Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-13August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000 66 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 13, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. John Baker addressed the Board, making a presentation on restructur- ing the Superintendent/Board Evaluation Process, and providing a handout on the process. He explained that the School Board and School Superintendent are united and cannot succeed or fail without the other. He cited major strengths of the School Division, including: redistricting for Monticello High School, the capital needs program, attendance at Board meetings regarding school business, the technology plan, communication with the public by staff and the school board, and the academic leadership program. Areas requiring additional effort include: School Law, funding levels, textbook adoption and cooperative planning with the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.7, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. ~ Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education, Carl Perkins Grant, $36,651 (Form #96082). At its meeting on June 9, 1997, the School Board approved the appropria- tion of $33,651 for the Carl Perkins Grant. Federal funding cuts in the Carl Perkins Vocational Funds were anticipated during the preparation of the FY 1996/97 budget. However, the final figures were not reduced, but were funded slightly higher than the prior year's funds. At this time, an additional appropriation is also being requested to fund the actual expenditures made from this grant. This additional appropria- tion will be offset by additional revenues. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $36,651 as detailed on appropriation ~96082. By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NI3MBER: 96082 FUND: GRANT PI/RPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CARL PERKINS GRANT. EXPEAIDITI/RE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT August 13, 1997 (Regular Night ~g) (Page 2) 000 67 1320761190601300 1320761190800100 INST/REC SUPPLIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT TOTAL $ 6,000.00 30,651.00 $36,651.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2320733000330107 CARL PERKINS VOC. FUNDS $36,651.00 TOTAL $36,651.00 Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $21,240 (Form #96083). At its meeting on June 23, 1997, the School Board approved an appropria- tion of $1,240 for Henley Middle School and an appropriation of $20,000 to the Transportation Department Henley Middle School received a donation from the Henley Middle School Parent/Teacher Support Organization (PATSO) . This donation was to fund an initiative developed by the Henley School Improvement Committee. During the 1996-97 school year, Henley staffed the media center with a former library assistant one evening a week. This additional access increased the availabil- ity of resources to students, parents, and members of the community. The Transportation Department provides maintenance and repair services to Local Government vehicles. Each budget cycle, estimates are made regarding the cost of these services. Transportation then budgets for that level of service and revenue is projected to cover the cost of those services. As the end of the fiscal year approached, Local Government departments had utilized more services than anticipated. In addition, an agreement has recently been reached to allow Police and Parks and Recreation vehicles to utilize the three school refueling facilities. These factors will result in additional payments from Local Government departments for fuel and repairs. Since the Transporta- tion Department provides these services, the budget should be revised to accommodate these additional costs. School revenue appropriations should also be revised to reflect the additional payments which offsets Transportation's expenses. Staff recommends approval of the appropriations in the total amount of $21,240 as detailed on form #96083. By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NI3MBER: 96083 Fl/ND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION AND DONATION TO HENLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1225261101601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES $1,240.00 1243262340600800 VEHICLE FUEL 6,000.00 1243262340600900 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 14,000.00 TOTAL $21,240.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018100181109 DONATION $1,240.00 2200016000161214 VEHICLE REPAIRS FEES 14,000.00 2200016000161271 FUEL FEES 6,000.00 TOTAL $21,240.00 Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Bright Stars, $7,440 (Form #97007). Martha Jefferson Hospital has awarded $7,440 to the Bright Stars programs at Stone Robinson, Agnor-Hurt and Greer Elementary for FY 1998/99 to provide dental screenings and follow up to each student and oral health education to the students and their families. August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meetingi (Page 3) ooo 68 Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #97007 in the amount of $7,440 to be evenly divided between the three Bright Stars programs. By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98 NLIMBER: 97007 FUND: BRIGHT STARS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL AWARD FOR DENTAL SCREENINGS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155361122311007 DENT~_L SCREENINGS-GREER $2,480.00 1155361129311007 DENTAL SCREENINGS-STONE ROBINSON 2,480.00 1155361151311007 DENTAL SCREENINGS-AGNOR HURT 2,480.00 TOTAL $7,440.00 REVENI3E DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155318120181222 MARTHA JEFFERSON CHILD HEALTH GR3~NT $7,440.00 TOTAL $7,440.00 Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Education Capital Improvements Fund, $344,000 (Form #97008). The approved 1997/98 Capital Improvement Program budget included a $555,000 appropriation to create a climate controlled, dust free environment required for Technology Education Labs at Western Albemarle and Albemarle High Schools. The 1997/98 - 2001/02 Capital Improvement Program was revised after redistricting to accommodate projected growth. In order to provide needed space, the Walton Renovation Phase I project, converting unused Industrial Arts space into classroom space, was revised and moved forward two years to 1998. It was decided not to complete the construction and installation of the Technology Education Labs at the high schools until the summer of 1998 for the following reasons: Additional time was required to develop curriculum and train teachers. Allow additional time to coordinate programs and training with Monticello High School personnel. Leave existing classroom space at the high schools available to accommo- date the additional students expected for FY 1997/98. In order to fund the Walton Renovation Phase I project during FY 1997/98, a transfer from the High School Technology Labs to this project will allow the project to be completed this fall so that the space can be utilized for the current school year, which is well in advance of next year's redis- tricting. The 1998/99 CIP would reflect this revision and the $344,000 would be restored to the High School Technology Labs and removed from the Walton Renovation project. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $344,000, as detailed on form #97008. By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98 AK3MBER: 97008 FUND: SCHOOL CIP PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM HIGH SCHOOL TECH. LA~S TO WALTON RENOVATIONS. August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000269 EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900060254800901 WALTON RENOVATIONS $344,000.00 1900060100800681 HIGH SCHOOL TECH. LABS (344,000.00) TOTAL $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 Item No. 5.5. Adopt resolution to deny legal fee claims for reimburse- ment of legal fees and expenses three Sheriff deputies. Former deputy sheriffs Keith Garrison, George Knight, and George Swingler were indicted by a Charlottesville Grand Jury on felony charges. George Knight and Keith Garrison were tried and acquitted of the charges. The charges against George Swingler were dismissed without a trial. Legal fees and expenses in the following amounts were claimed to have been incurred: George Knight - $49,607.46; Keith Garrison - $33,861.13; and George Swingler $28,805.16; for a total of $112,273.75. The former deputies claim that the criminal charges arose out of acts committed in the discharge of their official duties and request to be reimbursed by the County pursuant to Sections 15.1-66.3 and 15.1-131.6 of the Code of Virginia. The State Code provides that the Board of Supervisors may authorize payment of legal fees and expenses, or any portion thereof, for sheriff deputies indicted on a charge arising out of an act committed in the discharge of their official duties if the charge is dismissed or there is a not guilty verdict. The same authority exists for police officers. Last year the Board authorized payment for a police officer's legal fees and expenses after charges arising out of his official duties were dismissed. Under appropriate circumstances the authority to pay such fees and expenses is important because it enables the Board to support employees trying to faithfully execute their duties. The claims being made by Mr. Knight, Mr. Garrison, and Mr. Swingler are distinguishable from the claim allowed previously by the Board. In the prior claim the Police Chief found the act of the officer clearly arose out of his duties and that the officer had not committed a crime, and the officer continued to be employed in good standing by the County. In the claims at hand, the Sheriff has indicated that he does not believe the charges arose out of the former deputies' official duties, the Sheriff testified or stood ready to testify on behalf of the prosecution in the trial of the former deputies, and the Sheriff chose not to allow the deputies to continue to be employed by the Sheriff's Department. Other than presenting that the former deputies had substantial years of service with the Sheriff's Department prior to the indictments and that the charges were dismissed or resulted in acquittals, no other substantial reason or cause has been presented to justify the payment of the legal fees and expenses by County taxpayers. Resolutions to deny each of the claims are attached. It is recommended that the Board adopt the resolutions because no cause has been demonstrated to justify the payment of the legal fees and expenses by the taxpayers of Albemarle County. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolutions: RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM FOR LEGAL FEES WHEREAS, Keith Garrison, a former deputy sheriff for Albemarle County, pursuant to §§ 15.1-66.3 and 15.1-131.6 of the Code of Virginia has requested the County of Albemarle to pay legal fees and expenses in the amount of $33,861.13 alleged to have been incurred in his defense of two felony charges of which he was acquitted; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds no cause to support the payment of such fees by the taxpayers of Albemarle County. August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) O00ZTO NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia denies the claim of Keith Garrison for legal fees and expenses in the amount of $33,861.13. RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM FOR LEGAL FEES WHEREAS, George Knight, a former deputy sheriff for Albemarle County, pursuant to §§ 15.1-66.3 and 15.1-131.6 of the Code of Virginia has requested the County of Albemarle to pay legal fees and expenses in the amount of $49,607.46 alleged to have been incurred in his defense of two felony charges of which he was acquitted; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds no cause to support the payment of such fees by the taxpayers of Albemarle County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia denies the claim of George Knight for legal fees and expenses in the amount of $49,607.46. RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM FOR LEGAL FEES WHEREAS, George Swingler, a former deputy sheriff for Albemarle County, pursuant to §§ 15.1-66.3 and 15.1-131.6 of the Code of Virginia has requested the County of Albemarle to pay legal fees and expenses in the amount of $28,805.16 alleged to have been incurred in his defense of two felony charges which the Commonwealth has now elected not to further prosecute; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds no cause to support the payment of such fees by the taxpayers of Albemarle County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia denies the claim of George Swingler for legal and expenses in the amount of $28,805.16. fees Item No. 5.6. Proclamation designating August 26 through August 31, 1997 as "Albemarle County Pair Week". By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation: ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK WHEREAS, for the past 16 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of thousands of guests during its annual production; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of community spirited people who wanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives.. The theme has always emphasized the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteer, officers and directors; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their worthwhile programs; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry, August 13, 1997 (Regular Night M~eting) (Page 6) with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of AUGUST 26, 1997 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 1997 as ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively partici- pate in the scheduled activities and pro- grams sponsored and supported by the more than 250 volunteers, public and area busi- nesses. Item No. 5.7. Adopt Resolution to take roads in Foxcroft Subdivision (SUB-95-048) into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 13th day of August, 1997, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Foxcroft Subdivision (SUB 95-048) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 13, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Foxcroft Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 13, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Foxvale Lane from Station 9+91, right edge of pavement of State Route 1165, Southern Parkway, to Station 16+75, end of roadway dedication, 684 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 11/15/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1504, pages 3-12 with a variable right-of-way width, with additional plats recorded 6/17/97 in Deed Book 1619, pages 298-403 and 392-6; and 7/28/97 in Deed Book 1629, pages 205-214, for a length of 0.13 mile. 2) Fox Crest Way from Station 10+11, right edge of pavement of Foxvale Lane, to Station 14+82.69, rear of cul-de- sac, 471.69 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 11/15/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) O00Z Z 3) 4) 5) of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1504, pages 3-12 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with addi- tional plats recorded 10/7/96 in Deed Book 1568, pages 25-8; and 