Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-033'09 August 3, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 3, 1983, at 7:30 P~M., Meeting Room #?, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. ~Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at ?:40 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. SP-83-42. Nancy Shotwell. Request to locate mobile home on 2.863 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property located on south side of Route 74? about 600 feet southeast of its intersection with Route 640. Tax Map 33, Parcel 41 B, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 1983.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the staff's report: "Character of the Area All properties on this segment of Route ?47 are densely wooded and undeveloped. The applicant's property is currently vacant. (A plat submitted reflects future building plans.) Staff Comment The applicant proposes a "U" shaped driveway which would reduce the visibility of the mobile home from the public road. Staff opinion is that the mobile home would not be visible from adjoining properties if a permanent tree buffer~were required. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff recommends the following conditions: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Eoning Ordinance; Mobile home to be located as described on plat submitted with special~ use permit application; Maintenance of tree buffer to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 2, 1983, recom- mended approval of this special use permit with the staff's condition and a fourth condition reading: "Mobile home shall be removed within thirty days of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for permanent dwelling." Mr. Tucker noted that this request had been brought for public hearing due to a letter of objection received from Mr. S. G. Alrich, owner of an adjoining parcel. Miss Nash asked if the buffer zone was considered adequate by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said there is an existing row of deciduous trees on the property and that is the reason for Condition #3. The public hearing was opened at this time. Miss Shotwell said this will not be a permanent dwelling since she has plans to build a home, but cannot do so at this time. She feels this is the best way to save money at the-moment and still have a place inwhich to live. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Miss Nash immediately offered motion to approve SP-8~-42 with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS-: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda-Item No. 3. SP-83-~5. Margie Thacker, contract purchaser (Kenneth W. or Wanda E. Bruce, owners). To locate a mobile home on 2.820 ac'res zoned Rural.~reas. Property on north side of Route 674 about one-half mile northeast of intersection of Routes 614 and 674. Tax Map 26, Parcel 14 B, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 28, 1983.) Mr. Tucker read the staff's report: "Character of the Area This property is heavily wooded with mature pine. development has occurred in the general area. Some~new residential 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Staff Comment The applicant proposes to locate the mobile home about 150 feet from Route 67~. Staff opinion is that the mobile home would be visible looking down the driveway, but would not be otherwise obtrusive. Should the Commission and Board choose~ ~to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 310 AUgust 3, ~983 (Regular Night Meeting') Mobile home to be located as described on plat submitted with special use permit application; Maintenance of tree buffer to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 2, 1983, voted to recommend approval of SP-83-45 with the three conditions recommended by the staff. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at the meeting at 7:40 P.M.) Mr. Tucker noted that this petition was brought for public hearing due to letter of opposition signed by Dr. and Mrs. Dennis H. Novack, adjoining property owners who presently reside in Rhode Island. Mr. Butler asked if this will be a permanent mobile home. Mr. Tucker said yes. At this point, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Thacker said this is a request for a permanent mobile home. Although it is her intent to build on the property, the'price of the land makes that impossible at this time. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Miss Nash asked if there is any intent on the part of the applicant to ever rent the mobile home. Mrs. Thacker said no, she will live in the mobile home. Motion was then offered by Mr, Henley to approve SP-83-45 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-83-46. Dan Bucca (David J. Via, owner). To locate a mobile home on 18.368 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property located on Rcute 788 about one-half mile northwest of the intersection of Routes 684 and 788. Tax Map 55, Parcel 4lB, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 28, 1983.) Mr. Tucker read the staff's report: "Location Property is located on an access easement about one-half mile west of Route 684 near Crozet. Character of the Area This property, located on Little Yellow Mountain, is open at lower elevations and appears to have been an orchard in the past. Higher elevations are wooded and steep. The C & 0 Railway borders the property on the south. Staff Comment Objection to this special use permit petition comes from a property owner south of the C & 0 Railway. The railroad right-of-way is densely vegetated with deciduous trees and undergrowth which would provide adequate screening during growing season. (The mobile home is proposed to be located seventy-five feet from the west boundary, and about one hundred ten feet from the railroad right-of-way.) This vegetation is so dense that screening may be adequate in winter months. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Mobile home to be located as described on plat submitted with special permit applicatio~n." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held on August 2, 1983, recommended approval of SP-83-46, with the two conditions recommended by the staff, and a third condition reading: Maintenance of tree buffer to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Tucker said this petition comes to the Board because of an objection filed by an adjacent property owner quite a distance from the property to the east!~'i~ of the C & 0 Railway. Mr. Fisher inquired about the location of the parcel. Mr. Tucker said that this 18+ acres has been divided from a larger tract and lies at the end of State Route 788. The objection came from the owner of Parcel 39 which lies to the east-of the railroad, directly across from' Parcel 4lB. However, Parcel 4lB is elevated quite a bit above Parcel 39, so the staff feels that the mobile home will not be visible from the adjoining property. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dan Bucca, the applicant, said he intends to alter the front of the trailer by expanding the living space and installing a full length deck. The property belongs to his father-in-law. Mr. Bucca said he is involved in farming activities which take the most of his time and financial resources. He does not intend to build a house on this property in the near future, but will add to the front of the trailer instead. The site is adequately screened. Mr. Bucca said that from his property, he has never seen Parcel 39 which lies across the railroad tract so he feels the mobile home will be adequately screened from view even in the winter months. Mr. Bucca said he is anxious to move onto the property since it will be much easier to take care of his farming activities on the property rather than commuting as he presently does. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any dwelling unit on the property at this time. Mr. Bucca said no. Mr. Henley asked if Mr~ Bucca owned the property. Mr. Bucca said. no, but the property could probably be deeded to him in such a way that the owner of Parcel 39 woul~ not border on this parcel. 311 A~gust 3, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley asked if it is proper to allow a relative to place a mobile home on a parcel of land which does not belong to that person. Mr. Tucker said 'yes. Mr. Fisher asked what happens when a person modifies a mobile home with exterior construction. Mr. Tucker said the applicant must meet building code requirements and obtain a building permit. Miss Nash said that several mobile homes could be placed on this acreage because of its size. Mr. Tucker said any other request for placement of a mobile home would have to go through this same approval process. Miss Nash asked how many homes could be placed on the property. Mr. Tucker said that under RA District regulations, five units could be placed on the property. Mr. Henle said he feels this is a reasonable use for the property and he did not think the Board would approve placing five units on the property unless there were five children Who needed a place to live. Mr. Henley said he could see nothing wrong with the request and offered motion to approve SP-83-46 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-83-?. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. Request to rezone not more than l0 acres (currently zoned PRD) designated "Farm Tract" to Rural Areas, RA. Property known as Wavertree Hall PRD and located east of intersection of Routes 691 and 63?. County Tax Map ?0, Parcels 39 and 39D. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 1983.) Agenda Item No. 6'. SP-83-38. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. Request to locate a country inn and restaurant on property described in ZMA-83-7. County Tax Map 70, Parcels 39 and 39D. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26 1983.) ' Agenda Item No. 7. SP-83-39. John-L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. Request'for home occupation for consulting engineering practice in 1,500 square feet of block dairy barn on property described in ZMA-83-7. County Tax Map 70, Parcel 39. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 1983.) Mr. Tucker~noted that the applicant had requested.deferral of these public~hearings. The request was received in time tomail notification of this request to all adjoining property owners, The Clerk has advised that the next available~date~for hearing these requests will be September 7. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present to speak about any of these requests. No one from the public rose to speak. Mr. Fisher 'then requested a motion to defer the Public hearings on the three above noted petitions Until September 7, 1983. Motion to .this effect was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: ~AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, LindStrom and Miss Nash. None. t~!.~ Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-83-6. Madeline S. Freemen/Wilford N. or Carolyn D. Herndon, Jr. Request to rezone 1.238 acres of County Tax Map 32, Parcel 22L, and 6.344 acres of Parcel 22L1 from R-1 to Highway Commercial, HC. Located one mile north of intersection of Routes 29 and 649. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 1983.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff!s report, as follows: "Preface: This rezoning petition was submitted as a joint request for HC Highway Commercial on two properties consisting of 6.3 acres (Freeman) and 1.238 acres (Herndon). After public hearing and discussion.on July.12, 1983, the Planning Commission deferred the joint petition to provide Mrs. Freeman opportunity to discuss this matter with her attorney. Prior to the Commission's second consideration of the petition, Mrs. Freeman requested withdrawal without prejudice, indicating that she may submit a rezoning request at some future date. After discussion, between the Commission and Mr. Herndon, both agreed that C-1 Commercial would satisfy Mr. Herndon's intent for possible future expansion as well as accommodate existing uses. The remainder of this report will address the Herndon property. Character of the Area: The Herndon property, zoned R-1 Residential and described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 22L, consists of 1.238 acres. The property is located on the west side of Route 29 North, north and adjacent to Cedar Hill mobile home park and sales. Mrs. Freeman's property, zoned R-l, borders this site on the north.and east. This site is commercially developed with a fabric shop and auto sales. The applicant is requesting commercial designation for future building expansion. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Planrecommends medium-density residential in this area of the Hollymead community. Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that due to existing commercial usage, this property should receive commercial designation. Staff recommends C-1 Commercial. 312 August 3, 1983 (Regular Night MeetinE)~ Mr. Tucker said, if approved, this parcel would be added to the Board's list of parcels zoned according to existing uses which parcels do not comply with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning~Commission, at its meeting of July 26, 1983, voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of 1.238 acres described as County Tax Map 32, ~ Parcel-22L, from R-1 Residential to C-1 Commercial. Mr. Fisher noted that this parcel is-already developed and being used as a Fabric shop and a used car sales lot. He asked how long the parcel has existed as a non-conforming use, Mr. Tucker said since 1980; the zoning of ~the property~was changed from B-l' (Business)when~ the new zoning map was adopted in 1980. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr~ Herndon said he would like for the property to be rezoned to commercial so that~he might expand thebusiness~when he wants to. ~' Under the non-conforming use statute, he cannot add to the building and needs to~ add space at~ this time. Mr. Fisher asked how many entrances there are to Mr. Herndon's property. Mr. Herndon said there are two entrances. Mr. Fisher asked what other types of uses are located in the vicinity of this parcel. Mr. Tucker said that Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park is located to the south; along the front of the Cedar Hill Mobile Home site there is a strip about 150 feet in depth which is zoned LI (Light Industrial) and was so zoned to allow for mobile home sales. Further to the west is the Airport Industrial Park site, and to the~north is R-1 residential. Mr. Fisher asked if ~ there are any commercial uses to the north of this property. Mr. Tucker said no; this is th~L only commercial use in the immediate vicinity. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Butler asked Mr. Tucker to further explain this request. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended C-1 Commercial zoning rather than the Highway Commercial (HC) for ~ which Mr. Herndon originally applied. Mr. Herndon has agreed to the C-1 designation which basically will recognize the existing uses on the property; a fabric shop and an auto sales~ which are both retail uses. Approval of this request would provide a zoning designation which matches the uses presently on the property. Mr. Fisher said this change would also allow expansion ~of~a commercial use which is part of the strip development on Route 29 North which is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan, and that would furtherJ deteriorate Route~2~ to some small degree. The Board is tryinE to discourage other people from expanding or creating new commercial uses on Route 29 North. Therefore, approval of this request would ~' create a conflict for the Board as to what to do with the next such request. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board did adopt a poIicy in 1980 to recognize on the zoning .map commercial, existing development that was to be downzoned by the comprehensive~zoning taking place at that time, and to show those properties in a "special classification" so that the user in existence at that time could be expanded. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not vote in favor of that policy, but the Board has complied with that policy o'n other such requests since 1980. Mr. Tucker said that policy was to apply only to parcels that .were zoned B-1 in 1980, and the policy was ~nct just to recognize n~n-conf'orming ~.ses.' Mr. ~Indstrom said on that basis, he would offer motion to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation for a rezoning of Parcel 22L, on Tax Map 32 to C-1 Commercial. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler Miss Nash asked how Mr. Herndon could expand, the use that is already on the property. Mr. Herndon said he might expand the building another thirty feet or so. Mr. Fisher asked if any expansion of the use would, require the filing of a site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for ingress, egress, etc. Mr. Tucker said a site plan would-be required if addi- tional parking is needed. No site planwould be required 'for adding on storage or something ~" of that nature. At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher., Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-83-10. Philip T. Halapin, M.D. Request to rezone 0.5 acre of 1.9~8 acres from R-~ to Commercial Office, CO. Located south of intersection of Routes 7~3 and 657. Tax Map 61, Parcel 27'A (part of). CharlOttesville District. AdvertiSed in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 1983.') Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: "Requested Zoning: Acreage: Existing Zoning: Location: CO Commercial Office ':.%~:'t~*'~ '~.~. .'~ ~;-~ :~'~ /-~.~" 0.5-acre of 1.9~8 acres R-~ Residential Property, described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 27A (part), is located on the east side of Route ?~3 (Hydraulic Road) about 300 feet south of Route 657 (Lamb's Road) across from Albemarle High School-. Character of the Area Oak Forest Subdivision, zoned R-~, is to the east. R-~ zoning is also to the south. To the north, and served by the same access road as .this property, are offices zoned Commercial Office. The portion of property subject to this petition contains a dwelling, as does the residue acrea'ge. Water and sewer are available. Comp.~ehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial office and tow-density, residential uses in this area. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the commercial land use standards of the Plan and finds the proposal to be consistent with those standards. August 5, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting) Staff Comment Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with rezoning criteria as set forth in Sections 1.~4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Statement of Intent of the CO Commercial Office District. Staff offers the following comments and observations: 1. The request is substantially consistent with the rezoninE criteria of Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Statement of Intent of the CO zone and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public utilities are available to the property. Improvements to Hydraulic Road are underway. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that the existing commercial entrance is adequate _for this increased usage. 3. Access to the property serves adjacent office uses. Expansion of Commercial Office zoning appears to be a logical action. 4. Staff identified no particular areas of concern regarding this petition which warrant an apDroach other than a conventional rezoning. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning petition as submitted." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 12, 198B, recomme approval of this petition. Mr. Tucker said the applicant did request a waiver to allow the staff to approve a site plan. This is a single-family dwelling being converted to an office, and_ requires only four additional parking spaces. The Planning Commission granted that waiver. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this property lies within the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. Mr..~ Tucker said the situation is somewhat peculiar. The 'total property contains almost two acres, and onIy one-half acre is being divided off. The existing dwelling on the property is Just over the ridgeline and on the portion of property which~drains away from the watershed to the east. The majority of the remaining portion does drain toward the watersehd, but that portion is vacant. There is a request for a rezoning of that portion coming before the Board later this year. Mr. Fisher asked if the entire one-half acre parcel lies outside of the watershed area~ Mr. ~ucker said there might be one very small corner not proposed for any development which drains~toward the South Fork watershed. The house itself sits over the ridgeline to the east. ~ Mr. L~ndstrom asked how the road improvements presently b'eing made on Hydraulic Road will effect this property. Mr. Tucker said this property drains toward Oak Forest Subdivision and Whitewood Road. On the remaining portion of this tract, the stormwater will be piped under Hydraulic Road into the South Fork Rivanna basin. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a small piece of this one-half acre tract which drains into the watershed. Mr. Tucker said he thinks there is a very small piece of the one-half acre which does. Approximately one-half of the tract remaining after this division drains to the South Fork. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a fairly visible ridgeline by which to make this determination. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Department has topogrmphic maps at a 200 scale which indicate location of the dwellings on this property, and it appears that the house site does not drain into the B~mihoFork basin. Mr. Fisher said that if this ridgeline can be determined from a topo map, he would rather just rezone that portion of the property that d~ains away from the watershed. Mr. Tucker said that would require a survey of the property. Mr. Tucker said that stormwater detention and runoff control facilities may be required by the County Engineer if he finds same necessary. Miss Nash said there was some question at the Planning Commission meeting about the adequacy of the road ~erving this property~ Mr. Tucker said the offices that are adjacent to this property were approved several years, and there is already a commercial entrance for thos-e offices. There is an adequate entrance onto Hydraulic Road and same will be further improved with the construction now taking place on Hydraulic Road. ~ Mr. Fisher asked if the dwelling is presently connected to public water and sewer services Mr. Tucker said he was not sure; but these facilities are available. The public hearing was opened. There being no one present to represent the applicant, Mr. Fisher recommended that this request be deferred until the applicant would be present. No member of the public was present to speak. Motion to defer was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler,-and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr'. Tucker if he would present a map at the next Board meeting showing the properties on the east side of Hydraulic Road that drain into the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: To consider rezoning of certain properties in the Crozet Community and in the villages of Ivy, Earlysville and SCottsville in order to bring these properties into conformance with the County's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 1983.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission held its public hearing on this question last night and will hold a work session later in the month, and have deferred action until September 13. The Clerk has.noted that the next date when the Board does not have anything else scheduled is on October 5. August B, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the request for Western Albemarle Shopping Center where the site plan will expire soon. He asked if a request for renewal of that site plan will come before the Planning Commission before the Planning Commission can consider these rezonings. Mr. Tucker said yes~ the ~Commission will~hear~the site plan on August 16. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke to reschedule this item to October 5. was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. The motion Agenda Item No. ll. Transfer of Funds: '-Italian Students'-Visit.~ ~ Mr. Agnor noted that a memorandum had been received from Mr. John A. Eberhart, Chairman, Joint Planning Committee, CASA Italiana Exchange Program, requesting an appropriation to help support the events, tours, and special activities planned for the students from the sister communities of Prato and Poggio a ~Caiano, Italy. The Committee is rJequesting tha.t~both the City and the County appropriate $4,750 to help with these expenses. The Chamber of Commerce has raised $10,000 for the Committee's work. Mr. Agnor said there are funds in the Board of Supervisors budget which have been set aside for 'contingencies, and these funds could be used for this expense. Mr. Fisher said that he had me~ with Mayor Bu~k, Mr. Eberhart and Mr. Leigh Middleditch ~'?~ from the Chamber of Commerces and several reductio, ns 'were made in the budget in order to lower same to the requested amount. This budget will provide two overnight trips, for the students while they are here and will correspond with the type of treatment rendered the Charlottesville Albemarle students while ~they were in italy earlier this summer. The total budget for this student exchange program was $50,?B4 with the majority of~the money coming from other sources; much being in-kind services. Mr. Fisher said he has been amazed at the community support for this project and hoped the Board would act favorably on this request. Motionwas offered by Mrs. Cooke to transfer $4,750 from Code lI00011010B00907, Reserve-~ Contingency Fund, Board of Supervisors budget, to Code 1-1000-11010-550B00, Travel-Subsisten~e and Lodging, as the County's share of these expenses. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Henley asked how the American students were chosen to participate in this exchange. ~ Mr. Fisher said tJhat t'he two school ~boards formed a committee and set some standards. EverY~ child needed to have studied a foreign language. Then the teachers in the language departments of the three high schools told all rising Juniors and seniors about the program to see who might be interested. Then a meeting was held to talk to interested students and their parents. There were not enough students from Western Albemarle to fill all of the slots allotted to ~ ~ that school. Mr. Henley asked how much money the students had to pay for the trip. Mr. FiSher said the parents paid the total cost of transportation and incidentals if they could afford to do so. For those who could not, there was a subsidy through a scholarship program from funds raised by the~Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber screened the applicants ~using a formula similar to that used for granting athletic scholarships. Mr~ Henley asked if a student qualified academically, if he was still able to participate even if he was not financially capable of paying the expenses. Mr. Fisher said that was correct. 'About $6,000 was raised by the Chamber for just scholarships. There was no further discussion of the mO'tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12a.. Budget Amendment: TIPS Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress'.~ on July 26, 198B.) Mr.' Agnor ~said that "TI~PS'' is an abbreviation for "TeaChing Individual Protectiv'e Strate The following background information was attached to the memorandum from the Clerk of the School Board requesting an appropriation of $68,B56 for this program~ funds coming from a state grant~. "During the 19?0's, the' FBI deVeloped a concept called "Crime~ Resistance" defined as an attitude that manifests itself when citizens take responsible action to avoid becoming victims of crime through a reduction of their vulnerability to criminal acts, The FBI approached the U. S. OffiCe of Education to see if the concept could be translated into an educational program encouraging responsible conduct. In 1976, the Office of Education contacted former Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr., and he ~in turn invited the Charlottesville City and Albemarle County schools to Jointly develope, pilot, and evaluate an instructional program that would have nationwide applicability. Coordination and funds were provided by the Virginia State Department of Education. As a result, there is a kindergarten through eighth grade program cslled TIPS." Mr. Agnor said this program has been administered by the City, but is being transferred'~ to the County for administration this year. This appropriation is needed so that this program can continue. Mr. Fisher asked if this program is one hundred percent reimbursed by the State, after the fact. Mr. Agnor said that is correct~ At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this budget amendment, the public hearing was closed. August 3, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 315 Mr. Fisher said he thought this was the same program that the Sheriff's Department and the Commonwealth's Attorney were carrying out about two years ago. Mr. Agnor said that law enforcement personnel used to make presentations as a part of the program. Mrs. Cooke asked for an explanation of the program. Mr. Agnor said it is described as a crime resistance program which teaches school children protect, ive strategies to protect themselves against potential crime, and also to be aware of types of victim situations in which they might find themselves. Mr. Fisher said he had participated in one of these sessions, but he could not remember exactly the focus of the presentation. There was a police officer present who explained the type of offenses for which young people are normally arrested, and the children were allowed to ask questions about what would happen to them (go straight to jail~ get to call mother) and it was an opportunity for the officer to tell them exactly what would happen. It was a fairly impressive presentation. Mr. Lindstrom said this seems like the kind of program for which every locality in the country should refuse money. Mr. Henley said he did not think a lot of children realize what can happen when they are out for fun and frolic, but they would give it a second thought if they had to spend a night in Jail. Miss Nash asked how many students participate in the program. Mr. Agnor.said he did not know. Mrs. Cooke. asked how effective the program is. Mr. Agnor said he did not know. Mr. Fisher said if the Board wanted to know more about the program, the vote on this budget amendment could be delayed for a week. .Mr. Agnor said there is a problem, because the School Board needs the appropriation to meet the July payroll for this program. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution, with a request to the School Board that the Board be furnished information as to the benefit of this program. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CounTy, Virginia, that $68,356 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and transferred to the TIPS Program (see attached b~udget breakdown); and BE IT FURTHER.RESOLVED that~the Director of Finance ~is hereby authorized to amend the revenues section~of the 1983-8h. ~County Budget by the addition of $68,356 for the TIPS Program,: and FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect immediately. The motion was seconded by-Mr. Henley~and carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Mists Nash. None. ~YES: NAYS: Agenda Item No. 12b. Budget Amendment: Dail~y Progress on July 26, 1983.) Metropolitan Planning Grant. (Advertised in the Mr. Agnor noted that this is a grant from the State,Highway Department which is to be use~ for the COunty Planning Department which has been' chosen to act as~staff for the Metro- politan Planning Organization. A portion of the'grant will be used for the salary of an intern and some other small expenses, with the balance of the grant being transf~erred to the General Fund to cover in-kind services. These monies will be utilized to carry out a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process for work related basically to study of an eastern by-pass,and other alternatives for the eastern'corridor. This Will also be an extension of a program started last December with monies from UMTA (Urban Mass Trans- portation Act) for a data collection system.for the-County which~can also be.used by all county government departments - land use, socio-economic data, etc. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak, the public hearing-was closed. Motion was immediately Offered ~y Mrs.~Gooke to adopt the following resolution: ......... BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $11,610 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and Coded to 1-1201-9~000, Metropolitan Planning Grant, for use by the County Planning Department in carrying out a continuing~ comprehensive'and cooperative transportation planning process as required by the Metropolitan Planning ~Organization; and - - . lYES: NAYS: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director~of Finance is hereby authorized to amend the revenues section of the 198~-8~ County budget by the addition of Code 2-120t-9~0010-800000 in the amaunt of $11,610 for MPO Grant Proceeds; and FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect immediately. 100601 - Salaries', Interns 200100 - FICA 5~0100 - Supplies 550100 - Travel 540104 - Copying 585003 - Transfer t'o General Fund $.4,500 600 850 275 75 5~310 ~'il,610 The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the. following recorded' vote: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. 316 August B, 198B (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: April'6, May 4, June 1 (Afternoon), 1983. Mr. Butler said he had read the minutes of June I (Afternoon), and noted only a couple..of typographical errors. He then offered motion to approve these minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by'Mr~. Lindstrom and carried-by the following recorded'~vote: AYES: ..Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs..Fisher~ Henley, Lindstrom and'Miss Nash. NAYS: None. The other minutes had not been read at this time. - Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Mr. Fisher noted that vacancies on boards and commis- sions have been advertised in the Daily Progress. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-SB-t0. Philip T. Halapin, M.D. Mr. Agnor said a person had just- arrived to represent Dr. Halapin. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to'reconsider the motion to defer ZMA-83-10 in order to heart, this petition tonight. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following' recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. AYES: None. Mr. Fisher said he would state for the applicant's benefit that the Board has already received a full presentation of the staff's report and the Board members have asked a number of questions, but no action ~has be~en~taken. -P' · The Public hearing was opened~at this time.~ Mr. Ken ErkenBrack was present for Dr. Halapin who had been called out of town. Mr. ErkenBrack said the request is to rezone one-half acre of property in the area adjacent to the Albemarle Professional Center.. There is an existing cottage cn the property which Dr. Halapin intends to renovate for'his 'use. A prelimin~ site plan has been submitted although a waiver of a site plan was requested because the land is on a high elevation so it should not contribute any stormwater to the South Fork Reservoir. The preliminary plan shows the location ~of the five spaces required; this being calculated on the net floor area of the cottage. At the Planning Commission meeting, a number of Oak Forest residents were pr. esent, but expressed concern-~only about location of'parking on the 'site. Parking will be on the western side of the property away from Oak Forest Subdivision. This is an attractive cottage (Mr. ErkenBrack handed out photographs.of the cottage) and~ Iends ~itself ~A to this sort cf improvement. Existing foliage and trees will be retained. The building is presently connected to public water and sewer facilities. The Comprehensive Plan states that this site may be considered for Commercial Office zoning. Mr. Fisher said the Board had discussed earlier that a part of this property does drai~ into the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. ErkenBrack said it would be only a very small portion, if any. He then showed, to the Board a copy of the site' plan which had been filed with this petition~ Mr. Fisher asked if only the portion of the property lying outside of Sh~ watershed area were rezoned to CO, if the existing structure is on that portion of the prop~r~ty Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr.. Fisher asked about the parking area ~- Mr~ Tucker said~technically the parking lot can be graded so that none of the area would drain toward the reservoir. Mr.