Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-15May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 0001 6 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 15, 1996, beginning 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. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Develop- ment, Mr. 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. Scott Peyton, a resident of Greenwood, asked the Board to initiate whatever steps are necessary to reinstate Route 250 West as a County Scenic Highway. The residents, who live along this corridor, recognize it as a great source of pride and a reflection of the County's commitment to the integrity of Western Albemarle. It was a shock to him when the Board repealed the County's Scenic Highway designation. No one he spoke to was aware the designation was repealed. He does not think there has been adequate opportu- nity for public input with regard to this designation. He understands that staff thought there was duplication with the establishment of the Entrance Corridor Overlay districts thus repealing the scenic highway designation. As a resident of Western Albemarle, he would prefer to have some duplication of protection rather than inadequate protection. Mr. Peyton asked the Board to look into this issue. He would like to establish a dialogue in cooperation with the County to begin this process and would be happy to be used as the contact person. There are a number of citizens present who share his views. He is concerned about the proliferation of commercial development along the Route 250 corridor. He thinks it is imperative that the Board support commercial areas that currently exist in the town of Crozet, which is a designated growth area; and in Ivy and other areas where it would be appropriate and where commercial development exists coopera- tively with existing residential areas. He thinks such development should be encouraged rather than allowing random and mushroom proliferation of commer- cial development along the Route 250 corridor. Mr. Peyton, again, asked the Board to initiate whatever process is necessary to proceed with reestablishing this designation. He asked the persons present who support this issue to stand (approximately 25 people stood). Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, supported Mr. Peyton's comments and asked that the scope be expanded to include a plan to deal with those areas along the Route 250 corridor which are already zoned commercial. Several weeks ago a group of citizens from the community of Crozet showed the Board their vision for the future of the downtown business district. At the meeting, it was pointed out by Mr. Marshall that the entire vision was in jeopardy of failing in the future as the result of large scale commercial development along Route 250 West. Many of the residents believe that the future success of the Crozet growth area, to develop into the type of commu- nity that will attract growth in the rural areas consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, is dependent upon the success of their downtown district. Many of the businesses in the downtown area are owned and staffed by local residents and have well served the community for decades. Today Crozet has experienced a growth spurt that could not have been predicted a few years ago. The growth has led in many ways to a better, healthier community with a bright future. Unfortunately, many of the commer- cial areas that now exist along Route 250 West are in close proximity to Crozet, and if not developed in a manner compatible to the downtown area, will pose a definite threat to the existence of the entire Crozet growth area. The recent decision of the Board to allow the Blue Ridge Shopping Center on Route 250 West despite significant community opposition does little to give the residents a sense of comfort. Future commercial development along Route 250 West should be planned to provide complimentary services to those in downtown Crozet. Now is the time to plan for the future of Route 250 West and not when it takes on the complexion of Route 29 North. Mr. Tucker suggested staff provide the Board a briefing on the differ- ences between the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the Scenic Areas Highway District. The staff could also provide information on the basis for May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) the commercial zoning along with an analysis on the amount of zoning and location. Mrs. Humphris asked what kind of time frame would be involved in getting this information. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks it will take at least a month to gather the information. Mrs. Humphris suggested something be presented to the Board on July 3rd. Mrs. Thomas said she would like for this to be a work session including a recommendation as to how the Board can deal with the issue, and it not be just an explanation of the present situation. Mr. Cilimberg said when the Entrance Corridor Overlay District was originally considered, there was a proposal that there be individual corridor plans that would guide the district, and which would address the old scenic district in those plans. Instead, the staff decided to go with an overall district that applied uniformly and adopt guidelines for all of the corridors. Mr. Cilimberg said basically the old scenic district was a setback district and it is possible some of that may need to be incorporated into the corri- dors, but that is something the staff will have to look at. Mrs. Humphris asked that the information from staff include some alternatives. Ms. Georgina Slavoff, a resident of Hessian Hills Apartments, asked the Board to consider implementing a dog barking ordinance in Albemarle County. There is a dog in her neighborhood that barks day and night incessantly. Unfortunately, there is nothing anyone can do. The Police Department and Animal Control Officer know about the problem. The dog owner has been contacted and she has done nothing. The residents are not getting any peace, quiet or sleep. She presented the Board a letter from the Manager of the apartment complex and a petition signed by the residents in the area. She asked the Board to consider implementing this ordinance. Mrs. Thomas asked if the apartment complex has anything in its lease agreement that can deal with this situation. Ms. Slavoff replied, "no". The dog lives in the subdivision next door, not the apartment complex. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any civil remedies. Mr. Davis said if it constitutes a nuisance, the residents have a civil action against the owner. The ordinance would involve criminal sanctions. Ms. Slavoff said she discussed the matter with an attorney and he suggested she start with the Board. Ms. Emily Sisler said she is also a resident of Hessian Hills. She said it seems ridiculous they have to take civil action to solve a problem that involves one person who is not sympathetic or kind to her neighbors. The owner of the dog has called the police several times and charged harassment when someone has gone over to her house to ask that she put the dog inside. It is unfair to the residents. The City has an ordinance to address this problem. It seems unfair to ask the residents to hire an attorney and go to court. An ordinance seems like a simple piece of legislation to pass. Mr. Martin said it seems to him the owners of the apartment complex would want to hire a lawyer and go to court since they are losing customers. The Board also has to think about adopting an ordinance that affects the entire County given that one apartment complex has the problem. Ms. Sisler said the ordinance would affect anyone in the County who is in violation. This has been ongoing for eight years. They have called the police. She believes that if an ordinance will help people like her neigh- bors, then it should be passed. Mr. Davis said there are various versions of barking dog ordinances around the state, mostly in cities, but also in some urban counties. They are not found often in rural counties. The state law gives the authority to adopt a nuisance-type ordinance that would deal with barking dogs. Mr. Bowerman said he is interested in knowing if a dog barking ordinance is enforceable and whether the residents could get some remedy through an ordinance to deal with the problem. Mr. Martin said since the ordinance could not be county-wide, he would like to know what areas would be covered. Mr. Davis said he knows of localities that have adopted ordinances in designated areas. It would be difficult to do it by neighborhood, although it could be done, if the Board could find a logical dividing line and a reasonable basis. Most jurisdictions will say an ordinance is difficult to enforce in the courts because they often involve a difference of opinion as to when the dog barks and it is usually a neighbor versus neighbor situation. It also requires investing some county time in going out and monitoring the bark dogging in order to get the court to convict. Mrs. Thomas commented that a civil suit does not have the same level of proof. The neighbors are going to have to get involved, if the criminal proceedings are going to be successful. Mr. Davis said in some Northern Virginia communities that have dealt with this issue, the animal control officer is not the person who takes out the summons. It requires the neighbor May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) to take out the summons and testify in court. The animal control officer would be available to testify that during the time he was on the property, the dog barked. Mr. Tucker suggested providing the Board with some additional informa- tion to consider at one of the day meetings. Ms. Sisler added that she has called the police on numerous occasions, but they have not come out because there is nothing they can do. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Thomas mentioned Item 5.2 and a letter Board members received from the Architectural Review Board (ARB).regarding the need for a master plan to guide the placement of towers. In its letter, the ARB stated that it is futile to keep acting on the towers. Mr. Tucker said this is a different situation; it is an existing tower. The Board previously indicated that it would like to encourage more antennas to be located on existing towers rather than approving new towers. That is the reason this is coming to the Board. Mrs. Thomas commented on the need to get a better idea of where all these towers are going to be placed. Mr. Bowerman suggested sending a letter to all cellular providers indicating that the County will not approve any new towers until such time as the County enacts some legislation. Mr. Davis commented that the County would have to accept any applications and judge them on the facts. Mr. Tucker said he would talk to people at Sprint to see if the County can get some technical help and get something done. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item No. 5.la. Appropriation Request: School Division, $205,500 - (Form #95072). It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board approved an appropriation of $200,000 for school bus replacement. As part of the FY 1995-96 budget, the School Board approved the establishment of a bus replace- ment fund which was never formally appropriated into a fund code. The School Board also approved an appropriation of $5,500 from the Woodbrook PTO. Wood- brook Elementary School received a $5,500 donation from the Woodbrook PTO to cover additional staffing expenses. Staff recommends approval of Appropria- tion #95072 in the amount of $205,500. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL. YEAR: 1995/96 NUMBER: 95072 FUND: SCHOOL/BUS REPL. PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF'FUNDS IN THE BUS REPLACE- MENT FUND AND CONTRIBUTION FROM WOODBROOK PTO. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1390562320800506 1221261101114100 SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT SALARIES-TEACHING ASSISTANTS TOTAL $200,000.00 5,500.00 $205,500.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2390551000512001 2200018000181140 DEVELOPER-MILL CREEK WOODBROOK PTO TOTAL $200,000.00 5,500.00 $205,500.00 Item No. 5.lb. Appropriation Request: Rescue Squads, $9,001.65 - (Form #95073). Each year the County receives funds from the State Office of Emergency Medical Services. The amount is based on $2.00 per passenger vehicle, pickup and panel truck registered and is a portion of the annual State vehicle registration fee. State law requires that 25 percent of the fees collected be returned to the locality in which the vehicle is registered. The use of these funds is restricted for emergency medical services. The County received May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meetingi (Page 4) 000119 $9,001.65 more in FY 1995-96 than was appropriated to the three rescue squads. The County has traditionally appropriated the total received to the three rescue squads. This request is to adjust the FY 1995-96 appropriation to pass the additional funds on to the rescue squads. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95073 in the amount of $9,001.65. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropria- tion was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96 NUMBER: 95073 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EMS FUNDS RECEIVED EXCEEDED BUDGET PROJECTS AND IS TO BE DISBURSED TO THE RESCUE SQUADS. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100032030565002 1100032030565102 1100032030565202 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CH'VILLE/ALB RESCUE SQUAD WESTERN/ALB RESCUE SQUAD SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD TOTAL $3,000.55 3,000.55 3,000.55 $9,001.65 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000240415 EMS FUNDS $9,001.65 TOTAL $9,001.65 Item No. 5.2. Set public hearing to consider Lease Agreement with U. S. Cellular Mobile Telephone Network to lease space on radio tower at Bucks Elbow. U. S. Cellular would like to lease access at the County owned Bucks Elbow site to attach antennas to the existing tower and construct a small building on the grounds. This agreement would facilitate the improvement of the company's communication quality in the area, while helping the County offset its access costs to the site. U. S. Cellular would be responsible for negoti- ating its own access arrangements to the site with adjacent owners. Staff recommends advertising a public hearing for June 5, 1996, to consider the proposed lease agreement. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set a public hearing for June 5, 1996, to consider lease agreements with U. S. Cellular Mobile Tele- phone Network to lease space on a radio tower at Bucks Elbow. Item No. 5.3. Authorize County Executive to execute Service Agreement with the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Service Agreement was approved: SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 15th day of May, 1996, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivi- sion, (the "County"), and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC. a Virginia Corporation, (the "Rescue Squad"). WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad agrees to continue to provide valuable rescue squad services in Albemarle County in its delin- eated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Operations Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for the purchase of land and construction of a rescue squad building in said Service Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises the County and Rescue Squad agree, as follows: 1. The County shall contribute to the Rescue Squad Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to be used for the purchase of land and the construction of a rescue squad building in Albemarle County. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall be made available in two installments. The first installment, in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000) shall be delivered upon demand after the execution of this Agreement. The second install- ment, in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000) shall be delivered upon demand when needed after July 1, 1996. May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000 .20 2. The Rescue Squad agrees that the County will withhold Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six Dollars and Sixty Seven Cents ($16,666.67) from the County's annual appropriation to the Rescue Squad's operating budget for fifteen (15) years beginning July 1, 1996, and ending after a final withholding on July 1, 2010, and that such withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding shall be in addition to the withholding pursuant to the preexisting February 3, 1995 Service Agreement. 3. The Rescue Squad agrees that the Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of land and the construction of a rescue squad building in the Service Area in Albemarle County. The Rescue Squad further agrees that said land and improvements shall be owned and titled jointly with the County and that both the Rescue Squad and the County shall be named insurers on any insurance for the property. 4. The Rescue Squad .agrees that at such time as it no longer provides voluntary rescue squad services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the property described in paragraph 3, including all appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request. 5. The County and Rescue Squad agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated October 15, 1987, July 19, 1989, March 16, 1993, and February 3, 1995, to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Rescue Squad, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Rescue Squad. Item No. 5.4. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Clerk, Circuit Court, and Regional Jail for the month of April, 1996, were approved by the recorded vote set out above. Item No. 5.5. Letter dated May 9, 1996, from Mr. Robert T. Skunda, Secretary of Commerce and Trade, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, in response to the Board's request that Albemarle County be declared a disaster area resulting from the winter's extreme cold. The following letter was received: "Governor Allen has asked me to thank you for and respond to your letter requesting that he include Albemarle County in his request for a disaster declaration resulting from this winter's extreme cold. I understand that you have received a copy of the Governor's letter to Dan Glickman, the United States Secretary of Agricul- ture, where he requested that both Orange and Madison Counties be declared disaster areas. In that letter, the Governor specifical- ly mentioned that there had also been damage in Albemarle County, however, since damage assessment reports for the county had not yet been completed, it could not be included in the Governor's request. Moreover, the Governor had to submit his request to Secretary Glickman by May 3, to meet the ninety-day notification deadline required by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) . Should Secretary Glickman designate Orange County a disaster area, then farmers in Albemarle County are automatically eligible under USDA regulations since it adjoins Orange. I will make sure you are kept apprised of any news that we receive from the USDA about this disaster declaration request." Item No. 5.6. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond Program Reports and Monthly Reports for the months of February and March, 1996, received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-95-39. Mt. Ararat Lodge. Public Hearing on a request to construct a masonic lodge on 2.11 ac zoned RA & request a site plan waiver. Located on SE sd of inters of Rts 715 & 714. TM121, P32A. Scottsv- May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) O00 L2 ille Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The Commission reviewed and approved this request on July 20, 1993. The Board reviewed and approved the request on August 11, 1993. The approvals of both the special use permit and the site plan have expired. The applicant has now resubmitted the application and is asking for a waiver of the site plan. Staff opinion is that no changes in circumstances have occurred which alter the original staff review of this application. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request subject to four conditions. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Howard Key, Chairman of the Trustee Board for Mr. Ararat Lodge, said they are sorry they allowed the first special use permit to expire. The Lodge is ready to move forward and apply for the building permit. With no other comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-95-39 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) The building shall be limited in size to 2,200 square feet; Maximum attendance at meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department; Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or struc- ture outlined in the July 20, 1993, staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The activities of the Lodge are listed in a letter from Moses Agee, dated July 1, 1993, which is attached (copy on file); and Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Note: The Board heard the next two items concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-96-02. Gary Edgecomb. Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-90-18 to increase total square footage allowed for all buildings on the site. Property on W sd of inters of Rts 742 (Avon St Extd) & 1101 is zoned HC & EC. This site recommended for Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4 by the Comprehensive Plan. This action is related to two other actions, SP-96-02, Edgecomb's Imported Auto Sales & SDP-96-005, Edgecomb's Imported Auto Sales & Service Expansion Major Amendment, which provide for increased outdoor storage & display. TM77,P8A. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-96-02. Edgecomb's Imported Auto Sales & Service. Public Hearing on a request to amend a previously approved special use permit to allow expansion of parking & display area on 1.72 acres zoned HC & EC. Property described in ZMA-96-02 above. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) 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 amendment to the proffers is consistent with previous actions on this property, and therefore, staff recommends approval of ZMA-96-02 with proffers. With regard to the special use permit, staff has reviewed this request for compliance only with the purpose and intent of the EC district. Staff relies on the ARB to provide an analysis of the appropriateness of the use and based on the comments of the ARB, it is staff's opinion that this use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the EC district. Staff recommends approval of SP-96-02 subject to six conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-02 and SP-96-02 as suggested by staff. Mrs. Humphris asked if it was correct that the additional trees for the area between the parking and Route 742 would be spaced 35 feet on center. Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct, but they are a combination of trees and lower May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) O00 LZ2 shrubs. Mrs. Humphris commented that this was quite far apart, unless the trees would grow extremely large. Mrs. Thomas said one of the conditions of the site plan amendment is "Engineering Department approval of storm water detention plans and computa- tions''. The Commission minutes indicate that a storm water management facility may not be necessary, if the conditions show an insignificant increase in runoff. She wondered if this was still true. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a condition of preliminary site plan approval. The staff uses standard language in conditions of approval for the special use permit so the applicants are sure of all the things they need to do in order to obtain site plan approval. The site plan will then define how that is accomplished. Mrs. Thomas asked if the lights will be shielded and not just directed downward on the site. Mrs. Humphris said the condition states the lights must be shielded and directed down onto the site. Mr. Cilimberg said the engineer who prepared the site plan would need to address that issue. He knows that recent ARB actions for commercial approval require total shielding as well as downward directional. The Chairman then opened the public hearings on ZMA-96-02 and SP-96-02. Mr. Brian Smith, of Civil Engineering, Inc., and the engineer who prepared the site plan, was present to speak on behalf of Mr. Edgecomb. The lights will be used for the new and existing parking lot areas. These are the same- type lights he proposed for the expansion at the Brady Bushey dealer on Route 250 East. They are the "shoe-box" style which means the light is inside of the "shoe-box" and angled at a 45 degree from the road towards the parking lot. Mr. Bowerman asked if these were like the lights as Pegasus, the automo- bile dealership on Pantops. Mr. Smith responded "no". With no other comments from the public, the public hearings were closed. Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve ZMA-96-02 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. PROFFER FORM: Date: 04-10-96 ZMA ~96-02 Tax Map Parcel(s) # - Tax Map 77, Parcel 8A Acres to be rezoned from to Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent hereby volun- tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. I) The new HC zoning will be so structured with substantial prof- fering to allow the site to retain its LI character, not only in function but in design. Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only those uses allowed in section 24 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on May 15, 1996, a copy of the section being attached hereto, except the following: 24.2.1 BY RIGHT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Automobile laundries. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). Building material sales. Churches, cemeteries. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). Convenience store. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22). Financial institutions. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and ser- vice. Funeral homes. Furniture stores. May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000i23 13) 14) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary, and wine and cheese shops. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and mainte- nance services. Hardware. Hotels, motels and inns. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. Modular building sales. New automotive parts sales. Office and business machines sales and service. Eating establishment; fast food restaurants. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). Indoor theaters. Heating oil sales and distribution reference 5.1.20). 24.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 1) Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) Septic tank sales and related service. Livestock sales. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8). Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes reference 5.1.13). Auction houses. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. 9) Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1-1-83) 10) Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84) 11) Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9-92). 12) Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated dis- charge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14- 89) 13) Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.1.