7/28/97 n Deed Book 1629, pages 205-214, for a length of 0.09 mile. Fox Horn Lane from Station 10+18, left edge of pavement of Foxvale Lane, to Station 15+69.67, rear of cul-de- sac, 551.67 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 11/15/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1504, pages 3-12 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with addi- tional plat recorded 6/17/95 in Deed Book 1619, pages 398-403, for a length of 0.11 mile. Fox Horn Court from Station 10+09, right edge of pave- ment of Fox Horn Lane, to Station 14+26, rear of cul- de-sac, 417 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 11/15/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1504, pages 3-12 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with addi- tional plat recorded 6/17/95 in Deed Book 1619, pages 398-403, for a length of 0.08 mile. Foxchase Ridge from Station 10+11, right edge of pave- ment of Foxvale Lane, to Station 20+80.32, rear of cul- de-sac, 1069.32 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 11/15/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1504, pages 3-12 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.20 mile. Total length - 0.61 mile. Item No. 5.8. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for July 1, July 15, July 22, July 29 and August 5, 1997, were received for information. Item No. 5.9. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of June 12, 1997, was received for information. (Mrs. Thomas asked that the Board take up Item No. 11 at this time.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-97-30. U.S. Cellular Tower (Ivy) (Sign #69). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct cellular telecommunications tower on 2 ac. Znd LI. TM58,P37G. Located on S side of Morgantown Rd (Rt 738), approx 1.1 mls W of Ivy Rd (Rt 250). Samuel Miller District. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1997.) Mrs. Thomas suggested that this item be deferred because the sign was missing. She asked that SP-97-30 be deferred and readvertised for September 10, 1997. The applicant has agreed to this deferral. Mrs. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer SP-97-30 until September 10, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-97-23. Rivanna Rowing, Inc. (Sign #97). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow private rowing club on the Rivanna Reservoir & construct floating dock on property owned by Monticello Wesleyan Church. Znd RA. TM45,P31D. Located at 2001 Earlysville Rd. Rio Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1997.) August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000278 MS. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner, summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Ms. Echols identified the favorable and unfavorable factors of the request. In analyzing the request, staff weighed the expressed community desire for another facility against the purpose of the Rivanna reservoir as a water supply resource and the County's policy to allow only commercial activities which support the agricultural and residential uses of the rural areas. As a result of the analysis, staff recommends disapproval of the request. The staff did recommend ten conditions should the Commission and Board approve the request. Additionally, staff recommends that if the Board approves this request, discussions between the County and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority take place to result in the establishment of acceptable safety practices on the Rivanna reservoir and coordination among the different organizations using the Rivanna reservoir. Ms. Echols said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 22, 1997, by a vote of four to two, recommended approval of SP-97-23 subject to 14 conditions. She said there were favorable factors pertaining to the request, which include: an expressed community desire for a rowing company, a limit on the number of rowers that will be allowed, and rowing sessions will take place at different times during the year. Unfavorable conditions include: the Compre- hensive Plan does not support the recreational use of a water supply, safety concerns, disturbance to neighbors, and there is already reasonable use of the church property. Staff did not recommend approval of the special use permit, but did provide 14 conditions, should the special use permit be approved. Talks with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) would have to take place. Since the Planning Commission meeting, conditions number seven and number ten were clarified. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mr. Brett Wilson, said he began offering rowing classes nine years ago, and approximately 1,000 people have taken one his classes in the subsequent years. He cited several benefits of rowing as a form of exercise. His is a small, private business, and he there have been no complaints about its existence. He wants to move his operation to a more secure loca- tion. Monticello Wesleyan Church have been supportive of his request, providing a three-year lease. Mr. Wilson said there will not be a substantial increase in the number of boats on the reservoir, because, although the number of new rowers increases each year, from year to year the numbers remain constant. He said he is proud of his company's environmental record: he introduced propane engines to the reservoir (they are quieter, there are no fuel leaks, there is less discharge into the water), he uses environmentally friendly dock materials, he uses weightless launches which do not disturb fishermen, he has organized shore cleanups, and the proposed construction will cause no disruption to the soil. He then read a letter from Mr. Collins, a local fisherman, who supports the request. Mr. Wilson said there has been misinformation in the form of flyers and petitions distributed in the neighborhood. He said he does not want to see the reservoir developed, but he wondered where rowing would occur if the special use permit is not approved. He said the Virginia Rowing Association (VRA) controls the use of the reservoir and has a lock on it. A special use permit requires there must be a ~special activity" involved. He then asked those present who supported the special use permit request to stand; approximately 60 people stood. Ms. Katie Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, supports the recommendation that the application be denied, saying the reservoir is beginning to suffer from water-related recreation. If the Board approves this request, she is unsure how they will handle future ones. Flood control will be a problem, and the request is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The primary use of the reservoir is to serve as a water supply only, but she said fishing and boating should be permitted at no charge. When the VRA was permitted to operate several years ago, there was concern that other companies would follow. Some locations do not allow any activity on their reservoirs. August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000274 She could see no special need for the service. Finally, there are no regula- tions in existence; developing them now indicates there will be more use in the future. Ms. Valerie Goodman spoke in support of the request, asking that the VRA not be given a monopoly. She has been involved in Mr. Wilson's program since 1990. Although she loves rowing, she also learned to love the natural beauty of the reservoir. She said rowers enjoy the beauty; they do not destroy it. Mr. Mike Stoneking, a rower and a businessman, said he has participated in Mr. Wilson's program since 1993. He has tried not to take