerfield November 4, 1987 (Regular-Night Me, ting) (Page 15) 73-42A 75.000 75.000 73-38 143-27:2 .... 73-43 264.500 73-44 63.000 470.772 87-13E 79.866 79.855 86-27 458.813 458.813 87-10 316.129 316.129 86-13 140.400 ~ 86-13A 205.314 '86-16A 1.590 '86-22A 4.750 86-25 125.010 86-26 26.530 87-3 469.797 973.391 86-22 499.150 86-23 597.700 86-23A 2.600 87-2 180.000 1279.450 86-16C 65.633 336 S. W. & J. A. Magerfield K. M. Lewis A. A. Lugar M. Y. Sutherland, Jr. M. P. Massey & J. E. Tee E. P. Scott F. W. Scott, Jr. Israel Mt. Land Trust The following applications received after 30 days from notice require Board of Supervisors' consent: *74-26 13.790 '73-39B 7.068 *73-45 2.000 *73-46 1.167 *73-48 2.000 5.167 88-6A 10.710 10.710 86-16F 100.640 100.640 '86-16D 3.400 3.400 99-29 108.700 108.700 86-14 99.430 99,430 Total 6004.810 acres M. G. & R. D. Crews M. S. & B. L. Mays J. M., IV & E. B. Bowlin J. G., III & S. J. White C. A. Elliott F. B. & C. A. Elliott R. S. & C. B. Jones~ R. B. & F. F. Rogers Mr. Horne said the Board will need to add three parcels owned by the Ray's, TAx Map 73, parcels 4lA, 4lB1 and 41B2, to the district. These appli- cations were received after the Planning Commission took its action. When considering this application for an agricultural/forestal district, Mr. Horne said, the Board should also be aware of the intention of Ms. Elizabeth P. Scott to lend the use of 50 acres of her property to the Albemarle County Fair for two weeks of the year. If the Board deems that such a use is inconsistent with an agricultural/forestal district, Mr. Horne said, the Scott family may wish to exclude a portion of their tract to allow the Fair to use ~he prop- erty. Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John if there would be any legal difficulty with the Board allowing an intensive use of land in an agricultural/forestal District. Mr. St. John said there was a provision in the enabling legislation which allowed the Board to permit more intensive use of such land in situa- tions considered consistent with agriculture. Mr. St. John recommended that the procedure for permitting these uses be similar to that required for a special use permit. Since there were no more questions for either Mr. Horne or Mr. St. John, Mr. Way opened the public hearing. First to speak was Ms. Elizabeth Scott. She said that she had not yet reached a firm agreement with representatives of the County Fair, but would like for them to be able to use the property. She said she also would like to keep this property in the agricultural/forestal district. Mr. David van Roijen addcessed the Board and stated that agriculture was indeed practiced on the three small parcels which the Planning Commission recommended be deleted from the district. Mri van Roijen said produce is grown on these properties. He added that it {s important to include small contiguous parcels in agricultural/forestal districts because such properties may provide the links necessary to include larger properties in the district. Mr. Frederick Scott spoke next and described some of the restrictions his mother would place on any lease agreement with the County Fair. He said the 337 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page. 16) light poles used by the Fair will be taken down when the Fair is over, any wires would be underground and the well would be inobtrusive. For 50 weeks a year, he said, the property would look like farmland. He hopes that including the property in an agricultural/forestal district will non create too many obstacles for Fair representatives. Ms. Tamara Vance, a representative of the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Board. She urged that the Board also accept the parcels submit- ted for inclusion at the last minute. She said she hoped that during the review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board would shift the boundaries of the North Garden growth area to prevent any conflict with the~agricultural/for- estal district. Mr. David Bass addressed the Board and asked that the Board disregard the recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the three small parcels totaling seven acres. If this parcels were included in the agricultural/for- estal district, he argued, other properties could be connected to the dis- trict. He said those property owners applied, to be in th~ district because they enjoy living next to farms and he believes preserving agricultural land should be a goal of the County. With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Way closed th~ public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne to show on the map just where the proposed district conflicted with the growth area. Mr. Horne did So and explained that the affected parcels were the Jones, Sutherland and Scott~iparcels. Addressing the issue of the Fair, Mr. Lindstrom saidlsuch a use, as described by Ms. Scott and Mr. Scott, seemed consistent with the uses per- mitted in agricultural/forestal district. However, he said, he would have difficulty granting permission for such a use without knowing anything about the property. Mr. Horne pointed out that there is a zoning problem with the Fair: currently the Fair may take place only in areas zoned at least Light Industrial. He said that soon the Board will receive som~ applications for zoning text amendments to remedy this problem. ? Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that the Fair would be compatible with the purposes of an agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John if accepting small parcels with no agricul- tural use might later weaken the validity of the agricultu!