Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-012'59 May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 1, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virgini~ PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; County Planner, James R. Donnelly; and Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, the consent agenda containing only the Statement of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth'.s Attorney, and Regional Jail, for the month of March, 1985 was approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-7. Tri-Ton, Inc. To rezone 5.0 acres from R-1 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property on east side of Route 29 North, south of Route 649, Tax Map 32, Part of Parcels 36 and 42, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly said the applicant has requested a deferral of this petition until such time as a rezoning application can be filed for the entire tract of land. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer ZMA-85-7 until July 17, 1985. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. (Mr. Lindstrom said he would abstain during discussion of the next item, as his law firm represents the applicant. He immediately left the room.) Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-03. Douglas White. Proposal to rezone 3.190 acres from VR Village Residential to CO, Commercial Office.. Property on west side of Rt. 20 across Rt. 726 from Scottsville Shopping Center. Tax Map 130A(1), Parcel 49. $cottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report: Requested Zoning: CO, Commercial Office. Acreaqe: 3.19 acres. Existing Zoning: VR, Village Residential. Location: Property, described as TM 130A(1), parcel 49, is located on the ~ast side of Rte. 726 across from the Scottsville Shopping Center. Character of the Area: This site is developed with a single-family dwelling. Scottsville Shopping Center and a bank are to the west, across Rte. 726. An auto dealership is to the south. Properties to the east and north across Rte. 20 are developed residentially. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial usage in this area. Rte. 20 South is a designated scenic highway. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes office usage in the existing +2,100 square foot dwelling (see applicant's "Plan of Use"). If commercial usage were limited to the existing dwelling and access limited to Rte. 726, staff could recommend favorably on this petition without additional study. However, without such guarantees, additional studies would be warranted for the following reasons: 1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that commercial rezonings of three acres or more be accomplished under a planned development approach. 2. Soils in the area are severely limited for septic system usage due to shallowness to bedrock. Additional Comment: If commercial usage were limited to the existing dwelling, the Planning Commission may wish to authorize staff approval of a sketch plan in lieu of site plan requirement. No approval would be given by staff until approval of this rezoning petition had been obtained. Condi- tions of approval would be as follows: 260 May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) -- Se Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial' entrance. Access restricted to Rte. 726. Virginia Department of Health approval of septic system. County Engineer and Planning Staff approval of entrance road parking area, and paving specifications. ' Building and Fire Offiical approvals. Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 9, 1985, unanimou recommended approval of this petition with the proffer dated April 3 1985 (set out in fu below): , "3 April 1985 James R. Donnelly, Director of Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 Re: ZMA-85-03-Douglas White Dear Mr. Donnelly: I am writing this letter on behalf of Mr. Douglas White, one of the owners of the property, and on behalf of Mr. Paul M. Coleman, contract purchaser of the 3.190 acres identified as tax map 130Al, parcel 49. This letter shall provide certain proffers as a condition of the rezoning request on said parcel from VR, Village Residential, to CO, Commercial Office. They are willing to proffer the following conditions as a part of the rezoning petition now before the County of Albemarle as follows: 1. Access to the 3.190 acre parcel shall be limited to State Route 726 only. 2. Commercial use of the property shall be limited to the existing resi- dential dwelling now located on the 3.190 acre parcel. Sincerely, (Signed) Edward H. Bain, Jr. Attorney for Douglas White (owner), Paul M. Coleman (contract purchaser)" The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Bain said the proffer was submitted based on concerns expressed by the staff. This land lies in an area shown for this purpose in the Comprehensive Plan. He feels the land is appropriate for the use proposed. With no one e rising to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way said he is familiar with this piece of property and feels it should be zoned commercial. All other properties in the area are commercial. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-03, subject to the proffer submitted to the Planning Commission, to-wit: Access to the 3.190 acre parcel shall be limited to State Route 726 only. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: 2. Commercial use of the property shall be limited to the existing resi- dential dwelling now located on the 3.190 acre parcel. Mr. Way's motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. (Note: Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 7:41 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-09. Debbie Foster. To locate an antique, craft and gift s1 in a proposed structure measuring about 1000 square feet - present use includes two dwellir units. Property on east side of Route 743 north of Route 844. Tax Map 45, Parcel 59L. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 1985 Mr. Donnelly presented the staff's report: Request: Gift, craft and antique shop (10.2.2.36) Acreage: 15.028 acres. Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 59L, is located on the east side of Rte. 743 about 0.9 mile south of Rte. 643. [Y 1 ~e Dp g .) May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) ( Page-- 3 ) Character of the Area: This property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, two-car garage/workshop and barn with an apartment unit. This area is devoted to large lot residential development Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a 900-1000 square foot building in the northwest corner of the property. The shop would be operated 5-6 days per week with one or two employees. Staff Comment: As a use, "gift, craft, and antique shop" historically has posed no problems in the rural area. Past applications have been for modest businesses located in existing commercial buildings, barns, or in the home. While the applicant proposes a modest-sized business, Staff is concerned that new construction is involved. As proposed to be located (i.e. near Rte. 743) the building would be incon- sistent with established setbacks in the area. Also additional building would complicate future subdivision. Should new construction be permitted, staff would recommend that the shop be located on the existing three acre lot to the rear and that it be designed so as to be easily convertible to a single-family dwelling. However, due to the number of buildings on this property, staff would recommend that the applicant use an existing building for the proposed gift shop (i.e. - in the home, garage/workshop, or rental unit). Currently the property is served by two entrances to Rte 743. Both entrances should be upgraded to commercial standards or the north entrance closed and the southern entrance, which currently serves three dwellings, upgraded to commercial standards. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. Not more than 1,000 square feet of an existing building to be used as a gift/craft/antique shop; Site plan approval; No outside storage or display. No auctions. Limited to one sign not to exceed four (4) square feet; Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance(s) prior to Planning Commission review of the site plan; Planning Commission may require maintenance agreement and upgrading of existing road. Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2,1985, by a vote of 5/1, recommended approval of this petition, subject to the conditions reCommended in the staff's report. The Public Hearing was opened. Mrs. Foster said it is her'intent to have a small business. The Planning Commission was concerned that the size of the operation might get out of hand. She had talked to the Highway Department and Mr. Jeff Echols had Said that Route 743 probably can handle the additional traffic based on her present proposal. Mr. Fisher asked if the operation were limited to one building which building on the property would be used. Mrs. Foster said there are two buildings on the property other than her home -- a barn of about 2400 square feet and a two car garage with a workshop containing about one thousand square feet. She had initially proposed building a new structure but now feels that she would probably locate in the two car garage and build a new garage. Mr. David Benjamin said he owns a home only three parcels from Mrs. Foster. He asked the Board to deny this request. He feels that even though this type of operation is allowed, it is a commercial enterprise, and it surely must increase traffic. Route 743 is referred to as the Earlysville turnpike, and there are a number of blind spots on the road. He does not feel it can tolerate any more traffic. He feels this operation is inappropriate for the area for many reasons. Mr. Stephen Hine said he owns the property known as the "Schoolhouse" which sets at the intersection of Routes 743 and 844. He requested that the proposal be denied. Even though the road probably can bear additional traffic, he feels there is a problem with traffic now and there are plans for other residential buildings in the area. He feels the owner knew the zoning of the property when it was bought, and if this Board does not feel there is suffi- cient commercial property already in the County, then they would need to act to change that, but he does not feel that spot zoning is an answer to insufficient commercial zoning. He said that most people made a major investment in their home with the understanding that the Board of Supervisors would abide by current zoning unless there was a serious need to change that zoning. There is no commercial establishment within one-half mile of this parcel in any direction. Antiques, crafts and a gift shop is a commercial use, and he asks that the request be denied. Mr. Marvin Rosenblum said the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance were adopted to provide for orderly development in Albemarle County. This particular use was put into the Zoning Ordinance as a use by Special Use Permit so that it could be evaluated according to the surrounding land uses. The property surrounding this parcel is residential. He feels the use would best be located in the Village of Earlysville. Allowing this use would affect not only this particular residential area, but set a precedent for other residential areas in the County. The road sitUation on Route 743 is hazardous. He urged that the Board fulfill its responsibilities by denying this request. May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mrs. Penny Hine also spoke in opposition to the request, and then read a letter from Mr. I. F. Trew, who could not be present tonight, dated April 30, 1985. Mr. Trew is against the request for spot zoning for commercial purposes in an established residential area. He is concerned about the traffic patterns, and has lived in this area for twenty-six years. There are thirty-one homes within one-half mile of this parcel and no commercial development in the area. He asked that the Special Use Permit be denied. Mrs. Candice Crosby said she lives in a subdivision known as "Clover Hill." She is opposed to the opening of a business establishment at this location because of traffic and because it would set a dangerous precedent to have commercial establishment on this stretch of road. Mrs. Elizabeth Rosenblum asked that the Board deny the Special Permit, and reminded the Board of the efforts of the many citizens to get a strong Zoning Ordinance adopted for the County. She said commercial uses belong in the Village of Earlysville as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked that the Board deny the request and any future requests of a similar nature. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated April 26, 1985 from Dr. and Mrs. Gerald L. Mandell in opposition to this request. With no one else from the public rising to speak for or against this petition the Public Hearing was closed. ' Mrs. Cooke said she feels it is admirable that anyone wants to start his own business. But the Board has an adopted Comprehensive Plan and needs to adhere to that plan. There is a designated area for business, and she sees no reason to clutter residential areas with businesses. She will not support the request. Mr. Henley said he thinks the restrictions placed by the Planning Commission would have an effect on how much business could be done at the location. He does not think it actually would have much of an impact on the area. Mrs. Cooke said she was concerned that if this one permit is approved, it will open the door for other similar requests. There is an area in EarlySville that can accommodate businesses. Mr. Henley said he does not feel the request is contrary to Comprehensive Plan recommendations or it would not be on the Board's agenda. Mr. Bowie said he agrees in principle with Mr. Henley. However, .two things bother him about the proposal. One is the road, and the second is the fact that a cottage industry is to allow a person who haS no other way to engage in enterprise to do so. There are a number of such uses in his district, and they do not bother traffic. However, this applicant had intended to construct a new building just for this purpose, and that bothers him because there evidently is the financial capability to do so. Mrs. Foster said she had not intended to build, but would be using an existing garage, so she would be without a garage. Mr. Henley said he could not support this permit if it were for a new building but would non have that much problem supporting it in an existing building. Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie. The Special Use Permit is designed so the Board can insure compatibility with the surrounding territory. If this were a use where the public was not invited for sale purposes, he would feel differently. But where the public is invited it is important to the success of the business that there be as many people as possible to come to the site. And that makes the use not compatible with residential. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to deny SP 85-09. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-13. Pentecostal Church. To locate a church in an existing structure (formerly Lloyd's Carriage Emporium) on a 2.215 acre parcel zoned RA. Property on south side of Rt. 250 East near intersection with Rt. 744. Tax Map 80, Parcel 57A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progess on April 16 and April 23, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report: Request: Acreage: Zoning: Church (10.2.2.25) 2.215 acres RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as TM 80, parcel 57A, is located on the south side of Rte. 250 East approximately 0.2 mile east of Rte~ 744. Character of the Area: The building on this property was originally an automobile service station, then an antique shop. In 1978, a special use permit was approved for usage as a harness shop/residence (see staff report for SP-78-04 Earl Lloyd). Staff Comment: The Pentecostal Church currently has an average attendance of 40 to 50 people. Sunday morning and Wednesday evening worship services would be provided. The only other regular activities would be business meetings. Staff opinion is that a church in this location would not be objectionable and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Building and Fire Official approvals; Health Department approval; 283 May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page.5) 3. Expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit; 4. County Engineer approval of patching/repaving of parking area; 5. Staff approval of plan showing parking scheme and entrance controls. (Note - regarding this condition, the applicant has requested site plan waiver.) Conditions 1, 2, 4, and 5 are intended to address site plan issues. During review of SP-78-04, Earl Lloyd, Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation recommended installation of a 200 foot taper and 200 foot turn lane. In lieu of such requirement, the Planning Commission authorized staff approval of entrance controls. Currently Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has recommended that: "The current access to the building is uncontrolled at this time. The Department recommends that the frontage of this site be upgraded in accor- dance with the Department's current entrance standards and that a turn lane could possibly be needed for this development. To properly address comments for this site, the Department recommends that a site plan be submitted." Condition 5 of this report is carried over from the Earl Lloyd permit. Should the Commission and Board determine that a taper and turn lane are warranted, this condition should be amended as follows: "5. Staff approval of plan showing parking scheme and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entrance approval in accordance with current standards." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the conditions set out under "Staff Comment", not changing the wording of Condition 5 as recommended at the end of the staff's report. The public hearing was opened. Rev. Robert Michie was present to represent the Church. Mr. Fisher asked why this permit is needed. Rev. Michie said the members need a place for worship. They are currently in a community center. They were in a building on East Market Street in the City, but it was sold, and they were put out of that facility. Mr. Bowie asked if Condition 95 regarding staff approval of parking is any problem. Rev. Michie said no. Mr. Bowie said this building was remodeled at one time, and he knows there are living quarters to the back of the building. He asked what will be done with that space. Rev. Michie said it will be used as a dining area for the church members. With no one else rising to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he is familiar with the building and the area in general. There is no problem with sight distance as the building sits on a long, straight piece of road. There is no problem with slowing down and turning from either direction. ~The parking area does need repairing and that is provided for in the conditions, so he offered motion to approve SP-85-13 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. Building and Fire Official approvals; Health Department approval; Expansion shall require amendment of this special use permit; County Engineer approval of patching/repaving of parking area; Staff approval of Plan showing parking scheme and entrance controls. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-15. APCO. To locate an electrical substation on 0.232 acres part of a 452.90 acre parcel zoned RA located on north side of Rt. 6 west of intersection with Rt. 715. Tax Map 128, Parcel 13. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report: Request: Electric substation (10.2.2.6). Acreage: 10,000 square feet. Zoning: RA, Rural Areas. Location: Property, described as TM 128, parcel 13 (part), is located west of Rte. 715 and north of Rte. 6 near Esmont. Character of the Area - Staff Comment: APCO currently operates a substation located about 30 feet west of Rte. 715 and 105 feet north of Rte. 6 (within the scenic highway setback). This substation was established in 1937 and portions of it appear to be original equipment. In addition to considerations of extensive improvements to provide continued service, the existing substation is located within the 100 year floodplain of Ballinger Creek. Rather than pursuing an upgrading of the existing substation, APCO met with County staff as to regulations and requirements for a new site. The proposed site would be 330 feet from Rte. 6 and 400 feet from Rte. 715. The sub-station would be offset into a wooded area and, combined with differences in elevation, staff opinion is that the substation would not be 264 May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) visible from Rte. 6, Rte. 715, or adjoining properties (the closest property is about 300 feet away). Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions of approval, the criteria for issuance of a special use permit (31.2.4.1) and supplementary regu- lations (5.1.12) would be satisfied Staff recommends approval subject to the following: Dismantling and removal of existing substation within 90 days of placing new substation in service to be accomplished to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; Staff approval of site plan; Substation to. be located as shown on "Appalachian Power Company Proposed Esmont Station" dated October 2, 1984 and revised November 5 1984. ' ' Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of this request with the conditions in the staff's report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Paul Keys, right-of-way agent for APCO, was present. He said they have no problem with the conditions recommended. Mr. Bowie said he understands from the staff report that something has to be done to this substation. Mr. Keys said it was built in 1926; that is a correct statement. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be an Increase in line voltage. Mr. Keys said no. There will be no new transmission line. The replacement will follow the existing lines back to their present location. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way said he is familiar with the site and feels this will be an improvement. He then offered motion to approve SP-85-15, subject to the conditions recommended by the Plan- ning Commission, following: Dismantling and removal of existing substation within 90 days of placing new substation in service to be accomplished to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; 2. Staff approval of site plan; Substation to be located as shown on "Appalachian Power Company Proposed Esmont Station" dated October 2, 1984, and revised November 5, 1984. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-8. Riverbend Limited Partnership. To rezone about 0.3374 acres from C-1 Commercial to PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center. Property on south side of Route 250 West, east of South Pantops Drive. Tax Map 78, Parcels 17D (Part of) and Parcel 17D1 (Part of), Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progess on April 16 and April 23, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report: Requested Zoning: PD-SC Planned Development-Shopping Center. Acreage: 0.3374 acres. Current Zoning: C-l, Commercial. Location: Property, described as TM 78, parcel 17D(1), is a portion of the First Virginia Bank property at the intersection of Rte. 250 East and Riverbend Drive. Staff Comment: Riverbend Limited Partnership has purchased this property from First Virginia Bank and is requesting this rezoning to bring the property into conformance with the shopping center. Due to the small acreage involved, staff has not submitted this petition to exhaustive review. Staff recommends that this would be a logical addition to the PD-SC zone. However, certain agreements of the original PD-SC petition have not been executed to date. Rezoning actions outlined in A.I., A.2., A.3., and A.4. of the Board's action on ZMA-83-2 have not been undertaken. Stormwater management facilities for Phase I construction have not been completed (B.3.c.). Many of these items were included by agreement rather than action at the time of approval due to the applicant's construction schedule. At this time, there appears to be no reason for further delay in executing these agreements. Staff recommends deferral of this petition until the agreements of original a~proval have been executed. . Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 30, 1985, by a vote 5/1, recommended denial of ZMA-85-8. The Planning Commission based its denial on the fact May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 285 that the applicant had not adressed the concerns of the staff related to certain agreements of ZMA-83-2. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Don Wagner said when First Virginia Bank moved to the Pantops location, they needed to have an acre for a septic drainfield. They purchased 3/10 of an acre which had a buy-back arrangement when they connected to public sewage facili- ties. Dr. Hurt got that property from the bank, and the partnership bought the property from Dr. Hurt. When that was done, they were administratively able to detach it from one parcel and attach it to another parcel. That was done and recorded. When the original zoning request was made for the Riverbend Shopping Center, they thought it would be easy to include this 3/10 of an acre in the Shopping Center, but it has not turned out that way. At the time the Board approved the rezoning to PD-SC the staff was interested in areas marked "A," "B," and "C," which were not designated by a precise boundary (see condition A-1 of ZMA-83-2). In order for the applicant of the PD-SC to have this land rezoned, all kinds of studies were needed. And they did not do the studies because they had no particular use for this property. Another concern of the staff had to do with stormwater run-off. A condition No. B-3C was added stating that the applicant would agree to modify the design of the storm water management system to include pollution abatement measures to the extent deemed reasonable by the County Engineer including the use of grass filter strips in the floodplain areas, etc. The system was designed, approved by the County Engineer and bonded. Last year, they tried to persuade the County Engineer that it was experimental, and there should be a better way to do this. They were not able to do so. Since that time, the County has applied for and received a grant to s%udy the system. The applicant feels that what he has been required to do is not really reasonable. However, it has been designed, approved and is bonded. And if they cannot persuade the County Engineer otherwise, the system will be built. Mr. Fisher asked the staff what zoning action was to have been taken on these areas. Mr. Donnelly said that Areas A, B and C were to be added to the PD-SC. There were other long, narrow, undevelopable areas which the staff wanted designated as open space. Mr. Fisher asked the zoning on those areas now. Mr. Donnelly said it is C-1. Mr. Fisher said it seems the idea is to bring all of those areas into the PD-SC so that the whole area will work together. Is the staff afraid that the C-1 area could develop in another way? Mr. Donnelly said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any time limit on the conditions. Mr. Donnelly said no. Mr. Fisher said it seems as though the County wants to bring in as much land as possible under the PD-SC, but the staff is saying that they do not want to bring in some areas because all areas cannot be brought in at this time. That seems to be a strange recommendation. Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he was present at the Board Meeting the night the agreement was made between Dr. Hurt and the Board. It was agreed that Dr. Hurt would bring in areas A, B and C when he had a use for those areas. Dr. Hurt's position is that nothing has changed at this time, since he still has no particular use for those properties. It costs several thousand dollars and takes several months of time to come before the Board and the Planning Commission for a PD-SC. There is a traffic requirement study, detailed topographical and engineering work, which are costly, and they would have to estimate the uses. It was decided that as long as there was a written agreement with Dr. Hurt, the areas would be designated PD-SC. Mr. Lindstrom asked under that agreement what would happen if someone else bought some of that land from Dr. Hurt. Mr. Donnelly said the staff was concerned that if Dr. Hurt sold one of these parcels, his letter dated June 2, 1983 (which is on file) might not tie the purchaser to the agreement. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the letter had been made a part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Donnelly said the letter is separate from the conditions placed on the rezoning. With no one else from the public to speak for or against the petition, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Condition No. 1 of ZMA-83 2 might be expanded. Mr. Fisher said he has a problem with the owners of Riverbend Shopping Center trying to force the owner of another piece of property into applying for a rezoning. Dr. Hurt was present and said he cannot imagine why there would be any opposition to this request because originally the applicants were requested to rezone this area to PD-SC which they did. This little piece of property was deeded to the First Virginia Bank and at that time could not be included as a part of the Shopping Center. Now that has changed, and he sees no reason why there should be opposition. Dr. Hurt said his property is not a part of the main Shopping Center. The partnership bought what it considered to be a property of shopping center size. He wrote the letter at that time and gave a commitment. Conditions were placed on the rezoning which would have imposed some expenses which he did not feel were needed at that time. He has no reason to say he will not comply with his letter of June 2, 1983, but sees no reason to do it at this time. Mr. Fisher asked if Dr. Hurt planned to apply for a rezoning of the property when it is ripe for development. Dr. Hurt said yes; if it would not cost him anything, he would be willing to do it now. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that keeping this one parcel from being a part of the Shopping Center in the hope of getting a bigger parcel is futile and contradictory. He is not sure he understands the conditions, but then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-8. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Fisher asked the staff if they could straighten out any misunderstanding the Board has about this application. Mr. Bowie said he did not under- stand it when he read the materials sent with the agenda, but it seems that if there is a problem with the drainage the County has ample ways to enforce its own regulations. He does not believe that withholding this rezoning is a way to enforce the regulation, so he is happy to support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom asked if by approving this rezoning request, the Board is missing an opportunity to do something for the public. Mr. Tucker said no. What will be done with the drainage will be of benefit to the public and helpful to the entire area. Mr. Fisher said that if the drainage structure is bonded the County could proceed to make the improvement itself. Mr. Tucker said yes. The County has recently received a grant from the State to study level spreaders. Mr. Fisher said he cannot see how the County would gain anything by not approving this rezoning request. It seems to be reasonable. He asked the County Attor- ney if anything was being missed from a legal angle. May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. St. John said at first it seemed the staff was treating the agreement as being in default. But he does not think it is in default because if you read Dr. Hurt's commitment, he is saying now the same thing he said in 1983. He agrees to-bring the three parcels of land into the Shopping Center at the time they are developed, and he still intends to do that. The drainage is a separate problem, but the County has other remedies for that problem. Mr. Fisher said when the staff and the Planning Commission take such strong positions and the Board can't figure it out, they figure they have missed something. Mrs. Cooke said that at the Planning Commission meeting last night there was a great deal of confusion because she had thought that the land was all under one ownership. She did not realize until later in the meeting that there were two separate ownerships. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ' AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-85-4. P. H. Faulconer Estate. To rezone 41.2 acres from PRD Planned Residential Development and R-1 Residential (four units per acre) with a proffer to R-3 (density three units per acre). Property north of Rt. 29/250 By-PaSs between Canterbury Hills and St. Anne's-Belfield School. Tax Map 60, Parcel 24 (part). Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report and noted that since the report was written, the applicants had amended their proffer, so he would make changes to the staff report as he read: Requested Zoning: R-4, Residential (proffered 2.25 dwelling units per acre, 93 units) Acreage: 41.2 acres Existing Zoning: PRD (1.17 dwelling units per acre; 48 units) Location: Property, described as TM 60, parcel 24 (part) is located between Canterbury Hills Subdivision and St. Anne's-Belfield School adjacent to Rt. 250 Bypass. Character/Zoning of the Area: This undeveloped, wooded property was rezoned from R-1 Residential (1 to 1 1/.2 dwelling units per acre) to a planned development designation in 1981. Hunter Village PRD was approved for 26 single-family detached and 22 single-family attached dwelling units (1.17 dwelling units per acre). While density was reduced, a wider selection of dwelling types was available through the rezoning. Canterbury Hills, zoned R-2, is to the east. The Rt. 250 Bypass forms the southern boundary. To the west is St. Anne's-Belfield School and undeveloped property zoned R-1. Property on the north was recently rezoned from R-1 to R-4 under ZMA-84-19 HEC, Inc., with a proffered density of three dwelling units per acre. Applicant's Proposal (See proffer which follows): The applicant has sub- mitted a rezoning petition with proffers similar to those attached to ZMA-84-19 HEC, Inc. The five proffers address matters of density, buffering adjoining lands and access. Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in Neighborhood Seven of the Urban Area. The area is recommended for low density residential development in a range of 1 - 4 units per acre and an average density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Chapter 10, Comprehensive Plan Standards, recommends a planned development approach for developments over 75 units. Staff opinion is that the applicant's proffers adequately address this recommendation.. Comparative Impact Estimates Dwellings Population (2.7 person per unit) Vehicle trips per day * School Children Current Zoning 48 130 336 22 *7 vehicle trips per day per unit employed. Proposed Zoning 93 251 651 42 Traffic generation dependent on mix of dwelling types. 7 vehicle trips per day per unit for single-family detached; 5.6 vehicle trips per day for townhouse units. Stormwater; Water/Sewer; Roads: Stormwater would drain to Meadow Creek. Stormwater detention would be required. Water availability and fire flows exceed requirements. The Canterbury sewer pump station is currently at capacity. Additional development in the area woUld require upgrading of this facility. Rt. 654 (Barracks Road) carries 7193 vehicles per day. Staff Comment & Recommendation: Staff opinion is that the requested density of 2.25 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and that the applicant's proffers satisfy the intent of the planned development approach. May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) In addition to limiting density, the proffers offer protection to adjoining properties in terms of compatible dwelling type and lot size; within 200 feet, a 50 foot wooded buffer and a 75 foot building setback (buffer and setback exceed requirements of existing zoning)'. Traffic past St. Anne's- Belfield on Faulconer Drive would be less than under existing zoning. Staff recommends that the proffers attached to ZMA-85-4 are reflective of recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan and are protective of the public interest. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 16, 1985, recommended approval of the petition with the following proffer: "Mr. James R. Donnelly Director of Planning County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 RE: ZMA-85-4 Dear Mr. Donnelly: The owners of the Hunter Village PRD wish to make the following proffer in regards to ZMA-85-4: A) Provision of public roads within the development. B) Minimum lot size of one-third acre with the 200' single family buffer area adjacent to Canterbury Hills and St. Anne Belfield and a 75' building-setback line from same. c) Preservation of a wooded buffer of fifty feet along the southern boundary with St. Anne Belfield. D) To limit density under R-4 zoning to 2.25 dwelling units per acre. E) No through connection between Barracks Road and St. Rt. 855 (also known as Faulconer Drive) with the maximum number of units to be accessed off S. R. 855 to be a maximum of 30 units as opposed to the present 48 currently allowable. As we have discussed with the County staff, it is appropriate that the former Hunter Village RPN be developed in a compatible fashion with the adjacent rezoned 58 acre parcel'with which it shares the lake and various utility easements. Respectfully, (Signed) Tim Michel" unanimously The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. W. S. Roudabush was present on behalf of the appli- cant. He said this property was aquired by the Faulkners in 1911. This 41.2 acres is adjacent to the 58.91 acre tract which was recently rezoned on the north. The request complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is not on the market nor on the verge of being developed. The estate wants to establish a master plan for the entire property before disposing of any portion thereof. Most of the other property owned by the Faulkners is within the watershed of the Rivanna River. This property was rezoned in earlier years as Hunter Village, PRD, but it does not tie in well with the development of the 58.91 acre tract adjoining. They feel the entire tract should be planned at the same time. in the event that the family itself does not develop the parcels, the proffers associated with the two applica- tions would accomplish the same objectives as restrictive covenants to assure the family that development would follow the general scheme and guidelines they want to see put into effect. Public sewage disposal is available to the tract within Canterbury Hills. Water is available in Route 654, Barracks Road. Route 654 will be the primary access to the property, and left turn lanes will be added as well as long tapers for turning lanes running the entire length of the property in both directions. There is a proffer with the application which will limit the use of Route 855 adjacent to Belfield School to only thirty dwelling units. All other units will exit on Route 654. Most of the drainage from the tract will enter a proposed lake which is part of the proposed general scheme. The road run-off from the tract goes into the watershed area. Although there is one small area adjacent to Canterbury Hills, it does not flow into the proposed lake area. And they have been told that this drainage creates some problem for residents in Canterbury Hills. He feels that the stormwater detention ordinance will sufficiently cover that situation. The road shown on the plan is only in a generalized location. The proffer states that there is a 200 foot single-family buffer area adjacent to Canterbury Hills and St. Anne's- Belfield, and a 75 foot building setback line from same. Within that 200 feet Would be part of the lake or dam in a couple of areas. This is to buffer the area from Route 250 along the margin of the lake. There will also be a 50 foot wooded buffer adjacent to the boundary of properties owned by persons other than the Faulkners. There is a 75 foot building set-back along the rear of any dwellings built along thOse boundary lines. This application contains 41.2 acres to be rezoned R-4 with a maximum growth density of 2.25 dwelling units per acre or 93 dwelling units. The area of the single-family development is proposed to be 12.7 acres. That area would yield about 28 lots. The area not committed to single family units would be 28.5 acres and would contain 65 dwelling units. The density outside of the single family area would be 2.28 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Roudabush concluded by stating that the May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) applicant