Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-15December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 15, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom 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 7:37 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-82-14.. T. E. Wood. Request to rezone .93 acre currently zoned RA Rural Areas to HC Highway Commercial. Located on the eastern side of Route 29 North, approximately 4,500 feet north of the North Fork Rivanna River. County Tax Map 33, Parcel 1G. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, said the applicant's attorney requested the Planning Commission to defer this petition until January. Therefore, action is needed to defer ZMA-82-14. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to defer ZMA-82-14 to January 19, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-82-15. J. G. Dawson. Request to rezone 8.28 acres currently zoned VR Village Residential to HC Highway Commercial. Located on the western side of Route 20 South in Scottsville. County Tax Map 130A(1), Parcel 47. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said the applicant's attorney requested the Planning Commission to defer this petition for an indefinite period of time. The Planning Commission at its meeting on December 7, 1982 approved the request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs Cooke, to defer ZMA-82-15 indefinitely. Roll was called and 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. 4. SP-82-68. Chauncey F. Hutter. Request for a special use permit in order to locate a commercial recreational establishment (game room) in an existing country store on approximately one-third acre zoned C-1. Located on the northeast side of Route 663 at its intersection with Route 743 in Earlysville. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 38. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December I and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker read the following letter dated December 10, 1982, from Mr. Chauncey F. Hurter: "I am withdrawing my application at this time without prejudice." Mr. Lindstrom said he would abstain from participatiOn on this petition because Mr. Hurter is his client. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to allow withdrawal of the petition without prejudice as requested by the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr, Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher,-Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-82-70. Charlottesville' Free Will Baptist Church. Request for a special use permit in order to locate a church on County Tax Map 90, Parcel 35B (3.840 acres) and Parcel 35E (.060 acre) zoned R-1. Located on eastern side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December.1 and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said a procedural error was made when notifying adjacent property owners about this petition. The present adjacent property owner was not notified, but rather the previous owner; the current owner has an objection. The County Attorney feels that the request will have to be readvertised for both the Planning Commission and the Board due to this error. Mr. Tucker said there is sufficient time to readvertise the request for the Planning Commission on January 4, 1983 and January 5, 1983 for the Board. Mr. Fisher then asked'if the Planning Commission had heard this petition. Mr. Tucker said yes because this procedural error was not known until after they had acted. Deeember 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant was present and if so, if he was agreeable to this date. The applicant was present and agreed to the suggested dates. Mr. Fisher then asked if anyone else was present regarding this petition. An unidentified lady was present and noted that she was the adjacent property owner who was not officially notified of this hearing. Mr. St. John said the defect can be waived if the unidentified lady so desired. The lady said she would not waive notice because she wanted to discuss the petition with the applicant. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer SP-82-70 to January 5, 1983 with said petition being readvertised. Roll was called and 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. 6. SP-82-71. Mt. Eagle Baptist Church. Request for a special use permit in order to locate a day care center on 4.322 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located in southeast quadrant of the intersection of Routes 53 and 729. County Tax Map 93, Parcel 46 and Parcel 47B. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Day Care Center (Section 10.2.2.7 Day Care, Child Care, or Nursery Facility) ........ Acreage: 4.322 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Character of the Area: The site is developed with a church, church office, and parsonage. Property to the east is developed with a nonconforming auto sales and dwelling. Property across Route 53 is wooded and proper~y across Route 729 is in pasture. The northwest quadrant of the Route 729/ Route 53 intersection contains a nine lot subdivision. Comprehensive Plan: This area, shown as the Nix village area in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan, was subsequently deleted from the Plan due to lack of growth. Staff Comment: The applicant, due to septic system limitations, proposes an initial enrollment of 25 children. After expansion of the drainfield, an enrollment of 60-83 children is proposed. (The figure of 83 is based on the maximum person load of the second floor and is viewed as inapplicable for a day care center.) The applicant has sought exemption from State Welfare Department licensure as a religious institution. In such cases in the past, the Planning Staff and Fire Prevention Officer have recommended the following standards: Standard and Source Minimum Requirement Floor area (Fire Prevention Officer)* Indoor air space (Va. Dept. of Welfare) Indoor play area (Va. Dept. of Welfare) Developed outdoor play area (Va. Dept. of Welfare) Parking (Zoning Ordinance) Supervision (Va. Dept. of Welfare) Ages 0-2 Older 35 square feet/per child 200 cubic feet/per child 25 square feet/per child 75 square feet/per child 1 space/per 10 children t space/per employee 1 adult/per 4 children 1 adult/per 10 children *The floor area of the second floor is 1,800 square feet and therefore a possible 51 children could be accommodated, subJec't to the other limitations. Staff has reviewed