~al/forestal dis- trict. Mr. St. John said he did not foresee any such problem. Mr. Home said the Planning Commission was concerned about the parcels no~c from a legal point of view, but wished to be consistent in the way land was Used, and exclude purely residential parcels from agricultural districts. Mr. Way asked if everyone who applied for this district was aware of all the regulations and what each property owner was giving u~, He said he has experienced some cases in which property owners have included their property in agricultural/forestal districts and then tried to extrihate their lands when they realized the restraints placed upon their proper~y. He is conce~ that this may be a problem particularly in the growth areai~ He said that owners of small property should be able to place their parcels in an agricul- tural/forestal district if they wish. His major concern, ~e said, is that property owners know what they are doing when they apply tO be in such dis- tricts. · ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the Hardware Agricultural/ Forestal district as described in the staff report, including the parcels for which applications arrived after the decision of the Planning Commission and excluding the small parcels recommended for deletion by th~ Planning Commis- sion, Tax Map 73, parcels 45, 46, and 48. To this motion Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to include a finding that this district in a~d of itself would not be inconsistent with an agricultural fair. ~ Mr. Lindstrom explained that he believed the small parcels should be excluded to maintain the integrity of the proposed areas aJ an agricultural/ forestal district. He said he understands that the Board has approved parcels in the past which were small and not used for agriculture. Inclusion of these properties was logical, he said, because these lands were Surrounded by an November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) ~ 338 (Page 17) agricultural/forestal district. He said he would not be comfortable explain- ing to a judge why the parcels in dispute were included in the proposed Hardware Agricultural/Forestal district. He,said he wanted the agricultural/ forestal districts to be as strong as possible in case they are ever subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. Bowie then seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie and Lindstrom. NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Way. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the district as stated in his first motion, adding the small properties listed as Tax Map 73, parcels 45, 46 and 48. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Horne asked if the Board intended tO set a ten-year term to the district. Mr. Lindstrom said this was the intent of his motion. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on ~n Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and iForestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of a subsectio~ (h) to be known as the "Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Octo- ber 20 and October 27, 1987.) Mr. Home said the following parcels for~ Ray must be added to the ~ance: Tax Map 73, parcels 4lB1 and 41BZ. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adOpt the following ordinance, amended to include Tax Map 73, parcels 4lB1 and 41B2: 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, amended by the addition of a subsection (h) to be known as the "Hardware Agricultural~/Forestal District, as follows: (h) The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax Map 73, parcel 24, 38, 39B, 41A~ 4lB1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; Tax Map 74, parcel 26, 28; Tax Map 86, parcel 13, 13A, 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 22, 22A, 23~ 23A, 25, 26, 27; Tax Map 87, parcel 2, 3, 10, 13A, 13E; Tax Map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 23, 24, 26B, 40, 4lA, 42, 42A; Tax Map 99, parcel 29. This district shall be reviewed no more than ten years ~rom the date of its creation on November 4, 1987. 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. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-87-12. Martha & Albert Bacon/Althea Riley. To rezone approximately 3.22 acres from R-6 to CO. Property accessed by Greenfields Road on the north side of Rio Road at Berkmar. Tax Map 45, Parcels 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 andi157. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 27, 1987.) 339 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Petition: Dr. Charles W. Hurt petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone eight lots totalling 3.24 acres from R-6 Residential to CO Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 (well lot) and 157, are located on Greenfields Court off Rio Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The properties proposed for rezoning are lots in the Greenfield subdivision platted by Dr. Hurt in 1965. Green- fields Court, shown as a public road, has been partially constructed and is currently in disrepair. Greenfield subdivision consists of 20 lots and a well lot. Cur- rently, two lots are zoned C-1 Commercial, one lot is zoned LI Light Industrial and 10 lots are zoned CO Commercial Office. Existing uses are a dance studio/leasable area building, electronics firm, and an office complex. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial and medium-density residential in this area with most lots subject to this rezoning in an area recommended for residential:fuse (the plan does not recognize existing commercial office development west of the intersection of Greenfields Court and Rio Road). The proposed Berkmar Drive Extended would affect thrAe lots proposed for rezoning. While the extent to which these lots would be affected has not been determined, it appears that acquisition!of all three lots may be necessary. Currently, these three lots are appraised by the Real Estate Department at $28,000. The Real EstAte Department has commented that rezoning would increase value to ~oughly $140,000. Staff Comment: Staff proposed referring the issue of property acquisition to the Board of Supervisors prior to scheduling of this rezoning petition for public hearing. The applicantliobjected, citing contractual obligations. Staff's intent was to segregate discussion of Berkmar Drive Extended from rezoning consideration (i.e., the Comprehensive Plan recommends a public road. What z~ning is appro- priate?). Other issues related to this rezoning follow: 1. Public Utilities: Providing public water for f~re protection would require extending an eight-inch line across Rio Road or extension of a line from developed areas along Route 29 North. Gravity sewer could be provided to the.Woodbrook Interceptor., however, in review