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) The total square footage of all buildings on the site shall not exceed 800 square feet. III) Minimum setbacks for all buildings will be 40 feet from the property lines bordering both roads. Gary Edgecomb (SiGned) Signatures of Ail Owners Gary Edgecomb (Printed) 4/10/96 Printed Names of All Owners Date Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-96-02 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1o The additional building should match the existing building with no substantial change proposed in design and material; 2. The lighting proposed on the site shall be shielded and directed down onto the site; Additional trees should be added to the site in the area between the parking and Route 742. The trees should be 3 h inch caliper spaced 35 feet on center; May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000124 4. Buffer shrubs, 24 inches in height, should be specified around the perimeter of the parking area between the parking and Route 742; 5o One tree (2 h inch caliper) for every ten parking spaces will be required for the interior parking spaces; and 6. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required prior to approval of the site plan, and should include: a) Samples of the materials proposed, including colors; b) Photometric Plan; c) Dumpster location and any mechanical equipment location. These should be screened with a material compatible with the building material used; and d) Elevations of the building. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-11. Bentivar Land Trust. Public Hearing on a request to create a 58 lot Rural Preservation Development on approx 264 ac zoned RA. Located E of & adjacent to Bentivar Subd. TM46, Ps92H, 129, 130, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 & TM62, Ps50A & 50G. Rivanna Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff has reviewed this development for compliance with the design standards for a rural preservation development. Staff opinion is that the proposed PRD results in a development which is more consistent with the goals of the Rural Areas than could be provided for under conventional development. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to one condition. Mr. Cilimberg then handed to Board members a revised action letter in reference to the allowance for private roads. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of SP-96-11 subject to the condition suggested by staff. The Commission also recommended approval of the prelimi- nary plat. Mr. Cilimberg said in granting the exception to use private roads to serve a portion of the development, the Commission noted that the historic Bentivar house is isolated from the clustering of lots and the character of that particular area is protected through the allowance of the private road. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Katurah Roell was present on behalf of the applicant. He pointed out that the preservation tract was specifically laid out to take in as much as possible of the flood plain and the steep slopes on the property. He said Bentivar Farm was isolated because it is separated from the larger tracts. He mentioned that Mr. Murray is the current owner of parcels 20 and 21, and with this approval, would acquire parcel 22. Mr. Murray is requesting that parcel 22 become an additional barrier and continue as farm use similar to parcel 23. Parcels 56 and 57 are future divisions, but are not taking place at this time. Those parcels were shown on the plans at the request of staff. The applicant tried to simplify the road pattern along ridge tops and along existing lanes. He believes this proposal is superior to the conventional plan and permits the property owner to do what naturally suits the topography. Mr. J. J. Murray said he lives in Bentivar House. The staff report covers most of the points. He then gave the history of the Bentivar House. He wants parcel 22 so he can expand the cattle operation he operates on parcels 20 and 21, and he wants to preserve the environment of the house. One of concerns of the staff was that there are four possible building sites with access off the private road. He does not intend to, in his lifetime, allow any development on parcels 21 and 22. He feels the proposal is preferable to by-right the development. Mr. Jack Kegley, the property owner at the end of the cul-de-sac, said he and his wife are in complete agreement with this request. They also do not intend to sell their property in his lifetime. He, too, asked that the road to his property be allowed to remain private. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-96-11 subject to the one condition set out by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (The condition of approval is set out below:) May 15~ 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 0OO±25 Development shall be in general accord with a plan titled: Preliminary Plan Showing Rural Preservation Development Bentivar and initialed WDF 4/10/9.6. This plan may be modified in order to comply with require- ments of the site review committee or Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-96-12. Virginia Land Trust & Malcolm Woodward. Public Hearing on a request to permit fill activity in flood plain on 1.2 ac zoned HC. Located on Fontaine Ave Extd W of Morey Creek. TM76, Ps12B,12C&12E. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Neighborhood Service.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. This request was previ- ously approved in October, 1993, and the staff is aware of no change in circumstance to warrant reconsideration of the prior recommendation. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions related to the flood plain. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of SP-96-12 subject to three condi- tions. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Katurah Roell spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Roell said the grading in the flood plain has been almost eliminated entirely because there was to be a storm water pond created in the area of the basin of the flood plain. That was then determined to be ineffectual because if it flooded, it would do no good and it would ultimately still contribute further downstream. It was decided to create a drainage weir channel that slowed the water down so it would leave the site at a regular level along the back edge of the property and which eliminated 90 percent of the grading in the flood plain. The only other activity the applicant has to modify is the slab level that was origi- nally poured. The slab needs to be raised inside the building 18 inches to get any storage materials above the flood plain. The grading around the building is existing. There is a berm that buffers the foundation so when it rains right now anything running off the hill creates a pool in that basin until it settles into the ground, because it has no relief. He recently completed the final construction plans for the building, and he intends to proceed with the construction and clean up of the area. Mrs. Thomas asked what was the intended use of the building. Mr. Roell said the building will be a ranch-style, one-level, four unit office building with appropriate parking. The uses possibly could be medical or office, but not retail. With no further comments from the public, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-96-12 subject to conditions recommended by the Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; 2 o The basement shall be used only for storage and mechanical equipment space. The basement is not considered habitable and there shall be