The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-09-15September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page l) 000057 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, · Virginia, was held on September 15, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arriving at 7:04 P.M.), Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St. John, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by the Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the· PUBLIC. Mr. Don Wagner was present to discuss the Towers Land Trust Comprehen- sive Plan amendment which was deferred last year to September, 1993. He said when the Board asked staff to look at the larger area involved, the applicants consented to deferral. The request was scheduled before the Planning Commis- sion this week, but was "bumped" because of a work session on the CIP. It will not now go to the Planning Commission until October. When the report goes back to the Planning Commission it will have other recommendation~ from staff as to what should be done in the Route 29 North area. The applicants are concerned that if the Board starts talking about all of the things in the report, it might push their request back and delay it again. The applicants have asked staff about this, and staff will do whatever this Board'decides. Ms. Cynthia Burton was present to make a statement concerning the zoning text amendment and special use permit issued to 1781 Productions. She said that her research indicates that this will not be a factual historical outdoor drama as approved by the Board. She requested the Board to do whatever is necessary to enforce compliance of the "historical" references of ZTA-92-01 and SP-93-07. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.6a, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution in Support of "Firefighter Appreciation DAY". At the request of the Virginia Department of Fire Programs and the Virginia Fire Services Board, the following proclamation was approved by the vote shown above: WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors is aware that Firefighter Appreciation Day in Virginia is October 3, 1993; and WHEREAS, on this auspicious occasion the Board takes the opportunity to recognize the approximate two hundred fifty volun- teer firefighters who man the seven fire stations throughout Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Board is aware of each individual's devotion in volunteering his/her time and effort to the sole cause of render- ing a service to the citizens of Albemarle County of great impor- tance without regard to his/her health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Board is cognizant of the amount of personal property that the volunteer firefighters has been instrumental in saving and protecting each year within the confines of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Board knows the risks to life and safety that each individual willingly and completely places upon himself/ herself at each call; and WHEREAS, the Board also knows that each individual is expertly trained to protect himself/herself~ his/her peers, the public and those in similar professions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that each and every Albemarle County Volunteer Firefighter be recognized on this first day of September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~8 (Page 2) Fire Prevention Week that has been officially designated as "Firefighter Appreciation Day in Virginia"; and that this resolu- tion be presented officially at the special program for Fire- fighters in the Commonwealth to be held at the Paramount Theater in Paramount King's Dominion at 10:00 a.m. on October 3, 1993. Item 5.2. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond Application. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1993-94 Capital Improve- ment budget includes school projects which are to be funded through the issuance of $11.9 million in bonds through VPSA bonds. By the vote shown above, the following resolution was adopted: ~'-' P~SOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE ...... VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN AN APPROXIMATE ANOUNT OF $11,900,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), in collaboration with the County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake capital improvements for its public schools; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF Supervisors OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby authorizes an application to the Virgin- ia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in an approxi- mate amount of $11,900,000 to finance capital projects for public schools. The County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the County School Board, is hereby authorized and directed to complete such application and deliver it to the Virginia Public School Authority. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Item 5.3. Amended Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes, Phase I, into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County Engineer's staff, the following amended resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes Phase I described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 15, 1993, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats record- ed 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 Trans- portation to add the roads in Forest Lakes Subdivision as de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 15, 1993, 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 record- ed plats; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation that the irrigation system within the right-of-way of Timber Wood Boulevard is excluded from this dedication and will be maintained at no cost to the Virginia Department of Transportation; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. 1) The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: Timber Wood Boulevard from edge of pavement of U.S. Route 29 0.21 mile to Station 14+41, Timber Wood Boulevard, 100 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~9~ (Page 3) 2) Timber W°od'B0ui~a~:~%'~i~'n 14+41, Timber Wood Boule- vard 0.21 mile to edge of pavement of Timber Wood Parkway, 90 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. 3) Timber Wood Parkway from Station 31+86 0.39 mile to Station 11+25, 90 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. 4) 5) 6) 7) Steeplechase Run from edge of pavement of Timber Wood Park- way 0.18 mile to end of cul-de,sac, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. Crossfield Lane from edge of pavement of Steeplechase Run 0.08 mile to end of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. Saddlebrook Lane from edge of pavement of Steeplechase Run 0.15 mile to end of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. Sagebrush Court from edge of pavement of Jumpers Run 0.04 mile to end of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat re- corded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. 8) Jumpers Run from edge of pavement of Saddlebrook Lane 0.19 mile to end of clul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat re- corded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. 