of Jefferson Square Shopping ~Center the Albemarle County Service Authority stated that 'lit appears that projected flows use up all remaining capacity i~ the (Woodbrook) collector.' ~ 2. Greenfields Court: This road was never completed and is in a state of disrepair. Road plans should be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation and bonds ~or roadway completion should be posted prior to any additio'.nal development. In this manner, problems such as those encountered with State Farm Boulevard and Peyton Drive can be avoided. Greenfields Court may require replatting to properly intersect Berkmar Drive Extended. Variances/Waivers: Lots proposed for rezoning vary from one-quarter acre to one-half acre. Even if public utilities are available it may be difficult to develop some lots individually and remain consistent with required setbacks, buffers, and undisturbed areas. As has been the case in the past, future development in this area would likely involve sePeral lots in one project. Staff would note for future reference that should this petition be approved such approval should not be deemed as endorsement of any variance request. November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting~)> (Page 19) 340 While items 1, 2, and 3 above are primarily site development issues, based on past experience, addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis may prove unsuccessful and result in situa- tions contrary to the public interest. The current rezoning petition includes all undeveloped lots and provides an opportu- nity for a comprehensive approach no these issues. Staff Recommendation: ZMA-79-41 (Martha Bacon) proposed rezoning of two lots subject to this petition. Staff noted past support for rezonings along Rio Road stating that 'adequate transitional zoning has been provided by these previous approvals. Should ZMA-79-41 be approved staff would find it difficult to recommend against similar requests in the area particularly for p~operties served by Greenfield Court.' Both the Planning Commission a~d Board of Supervisors at that time voted to approve the rezoningi Subsequently, the 1980 zoning map was adopted and undeveloped properties along Greenfield Court were zoned R-6 Residential. Given existing development in Greenfield subdivision, the requested rezoning from R-6 Residential to CO Com~ercial Office, though incon- sistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use map, does not appear unreasonable provided issues of public concern are adequately addressed. Residential use of these lots would prove to be question- able given the location. Staff recommends no zoning action in regard to the three lots involved by Berkmar D~ive Extended, but that the Boardof Supervisors take immediate action to acquire such lots. The Albemarle County Planning Commissiod, at its meeting on October 20, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning of parcels 153 through 157 to CO, Commercial Office. The Commission also recommended that the County acquir~ parcels 150, 151, and 152~'? and if the County does not choose to acquire these parcels they should also be rezoned to CO, Commercial Office." Mr. Home said the applicant had present, ed one proffer intended to address the following concerns: the use of p~blic water and sewer and road construction. After some discussion, Mr. Homne said, the members of the Planning Commission decided the section of t~e proffer dealing with highway construction might be unsatisfactory: in th~ future, the development of the lots might necessitate building the roads to ~iState standards for public roads, instead of just the County's standards for private roads. Since Board members did not have a copy of the original proffer, Mr. Horne read the following for the record: "With regard to ZMA 87-12, Dr. Hurt will agree to the two proffers which were discussed. When the property' is developed: Use of the properties will include utilization of public water and sewer, and Greenfield Court will be upgraded to a minimum of standards established by the County for private roads." Mr. Horne said Dr. Hurt agreed to amend the highway section of the proffer to read: "At the time of development~ Greenfield Court will be upgraded to County standards for private roads or state roads". Mr. Lindstrom asked who would decide which standards would apply to the road. Mr. Horne said it would be the choice of the County. Mr. Home advised that the County acquire Lots 150, 151 and 152 in order to build Berkmar Drive Extended, a road called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the meeting with the Planning Commission, Mr. Home said, staff has met with the developers of the Jefferson Square Shopping Center and representa- tives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT). Mr. Horne said VDoT may raise the standards for the proposed~road from a 50-foot right-of-way two or three-lane road to at least a four-lane, and possibly a five-lane, highway. If this occurs, Mr. Horne said, staff would have to re-examine the feasibility of this road. Mr. Home said he did not think a four or five-lane highway could be built on these parcels. He suggested that the Board defer 341 November 4, 1987 (R~gular Night Meeting) (Page 20) acting on this matter until VDoT decides exactly what their new standards will be. He said VDoT should reach a decision within one month. After asking Board members if there were any more questions, for Mr. Horne, Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. Virginia Garder, a representative of Dr. Hurt, addressed the Board. She asked the Board to rezone the property to CO since adjacent properties were already zoned CO. Mr. Charles Lebo addressed the Board and said he represented Martha and Albert Bacon, owners of Lots 150 and 151. Mr. Lebo said~plans to build Berkmar Drive Extended began in the late 1970's. It is n~ow 1987, he said, and the road has yet to be built. He added that the Counny has had the oppor- tunity to buy this land for the road. He said the County still has this opportunity; he does not believe the value of the land will increase as dramatically as the staff has predicted. Mr, Lebo said the residential zoning for his clients' property is obsolete; these parcels are surrounded by others zoned CO and his clients wish their property zoned likewise. Ms. Gardner added that Dr. Hurt had signed a contract to buy the prop- erty contingent on these parcels being rezoned. She said' the deadline for this contract was Friday, November 6, 1987. She urged the Board not to defer this matter. With no one else wishing to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and put the matter before the Board. Mrs. Cooke said she knew of no reason to object to the rezoning of this property. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if he would comment~on the recommenda- tion of the staff. Mr. St. John said if the Board determined that the present zoning was reasonable, that the property could be used with a reasonable return on investment under the present zoning, then the B~ard could deny the request to rezone. If evidence suggests that the existing zoning is not realistically usable by the owner, he said, it would be a~bitrary and capri- cious for the Board to deny the request. As for the recommendation to defer action until the Board can decide whether to buy the property, he said, the statute allows one year from the time the application forilrezoning is filed for the Board to act on the application. However, Mr. St, John warned, the Board would be on "shaky ground" if it deferred acting onlthis application a year. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board would be within its~rights if it deferred this matter for three weeks. Mr. St. John said '!yes", but it should not be deferred longer than a month. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about rezoning th~se parcels CO because it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and because the property adjoining these parcels on the back is zoned residential and contain~ a trailer park. If Berkmar Drive Extended is built, he said, it may mean the end of the trailer park. However, he said, the road may not be built and the Board's rezoning the parcels to CO could harm the residential area behind the parcels. He said the residents of this trailer park have as much right to rely on the Comprehensive Plan as any other County resident. Mr. Bowie said he did not think the Board should defer action in order t¢ influence the price of the land. He said he does not bel{eve the land will appreciate as much in value as staff has estimated, but e~en if it did, he could not support deferring the rezoning solely for the County to pay less the land. If the County did not build Berkmar Drive Extended, he said, perhaps the parcels should remain zoned residential. For !this reason, he said, he feels the Board should defer action until the ro~d becomes a cer- tainty. In light of the concern over Berkmar Drive Extended, Mrs. Cooke moved that this request be deferred until December 9, 1987, to allow VDoT time to decide the standards to which the road must adhere. Mr. Lindstrom seconded 342 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting~) (Page 21) the motion. 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. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Horne advised the Board that this matter may be the first of many decisions the Board will have to make concerning the acquisition of property the construction of roadways. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne to provide an overview of this problem, including which roads were likely to be involved, for the Board by December 9, 1987. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; February 11, March 18 (Night), April 8, August 5 and October 7, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the minutes for March 18, 1985, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie said he had read pages nine through 17 of the minutes for April 8, 1987, and wished to che6k the phrasing of one sentence. Otherwise, he said, he found the minutes acceptable. Mr. Way said he had read the minutes for October 7, 1987, page nine t° the end and found them satisfac- tory. : Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom andiseconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the minutes as read. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and ~he motion carried by the following recorded!vote: NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henleyi Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Bain. ~ Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 15. Board and Public. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like the Board to reconsider the matter of the leash law. He said Mr~ Agnor had reminded him that the Board voted to add an Animal Control Officer to the Police Department, which convinced him that other Board members were willing to commit the funds necessary to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the Board reconsider the vote on extending a leash law into the growth areas df the County. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. 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. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to extend the leash law into the communities of Hollymead and Crozet, the village of Scottsville and the urban growth areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roil was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: Mr. Way. Mr. Way said Board members have received~ an invitation to attend a reception at Western Albemarle High School. While there is a Board meeting on this date, Mr. Way said, Board members should be able to attend the reception if the meeting ends at 4:00 P.M. Mrs. Cooke said she had received a letter from Guaranty Savings and Loan concerning a rezoning matter. She passed the letter on to Mr. Home. Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Personnel. At 11:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to meet in 343 November 4, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) executive session to discuss personnel matters. There was no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion cmrried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 12:25 A.M. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board the meeting adjourned immediately. Chair~Jn ~