this application under 31.2.4.1 and 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that a day care center with appropriate conditions of approval a) b) c) d) would not be detrimental to adjacent property; would not change the character of the district; would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and would not be contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff opinion is that a day care center in this area would provide service to the area. The site appears to be of adequate area and slope for developed outdoor recreation. Staff recommends approval subject to: Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Supplementary Regulations; Section 5.1.6(a) is waived, subject to written verification from the Virginia Department of Welfare; (Mr. Tucker noted receipt of this verification on December 7, 1982.) Enrollment shall be limited.,by application of.standards in this staff report (SP-82-7I) or by Virginia Department of Health requirements, whichever shall be more restrictive; December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Fire Official and Building Official approval for day care usage; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance, if applicable; Staff approval of location of outdoor play area, playground equipment, and protective fencing of play area; 6. Permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferrable; Staff would recommend that the applicant, both for the protection of the children and the applicant, voluntariiy comply with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 7, 1982 unanimously recommended approval of SP-82-71 with the above conditions. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Sidney E. Craig, Pastor of Mt. Eagle Baptist Church, was present and noted that the exemption from the State Social Services and Welfare Board has been received and the requirements of the state have been met. Mr. Fisher asked the age group involved. Mr. Craig said the ages are three months to school age and there will be some children after school. Hours of operation are to be from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Miss Nash asked where the children live that will going to the center. Mr. Craig said most of the children are from the immediate community but there have been inquiries from Palmyra and Keswick. Miss Nash then asked if the second floor of the church will be used. Mr. Craig said the school will be on the second floor and this ~!~ n~ building meets all the fire codes and other perintent requirements. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve SP-82-71 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-82-72. C & P Telephone. Request for a special use permit in order to locate a microwave tower on Bear Den Mountain, approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the State Police~Tower, northwest of Skyline Drive. Property consists of approximately one-half acre of a 120 acre tract, zoned RA Rural Areas. County Tax Map 53, ParCels 3, 4 and 5. Augusta County Tax Map 78, Parcel 32. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Microwave tower (Section 10.2.2.6, Microwave and radiowave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances) Acreage: + one-half acre of 120-acre tract Zoning: RA Rural Areas Character of the Area: The Albemarle/Augusta County line runs through this site. One leg of the microwave tower would be located in Albemarle while the majority of the tower and the equipment building would be located in Augusta County. The Appalachian Trail is in the vicinity as are communication towers/buildings of the Virginia State Police, Jefferson Cable and VEPCO. (The VEPC0 tower was approved under SP-78-05 and SP-80-04A.) The proposed C & P tower may be visible from Calf Mountain Overlook on the Skyline Drive. Staff Comment' The applicant has stated that 'this facility is one of several required to handle growth in long distance calling between Staunton, Lynchburg and Richmond by May, 1983.' Approval for the project has been obtained from the National Park Service. (Letter on file in the Clerk's Office.) Staff has reviewed this application under 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends, in view of the National Park Service permit and with appropriate conditions attached to this petition, that the tower and equipment building would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or change the character of the district based on existing towers and other structures in the area; would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and would not be contrary to the public health, safety, and general welfare. While staff has reservations about the proliferation of towers in this area, staff opinion is that grouping of such uses is more appropriate than random locations. This project and the prior VEPC0 project would provide public benefits. Additionally, the applicant has designed the project to satisfy concerns of the National Park Service. Staff recommends approval subject to: ,553 ~ecember 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, except as otherwise provided herein; Tower shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment, if such shall occur; Enlargement shall require amendment of this permit; Tower to be limited to 75 feet in height with two relay antennae. Equipment building to be limited to 600 square feet of floor area with earth tone facade treatment subject to NatiOnal Park Service approval; Tower and equipment shall not be located within Virginia State Parks scenic easement." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 7, 1982, recommended approval of SP-82-72 with conditions 1 and 2 as recommended by the staff and the other three conditions amended as follows: Enlargement of any facility within Albemarle County shall require amendment of this permit; Tower to be limited to 75 feet in height with two relay antennae in Albemarle County. Equipment building, to extent located in Albemarle County, to be limited to 600 square feet of floor area with earth tone facade treatment subject to National Park Service approval; Tower and equipment shall not be located within Virginia State Parks scenic easement, except with approval of Virginia Division of Parks. Mr. Tucker said a letter was received on December 14, 1982, from the Virginia Division of Parks stating approval of the proposed location for the tower and equipment. He also noted that the equipment building will be located entirely in Augusta County. Therefore, Mr. Tucker did not feel the second sentence of condition 4 was necessary. The public hearing was opened. Mr. William Perkins, attorney representing C & P Telephone, was present and introduced Mr. Miller, building engineer, and Mr. Pitts, radio engineer. He noted that the building is to be located in Augusta County and a building permit has been obtained from Augusta County. Mr. Perkins said one leg of the tower is located in Albemarle County because the setback requirement of Augusta County is that the tower has to be fifty feet back from the property line. In order to met that requirement, one leg of the tower has to be located in Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be a fence around the tower. A representative from C & P Telephone said yes, there will be a secdrity fence around the tower. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve SP-82-72 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but amending condition #4 as recommended by ~:~c~er~?to~raad,'a~lows: "Tower to be limited to 75 feet in height with two relay antennae in Albemarle County." Mr. Lindstrom said he has previously stated that he does not support towers being located on the Appalachian Trail. However, he does agree that locating the towers in one location is better than having the towers scattered all over the County. Roll was then called and 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. 8. SP-82-73. Ralph A. and Ruby C. Taylor. Request for a special use permit in order to amend SP-80-70 for an additional two-year extension from its current expiration date of January 7, 1983. Located south side of Rt. 688 on 6.43 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. County Tax Map 71, Parcel 33D1. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Amend condition two of SP-80-70 to extend special use permit by an additional two years. Acreage: 6.43 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as County Tax Map 71, Parcel 33D, is located on the south side of Route 688, approximately one-quarter mile east of Route 689. Character of the Area: This quadrant of Routes 688/689 contains fifteen parcels with an average lot size of about three acres. These parcels are primarily open pasture land and are bordered by larger tracts. Most dwellings in the area appear to be newly constructed (i.e., last ten years). From a windshield survey, it appears that the applicant's mobile home is clearly visible from at least four dwellings in the area, as well as from Route 688. Because of the openness of the area and rolling topography, staff opinion is that normal screening methods may not be effective. No other mobile homes are located along Route 688 between Route 689 and Route 824 (0.4 mile). History: August, 1978 - Applicant purchased 6.43 acres for $15,500. Property is currently appraised at $21,600 and assessed at $10,100 under use value taxation (Tax Map 71, Parcel 33D1). December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 554 September, 1978 - Applicant obtained a temporary mobile home permit for interim housing while constructing a permanent dwelling. October, 1979 - Applicant purchased an additional two acres for $4,000. Property currently appraised at $7,500. October, 1980 - Zoning Department notified applicant that provisions of the temporary permit were not satisfied and that the permit was subject to revocation. Applicant applied for SP-80-70. January, 1981 - Board of Supervisors approved SP-80-70, subject to three conditions: t. Approval of special use permit and compliance with Section 5.6.2; 2. Expiration of special use permit two years from date of issuance; 3. Mobile home to be removed when new home occupied. February, 1982 - Zoning Department requested applicant to submit screening plan in accordance with Section 5.6.2(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. April, 1982 - Applicant installed stockade fencing to provide screening to adjoining property. (As can be seen in the attached correspondence, there was disagreement regarding the type and extent of the screening. In view of the fact that the applicant has made no progress in construction of the dwelling and that SP-80-70 would expire in nine months, it was decided to require the least expensive screening.) July, 1982 - Applicant sold dwelling in Charlottesville for $50,500. November, 1982 - Planning staff inspected property and noted no apparent progress toward construction of dwelling. (Foundation dug; no other improvements.) In the foregoing history, staff has included property transactions, which are a matter of public record, due to the applicant's prior statements that financial considerations were the reason no progress had been made on construction of a permanent dwelling. Additional information attached to this report includes: 1. Correspondence of the Zoning Department related to SP-80-70; 2. Planning Commission minutes of January 6, 1981, related to sP,80-70; 3. Board of Supervisors minutes of January 7, 1981, related to SP-80-70. Staff comment: On November 10, 1982, in phone conversation with the applicant, staff stated that an additional two-year extension would be most appropriately addressed by the applicant. Staff required a written justification which has not been received as of this writing (November 30, 1982)o Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states in part that: 'Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will ~not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare.' Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this application, staff would recommend that no additional landscaping/screening or other measures requiring expenditure by the applicant be required, due to the recommended short duration of the permit. Recommended conditions of approval are as follows: 1. This special use permit is intended to permit the use of the mobile home only as an interim means of housing during the construction of a permanent dwelling; 2. The Zoning Administrator shall inspect the site on or about May l, 1983, to determine if the applicant has proceeded in good faith in the construction of a permanent dwelling. Should the Zoning Administrator determine that substantial improvement has not been made or that construction activities have not commenced or that construction activities have been suspended for an unreasonable time or in bad faith, he shall, after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, refer SP-82-73 to the Board of Supervisors for revocation; 