9) 10) 11) Amberfield Drive from edge of pavement of Timber Wood Park- way 0.2-1 mile to end of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. Amberfield Trail from edge of pavement of Amberfield Drive 0.11 mile to end of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. Amberfield Court from edge of pavement of Amberfield Drive 0.03 mile to end of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. 12) 13) Cove Point Road from edge of pavement of Timber Wood Parkway 0.08 mile to edge of pavement of Cove Trace, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. Cove Lane from edge of pavement of Cove Point Road 0.08 mile to ene of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right'of way, plat recorded 10/14/88 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. 14) Cove Trace from end of cul-de-sac of Cove Lane 0.14 mile to end of cul-de-sac, 50 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/14/8.8 in Deed Book 1018, page 403. 15) Worth Crossing from edge of pavement of Timber Wood Boule- vard 0.39 mile to edge of pavement of State Route 649, 70 foot right of way, plat recorded 10/16/89 in Deed Book 1071, page 493; also Deed Book 1071, pages 494 to 497 and pages 561-563; Deed Book 1069, pages 028 to 030; Deed Book 1290, pages 395 to 397. Note: Additional plats recorded in: Deed Book 1018, pages 404- 435; Deed Book 1046, pages 226-228; Deed Book 1052, pages 511-513; Deed Book 1069, pages 028-030; Deed Book 1071, pages 493-497 and pages 561-563; Deed Book 1077, pages 335-342; Deed Book 1111, pages 338-339; Deed BOok 1142, pages 535-537; Deed Book 1151, pages 710-716; Deed Book 1243, pages 174-176; Deed Book 1281, pages 343-344; Deed Book 1283, pages 191-197; Deed Book 1290, pages 395-397; Deed Book 1316, pages 089-090. Item 5.4. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sher- iff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of August, 1993, were approved as presented, by the vote shown above. Item 5.5. Schedule for Adoption of the 1994/95-1998/99 Capital Improve- ments Program was presented as information. Staff advised that the work session will be held on November 3 with the public hearing on November 17, 1993. This schedule was approved by the vote shown above. Item 5.6. Schedule for 1994/95 Operating Budget Calendar was presented as information. Staff noted that the public hearing to receive input from the community on budget concerns is being scheduled for October this year, while receipt of budget guidance from the Board is scheduled for November. A flyer explaining the Board's budget and opportunities for citizen's to participate September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) will be sent out with the tax bills in October. approve4 by the vote shown aboVe. 000060 The schedule as presented was Item 5.6a. Approve change in Agricultural/Forestal District Review procedure. Staff noted that a 1993 amendment to the Code of Virginia, in Section 15.1-1511F. makes review of agricultural/forestal districts optional rather than mandatory. The amendment does not require any change to the County's ordinance. Staff recommended and the Board approved the following new procedure'by the vote shown above: 1) 2) Notify property owners within the district by certified mail, and Planning Commissioners and Board of Supervisors one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration date of the district. Review is necessary if any property owner wishes to remove the property from the district or change the length of the review period; or if a Planning Commission member or Board of Super- visors' member requests review to consider a modification or termination of a district. 3) Review is unnecessary if all property owners within the district and the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors~ members agree the district should continue without change. The Board of Supervisors would by resolution continue the district for the same period of time as was originally established. Item 5.7. Status Report on CPA-92-05. Towers Land Trust. Staff noted that the Board had deferred this petition to be heard no later than September 30, 1993. The Board also directed staff to undertake a study of need and location for more general Growth Area expansion. The Planning Commission will not. review the.staff's study until after their review of the Capital Improvement Program. It is hoped that this matter can be forwarded to the Board by November. Item 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) Board of Directors for August 15, 1993, was received as information. Item 5.9. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for August 24, 1993, was received as information. Item 5.10. Copy of letter dated September 2, 1993, from Mr. Shady Clark, Jr., Education Associate Specialist, Chapter 1, Department of Educa- tion, to Dr. Robert W. Paskel, Division Superintendent, re: approval of application for support under Chapter 1 of Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 100-297 for the school year 1993-94, in the amount of $554,162.00, was received as information. Item 5.11. 1.993 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies as prepared by the Department of Taxation for the tax year 1993 was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 5.12. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the beginning of the first day of January, 1993 of the property of Water corpora- tions in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes extended for the Year 1993, made by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, pursuant to Chapter 26, Title 58.1, of the Code of Virginia was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 5.13. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the beginning of the first day of January, 1993 of the property of Gas and Pipeline Distribution Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes extended for the Year 1993, made by the State Corporation Commis- sion of Virginia, pursuant to Chapter 26, Title 58.1, Article 2, of the Code of Virginia was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 5.14. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the beginning of the first day of January, 1993 of the property of Telecommunica- tions Companies (Local Exchange Telephone Services, Interexchange Services, Radio Common Carrier Systems, Cellular Mobile Radio Communications Systems and Telegraph Services) in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Regulatory Revenue Taxes extended for the Year 1993, made by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, pursuant to Chapter 26, Title 58.1, Article 2, of the Code of Virginia was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 5.15. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the beginning of the first day of January, 1993 of the property of Electric Light and Power Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes September !5, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000061 (Page 5) .. extended for the Year 1993, made by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, pursuant to Chapter 26, Title 58.1, Article 2, of the Code of Virginia was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 5.16. Memorandum dated September 2, 1993, from Mr. David Hirsch- man, Water Resources Manager, re: Pilot Groundwater Study. Mr. Hirschman had forwarded to the Board a copy of a flyer which will be sent to all residents in the area where the pilot groundwater study will take place in mid to late September. Item 5.17. Cable TV Broadcast of County Meetings: Executive Summary received September 9, 1993. Mr, Tucker'had/noted that several weeks ago, an Earlysville resident requested that meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commis- sion be broadcast on the Cable Access Channel much the same as is presently done with City Council meetings. This person was concerned that citizens are not fully informed of its government's activities, and the Board has urged the citizens to be involved at all steps of land use decisions. The staff contacted Adelphia Cable Communications and their General Manager responded that Adelphia will no longer provide personnel and equipment necessary to telecast local government meetings. The costs for personnel and equipment would have to be borne by the County. Given the frequency and duration of the Board and Planning Commission meetings, this cost could be fairly substantial. Unless directed otherwise, staff will respond to the concerned citizen that a careful analysis will have to be done to determine if the benefits could support additional government expenditure for this purpose. Staff is concerned that there may need to be some lighting and other modifications made to the room. Given that customers have the choice to decide which channels they want to subscribe to, it is not known whether or not a sufficient number of residents would be served to warrant the expenditure. Item 5.18. Memorandum dated September 10, 1993, from Mr. Forrest D. Kerns, Charlottesville Housing Foundation (CHF), to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, and Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, re: Crozet Crossing Status Report. Mr. Kerns reported that at the August 30 meeting of the Selection Committee, it approved 14 applicants for purchase of houses. CHF now has 21 houses that have closed or are under contract. Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-93-05. John & Carolyn Plug. Public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 32.2.1.a to raise the number of units permitted on a single parcel from two to five before a site plan is required. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and Septem- ber 7, 1993.) Staff was in receipt of a letter dated August 26, 1993, from Mr. George B. McCallum, III, who, on behalf of John and Carolyn Pflug, requested withdrawal of the zoning text amendment. (The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 24, 1993, had unanimously recommended denial of the re- quest.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the applicant's request for withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYEs: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-93-23. Albemarle County Fair, Inc. (applicant); Roy & Bonnie Coggin (owner). Public hearing on a request to operate the coun- ty fair on about 70 ac zoned RA. Property on S sd of Rt 760 approx 0.3 mi W of Rt 29/Rt 760 inters. TM99,P61(part). Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant had requested a deferral before the Planning Commission, which was granted, so the Board will need to defer the public hearing on this petition until October 13, 1993. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer this public hearing until October 13, 1993. Roi1 was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 13-9.2(a), Firearms, Standing or Walking, Chapter 13, Miscellaneous Offenses, Code of Albemarle, so it will read: "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or have in his possession while on any part of a public 000062 September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) highway within the county a loaded rifle or shotgun." The remaining subsec- tions within 13-9.2 remain as currently worded. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Tucker summarized the purpose of this ordinance amendment. There were no questions from Board members, so the public hearing was opened. Mr. Clarence McKamey was the only citizen who appeared to speak. His main concern had to do with Section 13-11 of the County Code which makes it unlawful for a person to hunt within 50 feet of any primary or secondary highway in the county. He suggested that the County repeal all of its hunting laws and let only the State laws apply. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the questions presented by Mr. McKamey had been taken care of by the Board when it asked Warden Dove to make a recommen- dation on the County's laws. The proposal before the Board tonight is the only suggestion he made for a change. The Board can do nothing about any other request at this time. Mr. St. John said time is of the essence since the State publishes a list of all hunting laws in the State and localities each year, and the laws must be to the Game Commission by May 1 of each year in order to be published and then enforced by the Game Commission. Mr. Tucker suggested that rather than confuse the issue, the Board vote on the ordinance before it tonight. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to adopt the ordinance as advertised. However, he said that he would like to discuss the 50 feet in detail. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 13, OFFENSES - MISCELLANEOUS IN THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that Chapter 13, in Subsection 13-9.2(a), Firearms--standing or walking, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 13-9.2. Same--Same--Standing or walking. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or have in his possession while on any part of a public highway within the county a loaded rifle or shotgun. (b) Wording remains the same. (c) Wording remains the same. (d) Wording remains the same. (e) Wording remains the same. Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 16, Refuse and Garbage, of the Code of Albemarle, by amending and adding definitions in Article I, and by the addition of a new Article III, to be called "Recycling". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Tucker summarized the history of this ordinance. The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the ordinance as advertised to be effective October 1, 1993. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 16, RE~JSE AND OARBAGE OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE IN ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL AND BY ADDING ANEW ARTICLE III, TO BE CALLED "RECYCLING" september i5, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000063 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle, known as "Refuse and Garbage,' is hereby amended and reenacted by changes in definitions in Article I and by the addition of a new Article III, to be called "Recycling", all as set out following: ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 16-1. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Garbage. Ail offal and refuse animal and vegetable matter. Garbage or trash collectors. Ail persons engaged in the business of picking up garbage and trash of any description by truck or other vehicle for the delivery to a sanitary landfill area or other place, for disposal of the same as may be permitted by law. Generators means any entity whose act or process produces solid waste. Multi-family dwelling means a building or portion thereof containing more than two (2) dwelling units and not classified as a one family or two family dwelling nor as a townhouse, with not more than one family occupying each dwelling unit. Nonresidential units means businesses, both retail and wholesale, including apartments with more than two dwelling units. Person means any natural person, corporation, partnership, association, firm, receiver, guardian, trustee, executor, admin- istrator, fiduciary, or representative or group of individuals or entities of any kind. Processing means the separation and marketing of recyclable materials. Recyclable materials means materials which have been source separated by any person or materials separated from solid waste for the subsequent utilization in both cases as raw material to be manufactured into a new product other than fuel or energy. Recycling means the process of separating a given waste material from the waste stream and processing it so that it is used again as a raw material for a product, which may or may not be similar to the original product. Refuse means all solid and semiliquid wastes of a community, including litter, garbage, ashes, rubbish; street cleanings and solid market and industrial wastes, but not including human or agricultural animal body wastes. Refuse remover means any person engaged in removing or transporting refuse for compensation from two (2) or more resi- dential, commercial or industrial establishments, either within or without the county. Residential units means any housing unit within the county including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, town- houses and mobile homes. It does not include multi-family dwell- ings. Occupants of such residential units are referred to as residents. Solid Waste, pursuant to Code of Virginia, section 10.1-1400 et seq. "The Virginia Waste Management Act", means any garbage, refuse, sludge or other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semiliquid or combined gaseous material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations, or community activities, but does not include (i) solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, (ii) solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or in industrial discharges which are sources subject to a permit from the state water control board, or (iii) source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Source separation means the separation of recyclable materi- al from other refuse by a generator or source site. Trash. Ail rubbish, cans, bottles, containers, refuse, paper, cardboard or any other like waste or discarded materials of an inorganic nature. (Code 1967, § 15-1) September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) ARTICLE III. RECYCLIN~ 000064 Sec. 16-13. Purpose. The intent of this article is to encourage and promote recycling throughout the county in order to protect limited natural resources for the benefit of. its citizens. Sec. 16-14. Nonresidential and refuse removal reporting. (a) Ail persons involved in the collection, transportation or processing of recyclable materials generated within the County shall submit an annual report of their recycling activity to the County's Department of Engineering by March 1 for the previous calendar year. (b) Any generator who separates recyclable material for collection by a refuse remover not permitted by the County or recycling vendor not known to the County, shall submit an annual report of their recycling activity to the County's Department of Engineering by March 1 for the previous calendar year. (c) Annual reports required to be submitted hereunder shall be certified by a responsible official of the generator or refuse remover and shall contain: (1) the name and address of the report- ing party; (2) the total quantity (by weight) of solid waste recycled by the reporting party during the reporting period; (3) the names and addresses of the recycling vendors who received the recycled waste; and/or (4) other information concerning waste generation, waste management and recycling requested by the Department of Engineering. Annual reports may be waived for those refuse removers that exclusively use County authorized collection centers or listed vendors. For state law as to authority of county to enact this section, see Code of Va., $ 15.1-11.5:2) (d) Recycled solid waste referenced in the report shall include only solid waste generated within the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Sec. 16-15. Residential and nonresidential source separation of solid waste for purposes of recycling. (a) Ail County permitted refuse removers shall collect designated recyclables from county residents choosing to partici- pate consistent with the recycling program for which they provide refuse service. All County refuse removers shall recycle source separated container glass, metal cans and plastic soda, milk and water containers from residential units. The County will provide for the processing of newspaper and commingled recyclables col- lected by refuse removers from residential units. Refuse removers will be required to provide newspaper recycling one year from the adoption of this ordinance. The County will provide for newspaper processing for those refuse removers who currently offer this service to their customers. For state law as to authority of county to enact this section, see Code of Va., $ 15.1-28.1) (b) Ail County licensed refuse removers shall offer recy- cling services to the owners or managers of multi-family units for which they provide refuse service, including apartment complexes, located in the county. (c) Ail County licensed refuse removers shall make reason- able effort to promote residential and nonresidential participa- tion in a recycling program. (d) This article shall not affect the right of any person or entity to sell or otherwise dispose of waste material as provided in the Code of Virginia § 15.1-28.03 or permitted under any other law of the Commonwealth, nor shall it impose any liabil- ity upon any refuse remover for failure of its customers to comply with this article. Sec. 16-16. Frequency of removal. Ail refuse removers serving residential units shall provide collection of all recyclable materials in accordance with section 16-15(a) either weekly or biweekly. Sec. 16-17. Scavenging. It shall be unlawful for any person other than a permitted refuse remover to salvage or otherwise remove any recyclable materials set out for collection by a permitted refuse remover. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Sec. 16-18. Permit Required. i No person engaged in business as a refuse remover shall conduct any portion of such operation within the county, unless he has a current permit to do so issued under the County of Albe- marle. 