sides in this issue. Regarding safety and overcrowding, he helped put together a conflict avoidance plan, working with Mr. Tom Allen, Mr. Kevin Sour, Mr. Brett Wilson, and some Rivanna Rowing Club (RRC) board members. Mr. Stoneking said Mr. Allen said he would work on this as a group, Mr. Sour said he would consider the matter, and the Rivanna Rowing club thinks it is important to work together. Mr. Wilson was enthusiastic and submitted a draft proposal of suggested use of the reservoir and guidelines. Mr. David Hirschman volun- teered to serve as a Water Authority liaison. Mr. Sandy Reisky, who has lived on the reservoir most of his life, said rowing has been present on the reservoir for as long as he can remember. He supports the special use permit because it simply provides a second group the same access as the University of Virginia. Having working in eastern Europe for the past two years, he has seen that deregulation has increased the price of phone calls. If the request is denied, the County would be granting another club a monopoly. He said he is not involved in politics. However, he feels that the University of Virginia, while not-for-profit, has imposed limits on the number of people who can participate, and they could raise prices, etc., in the absence of competition. Mr. Burton Armstrong, the closest adjacent property owner to the rowing facility, said he is not against rowing, but does not want to see a precedent set for one for-profit organization after another. A Lot of people want to fish, and eventually someone might want to add a bait shop or food supply place. In the 1980's, the church had a hard time getting the property because the septic field was not considered sound. This is not a problem if people are only there on Sunday, but it could be a problem if people are there ~every day. He said increased use might also create a problem due to silt build-up. Mr. Deforest Melton said he supports the application. He also supports the Comprehensive Plan's efforts to protect the water supply, and said this request poses no threat to either. Mr. Wilson simply wants a change of venue for his operation. He said this is the only organized program where non- University of Virginia people can row. Mr. Wilson has obtained the endorse- ment of Monticello Wesleyan Church. Rowing is a good form of exercise, it creates no noise and no pollution. Ms. Ann Letterer, who has lived on the reservoir for five years, said she bought her property because of the rowing. Her son has rowed competi- tively for eight years, but not with the University of Virginia. She is opposed to granting the permit because granting a permit for a commercial enterprise encourages others to do so, which could bring lawsuits. If there are no more rowers than those that are currently rowing, she wondered how the venture could be financially successful. She asked what would happen to the dock. She suggested that money be placed in escrow so that the dock can be removed, if necessary, or that it be available to lease to fisherman. She pays people to clean up her waterfront while fishermen use the bathroom into the reservoir from her dock. Regarding the three year lease from the church, no rent is paid, but a donation is accepted, in exchange for no goods or services being provided. She asked if this use would meet that definition. She suggested the Board postpone its decision to allow more time for study. Mr. Chris Martin said he has rowed for seven years. He read excerpts from rowing log, which indicated that he was nearly rammed from behind several times by equipment owned by the RRC, despite the fact that he had posted signs on his property advising safe boating practices. Last summer he saw some RRC shells going under a bridge toward a dam, while loaded with children under the sole supervision of a 17-year-old girls who later said she was scared. Mr. Mike Smith, who owns property on the reservoir, asked what would prohibit someone from opening a business teaching people how to use paddle August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 000275 boats. He said he rows alone in the mornings and enjoys the wildlife. He is concerned about how the reservoir is being used. He said businesses should not be allowed to operate on the reservoir because it changes the nature of the reservoir. This is not a case of two rowing clubs in competition. This issue could set a precedent to allow other businesses operate. Mr. Bill Dudley, a County resident, says he occasionally hears noise, but that he is more concerned about a precedent being set up that permits special uses of the reservoir. He asked what will happen with the bypass; there will be environmental destruction which must be considered. Reservoirs are for drinking only and use for pleasure should be restricted. In response to Mr. Wilson's question of where rowers would go if denied, he said rowers could travel elsewhere. Mr. Dan Snyder, President of the Board of the VP~A, clarified that the VRA does not restrict the use of their facilities to anyone. Two out of five bays at the new boathouses are set up for use by the community. They have no intention of ending community access in the future. He asked the Board not to permit for-profit organizations to use their facilities, due to insurance restrictions. Ms. Karen Dame said microphones on the water are a problem. Although this activity will have no negative impact on the water supply, her concern is that the Board not set a precedent. She appreciates the strict conditions designed to protect the water supply. She supports the request and said the Board should not turn the application down just because it is afraid they might not be this careful with other requests. Mr. Don Wagner, a resident of Earlysville, said he owns a 100 foot wide strip along the waterfront. He has worked with land use issues for 25 years, and knows rowers, two of whom came to him regarding who to approach about this evolving situation. He reviewed problems with the Planning Commission, met with the president of the existing rowing club and Mr. Wilson, and is offended by the misinformation campaign, conducted by unidentified persons, which has scared residents. Neighbors have been told there will be problems on Route 743, and that Mr. Bret Wilson had requested permission to row at night. He said neighbors have sent protest letters without knowing the facts, and he asked the Board to approve the special use permit. Ms. Virginia Lee Techmeyer, who owns a home on the reservoir, said she does not know any of the principals involved. She is sensitive to everyone's needs, but urges restricting private development of the reservoir. Develop- ment endangers the water's health, increases runoff and erosion problems, allows unsafe traffic on the water and increases dangerous conditions with increased traffic. There are already two public access points used by fishermen and boaters, and the opportunity for public rowing already exists through VRA. There is a right-hand turn lane, but Ms. Techmeyer said traffic problems could occur in the morning. She believes there should be limitations governing limited recreational use of the reservoir. The issue is preserva- tion of the water supply, water craft safety, protection of the watershed and rural area and roadway safety. Ms. Judith Meuhler, who serves on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, said she takes seriously stewardship of the reservoir, and spoke as a citizen and rower. There are questions about setting a precedent. She said Mr. Wilson is not doing anything different from what he is doing now; he is just moving his business. University of Virginia students have become the primary users of the boat