3. This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire on December l, 1983. The mobile home shall be removed from the site no later than December ll, 1983." December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 7, 1982, recommended approval, of SP-82-73 by a 4/3 vote with the above conditions. He also noted that since the Planning Commission meeting, the staff understands that the applicant has acquired a building permit and selected a contractor. Mr. Fisher felt the staff had made an extraordinary effort to help the applicant comply with the conditions. He then asked whether the mobile home can be expected to be removed by December 11, 1983, short of some bonding that would allow the County to remove the mobile home if same had not been moved by that date. Mr. Tucker said that approach has not been considered but if the Board so desired, that could be added as a condition. Mr. Fisher was curious as to how the special permit conditions will be enforced given the past history of this petition. Mr. Tucker said the petition could come back to the Board for revocation and/or legal action. Mr. Fisher asked the status of the current permit. Mr. Tucker said the permit expires in January 1983. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Ralph Taylor, applicant, was present and noted regret at having to be back before the Board. He said the house he owned in Charlottesville was sold and the delayed sale of that house is the reason for the delay in constructing a home on this property. Since the sale of the home, he feels a home can now be built. Mr. Taylor said due to the recent housing market, he could not afford to finance two homes as would have been the case if he had started construction. Mr. Taylor said there is a signed contract and the construction has been subcontracted out and work will begin as soon as weather permits. The intent was to start construction at t. he end of November but snow and rain did not permit the work to begin. In conclusion, Mr. Taylor noted appreciation for favorable consideration of this petition. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant felt he could get the mobile home off the property by December 1i, 1983. Mr. Taylor said that is his intent. Next to speak was Mr. R. J. Rogers, adjacent property owner. Mr. Rogers reviewed the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting; in particular that no progress has been made on any construction. Mr. Rogers also noted that the applicant has purchased additional acreage continguous with the property on which the mobile home is located. Mr. Rogers noted that a point was made at the Planning Commission meeting that the weather has been good for building during the last several weeks. Therefore, Mr. Rogers felt this suggests that if the applicant were acting in good faith and after almost four years of waiting to build, he would have taken advantage of this beautiful weather and have the house under roof by now. Mr. Rogers said one of the Commission members asked the applicant if he were going to be his own contractor and the applicant responded yes. Mr. Rogers said he would suggest that the Board also determine if the contract has valid dates for completion. Mr. Rogers said he was opposed to the two year extension of the permit because there had been no evidence of intention to construct a home during either of the two year extensions already granted by the Board. Mr. Rogers again stated that no act of construction has taken place at any time during the four years and he felt SP-82-73 ~"~h~d! ~ be denied. Speaking next was Mr. Purcell Tomlin, adjacent property owner. He sold the land to the Taytors in 1978 for the purpose of building a home. Mr. Tomlin said a basement was dug within a month and since then nothing else has been done except for a septic system for the mobile home. Mr. Tomlin said he has been living beside a mobile home for five years and does not desire that any longer and requested denial of the petition. Mr.. Don Wright, resident west of the Taylor property, spoke next. Mr, Wright said the mobile home downgrades the value of his property and he felt the mobile home will become a precedent setting rule in the area and will be even more difficult to remove in the future if a mobile home is continuously allowed. He also noted that he had supported the two year extension on the last renewal date. However, Mr. Wright felt the Planning Commission's decision to approve a maximum one year extension was a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Taylor to construct his home. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom felt that with the conditions recommended by the .Planning Commission to require the Zoning Administrator to inspect and maintain the progress on this request and the fact that the permit is only temporary, the request is reasonable. He could share the sentiments of the neighbors but at the same time, economy today makes it very difficult for people to proceed with plans. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt these conditions will insure that what the permit was originally issued for will be complied with. He then offered motion to approve SP-82-73 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Miss Nash then asked about Mr. Fisher's comment about bonding this approval. Mr. Fisher said he was not sure if that was reasonable but was only trying to find some way to assure that the mobile home will be removed this time. He was concerned about another year extension and felt a shorter time period would be satisfactory. Mr. Lindstrom felt the condition requiring insPection by the Zoning Administrator on May 1, 1983 to determine if any progress has been made alleviates that concern. However, he did not have any problem with the extension date being changed. Miss Nash asked if the neighbors Will be assured that the mobile home will be removed if the house is built. Mr. Fisher said the original permit stated that the mobile home would be removed upon occupancy of the permanent dwelling. However, that is not a condition of this permit. This permit states that the mobile home shall be removed from the site no later than December 11, 1983 under any conditions whether the house is built or not. However, Mr. Fisher still felt the time period is too long and suggested September 1, 1983 which provides the applicant with most December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) of the building season. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to change condition #3 to read: "The mobile home shall be removed from the site no later than September l, 1983." Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-82-67. Estelle, Ellison and Mary Jackson. Request for a special use permit in order to locate a mobile home on 5.1 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located north side of Route 706. County Tax Map 89, Parcel 79F. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December i and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Mobile Home (permanent) Acreage: 5.1 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 79F, is served by a private road which intersects the north side of ~Route 706 about 2/10 mile west of the Route 706/Route 631 intersection. History: April, 1981 - Temporary mobile home permit issued for Ellison and Mary Jackson. October, 1981 - Board of Supervisors denied SP-81-39, a request to locate a permanent mobile home for Estelle Jackson. November, 1981 - Planning Commission approved preliminary plat for two lots. May, 1982 - Estelle Jackson requested reconsideration of Commission action on plat regarding private road improvements and commercial entrance requirements; however, preliminary plat had expired and Planning Commission took no action. October, 1982 - Temporary mobile home permit expired. No building permit issued for permanent dwelling. No certificate of occupancy issued for temporary mobile home. (CO currently withheld due to pending mobile home application.) Ellison and Mary Jackson given six month extension on temporary mobile home permit to-April 13, 1983, due to submittal of application for SP-82-67. Character of the Area: Front and rear screened porches have been added to the mobile home. The site has been partially cleared, seeded and mulched. Other improvements include ornamental landscaping and rock edging of the drive. One attached letter of objection speaks to 'large scale stripping of trees' and 'nighttime light pollution coming from (a) large street light.' Clearing activities did not appear abnormal for res'~dential usage, and staff was unable to locate any street light or other outdoor lighting on the property. It appears that the mobile home is partially visible from one dwelling a~d one mobile home in the area. Staff Comment: The. applicant is requesting permanent location of this mobile home, which was originally authorized under a temporary mobile home permit. In past situations, the Commission and Board have granted two-year extensions with the intent that the applicants pursue construction of a permanent dwelling. Should the Commission and Board choose to pursue this course of action, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This special u~e permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire on Deceyber 15, 1985. Should the CommissiOn! and Board choose not to impose any expiration of the permit, staff w~uld recommend that the request be reviewed under 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. ~ Mr. Tucker said the Plan~ing Commission, at its meeting on December 7, 1982, recommended of SP-82-67 for a permanent mobile home, by a six to one vote. approval Mr. Fisher noted concern about the administrative approval which was given for two years for this mobile home when there had been so much objection received. Mr. Tucker said he could not speak for the action of the Zoning Department but understands that the applicant did make an application when the temporary permit expired and the Zoning Administrator felt some extension should be granted since this was the only place the applicant had to live at that time. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Ben Dick, attorney representing the applicants, was present and requested approval for the permanent location of this mobile home. Mr. Dick said the special permit that was denied by the Board fourteen months ago was for the mother of this applicant. She had requested approval to move her mobile home on this property which also housed her son's mobile home. Mr. Dick said the applicants had intended to build a permanent home but due to circumstances beyond their control was unable to do so. He then described the location of the mobile home and noted the improvement to the property since the mobile home has been located on the subject property. He also noted that Mr. and Mrs. Ellison Jackson are the owners of this property and this request should not be prejudiced by the mother who had a request before the Board fourteen months ago. He also noted that at the Planning Commission meeting, there was opposition from LI Associates, the partnership who sold the land to the Jacksons. The partnership was requesting the Planning Commission to issue a covenant on the gacksons to build a permanent home because the feeling was that the mobile home was depreciating the Associates property. The partnership is a private entity and is trying to get the Planning Commission to do something the partnership failed to do. He then described the neighborhood and noted that the applicants have a clean home and cannot afford a permanent home at this December 15, 1982 (R~gular Night Meeting) time. In conclusion, Mr. Dick requested the Board to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Mr. Fisher asked if the basis for approving the mobile home temporarily was on the assumption that a permanent home would be built there. Mr. Dick said yes and noted that if the Board desires to restrict the approval to five years, the applicant could contend with that approval. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel that an applicant should be restricted from requesting approval for a permanent mobile home just because he originally applied for a special permit and stated that a home would be built. Mr. Lindstrom then noted that mobile homes are an inexpensive way of providing housing for people and he had a difficult time denying requests for mobile homes when the mobile home will not be in a neighborhood where there will be an impact on surrounding homes. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-82-67 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher apologized for misreading the staff report and confusing this request with the request for Estelle Jackson (SP-81-39) in October 1981. However, he was concerned ,~ about the location of mobile homes by applicants stating that a permanent home will be built and then years later the mobile home is still on the lot. He did not feel that is a good situation, however, he will support this request. Mrs. Cooke then asked if the motion included a five year limitation on the mobile home. Mr. LindstrOm said the motion is to approve this property as the permanent location of the mobile home. Miss Nash asked if there was a way for persons to add on to the mobile homes and make them permanent. Mr. Tucker explained that this type of home has an undercarriage which could have the wheels added back to the mobile home and moved. Now, however, when these mobile homes are located, the mobile homes are required to be anchored as required by the Building Code. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to add the following condition to the approval: "If a permanent home is ever constructed on the site the mobile home will be removed upon occupancy of the permanent home." Miss Nash said that was the purpose of her question, supposing that this mobile home is turned into a permanent home. Mr. Henley said a building permit would have to be obtained if that was the case. Mr. Tucker said even if additions were made to the mobile home, the primary structure would still be a mobile home. Mrs. Cooke then asked if there were other permanent mobile homes in the subject area. Mr. Tucker said yes, there are two adjacent to this property. Mr. Butler said this is a problem in the County which needs to be addressed. He had personally never liked mobile homes yet he recognizes that some families need these as an alternative for a place to live. However, he feels an educational program is needed on this subject particularly since there are some types of permanent homes that could also be a less expensive alternative. Mr. Henley felt the problem is financing and financing is much easier to obtain for a mobile home. Mrs. Cooke noted understanding of the plight of the applicants. Given the character and nature of the neighborhood and the fact that there is no opposition to the request, she would support the request. However, she was disturbed with the number of mobile home requests that the Board is receiving. She would be very upset to see the County become I so inundated with mobile homes that the character of the County is ruined. She hoped t~that in the near future some controls could be found and agreed with Mr. Butler that I there are other alternatives for housing. Mr. Lindstrom added that the ability to make significant legal distinctions between "mobile homes" and "other homes" is very weak and he felt the County has some controls over the location of mobile homes. Miss Nash supported the motion and noted that the mobile home has been well cared for. Mr. Fisher then restated the amended motion which was to approve SP-82-67 with the following condition: If a permanent home is ever constructed on the site the mobile home will be removed upon occupancy of the permanent home. Mr. Henley accepted the amendment to his second. Roll was called and 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. 10. STA-82-5. Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to shift performance bond administration from the Planning Department to the Engineering Department. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December i and December 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "On November 9, 1982, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to bonding procedures. The purpose of the amendments is to shift performance bond administration from the Planning Department to the Engineering Department as it relates to subdivisions." December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 7, 1982, voted to recommend approval of the amendments. The changes in the ordinance were to change "agent for the board of supervisors" to "county engineer" in Section 18-18 in two places and to change "its agent" to "the county engineer" in Section 18-19(c) in two places. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the amendments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve STA-82-5 as recommended by the Planning Commission and as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote to adopt the ordinance: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 18 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE KNOWN AS THE "SUBDIVISION OF LAND" BY AMENDING SECTION 18-18 AND SECTION 18-19(c) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, Subdivision of Land, be amended as follows: Section 18-18. Generally. All required improvements shall be installed at the cost of the subdivider. Where cost sharing or reimbursement agreements between the county and the subdivider are appropriate, the same shall be entered into by formal agreement prior to final plat approval and shall be subject to inspection and acceptance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Easements and lines for water and sewer services shall be subject to approval by the Albemarle County Service Authority; drainage easements shall be subject to approval by the county engineer. In cases where specifications have been established, either by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for streets, etc., or by this section, such specifications shall be followed. Portions of the subdivider's performance bond may be released by the county engineer, after the completed construction or improvements have been inspected and accepted as being in compliance with approved plans by the county engineer, the agent for the board of supervisors, or by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, as required by law. After final completion of a road constructed for inclusion into the state highway system, the county engineer may release the total construction bond provided the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has approved final construction of such road and, provided further, that bond in favor of the county, with security sufficient to insure that such road shall be maintained to the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation with such road shall have been accepted into the state highway system, is posted with the County. The amount of the maintenance bond shall be determined by the following criteria in conjunction with section 18-40: Class A. Five hundred dollars minimum up to two hundred linear feet plus two dollars per linear foot thereafter; Class B. Five hundred dollars minimum up to two hundred linear feet plus two dollars and twenty-five cents per linear foot thereafter; Class C. Five hundred