000065 Sec. 16-19. Permit Application. Every person desiring a permit required by this ordinance shall apply to the Department of Engineering. Such application shall state the full name, address and telephone number of the applicant and the applicant shall therein state generally the areas within the county that he proposes to serve, the frequency of collections proposed, the route sizes for each day of the week, and a recycling plan in accordance with this ordinance. Sec. 16-20. Permit Issuance or denial. (a) A permit for which an application has been filed under this ordinance shall be issued or denied by the County of Albe- marle within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of such application. (b) The County of Albemarle shall issue a permit required by this ordinance upon receipt of valid application and a satis- factory finding that the applicant has reasonably and substan- tially complied with all applicable sections of this article. (c) The denial of a permit for which an application has been filed under this ordinance shall be accompanied by assigned reasons for the denial. Sec. 16-21. Permit Expiration; renewal. Ail permits issued under this ordinance shall expire on the thirtieth day of June following the date of issue and shall be renewed between the first day of June and the thirtieth day of June of each year. Sec. 16-22o Penalties (a) Alleged violations of the ordinance will be brought before a committee composed of one representative of the refuse removers, one citizen representative appointed by the County Executive, and a third representative chosen jointly by the refuse remover and citizen representatives. This committee will review potential ordinance violations based upon staff reports and provide opportunity for the refuse remover to respond to the alleged violations. It is the responsibility of this committee to decide on the appropriate enforcement action including, but not limited to, recommendation on whether civil penalties should be pursued. (b) Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation, two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for the second violation, five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third violation, seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) for the fourth violation, and one thousand dollars ($1000.00) for each violation thereafter. (c) With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or order of the director of engineering, the permit issuing authority may provide, in an order issued by the permit issuing authority against such person, for the payment of civil charges for viola- tions in specific sums, not to exceed the limitation specified in subsection (b) of this section. Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection (b). For State authority, see Code of Va SS 15.1-11.5:2 and 15.1-28.1. AND, FURTHER RESOLVED, that this ordinance shall be in effect on and after OctOber 1, 1993. Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on an ordinance to adopt a new Chapter 2.1.1 of the Code of Albemarle providing for the creation of local agricultural/forestal districts in accordance with the Local Agricultural and Forestal District Act (Title 15.1, Chapter 36.1 of the Code of Virginia). The procedure for and the consequences of the creation of such districts is set forth in the Act. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) 000066 September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Tucker said this public hearing had been deferred to allow staff time to develop criteria, which is presented tonight. The local Agricultur- al/Forestal District Advisory Committee has met and discussed the ordinance. He handed to the Board changes recommended by the Committee, i.e., in Section 2.1.1-3, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 change the word "should" to "shall" and "must" to "shall"; in paragraph 3, item 3, in center of the paragraph, "such proof", referring to the land having been an active farm, or in forestry, if that proof is not available, the applicant can submit an affidavit. No member of the public spoke. Mr. Bowerman asked if the criteria outlined is consistent with the criteria for agricultural/forestal districts in general. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Bowerman said this ordinance continues the commitment the Board made when it removed the agricultural/forestal designation on certain parcels with industrial and commercial zonings. Mr. Bain and Mr. Martin concurred. Mr, Perkins said the Board also discussed asking for enabling legisla- tion to extend the same regulations regarding the period an agricultural/ forestal district must be in place. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the ordinance as advertised with the changes in wording recommended by the Committee. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 2.1.1 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE PROVIDING FOR LOCAL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albema- rle County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle is amended by adding a new Chapter 2.1.1 providing for Local Agricultural and Forestal Districts as follows: CHAPTER 2.1.1 LOCAL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS Sec. 2.1.1-1. Creation--generally. The board may, by ordinance, from time to time, create one or more local agricultural and forestal districts within the county in accordance with the Local Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act (Title 15.1, Chapter 36.1 of the Code of Albemarle, as amended). The procedure for and the consequences of the creation of such districts shall be as set forth in such Act. Sec. 2.1.1-2. Minimum district size; district boundaries° A local agricultural and forestal district shall be com- prised of no less than twenty-five (25) acres, all of which shall be located in Albemarle County. Sec. 2.1.1-3. Criteria for establishment, modification, renewal or termination of a district. The following criteria shall be used as a guide in recommen- dations and decisions on whether to establish, modify, renew, continue or terminate local agricultural and forestal districts: (a) Ail district acreage shall be currently devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forestal or open space use except that a reasonable amount of residential or other use, related to the agricultural, horticultural, forestal or open space use and generally not more than five (5) acres per district may be included. Prefera- bly the district acreage is currently enrolled in the land use taxation program. (b) If the acreage is located in the designated Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan, then the property owner shall first attempt to include the acreage in a new or existing statewide agricuttural/forestal dis- trict before pursuing a local agricultural/forestal district designation. (c) If the acreage is located in a designated Growth Area of the Comprehensive Plan, then a local agricultural/ September 15, 1993 (Regular NighT:Meeting) (Page 11) forestai dlStric% designation shall serve to protect either: . 1. Open space resources including stream valleys, mountains, wooded areas, buffer areas, or civic/ cultural features, as identified on the Growth Areas Open Space Composite Maps; or 2. Existing, bona fide agricultural and/or forestal operations as evidenced by a history of invest- ment in farm or forest improvements, such as the regular production and sale of farm and/or for- est products from the property during the last five (5) years, or other commitments to continu- ing agricultural or forestal use in the dis- '~':~' ~:' ~"! ~'"?~?'~tric~"~'?:'In'~ith~event suCh proofs of commitment ~ are not available, the applicant shall submit a notarized affidavit which described the exist- ing, bona fide agricultural and/or forestal use of the property. In addition, if the acreage is used for agricultural or horticultural purposes, the property owner must have developed or re- quested a current conservation plan with the Soil Conservation Service. If the acreage is used for forestry, the property owner must have developed or requested a current conservation plan with the Virginia Department of Forestry or a private consultant. 