would like to be able to plan both areas at one time for a similar type of development. The' Public Hearing was opened. Mr.. Bob Garland said he has lived in Canterbury Hills for thirteen years~ His lot is on the corner, so he has a vested interest in what might happen to the property and would like to speak against this request. He said the original staff report which the Board received, contained four factual errors. It states that the previous rezoning decreased the .zoning density, and that is not correct. It increased the density. The staff did not note the potential drainage problem until he brought it to their attention. The staff used 1982 highway traffic figures. The 1984 figures were given in the staff report tonight. The Highway Department report was based on the wrong piece of property. The Planning Department's recommendation was based on a faulty report and was only corrected after he brought it to their attention one day before the Planning~Commission Hearing. Mr. Garland said that tonight the Board has witnessed another gross error. The Board has the wrong set of proffers. They are not the most recent set. (Mr. Garland seemed to have a copy of a letter which the Board has not received.) He said that Mr. Roudabush was trying to make a point about not extending the road to Canterbury Hills, and the proffer before the Board makes no mention of that. Other than the last paragraph which says, "As we have discussed with the County staff it is appropriate that former Hunter Village RPN be developed in a compatible fashion .... " He does not believe that is a proffer, and it should be addressed as Proffer No. 6. He also feels that the term, "single family buffer area" should be changed to state, "single family detached dwelling buffer area." He takes issue with the staff's statement in the report that this development is compatible with the adjoining property, since it allows attached dwellings, and there are none in Canterbury Hills. It represents a change in housing types on all sides of Canterbury Hills with exception of one side which was previously rezoned. As to the density, if these two parcels are considered as one item, the total density Would be 2.69 units per acre. The density of Canterbury Hills is approximately 2.28 units per acre. He questions whether the Comprehensive plan intended for the density to increase as properties get further from the city line. He said the developer thinks he needs a density comparable to Canterbury Hills, and he agrees. He does not disagree with the addition of four more units to the petition under consideration tonight. Mr. Garland said that Mr. R°udabush has stated that the PRD does no~ tie in well with the previous zoning, and the owners want two tracts which are compatible. Mr. Garland said he does not object to a reasonable modification of the PRD plan. He does not object to the rezoning. The PRD allows the developer to consider twenty-two single family attached dwell~ ing units in the center of the property and twenty-six detached dwelling units backing up to Canterbury Hills. He feels that is a good compromise. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Garland the date of the proffer which he had in hand. Mr. Garland said the one he contends to be correct is dated April 16, 1985. Mr. Roudabush said there is one on letterhead stationery which was submitted to the staff a day before the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said he is uneasy about the status of this petition and would prefer to defer it until the staff and the applicant can get everything in order. Mr. Bowie concurred. He said several serious comments had been made tonight about things being wrong, and he would like to know if the comments are right or wrong. Mr. Fisher said there has been strong opposition stated from the Highway Department and Mr. Garland says that is based on their looking at the wrong property. He does not know the circumstances but would like to have all of this cleared up. Mr. Roudabush said the Highway Department did go to the wrong site. The proffer was amended several times in order to get it to conform to questions that had arisen, and the latest draft on letterhead stationery is dated April 15 and has the words, "Revised" typed in. The erroneous information was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission before they actually made a decision. Mr. Fisher said unless the Board wanted to abort this whole procedure, he would suggest that the Public Hearing be continued. Mr. Denny Watson said he lives next door to Mr. Garland. This is not a site plan, but a general request to increase the density of that parcel. He would like the Board to consider the possibility that there will be future requests for rezoning. Until property is developed, it seems premature to engage in a continual increase in the density without knowing what will actually be developed on the property. Mr. Tim Michel, representing the applicant, said that the confusion is due to many things. They have been trying to address the concerns of the staff and respond to the land. Through the proffers they have tried to address those concerns. What they have heard from the residents of Canterbury Hills is that they would prefer that this not happen. So they had added more buffer than is required by the ordinance. The original plan for the front of this property, which was approved about a year ago, represented about 75 percent of the ~roperty that does not lie in the watershed. The reason they put in a 200 foot setback for t~e single family detached is in order to provide a buffer along Barracks Road. The Highway Department problem occurred when they were asked to look at the whole property, and that is the reason 150 people were notified as adjacent owners. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Michel his status with H.E.C., Incorporated. Mr. Michel said he is the Master Planner and an employee of H.E.C. Mr. Fisher asked him if he were able to commit the corporation or the estate, or both, to the proffers in the letter mentioned earlier. Mr. Michel said he has the authority to do so, and Mr. Fischbeck is here from the bank as the other trustee. Mr. Fisher said he is curious about the legal status of the property and wants to make sure this is truly a binding instrument so the next owner will not question its authenticity. Mr. Michel said he has the authorization to act publicly. Mrs. Joyce Watson said although the applicant had said they would not extend the road into Canterbury Hills, it is not written down specifically, and she wondered if that could be put into writing legally. May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) With no one else coming forward to speak for or against this petition, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to defer this request for the reasons he had mentioned before. He is undecided about the application. He voted against the application last time even though .no one spoke against it. At that time, the reason was based on the nature of the dwelling units. The buffer of 200 feet concerned him because he felt it was not too substantial of a buffer. What the developer has said tonight about a compatibility problem with the adjacent property does exist. This change would provide for more compatibility with the neighborhood. For that reason, he is more torn about voting for this request than he was the last time. He has a great deal of respect for the developer so feels that Canterbury Hills will benefit from the development that occurs here. If this petition is to be deferred, .he would like to see written into the proffer that there be no connection other than one to Route 855 and one to Barracks Road; a specific written proffer that there will be no connection through Canterbury Hills. He would also like to see the staff talk to the Highway Department and get current data based on the correct parcel of land being reviewed and would like to see the staff's report revised based on accurate data. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer an action on this request until the next available meeting date or no later than June 12, 1985, with the following information to be furnished at that time: A copy of the correct proffer in writing which should also specify the following: a) Access to the proposed development to be limited to Route 855 and Barracks Road. b) No connecting roads from the proposed development to pass through Canterbury Hills. Request Highway Department to make a report on the entrances to the pro- posed development. Request staff to prepare a report on the impact of traffic from this deve- lopment on all roads in the surrounding area. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Bowie said the only question he has about this petition is the proffer, and if it were not for that, he would be prepared to go ahead tonight. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. At 10:02 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:12 p.m. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-85-14. Willis Estes. To use an existing building and parking lot to rent Jartran trucks and trailers. Property zoned C-1 is located on east side of Rt. 29 North about one-half mile north of City limits. Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 03-2. Charlot- tesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: Request: Acreage: Zoning: Motor vehicle rental (22.2.2.8)- 3.71 acres C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as TM 61Z, parcel 03-2, is located on the east side of Rt. 29 North, south and west of Branchlands PUD. Character of the Area: This property is developed with three buildings which house a number of commercial uses. The Zoning Department assesses the adequacy of parking as uses change). Properties adjacent to the north and east in Branchlands have been designated for commercial usage and open space. Property to the south is developed commercially. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to operate a truck and trailer rental service. Four parking spaces have been designated for display of rental vehicles adjacent to Rt. 29 North. An additional 16 spaces would be leased at the rear of the site for vehicle storage. The applicant has stated that vehicles in excess of the twenty available spaces would be stored in Greene County. Staff Comment: "Motor vehicle rental" as a use has caused concern recently due to overcrowding of sites which has resulted in dangerous traffic situa- tions as well as visual clutter. As proposed by the applicant, only four vehicles/trailers would be displayed while storage vehicles would be con- tained in an orderly fashion out of view at the rear of the site, avoiding circulation and visual concerns. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has commented that: "The Route 29 Corridor Study calls for improvements along this section of Route 29 North, and the Department recommends that the frontage of this site be improved in accordance with this study. Currently, there are two entrances serving this site and a third lane. The Department recommends that the access be improved with one entrance to serve this site in order that the parking can be upgraded to reduce side friction." · 270 May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Should either entrance be closed, the parking layout would need to be revised and some existing spaces would be lost, or additional site develop- ment would be necessary resulting in reduction of existing vegetation. With appropriate conditions of approval, staff opinion is that the criteria for issuance of a special use permit can be satisfied (Section 31.2.4.1). Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Parking of vehicles/trailers in accordance with plans marked "SP-85-14 Willis Estes" signed "R. S. Keeler, April 9, 1985." Not more than twenty (20) rental vehicles/trailers shall be located on site without staff approval; provided that in no case shall more than four (4) vehicles be located so as to be visible from Rt. 29 N. Vehicles/trailers shall not be.located anywhere else in Albemarle County without appropriate approvals. Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 16, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of this permit subject to the conditions in the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Estes said he had become interested in the truck/ trailer rental business several months ago. He found that because of the University of Virginia, there are a lot of transients so there is a lot of business. He approached Jartran and was assured that if he took the franchise, he would be the only operator in the Char-lottesville area. He also approached U-Haul and asked if he were able to establish a moving center if they would be willing to let him rent both types of equipment. He has received a favorable response. Mr. Bowie asked him if he would be the exclusive renter of the Jartran equipment. Mr. Estes said he would be in Charlottesville. Mrs. Cooke asked if U-Haul had been agreeable. Mr. Estes said he had received favorable comments, in large areas, they are going to moving centers. Mr. Estes says he feels that Charlottesville is ready for that type of facility. With no one else coming forward to speak for or against this petition, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that SP-85-14 be approved with the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission as set out below. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. (The petition was approved with the following conditions:) Parking of vehicles/trailers in accordance with plans marked "SP-85-14 Willis Estes" signed R. S. Keeler, April 9, 1985"; Not more than twenty (20) rental vehicles/trailers shall be located on site without staff approval; provided that in no case shall more than four (4) vehicles be located so as to be visible from Rt. 29 North; Vehicles/trailers shall not be loCated anywhere else in Albemarle County without appropriate approvals. Agenda Item No. 13. Revised Scottsville Flood Project Easement. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier said this easement involves increasing the size of the levy two times. The present levy was built two years ago using grant funds from HUD. The Corps of Engineers has tentatively granted over $1,000,000 to increase its size. As part of their requirement, the Town of Scottsville must grant easements for flood ponding up to 275 feet. With the present dike, the flood would go over that height. The easement is required in order to prevent anyone from suing the Corps of Engineers from building the dike. It is a requirement the town has to satisfy in order to get the funding. Mr. Fisher said the Board had approved a draft to this agreement last month. Mr. Dorrier said it had been changed in order to simplify~the language. The language initially was ambiguous. It appeared to actually give the army title to the land, so there were objections among the landowners. This easement would allow water to go on a property and be held during a flood. If there were no easement, the water would go on the property, anyway, so you're not giving up anything. Mr. Fisher said the County would be giving up the right to sue. Mr. Dorrier said that is correct, but he was not sure the County had that right, anyway. With the exception of a couple of easements, the Corps will approve the project. They are waiting for $80,000 from the Town of Scottsville for moving utility lines. That is a major hurdle. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he recommended approval of this, and Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Way then offered motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the following deed of easement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) (The agreement as signed is set out in full below:) THIS DEED, made this day of 1985, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, party of the first part, and the TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the second part, whose address is Scottsville, Virginia 24590, WITNESSETH : That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, hereby GRANT and CONVEY WITH SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, a perpetual right, power, privilege and easement occasionally to overflow, flood and submerge up to an elevation of 275.4 feet MSL, all of the property conveyed to the County of Albemarle by Resolution of Albemarle County School Board, dated September 14, 1981, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 726, page 175, in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Scottsville Flood Control Project, as authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948, approved June 30, 1948, Public Law 858, 80th Congress, 2nd Session, subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines; reserving however, to the party of the first part, its successors and assigns all such rights and privileges as may be used and enjoyed without interfering with the use of the project for the purposes authorized by Congress or abridging the rights and easements hereby acquired. Agenda Item No. 14. 