dollars minimum up to two hundred linear feet plus three dollars and fifty cents per linear foot thereafter. All improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in this chapter. Section 18-19. Bondin~ requirements. (a) Same. (b)(1) (2) Same. (c) The subdivider shall set a time, subject to the approval of the board of supervisors, or the county engineer, by which it is estimated the improvements shall be installed'and completed. Unless an extension of that time is approved by the board of supervisors, or the county engineer, and a new estimated date of completion established, the county executive, or his agent, shall take the necessary steps to proceed with the accomplishment and completion of the improvements, making use of the certified check or calling on the surety of the bond. No building permits shall be issued until final approval of the plat and all inspections have been made. (d) Same. 559 December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 11.. Public Hearing: Budget Amendment for Auditing Services. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 7, 1982.) Mr. Agnor said Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Firaw~, has received a statement from the auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates in the amount of $3,125 for services rendered in connection with the "Special Report" of the School Board provided earlier this year. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that if this budget amendment is approved, that the approval be effective on December 22, 1982. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the budget amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,125 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund Balance and coded to 1214-3002.00 -- Professional Service; said appropriation for auditing services of a special report to the Board and School Board. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to amend the Revenue section of the 1982-83 County Budget by adding $3,125 to Code 13201.010 -- Appropriation - General Fund-Appropriated from Fund Balance; and FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall be effective on December 22, 1982. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study. (Deferred from the public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan held on November 17, 1982.) Mr. Fisher said this is not a public hearing but rather a continuation of the Board's work session following the public hearing. He asked if any of the Board members would like to reopen the public hearing or if the Board was ready to act. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not object to brief statements of new information. Mrs. Cooke said if this is opened for a public hearing, she would prefer that persons who have not spoken in the past be allowed to speak. Mr. Henley said he had heard enough. Miss Nash agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing for persons who had not had an opportunity to speak before. Mrs. Brenda DeMaso was present and presented a petition containing 737 signatures and read the following opening statement on the petition: "We, the undersigned, oppose the western bypass because of the adverse impact on the community's primary water supply, established neighborhoods, and the beauty of western Albemarle County. We urge the Board of Supervisors to seek an alternative solution." (Copy of this petition is on file in the Clerk's Office.) With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was again closed. Mr. Lindstrom said since the western by-pass traverses the entire width of his district, he would like to make some comments. Personally, he feels the Board cannot ignore the fact that the CATS Study has other aspects other than Just the proposal for a western by-pass. He noted that the need for a western by-pass grew out of the Route 29 North Corridor Study which was approved by the Board in 1979 and he had voted in favor of that. In that study, the western by-pass was recommended and a statement was also included that the Highway Department did not feel the by-pass could be built in the foreseeable future because of budget constraints. There are a number of roads in the proposed study but he would speak primarily about the western by-pass. The by-pass is the most expensive road in the study and addresses what is obviously a significant problem in the Route 29 North area. Mr. Lindstrom said his problem is that to date, no costs have been spared in an attempt to protect the watersheds of the County and citizens who had plans for development have been asked to share in these costs. In many cases, the costs have been significant. Mr. Lindstrom said he would have a difficult time facing those persons in approving the most harmful of all construction projects proposed in the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Lindstrom said he has reviewed the profiles for the construction of the road and the amount of dirt that would have to be removed is substantial and in very close proximity to the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said two other roads of significance in the watershed are Route 250 West and Route 1-64 and neither of them is as close to the actual water supply as this road would be. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the western by-pass should be approved for that reason alone. He then noted the beauty of the countryside at this time when driving by Montvue Subdivision. He was appalled to think of driving through that area and seeing an interchange or four-lane road. Mr. Lindstrom said as much as a solution to this problem is needed, he hoped the Board would decide this issue in a way that future planning will be almost the same as if everything to the west of Route 29 North were in the Grand Canyon. Mr. Lindstrom said until the Board votes down this alternative, other alternatives will not be investigated. Mr. Butler said he would like other alternatives to be explored before making any decision on this. He felt there must be other alternatives to the Route 29 western by-pass. Miss Nash agreed that there needs to be some other alternatives investigated, but felt that since this question has been before the Board for many years, that unless the Board takes a stand and says no to a western by~pass then there will never be any other alternatives investigated. She felt the decision should be made now and if an alternative is needed then one should be found. December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting~_ 58O Mrs. Cooke said she was prepared to move in this direction when this issue first came up and felt it was ridiculous to put such a road across the watershed. Therefore, she felt it is time to get on with the business at hand and agreed with the statements of Miss Nash. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the document entitled "Charlottesville Area Transportation Study - Year 2000 Transportation Plan" (the Study), dated 1981 and prepared by the Transportation Planning Division of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T), with the assistance of Policy and Technical Committees appointed by the City and County, is hereby accepted and approved as an amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to be the "Transportation Element" with the following exceptions: 1. The Route 29 North connector passing through Key West shall not be included as a part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be part of any transporta- tion plan accepted or recommended by this Board. 2. The "Western By-Pass" consisting of a four-lane, divided highway extending 6.07 miles from Route 29 North at the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Route 29/250 By-Pass shall not be included as a part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be a part of any transportation plan accepted or recommended by this Board. 3. The Board shall, as soon as possible, appoint a committee which shall be charged with the responsibility for examining ways of alleviating congestion in the Route 29 North corridor and for facilitating the flow of transportation between the Pantops Mountain area and the growth areas in the vicinity of Route 29 North in the northern part of the County, provided that alternatives examined shall be outside of the territory of the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is further directed to send copies of this resolution to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the City Council. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher supported the motion strongly. However, he felt the CATS Committee would not have made the recommendation if it felt there were other alternatives. Mr. Fisher said the traffic problem on Route 29 North is not going to disappear and it is not a responsible act for the Board to say there will not be any other improvements~. However, he did support staying out of the South Fork Rivanna watershed in solving the problems and said he is not convinced that the transportation problems in the Pantops (Route 250 East) area and Route 29 North area have been adequately studied. He felt there may be a worse problem in the Route 250 East corridor in the future than there are on the western side of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to add to his motion that the County's representatives on the Metropolitan Planning Organization act in accordance with the foregoing motion. Mrs. Cooke accepted that amendment to her second. Mr. Henley said he recalled that about six years ago, the same problem was discussed and some of the Board members felt that the western by-pass was the best alternative and the Highway Department representatives said no, that a third lane needed to be built on each side of Route 29 and that would take care of the problem. However, that feeling has ahanged and before the problem is resolved more minds will change. He said that is one reason he has not gotten excited about inserting this in the Comprehensive Plan. In conclusion, Mr. Henley said he would support the motion. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12a. Resolution from County Attorney: re: Drowning. Mr. Fisher said a letter dated December 9, 1982, has been received from the County Attorney, George R. St. John, as follows: "I received a copy of the letter from Mr. Zunka, making claim against the Commonwealth, the City, the County, the County Service Authority, and the Rivanna Authority, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Hicks for the death of their son Christopher. Jim Bowling is going to handle this with the Service Authority, and in behalf of the County I believe it should be put on the agenda so the Board can give me authority to respond to this claim. I think the claim must be denied; the County is immune and it would be unlawful to pay the claim." 56.t December 15, 1982 (Regular Night Mee~:~g) Motion was then offered by Mr. LindStrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution as recommended by the County Attorney. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. The claim of Mr. and Mrs. Gary Hicks against Albemarle County for the drowning of their son Christopher, having been presented to the Board of Supervisors in the form of a letter from John W. Zunka, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hicks, dated December 7, 1982 and addressed to the County Executive is hereby denied. The County Attorney is directed to notify the claimants' attorney of this action in writing. Agenda Item No. 13. Other matters not listed on the agenda. Mr. Fisher extended his appreciation to the staff for the outstanding jobs performed this year. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Tucker if he had had time since the discussion this afternoon to respond to the question about any building activity which might have occurred in the Buck Mountain area since the moratorium expired on November 11, 1982. Mr. Tucker said he was unaware of any proposals being submitted. He has heard rumors of some proposals that will be submitted this month for review in January; the deadline for submittal is next week. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John if an application is made for subdivision approval or a building permit, what effect a moratorium adopted in January would have on an application made in December. Mr. St. John said actual work has to be done before there is a vested right for the applicant. He did not feel that this type of situation is an emergency; that the State statutues would not allow passage of an ordinance on an emergency basis to cover same. Mr. Lindstrom said from the report of Mr. Tucker, there does not appear to be a substantial change in circumstances which would necessitate any kind of immediate action. Mr. Tucker said any application received will be brought to the Board's attention. Agenda Item No 14 At 9:30 P.M., without any further business to come before the · . Board, the meeting was adjourned.