000067 Sec. 2.1.1.4. Same--application, (a) The director of planning and community development shall cause to be prepared application forms conform- ing to the requirements set forth in section 15.1- 1513.4 of the COde of Virginia and shall thereafter maintain in his office for use by eligible landowners a reasonable number of copies of such forms. (b) Each application for the creation of or addition to a local agricultural and forestal district shall consist of the completed application form as set forth herein- above, together with a tax map showing the boundaries of the proposed district or addition and boundaries of properties owned by each applicant within the proposed district or addition, and shall be submitted to the governing body at the department of planning and community development. (c) Each such application for creation of a local agricul- tural and forestal district shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00). No fee shall be charged for adding parcels to a local agricultural and forestal district, or for reviewing an existing local agricultural and forestal district. Sec. 2.1.1-5. Development of Parcels to more intensive uses; land use taxation. (a) No parcel included within any district shall be devel- oped to a more intensive use than its existing use at the time of adoPtion of the ordinance creating such district for eight (8) years from the date of adoption of such ordinance. (b) No parcel added to an already created district shall be developed.to a more intensive use than its existing use at the time of addition to the distric~ for eight (8) years from the date of adoption of the original district ordinance. (c) Land used in agricultural and.forestal production within the agricultural and forestal district of local significance shall automatically qualify for an agri- cultural or forestal value assessment on such land pursuant to section 58.1-3229, et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended, if the requirements for such assessment contained therein are satisfied. (d) Any district shall be reviewed by the board at the end of the eight-year period and, at that time, the dis- trict may by ordinance be renewed or modified for another eight-year period. No owner of land shall be included in any agricultural, forestal or agricultural and forestal district of local significance without such owner's written approval. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) O000G~ (Page 12) For state authority, See C6de of'Virginia § 15.1-1513.1, et seq. Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing on an Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on ) Mr. Tucker explained that on August 18, 1993, the Board ordered that this public hearing take place to hear public comment regarding the expansion of the boundary line of the Town of Scottsville, and he noted that a map has been posted which reflects the proposed boundary expansion. He said that the Supervisors need to take action on two items, if they so choose, after the public hearing. He pointed out that first there is a resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign the agreement, and it directs the County Attorney to petition the Circuit Court'to orde~ this relocation. He then explained that the second action that this Board needs to take, if it so chooses, is the actual approval of the agreement to relocate the Town of Scottsville's boundary line. There were no questions for Mr. Tucker from Board members, so Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. Raymon Thacker, Mayor of Scottsville, stated that he did not have a prepared speech tonight, because the matter had already come so far. Scotts- ville officials have already financially committed themselves to a fairly sizeable sum of money, and he has already received a bill from the County's Director of Finance for $18,680 which is related to survey costs, etc. Arrangements have also been made through Ms. O'Brien, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, for the Town of Scottsville's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, which are expected to be in place by January 1, 1994. He mentioned that an attorney is currently on the Scottsville Town Council, and he is assisting with the other ordinances. Mr. Thacker reported that most every- thing is in order, and because of prior agreements, etc., he feels he can ask the Supervisors to approve this arrangement. Ms. Karen Strickland stated that she is a concerned Albemarle County citizen. She thinks this annexation is a good idea, and she also wondered if such a plan should be considered for the City of Charlottesville. She added that people like to know the location of cities and towns, because they like the differentiation. She went on to say that it is a good idea to expand a city or town, if it is growing. Mr. Harold Pillar commented that there are several things which he thinks have been wrong with this procedure. He mentioned the public hearings which were held over a year ago, and he recalled that there was never a questionnaire sent to the people being annexed. Mr. Bowerman remarked that an annexation is not involved with this situation. He explained that this is a boundary line adjustment which will be approved by the court. Mr. Pillar said the people being incorporated into the boundary line adjustment never got any questionnaires. The meetings were flooded by the residents of $cottsville who were in favor of the adjustment, but some of the people outside of the area being incorporated were in favor of it, and others were not. He went on to say that he would go along with the majority of those people, if he knew what the majority wanted. He had asked the people of $cottsville proper not to vote at one of those meetings, just as an act of courtesy, but they continued to vote on this procedure. He does not think the Town has done any planning for this incorporation, and he thinks the ordinanc- es should have been ready tonight and not January 1, 1994. The people are being asked to be incorporated, and they don't know what this means for them. Mr. Pillar said the only services the Town provides the residents are street sweeping, police protection and a $10 collection of garbage which has to be paid in addition to taxes. All of these services are faulty. He goes to the IGA Store on Sunday mornings, and the IGA manager pays his own help to sweep the streets in front of the store. Mr. Pillar added that he goes down town during the week, however, and there is a street sweeper doing the job there. He thinks that if this line adjustment is approved, the IGA Store and the several restaurants in this incorporated area will be asking the Town to clean in front of their shops, and he thinks this is perfectly legitimate. As far as police protection is concerned, several years ago he had to go across the street and ask a policeman to stop holding a man up in the air with a baton under his neck. He reported this matter to the Police Chief, but there was no action taken. He pointed out that there was an ad in the newspaper several weeks ago for a police officer, and it is being required that the person be a graduate of police school. Mr. Pillar next mentioned that garbage collection costs $10 a head in the Town for 238 residents on 100 acres. He said the plan is to expand to 800 acres and still charge people $10 a head for garbage collection. This is not going to work because transportation costs will be too high. The people who already live in the Town are going to have to expect an increase in garbage collection fees because the distances involved are greater, and more will have to be done to collect the garbage. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000069 (Page 13) Mr. Pillar said County officials have lacked foresightedness because they are allowing 700 acres, 25 miles away from the closest high school, to be developed with someone else's ordinances. He noted that Charlottesville in 1950 had an area of about one and one-half miles and a population of 25,000 people. He is not saying that Scottsville will grow at the rate that Char- lottesville grew, but if an industry moves into Fluvanna County or Buckingham where there is no control over these industries, and an overflow comes in the Scottsville area, another high school will have to be considered when and if that happens. The Supervisors have to think of these things and address them, and he does not think that they have done so. Mr. Pillar said he loves Scottsville, and he has lived there for 20 years, but he thinks there are problems in the area. When he moved there, the population was nearly 400 people, and now it is down to almost 200. He does not know what has happened to the people, but the town is "going downhill." He'does not see a reason to incorporate more people into the town just to let it all deteriorate. There are some social reasons that cause people not to want to admit that they live in Scottsville. There are social pressures on his children in school when they tell other people and teachers that they live in Scottsville,-but it is not that way if they say that they live in Southern Albemarle. He has wondered what advantage there is to living in the Town, and he could not see any. He interviewed 30 people, ages 12 to 72, and 19 of these people said that Scottsville should be annexed by the County, and that it should give up its charter. He said nine people didn't care either way, but two favored annexation last year, because they were moving away this year. He mentioned that he has heard Mr. Marshall say the Scottsville residents have to go too far to get their County permits. When houses are built, toilet facilities, plumbing facilities, lumber, roofing and electrical supplies are needed, all the contractors come into Charlottesville to get these things. One more trip for a building permit is nothing. Mr. Pillar said he believes that in the future, Scottsville officials will come back to this Board and ask if they can give up their charter, and he asked the Supervisors to be prepared to say "yes." Mr. Duane Carr said he lives in the affected area, and up until approxi- mately five years ago, he owned and operated a store at the shopping center. This is private property, so the Town would not be responsible for cleaning the streets in this area. At that time, Mr. Carr said he tried to encourage annexation, and he had maps drawn which were similar to the ones posted at this meeting. He took a petition around to the residents, but, at that point, there were some legal questions. He asked to put this matter aside for awhile, which he did. He believes the same goal is being accomplished that he had in mind at that time such as giving the town more local control over the people and the land. He said this is being done in a much fairer, less costly and better way with a boundary adjustment. This will affect him some, but for what is being gained, a little bit of out-of-pocket expenses will not matter a lot. He then urged the Supervisors to vote in favor of the boundary line adjustment. Mr. Tim Small remarked that he is a resident of Albemarle County, and although he is not currently a resident of Scottsville, he will be incorporat- ed within the Scottsville limits after the boundary adjustment occurs. He is the President of the Scottsville Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Scotts- ville Coalition of Civic Organizations. He finds it very emotional to respond to Mr. Pillar's comments, because he has a real problem of thinking that Scottsville is anything other than an outstanding place to live. He assured the Supervisors that the active residents of Scottsville would totally agree with him. He then asked the people from the Scottsville community who were in favor of the boundary line adjustment to stand (about 40 people stood). He assured the Board that the people standing were small in number compared to the people in favor of this adjustment. As President of the Chamber of Commerce, he said that he would like to speak on behalf of the residents, because the business community of Scottsville stands solidly behind this boundary adjustment. He urged the Board, on behalf of the Chamber of Com- merce, to make this movement toward a Scottsville that is in control of its destiny, and which is in control of the functions of the resources of the area around its community. This is a positive move forward, and he assured the Supervisors that the vast preponderance of residents of Scottsville and the surrounding area are very much in favor of this boundary line adjustment. He noted that he has encountered very few people, other than Mr. Gildersleeve, who is against this proposal. Mr. Richard Shaefer stated that he lives in the affected area, and he also has a business there. He thinks Mr. Small has said everything which needs to be said. He added, however, that he hopes Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain will go beyond partisan politics and understand that this is what is best for the County and the Town of Scottsville. He added that it is beneficial to the County, and it would make absolutely no sense for any member of this Board to vote against the proposal. Mr. Chris Wade remarked that he lives within the present Town limits. He has been a resident there for 19 years, a property owner for nine years, and he is employed by a business at the shopping center. With few exceptions, most of the comments he has heard are in favor of the boundary line adjust- ment. He suggested that the Supervisors consider, as they weigh the different statements they have heard this evening, the difference between a community and a county. He explained that a county is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth and contains within it a number of communities. Scottsville is a september 15, 1993 (Regdlar Night Meeting) 000070 (Page 14) community, and it needs the unity that would be provided by the expanded boundaries, with the greater number of residents who will be incorporated, to create a stronger and ~o~e'-viabie Community. The County officially recognize the benefits of a strong and healthy community in the revenue sharing agree- ment with Charlottesville. It is beneficial to the County to have a strong and healthy center of trade, population and education, such as Charlottes- ville. Although there may be many disagreements in specifics between the two, the benefit of having a big population center and a strong healthy community are obvious to County officials. This could be applied to the relationship to Scottsville in that a healthy and growing population center and trade center will be of benefit to the County