dock, and the question becomes whether or not the reservoir becomes secondary to the citizens because of the students. When Mr. Wilson's previous request came before the Board, there were no issues of safety. She said that during the years he had a permit, there were no complaints, and that what she heard at this meeting is all new information. Rowers are careful with the reservoir, their numbers are limited, and she does not expect there will be great deal of additional rowers in the future. Mr. Russell Bell, a County resident, and President of the RRC, said the club had a successful season. Members are pleased with the program and new safety procedures. There have been a lot of non-rowing activities going on this year. The VRA and RRC relationship has been repaired and personality conflicts have been fixed. If the RRC could operate for-profit, a monopoly would result, run by Mr. Wilson, and it would be one person's sole source of income. The RRC is a safe non-profit entity, with responsibility spread over August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000276 many people. VRA's limited season generally allows full use of the reservoir except during recruitment periods, and the club is working toward resolving its financial situation. Ms. Mary Haden, a reservoir resident, spoke about fish and wildlife, and safety issues. She said it is frightening when you are rushed by other boats while canoeing. She had a conflict with Mr. Wilson, who used obscentities on at least one occasion. If the request is granted, she asked that safety be a major consideration. She added .that noise is not a problem. Mr. John Fink, a resident of the Woolen Mills area, said he is a volunteer on the Board for the Rivanna Rowing Club. In the fall of 1996 the VRA terminated Mr. Wilson's privillges, and allowed him to serve as a coach only. They offered Mr. WilsQn $20,000 for four months of coaching and equipment rental, but Mr. Wilson refused the offer. Therefore, Mr. Fink said Mr. Wilson chose not to be on the reservoir this summer. For the same amount of money offered Mr. Wilson, the RRC hired everyone needed to run the entire operation. The club has 160 members and is open to anyone who wants to join. The VRA has been supportive this year and is prepared to negotiate a longterm lease. He is concerned about the precedent of setting for-profit commercial use of the water supply, and he asked the Board to deny the request. Ms. Ann Mallock said her family rows. She said the issues have nothing to do with personalities, and that the County needs to protect the water supply for everyone. If it allows infringement upon the integrity of the reservoir as a water supply by a commercial entity, this creates a precedent. The question of access is moot; anyone can use the existing facilities. Regarding parking on the church lot, she said there are not as many spaces available as shown on the map. Auto residues, such as oil, could flow into the water since it is so close by. There were concerns about a house at the water's edge, because of the sewer. She does not want the dock to stick out into reservoir. Ms. Page Gillum, who lives on the reservoir, and is a rower, said he is concerned about the expansion of commercial use of the reservoir. It was established to provide water, and allows only limited recreational use of reservoir. Even permitted uses are subject to regulation by County govern- ment. Overcrowding and congestion will increase if everyone who wants to can obtain unrestricted access to the reservoir. There are other locations for such activities. No matter how careful people are with resources, sheer numbers are bound to increase the possibility of damage. Unrestricted development has ruined mountain areas, and he does not want it to happen again. Mr. Richard Reese, a rower with Mr. Wilson's organization, strongly urged support of the request. Community rowing is a beautiful sport for eveyone, and people rowing on the reservoir care about the rservoir. There is a great deal of support, beginning with Citizens of Albemarle and others. Mr. Wilson has been oeprating for eight years successfully. Some issues discussed at this meeting occurred prior to receiving permission to have a launch in 1993. Mr. Wilson may not be able to operate in the future if his request is denied. Regarding setting a precedent, Mr. Reese said this request is easily distinguished from~other applications. They might have to show that they can meet all the same conditions Mr. Wilson met. The VRA could terminate community rowing at a whim. Mr. Wilson paid rent and was therefore allowed to use the University facilities. However, now that the VRA is in better financial condition, Mr. Wilson is being asked to leave. Ms Francis Martin asked whether Citizens for Albemarle (CFA) officially supported the proposal. Ms. Karen Dane said CFA has not reviewed the applica- tion; she had addressed the BOard as an individual. Mr. Keith Rosenfield, who rows with RRC, said he is not against the petition, but has safety concerns with both clubs. Whenever there is a sport, there is a certain amount of risk which cannot be legislated out. There is no difference between the two groups' safety records. There is room on the reservoir for both groups, and emotions must be set aside. Mr. Kevin Sour, Women's Rowing Coach at the University of Virginia, and former director of the RRA, said there are lots of issues. The VRA began rowing in Charlottesville in 1989, and has no intention of limiting community rowing. Students coming back will not limit access, it is limited only timing August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000277 and the ability of the community club to put people on the water. The VRA is getting propane engines and supports community rowing. This can take place in either one or both facilities. Mr. Ray Prieto asked the Board to approve the request, and asked why two organizations cannot exist on the reservoir. He has rowed for five years, including some time spent with the RRC. He said Mr. Wilson is simply asking for permission to continue his business in another location. Expanding activity is not a problem, as the number of rowers has been constant over five years. Terms of the special use permit imply that no precedent is being set. He said Mr. Wilson is a wonderful member of the community and should have freedom of choice. Ms. Claire Rannigan, a rower for over nine years, said she is opposed to the request because the reservoir is a fragile ecosystem from which the City and County get their drinking water. The decision is precedent setting, making resources vulnerable to future commercial endeavors. Recovery of natural resources must be protected. Rowing opportunities exist now through the RRC. The club rents space from the VRA, who owns the boat house, and ahs a good relationship with University rowing staff and the VRA. The RRC offers employment to people and there is no need for an alternate rowing association. He therefore asked the Board to vote against the request. Mr. Robert Wills said the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the request was valid and reasonable. Regarding the word "commer- cial", he said Mr. Wilson simply charges a fee to pay his rent. Mr. Wilson does not damage the environment, and other oganizations would do well to come up to Mr. Wilson's standards. Ms. Karen McNerney said she has spoken about projects to clean up the shoreline around the reservoir, and Mr. Wilson is very interested. Mr. Wilson addressed the word ~commercial". He said both non-profit and for-profit entities are commercial. The VRA charges rent for use of its boat house and it pays its coaches. Regarding other rowing locations, Mr. Wilson