~ Fisher said he would like to mentionI for the record that the preliminary~ sit~e plan referredto is dated July 12, 1983, revised July 19, 1983, and drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Inc. With no one else present to speak ~for or against this petition, the pub:linc hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he would feel better if the Board could rezone only the portion of the property up to the ridgeline; he felt the Board would be setting a bad precedent by rezonih~ that portion which drains toward the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Fisher said he did ~ot see any problem with what is proposed if it can be approved in a manner which will not create another problem in the future. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board approved a motion to rezone only that portion of the property to the east of ridgeline, then the County Engineer would have, to decide how to, draw that on a map. Mr. Fisher asked if the site were regraded later~ if the zoning would creep over onto the portion not so rezoned. Mr. Henley said he felt the Board was'"splittinE'hairs". If the part of the property which is going to be used were on the wrong side of the ridgeline, he would be able to understand the concern, but it seems the part that willbe used will drain away from the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said that under a standard commercial office zoning~ the property could be intensified in use in the future. Mrs. Tucker said that is correct.. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like t¢ offer motion that the Board approve ZMA-8~-10 as recommended by the Planning Commission but only for that portion of the one,half acre tract that lies to the east of the ridgeline and that the balance of the property remain as currently zoned. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Tucker if there are some other properties in this area which have been zoned only to the ridgeline. Mr. Tucker said no; only the Comprehensive Plan has been amended to state that there could be some upzoning in the area when and if someone draws that ridgeline on a map. Mr. Agnor said his concern is the designation of the ridgeline. He said that would require a survey and the County Engineering Department does not have the capability to survey, and he wants to be sure that designation~of~this line for platting purposes will be done by the applicant. Mr. Fisher said he would expect this to be done by the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said he had made his motion expecting that the Engineering Department could draw that line, and since that is not possible, he would ask Mr. ErkenBrack if he would prefer to talk to Dr. Halapin before the Board votes. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has already approved the subdivision plat. This would not change Halapin's contract to buy that one-half acre but would establish a line for zoning purposes only. Mr. Fisher said the Board has used dividing lines (other than boundary lines) on other pieces of property where the entire property was not rezoned. Mr. Fisher said he feels the ridgeline is the critical determining factor in this case, and that should be the boundary for approval of this request. ry 317 August B, 1983 (Regular Night Meeti~E) Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. ErkenBrack if Dr~ Halapin would prefer to have this zoning voted down or approved conditioned on his~establishing the ridgeline on a plat. The zoning would then be for the poriton of the property to the east of the ridgeline. Mr. ErkenBrack said he could not answer that question tonight. He noted that the parking lot' will contain only five parking spaces. Mr. Fisher said the Board is dealing with the underlying zoning, and would like to find out if Dr. Halapin can have the ridgeline established so there would be a reason- able way for Dr. Halapin to have the use of~this property while the Board also protects the watershed. Mr. Henley said he would suggest that this matter be deferred until an answer can be obtained from Dr. Halapin. Mr. Lindstrom said he would offer a substitute motion to defer action on this zoning request until August 10, 1983. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Property Acquisition and Personnel. Mr. Agnor said he had asked that this executive session be scheduled since the agenda had turned out to be rather short this evening. Mr. St. John asked that legal matters be added to the executive session; having to do with Agenda Item No. 9', and a personnel matter. Mr. Lindstrom said he would also like to discuss the Caleb Stowe litigation. At 9:10 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss the stated matters. The motion was seconde( by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash~. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:06 P.M. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the County Executive to explore the feasi- bility of jointly acquiring with the City of Charlottesville the Bicentennial Center for continued use as a visitor's center. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 17. At 10:08 P.M., with no further business to come before the Boa~rd, the meeting was adjourned.