no employee work space or area open to the public in the basement; and Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements pertaining to fill activity within the flood plain. (Mr. Martin left the room at 8:03 p.m.) Mr. Roell said last month he had to come back before the Planning Commis- sion to get reapproval on a project because the six months time period had elapsed. It took him nine months to go through the process of regulations, Engineering approval, his engineering review and then submittal to the County took another four months for their approval of 20 lots. He is concerned about how long it will take County approval of these 50 lots. It takes longer than six months to get preliminary approval on this type of request. He asked the Board to consider changing the process to allow for a longer time period. May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-96-06. Peyton Drive Regional Storm water Deten- tion Basin. Public Hearing on a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors to rezone properties which were reorganized in association with the Peyton Drive Regional Storm water Detention Basin. This rezoning will establish uniform zoning on the newly organized parcels. These properties comprise a total of 3/4 acs and are located between Commonwealth Dr, Peyton Dr & Greenbrier Dr. TM61W, P 03-4(part) zoned C-1 & P 03-5(part) zoned R-15. P 3-4(part) is proposed to be rezoned to R-15. P 3-5(part) is proposed to be rezoned to C-1. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighbor- hood 1 by the Comprehensive Plan. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) (Mr. Martin returned at 8:08 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff{s report which is on file in the Clerks office and a permanent part of the record. Mr. Cilimberg said this request reflects a Resolution of Intent adopted by the Board in February, 1996. It is to take care of zoning in association with the Peyton Drive basin. The basin, existing as a new parcel, was rezoned to C-1 which allows for the area along Greenbrier Drive, zoned C-l, to not have a setback requirement against residential property to the rear. The basin creates the setback and buffer between the C-1 and the residential. Mr. Bowerman said it does not make sense to rezone the property to C-1 and then cover it with water. Mr. Cilimberg said it is to the benefit of the property that has not been developed because there will be no setback require- ment. Mr. Bowerman asked who is the owner of the C-1 and R-15 property on Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know. He said if that property remained R-15 there would be an artificial setback on the C-1. The basin would already provide the necessary buffer. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-06 to rezone two small parcels with either residential or commercial zoning. The Chairman opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-96-06 to rezone the two small parcels located between Commonwealth Drive, Peyton Drive and Greenbrier Drive. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (The parcels located between Commonwealth Drive, Peyton Drive and Green- brier Drive are identified as follows:) 1. TMP61W-03-4: Residue from parcel 5 of 14,075 sq. ft. (shown on a B. Aubrey Huffman plat, dated 20 February, 1995), zoned C-i, shall be added to Parcel 4, zoned R-15. The area is to be rezoned to R-15 [TMP61W-03-5 to TMP61W-03-4] 2. TMP61W-03-5: Parcel X of 15,666 sq. ft., zoned R-15, shall be added to Parcel Y of 12,083 sq. ft. and Parcel Z of 9,984 sq. ft., both zoned C-l, to create a new Parcel 5 (shown on a B. Aubrey Huffman plat, dated 20 February, 1995). This area is to be rezoned to C-1. [TMP61W-03- 3A to 5] Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-96-09. Lloyd & Patricia Wood. Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-86-01 to allow light warehousing. Property on N sd of Rio Rd N & is existing Putt-Putt miniature golf course. Site, located in Neighborhood 2, is recommended for Community Service by Comprehen- sive Plan. TM61,P's124E&124E1. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff views this as a minor amendment which clarifies the previous action taken by the Board during the review of ZMA-95-18. Based on this analysis, staff recommends approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-09 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The Chairman opened the public hearing. May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000 27 The applicant, Mr. Lloyd Wood, said parcel 124E was approved for HC zoning. He found out that in 1986 light warehousing was proffered out as a use and although HC allows light warehousing, the use was not permitted on this parcel. When the Board approved HC on parcel 124E, that permitted the light warehousing, but it left an eight-foot sliver on parcel 124E-1 which did not cover the buffer. He and staff are in agreement with the proposed changes. He apologized for any mistakes on his part and thanked the Board for its time. He mentioned that he had been able to work with Raintree Subdivi- sion, which was interested in this petition and the homeowners association supports the request. With no further comments from the public, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve ZMA-96-09 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. PROFFER FORM: Date: May 15, 1996 ZMA #96-09 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 61-124E and 124E-1 .1 Acres to be rezoned from HC with proffers to HC with proffers. Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent hereby volun- tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning re- quested. (1) Conditions shall be those attached hereto and titled ZMA-96-09 and dated May 15, 1996, as follows: 1. Permitted uses on T~x Map 61, Parcel 124E1 shall include only those uses allowed in Section 24.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on April 19, 1996, a copy of the section being attached hereto, except the following: 4 Building materials sales. 10 Feed and seed stores. 20 Hotels, motels and inns. 21 Light warehousing (except as provided in Proffer 2). 22 Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. 23 Mobile home and trailer sales and service. 25 Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. 27 Newspaper publishing. 32 Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. 34 Wholesale distribution. 39 Heating oil sales and distribution. 