1984. Approval of Minutes: June 20, August 8, August 23 and December 12, Mr. Way had read June 20, 1984, and found the minutes to be in order. Mr. Henley had read August 8 and August 23, 1984, and reported no errors. Mr. Lindstrom had read several pages of December 12, 1984, and reported that on page 16, .the last paragraph (relating to the School Facilities Study) is somewhat confusing, and suggested the paragraph be written as follows: "Mr. Way, who also serves on the committee, said he would like to reempha- size what Mr. Lindstrom said about looking at each area of the study in terms of cost. e~e-~e kha~-has-Bee~-~se~sse~ The initial estimate for the study ~s was $35,000. Mr. Way said that if the consultant does every- thing, it may cost considerably more than that. Mr. Fisher asked how Mr. Way and Mr. L.indstrom determined that ~e? it might be more expensive than the original $35,000 estimate, and Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Sensbach had given them rough estimates based on his experience which indicated a hiqher cost." Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes that had been read, with the correction noted above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Report on Greenwood Chamical Company Explosion. his memorandum to the Board dated May 1, 1985: Mr. Agnor noted "During and following the fire at the Greenwood Chemical Plant, County staff performed five site inspections to assess the extent of the damage, probable cause of the fire, potential hazards posed by chemicals present, ability of the plant's containment system to prevent run-off, and evidence of the expansion of nonconforming uses on the site. The following County officials participated in the inspection and investiga- tion: Roger Baber, Chief, Crozet Volunteer Fire Department Michael Carroll, Emergency Services Coordinator William Gilbert, Chief Electrical Inspector Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning Larry Maeyens, Fire Prevention Officer Michael Nickell, Assistant Building Official William Norris, Watershed Management Official Michael Tompkins, Zoning Administrator A chronological account of the County staff's involvement in the investiga- tion of the chemical plant fire is attached for your information and review. In their investigation, the County staff contacted several Federal, State and local offices/agencies to apprise them of the possibility of a hazardous situation and to determine if any regulatory measures needed to be taken. The following is a listing of those offices/agencies contacted: May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Emergency Services Office (local) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) State Bureau of Toxic Substances State Emergency Services, Hazardous Waste Division State Hazardous Waste Management Office State Health Department Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste State Health Department, Office of State Water Programs State Police State Water Control Board Thomas Jefferson Health Department Based upon the County staff's investigation and information received from the Federal, State, and local agencies contacted the following conclusions can be made: ' No regulatory action by any Federal or State agencies can be taken until the following conditions occur: It can be proven that hazardous waste on the site is being buried. It can be proven that hazardous waste on the site is being moved off the site. c. The site is abandoned. The investigation revealed the presence of six trailers which appear to evidence the expansion of a nonconforming use - a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator will cite the owner for the violation and require that the property be returned to its original (1968) status. The County Zoning Administrator will advise the owner of the plant that the following items must be addressed prior to reopening the plant for production. A site plan showing the location of all buildings and appurtenances must be submitted and reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit. An inventory of all substances, including raw materials, used in the production process must be submitted with the site plan. C® A description of the processes used resulting in the finished product must be submitted with the site plan. The County's Inspection Department, which is responsible for fire, building and electrical code enforcement, will advise the owner that the following conditions must be met prior to the issuance of the required permits for the repair, reconstruction or use of any building or equipment on the site: Ail applications for permits must be made by the owner, or his agent, contractor, architect or engineer. The applications shall contain a general description of the proposed work, its location and use. The application shall be accompanied by two copies of speci- fications and plans showing the character and nature of work to be performed. Ail work shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code's high hazard classification and the Albemarle County Fire Prevention Code. Copies of letters from the Zoning Administrator and Director of Inspections to Mr. Cereghino, the owner of thc Greenwood Chemical Plant, are (on file)." Mr. Agnor said he found there had been an omission from his memorandum. An inventory of the chemicals on the site was taken, this was then taken to the University of Virginia, and assistance sought in checking those chemicals. No carcinogenics were found in the chemicals there, rather they are considered insidious, which means they can cause damage if allowed to runoff into the water system. The chemicals they were making are used primarily for agriculture and cosmetics. On the site were found eight trailers which are used for storage, as an office, and an employee lounge. These appear to be on the site in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The owner, Mr. Cereghino, has responded affirmatively to staff questions and has been to the office to see what procedures to follow in order to reopen the plant. Mr. Bowie said this was an excellent report. He said it appears that in order to reopen, the owner will have to comply with existing codes. Mr. Agnor said that is correct, and he has been so advised. Mr. Fisher said he had not had time to read the report but after doing so may have some questions. ' May 1, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. There was no one present from the public to speak. Mr. Agnor said County employees have been advised that if they owe the County money, it will be extracted from their paycheck starting in May. This has been done in the past on personal property and other taxes, but this year real estate taxes are being deducted as well. It is not felt that County employees should be issued a paycheck when they owe the County money. Mr. Fisher asked i~ it is all taken out in one lump sum, and Mr. Agnor say no. Arrangements can be made for the deduction. Mr. Fisher said he is distressed that it has to be done this way. Mrs. Cooke asked if it is a significant problem. Mr. Agnor said it totals more than $40,000 for sixty employees, in prior years, this deduction has no~ been made until delinquent notices are mailed, and they will be going out in May. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 10:40 p. m., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and a legal matter concerning potential litigation in connection with Greenwood Chemical Company. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjournment. the meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. With no further business to come before the Board, ~(irman