said the Planning Commis- sion agreed that there is no other location that can handle the activity due to size and location. Regarding RRC's salary offer, he would have received only $6,000 for his time and $6,000 for equipment use. There is plenty of room on the reservoir for two clubs, and he said Mr. David Tice said there are no congestion problems. He has been on the resevoir for eight years already, staying in his lanes. Regarding the incident mentioned, Mr. Wilson said it occurred before launches were allowed. The incident precipitated his demand to use launches which do not disturb fishermen, for safety reasons. At this time, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said that this issue has caused problems between friends on different sides of the issue. Rowing is a vigorus sport, and having a good coach can be an important part of the experience. He listened to everything in an attempt to get down to the facts of the application. It seems that eveyone was trained at the existing facility. The number of rowers is constant~ and the existing facility appears to be able to meet any need for rowing on the reservoir. The request has come about because there is a different of opinion among members of the existing club under its reconstitu- tion. Mr. Wilson says he cannot conduct business in the existing facility, and he wishes wants to strike out on his own. If people cannot agree on how somthing is to be run, Mr. Bowerman wondered how they can agree on how to use the reservoir separately. If there is one club, there will be Some overarch- ing parameters on the way the club is run. He agreed with the Planning Commission's lists of pros and cons. Staff weighed the expressed community desire for another facility against the purpose of the Rivanna reservoir as a water supply resource and the County's policy to alow only commercial activities which support the agricultural and residential uses of the rural areas. As a result of the analysis, staff recommends disapproval of this request. If the same number of people can be August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 000; ?$ served with one organization as two, and safety is not compromised, he believes the Board should err on the side of leaving things as they are. Community rowing began there and will continue. He has never supported commercial use of the reservoir, and has always protected the reservoir and the safety of the people on it. He said he will vote against the request. Mr. Marshall supported Mr. Bowerman's decison for the same and addi- tional reasons. He said he will never support commercial use of the reser- voir. He remembers enjoying the countryside in the years past, which is now disappearing. He is concerned about the current use of the reservoir, and if this request is approved, he feels it could set a~precedent for future requests. Mr. Perkins said he would be willing to support the request, because he does not like monopolies. He said the applicant's request would not be detrimental to the reservoir. Mrs. Thomas said someone wrote a pamplet called ~Mud" which addressed concerns about the reservoir. It is nice to know there are many people who care a great deal about the reservoir; and she asked that they participte in the future when the Board makes land use decisions. The Board has been dragged into a fight within the current club. This is not a monopoly, because a land use decision goes with the land, not the personalities involved. She said there is already concern about the current facility that predates current use. Rowers can be accomodated by the current facility. For these reasons she does not support the request. Mrs. Humphris said she appreciated the work on the staff report which was fair and balanced, as well as Mr. Wilson and others' input. The important points have been covered. She does not want to set a precedent for the future which could prove detrimental to the water supply. When the current building was up for approval it was a difficult decision because it was close to the water supply. The parking lot should not have been paved, because the impervious surface encourages runoff into the water. She understands the desire of rowers, but said this is a desire, not a need. The County does not need to promote activity on the water supply. She is glad the number of rowers stays stable. The County can promote recreational use of other waterways not part of water supply system, but not the reservoir. This is a water supply that is endangered and must be protected. The special use permit goes with the land, not the person, and the future must be considered. Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to deny SP- 97-23. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (At 8:56 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:07 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-25. Spring Hill Baptist Church (Signs #98&99) . PUBLIC HEARING on a request to expand nonconforming use for 2-story church at Spring Hill Baptist Church. Znd RA. TM21,P5A(1) . Located at 2620 Frays Mill Rd at inter of Rts 606 & 641. White Hall Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth arena.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to two conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 22, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-25 subject to the two condi- tions recommended by staff and added a third condition, listed below. Mr. Estes, the church's treasurer, advised the Board that the church was established by his father in 1851 and the building was built in 1870. The goal is to keep the church, which has 150 to 170 members, growing and expand- ing. He introduced Mr. Ray Woods, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, and Mrs. August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) oooZ 7 Joanne Burkholder, a member of the church's finance committee and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in Greene County. He showed the Board a picture of 200 children in vacation bible school this year. The church's budget is now $120,000 year, and church members have raised $180,000 of the $698,000 needed for this project, in the past two months. A Baptist Board engineer said there will be challenges, since there are a creek, a road, a cemetery and parking all around. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mrs. Caroline Burkholder asked the Board to approve the request. The membership is growing rapidly and need the additional space. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perkins made the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-97-25 subject to the three conditions ~ecommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Health Department approval of the modified septic system and receipt of an appropriate easement to support an alternate drain field on the adjoining property; Combination of Tax Map 21, Parcels 4, 5Al and 5C prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the building; This special use permit is approved for worship and church related activities only. Day care, pre-school or other such activities, shall require amendment to this special use permit. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-26. Ruth and Russell Shifflett (Signs #70&71) . PUBLIC HEARING on a request for 1 yr ext of SP-95-38 permitting stream crossing in floodplain. TM15,P12. Located on E side of Browns Gap Tnpk (Rt 810), approx 1.4 mi N of Walnut Level Rd (Rt 668). White Hall District. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the provisions of Sections 31.2.4.1 and 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval subject to six conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 1, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-26 subject to the six condi- tions recommended by staff and added a seventh condition. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Shifflett, the applicant, said he had nothing to add. Board approval of the request. Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. He asked for Mr. Perkins made the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-97- 26 subject to the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Albemarle County Engineering approval of final bridge plans and details. The plans must include grading plans for the road and August 13, 1997 (Regular Night' Meeting) (Page 15) 000 80 abutments in the flood plain with detai~s of culverts through the embankment. Bridge plans must be sealed and signed by a profes- sional engineer; Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic, hydraulic and structural computations prepared by a professional engineer. Computations shall include an analysis of the impacts to the one hundred year flood plain; 3 o Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan if the disturbance is more than 10,000 square feet; Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wet- lands and watercourses. This will involve a Joint Permit Applica- tion through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment; Ail future divisions of Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, shall use this stream crossing for access to Route 810; and Approval of this special use permit shall expire on February 14, 1999, unless the construction on the stream crossing shall have commenced. (Mr. Bowerman abstained because of business discussions with the applicant.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-28. Farmington Country Club (Signs %51,52& 53). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to make existing club conforming use in RA Dist & to allow 3 bldg additions to club on part of 273.472 acs. Znd RA. TM60E2,P1. Located on N side of Ivy Rd {Rt 250W) . Samuel Miller Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the provisions of Sections 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval subject to two conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 1, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-28 subject to the conditions set forth below. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Randy Wade represented Farmington County Club, which voted to make improvements to buildings, to add to the fitness center and to consolidate casual dining. Additions will be made to three existing buildings. He added that the request is not a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Mr. Bob Moje, the project architect, presented specifics of the plan. There will be three additions to club, none of which touch the ~Thomas Jefferson" design of the front of the building, and the Historic Resources Office has approved drawings which he showed the Board. No one else was present to speak, so the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mrs. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-97- 28 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning CommisSion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (The cOnditions of approval are set out below:) August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 00028 2 o Virginia Department of Historic Resources confirmation that the addition will not adversely affect the listing of the structure on the National Register of Historic Places; This permit is for the existing club facility and three building additions, excluding the golf course. Any future intensification of use shall require an amendment to this special use permit; Agenda Item No. i0. SP-97-29. James and Becky White Johnston (Sign #100). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to reapprove SP-94-25 allowing add'l div of ~farm tract" as part of Rural Pres Develop. TM47,P8. Located on E side of Rt 649 about ~ ml SE of inter of Rts 649 & 643. Rivanna Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the provisions of Sections 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the intent of SP-84-38 and recommended approval subject to amended conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 1, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-29 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the provisions of Sections 31.2.4.1 and 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and recom- mended approval subject to six conditions. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. The applicant did not wish to address the Board. There being no one else present to speak, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-97- 29 subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Approval is restricted to nine lots (in addition to the preserva- tion tract); 2. No further subdivision rights on the 110.4 acres of land; Division of Tax Map 47, Parcel 8, shall be permitted only as part of a Rural Preservation Development which includes Tax Map 47, Parcels 8, 8A, and 9. Such development shall result in the combination of the three parcels to allow the creation of one new development lot and one preservation tract. The total acreage devoted to the development lot shall not exceed six acres and the Preservation Tract shall not be less than 63.55 acres. The building site shown on the Preservation Tract may be allowed as a development lot provided that the balance of the Preservation Tract is added to Lots 8B, 8C, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, 8I, or the develop- ment lot authorized by this permit resulting in a Preservation Tract with a minimum acreage of 63.55 acres. This provision allows for transfer of the Rural Preservation Tract to only one of the aforementioned lots; 4 o Any plat submitted for a Rural Preservation Development shall be reviewed under the administrative review procedures and no sepa- rate action by the Planning Commission shall be required for the creation of a Rural Preservation Development unless review by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to the administrative review procedures, and, Only one additional dwelling shall be allowed in the area of Parcels 8. Such additional dwelling shall be permitted only after August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) O00ZSZ approval of the Rural Preservation Development approved mn accord with this permit on the Preservation Tract. Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-97-3. Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge (Sign #87). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone +_ 38.2 acs from R-10 [TM78,P55A, 7.651 acs] & R-1 & R-6 [TM78,Pcls55A4 (pt of)&55A5 (pt of)] to allow for expansion of estab retirement community [TM78,Pcls 55A6, 28.39 acs] & allow professional offices. Located on N side of Rt 250E extending from Rt 250 E to Ashcroft PRD. (Properties in Neighborhood 3 of Urban Area & recom- mended for Neighborhood & Urban Residential densities in Comp Plan.