2. Light warehousing, as authorized by Section 24.2.1.21 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, shall be permitted on (1) a strip approximately eight feet deep along the northerly portion of Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E1 that abuts the parcel identified as "T.M.P. 61-124E" on the Rezoning Application Plan dated October 27, 1995 (the Plan), a reduced size copy of which is attached hereto (the strip), and (2) a portion of the residue of Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E, zoned HC, and north of the proposed property line identified on the Plan (the portion). The location of the strip and the portion shall be as shown on the Plan. Use of the strip and the portion for light warehousing (the facility) will be subject to the following requirements: a. The facility will be configured as shown on the Plan. b. The exterior walls of the facility will be textured block (split faced, ribbed, etc.), of a pastel or earth tone color, and the wall shall incorporate architectural features to create shade and shadow in order to prevent monotony. c. The roof of the facility will be either a flat or a nearly flat roof, not visible from Tax Map 61, Parcel May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 124C* by an observer with height of eye of six feet or, if another type of roof will be visible, it will be a standing seam metal roof or other type of roof approved by the owner of Tax Map 61, Parcel 124C* at the time of construction of the facility. do The three-foot strip between the eastern wall of the facility and Tax Map 61, Parcel 124C* will be planted with tall columnar plantings or with plantings such as pyracantha which are espaliered to the wall and main- tained by the owner of the facility. The proffers dated January 30, 1996, for the 5.45 acres of Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E, accepted by the Board of Supervi- sors in ZMA 95-18 on February 12, 1996, shall remain in full force and effect for that portion of that parcel. *As this parcel exists on April 19, 1996, and as identified on the Plan. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Signed) 5/15/96 Signatures of All Owners Date Lloyd F. Wood (Printed) Printed Names of Ail Owners Patricia E. Wood (SiGned) 5/15/96 Patricia E. Wood (Printed) Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-96-01. Public Hearing on a Resolution by the Planning Commission to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require posting by staff of public hearing notice signs for rezoning and special use permit petitions. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 1996.) Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to remove ZTA-96-01 from the agenda and re-advertise for public hearing at the appropri- ate time. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mrs. Humphris asked if this will be readvertised as it is currently before the Board. Mr. Davis said the original ordinance was designed to deal with signs, but there were certain sections being re-adopted that had already been proposed to be amended. Rather than re-adopting sections that were about to be amended, staff included all of the amendments. He felt it would be easier to readvertise and deal with everything in one ordinance. Mrs. Thomas said she had a problem with the statement that says failure to comply with the posting requirements shall not invalidate any action by the Commission or the Board of Supervisors. When it was the private property owner's responsibility and they made a mistake, the County held them account- able. Now it looks like the County is not holding itself accountable in the same way. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Davis said under existing regulations, if a mistake is discovered in the posting requirements, after the zoning action had been completed, there is a legal possibility that it would invalidate and make the zoning action void regardless of when the mistake is discovered. The current advertisement requirement is more technical than it is in the proposed ordinance. However, if for one day, the sign was down or someone stole it, and that could be proven, it would invalidate the zoning ordinance and could "reap havoc" on the reliability of the County's zoning maps. This is a requirement that is in excess of State law. There will be a good faith attempt to keep the sign posted and the remedy the situation, if someone brings it to the staff's attention, is to defer the item and make sure that it is properly posted before taking any action. If at the time of Board action, it had not been brought to the Board's attention that the sign had been improperly posted, and people had been fully apprised of the rezoning, it does not seem logical to risk invalidating the zoning action at a later date. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: March 22, 1995. Mrs. Thomas said she had not read the minutes for March 22, 1995. May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 000't 29 Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker informed Board members that he received notice from VDOT indicating that the County would receive $409,000 in Highway Revenue Sharing Funds instead of the $500,000 requested. Subsequent to that, he learned that the State was offering localities that were not fully funded, an opportunity to reapply for some additional funds of up to $50,000. He said the State had to be notified of this request by the end of the month, and since the Board was not meeting again before then, he was mentioning this issue now. All of that funding was planned to go for the Rio Road/Route 250 Bypass portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway. He needs authorization from the Board to request the additional $50,000. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize the County Executive to apply for an additional $50,000 in Revenue Sharing Funds. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: Mr. Perkins (After Mrs. Thomas had voted, Mr. Perkins asked to clarify his vote. He asked if this $50,000 is in addition to the $500,000 approved for Revenue Sharing in the Capital Improvements Program. Mrs. Humphris replied, "no". Mr. Perkins asked why the Board had to vote on the $50,000 since it is not over the $500,000. Mr. Tucker said he wanted to make sure the Board was aware he was going after more funds and to let the Board know that the allotment was less than originally requested. Mr. Perkins' vote remained "no". The Clerk continued with roll call beginning with Mr. Bowerman.) Mr. Tucker said additional funds are needed for the improvement of Route 649 (Airport Road). The County is short $150,000 this year and potentially $!50,000 next year. He suggests using the additional $41,000 that was included in the CIP for Revenue Sharing and using revenues from the transient occupancy tax. He would like to get some feedback from Board members if they want to try to fund the entire amount for the improvements. One idea he had was use of the transient occupancy tax. He has talked to the County Attorney and would like to bring some additional information to the Board. Mr. Tucker said roads being upgraded can be considered as a tourism-type issue, but the rationale is that this road feeds into the Airport. He will bring this back to the Board for discussion on June 5th. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Carter Myers, of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, told her the County would not get the Airport Access Funds as origi- nally hoped for that improvement. Mr. Cilimberg said about three months ago, while discussing the Six Year Secondary Road Plan, the Board adopted a resolution to seek Airport Access Funds. He said that as much as $300,000, unmatched, could be received this current fiscal year, and then request an additional $300,000, unmatched, for the next fiscal year, after July 1. In addition, the County can request up to $150,000 which has to be matched with $150,000 this year and next year. In reality, the County would be getting $450,000 from the State each year for the $150,000 matched by the County each year. Mr. Cilimberg said the County had thought it could use its Secondary Road monies, that were already allocated for Airport Road as the local match. After some extended efforts to get the CTB to agree to this, the CTB said they would not allow it. The County is now in the position of having to come up with the local match ($150,000 this year and next year) from other sources. Staff has identified the possibility of using whatever is left in he CIP that was going for Revenue Sharing as the local match. The staff already knows that next year the Revenue Sharing may not be more than $350,000, so poten- tially the match could be made up out of the Revenue Sharing in the CIP that has already been already approved. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Myers also said the University had approximately $80,000 and because the Airport Road project is significant to the University, maybe they would be willing to share some of the money for this project. Mr. Cilimberg said the University Real Estate Foundation proffered in its rezoning proposal approximately $78,000 which can be used towards this project and be part of the local match. Mrs. Thomas said the people in the tourist industry are going to want to know how many years are going to be taken up with the tax. Mr. Tucker said that is the complicated thing of using the transient occupancy tax for projects. If there was a project that could be tied to the tax each year, the County could probably use that as a means of funding, but if not, it would mean lowering the rate and then increasing it when needed again. The difficulty he sees in the transient occupancy tax, is that of the two percent tax the County has authority to apply, approximately one percent is the amount the County provides for the tourism bureau. That is the County's share based on the formula. The City provides a similar amount. If the County increases that amount, the money must be designated for tourism use. He does not feel it is appropriate for the County to increase its transient occupancy tax just to give to the tourism bureau, when the City would not have to provide similar May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) O00:l. O funding. He does not think the City is willing to use that tax or shift it from their General Fund for that purpose. Mr. Davis said the way the legislation was passed, it requires the County to use any tax that has been raised, for tourism rather than going into the General Fund and having discretionary choices as to how the money is spent. Mr. Martin said he was interested in seeing options. Mrs. Humphris asked how tourism was defined, because anything done with regard to roads in Albemarle County could be considered as tourism. She thinks there are tourism places that could absorb the proceeds of the transient occupancy tax. Mr. Perkins suggested staff write a letter to ConAgra confirming news reports that the Crozet plant will not be affected by proposed layoffs and giving them encouragement. He and Mr. Tucker visited the plant a year ago and the manager said the plant would be expanding. He also mentioned that there are three shifts at the plant. Mrs. Thomas mentioned Mr. Roell's comments about preliminary plat approv- als taking longer than six months. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is looking at a zoning text amendment to change the time involved regarding preliminary plat approvals. Staff will be bringing back a proposal to increase that time f~ame from six months to one year. Mr. Cilimberg also added that an applicant can request a time extension from him, as an agent for the Commission, when the delay is due to staff's review. Mr. Bowerman asked why staff could not develop language for a light pollution ordinance, setting out the type of lighting the County required. He would like to see something similar to the sign ordinance. Mrs. Thomas said the Mountaintop Protection Committee has done a lot of research on lighting which could offer several recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg said the site plan ordinance gives flexibility in the requirements and the A3IB has been enforcing lighting requirements; however, it does not apply to private lighting. Mrs. Thomas said the requirements also do not apply to the Crossroads Store in North Garden where a driver is "hit in the eyes" with neon lights. Apparently, there is not enough light coming over the border to register on a light meter as illegal. Mr. Cilimberg said if the request is not subject to a site plan, then it exists. Mrs. Humphris men- tioned lighting on the Pegasus site located on Pantops that are blinding. She thinks they are a safety hazard and something needs to be done about them. Mr. Davis said it would be appropriate to include in the Zoning Ordinance standards for the box-type lighting or whatever is appropriate, but it would become an enforcement problem, if it is not tied to the site plan ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said he would also like to see the regulations applied to an applicant amending a permit. Mr. Tucker said staff will look this and bring something back to the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked if the County was allowed to install cameras on traffic lights at intersections which would photograph all cars entering an intersection after the signal has turned red, which then would automatically allow for a traffic ticket to be issued to the registered owner of the car. Mrs. Humphris said her understanding is that the ticket is given to the registered owner of the car. This is becoming a dangerous problem in the County and she thinks something needs to be done. Mr. Tucker said staff would look into it. Mrs. Humphris brought to the Board's attention a letter she received from a resident of Georgetown Green detailing problems the subdivision is having with students from Albemarle High School. The students are especially trespassing on private property. She wants the staff to be aware of this since it will be a similar situation at Monticello High School given its location. Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 8:50 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to go into Executive Session pursuant to section 2.1-344a(1) under subsection (1) to consider candidates for appointment to Boards and Commissions and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: ~rove~ by Board May 15, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session. At 9:45 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. NOT DOCK~D. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to appoint Ms. Sherry Buttrick to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.