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk'~s office and a permanent part of the record. Staff opinion is that the proposed expansion of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge generally satisfies the requirements as to findings by the Commmssion under Sections 8.5.4 and 19.5.2 together with the criteria for issuance of special use permit (31.2.4.1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 5, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-97-03. This approval is subject to four conditions and modifications as provided by Section 8.5.4(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. C. Henry Hennett, III, President and CEO of Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, and Mr. Mike Matthews, President of Brinkman Management and Development Corporation, were present. Mr. Matthews said he appreciated the interaction with staff. The retirement center is full and has a waiting list, so there is a need to expand. The company has met with the Ashcroft and Glenarchy neighborhoods. Mr. Hennett said Westminster Canterbury is an extension of Epmsocopal and Presbyterzan churches in the area. The current facility zs one half of the originally proposed szze. Retirement communities are full, with people moving to the area because of its beauty. The company will hire people from the welfare rolls without impacting school systems and other commodities. Being cognizant of the visual impact on the community, the company chose natural colors when designing the facility. They have acquired acreage behind them so that the taller buildings will not be visible from the highway. There is a planned senior servmces building to offer adult and child day care center to the community in the future. There being no one else present to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Marshall moved, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve ZMA-97-3 subject to the conditions and modifications as provided by §8.5.4(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (The conditions are set out below:) Special use permit approval for the retirement community (as distinguished from professional offices) shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long as approval of ZMA-97-03 remains in effect. The Application Plan shall be considered as conceptual only in terms of site layout of features such as building foot- print, building location and road alignment. Approval shall be for uses and limitations as specified in PROJECT DATA on the Application Plan. Setbacks from internal roads and other vehicu- lar areas shall maintain sight distances as determined by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. Perimeter setbacks August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 000'283 2 o and yard requirements from abutting residentially zoned properties shall not be less than required for such abutting properties; Special use permit approval for professional offices shall be valid for a period not to exceed five (5) years to commencement of construction. For the purpose of this condition, ~commencement of construction" shall be construed to mean the commencement of construction of the office building(s). Gross floor area of the professional office building(s) shall not exceed 15,000 square feet. Professional office usage is restricted to Tax Map 78, parcel 55A as depicted in Attachment C of this report. Minimum setbacks for building and parking from Rt 250 and external resi- dential areas'shall comply with section 21.0 of the Zoning Ordinaance; The wooded area on the Application Plan shown for passive recre- ation usage shall be maintained in a natural state except for trail and related improvements as depicted generally on the Application Plan. This area shall not' be subject to general building deve~oment; Access easement shall be provided to Tax Map 78, parcel 55A5 (residue) and Tax Map 78, parcel 55A1 as depicted on Attachment C of this report. WCBR will not be required to participate in construciton of any such access. At time of development of those properties, maintenance agreements as reequired by the private roads regulations of the subdivision ordinance shall be negotiated bby the owners of TM 78, Parcel 55A5 and TM 78, Parcel 55A51 and WCBR. Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and reord- ain Section 2.1-4, of Chapter 2.1, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, in subsection (e) known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" by the add of 4 parcels, totaling 190.872 acs. TM64,Pcls1011 & TM81,Pclsl5B&15A6. Two pcls located on W side of Louisa Rd (Rt 22) & 2 pcls located at end of Clark's Tract Rd (Rt 648). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress July 28 and August 4, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommends approval. The Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee, at its meeting on June 23, 1997, recommended approval of the addition as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of the request to add four parcels described as Tax Map 64, Parcels 10 and 11; Tax Map 81, Parcels 15A6 and 15B. Two parcels are located at the end of State Route 648 (Clark's Tract Road). Two parcel are located on the west side of Route 22. The proposed addition contains approximately 190.872 acres. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thomas asked if a letter of appreciation would be sent to people adding acreage to the district. Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Mary Jo Scala works with them closely and lets them know the County appreciates their participa- tion. Mrs. Thomas suggested staff send such letters. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to adopt the ordinance as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Martin. (The Ordinance is set out below:) Approved Initials August 13, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 000285 Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (g) The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following de- scribed properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7Al, 7B, 8, 11, 12, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 30, 30A, 30B 32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 7B, 8, 8B, 8E, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 70H, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 7lA, 73B, 74A, 76, 77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1, 80, 84; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A, 18E; tax map 41 parcels 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 67 67B, 68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6 6B, 8, 8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1, 37F, 37J, 38 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43, 43A 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map 43, parcels 1, lB, 2, 2A, 3 3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18C 18E4, 18F, 18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21 2lA, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A, 25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 30B, 30D 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, 33D, 34, 41, 42, 43, 45, 45A 45C, 45D, 58; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 3lA, 31Al, 31D, 31F, 31G, 32G, 32G1; tax map 59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on December 21, 1994, shall be next reviewed prior to December 21, 2004. (Amended 4-14-93; Amended 12-21-94; Amended 4-12-95; Amended 8-9-95) Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bowerman said that the applicant of the Still Meadows Land Trust indicated they are going to substantially change the proffers that were included at the Planning Commission hearing, and asked that the application be sent back to Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg said would the matter would need to be readvertised for rehearing when the applicant and staff are ready, so the date of the public hearing will be subject to those items. Mr. Bowerman made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Marshall, that the Still Meadows application be referred back to the Planning Commission for rereview because the applicant had additional proffers to offer. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 9:45 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.