as well as to the Town. It will help the County as well as the Town if the Supervisors approve this boundary line adjustment. No one else came forward, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public portion of the'hearing~ Mr. Marshall said he represents the Town and the Scottsville District. Contrary to Mr. Pillar's statement, he is proud to be from the Scottsville District. One of the reasons he is proud of it is because when the James River~was the major thoroughfare into Albemarle County, Scottsville is where the people would come. It was the center and the hub of commerce, and the beginning point of the development of Albemarle County, as it is now. He mentioned that Buckingham and Fluvanna counties split off from that area. He is a collector of Civil War paraphernalia and he has in his possession some old paper currency which was issued by the Town of Scottsville, the Town of Mowardsville and the Monticello Bank in Charlottesville. It is interesting to note that there was more currency issued in Howardsville than it was Scotts- ville or Charlottesville and more in Scottsville than there was in Char- lottesville during the Civil War. This indicates that the area was the center of commerce in the 1860s. He has said publicly many times that Scottsville is a community which needs control of its own destiny. He recalled that Mr. Pillar mentioned that when he moved to the area there were 400 people living there, and now there are only 200. Mr. Marshall said more people need to be involved in the community, and he thinks this can be achieved by the boundary adjustment. He does not want Scottsville to become like Howardsville, and he thinks this boundary adjustment will give the people in the Town the opportu- nity to do whatever they want to do. They can grow or stay the same, but they won't have to come 20 miles to ask permission from a Board which doesn't understand the community or all of its needs. He lives a distance away from the Scottsville community, and he is not always sure of all of the needs, so he has to go there frequently to be aware of everything. This boundary line adjustment is necessary if Scottsville is going to control its own destiny, and survive and be a viable community. He then made a motion to adopt the resolution as presented which would authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign the agreement to relocate the boundary line between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarlei Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mrs. Humphris said she has stated before, and she continues to state, that everything she has been able to learn in a very careful study of all of the background information is that Option Four would have been a better option. She agrees that Scottsville has need for more people to provide better representation on its councils, boards and commissions, etc., and she believes that room to grow is needed. She emphasized that this is her opinion, and no politics are involved. She added that she believes the boundary line adjustment is going to cost more than is anticipated. She added that it is not that she does not want the Scottsville citizens to have what is best for them, but it is simply that she disagrees on how much is being requested. She said that this is why she will continue to oppose this request. Mr. St. John stated that he agrees with Mr. Tucker that the Board needs to accomplish two things, but Mr. St. John indicated that he did not think two separate motions were required. He stated that he would like to suggest a small change in the agreement which has become necessary since it was drafted. He called attention to Number Four of the agreement where it indicates that the costs of publication of the advertisements would be borne entirely by the Town of Scottsvilleo He said the committees which were involved with this matter have decided that the costs should be split between the Town and the County. He does not think this agreement even needs to address the matter, but if it does, then it should read that the cost of publication shall be borne equally by the Town and the County. He emphasized that he is not referring to the cost of the survey. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. St. John is suggesting that the motion include both the resolution and the agreement. Mr. St. John responded that the resolution includes the agreement. He said that if the Board passes the resolution, then the agreement stands approved. Mr. Marshall wondered if the resolution needed to be amended to incorporate the change in Number Four of the agreement; Mr. Bowerman answered that this would not be necessary. He then reiterated Mr. St. John's statement that only one motion is needed to cover the entire boundary line adjustment. Mr. St. John reminded Board members, again, to incorporate the change in Number Four of the agreement that he suggested relative to the costs of publication. September 15, 1993 (Reg~i~ '~igh~ Mee~i~' 00007~ (Page 15) Mr. Bowerman reiterated that only one motion is necessary, but it should include the change suggested.by Mr. St. John for Number Four of the agreement. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bowerman. NAYS~ Mrs. Numphris and Mr. Bain. Mr. St. John announced that the officials of the Town of Scottsville will meet on this matter on Friday. He said that if they approve a similar resolution, then, without any further instructions from this Board, the staff will proceed with the court action to accomplish this proposal. Mr. Thacker stated that he has been working for almost two years with the Supervisors and the staff of the County of Albemarle. He wanted to publicly state that he has never worked and met with a nicer group of people. Ne added that everyone has been extremely helpful and very kind to the Scottsville citizens all of the way through these proceedings. He said that the County has a fine staff. (Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out below.) WHEREAS, the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle have entered into negotiations to relocate the boundary line between them; and WHEREAS, the Town and the County are now prepared to enter into an "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle," which provides that certain territory which is currently within the boundaries of Albemarle County will be incorporated into the boundaries of the Town of Scottsville; and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-1031.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides a procedure for the Circuit Court of Albe- marle to accept evidence regarding the relocation and by order to designate and establish the new boundary line; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a meeting assembled on the 15th day of September, 1993; 1. That the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby approved the Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle (hereinafter the "Agreement"), a copy of which is attached (on file) hereto, and hereby authorizes and directs its Chairman to execute the Agreement on the County's behalf; 2. That the County Executive is directed to refer the Agreement, together with all other necessary data and materials, to legal counsel and to instruct legal counsel to petition the Circuit Court of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, to order the reloca- tion of the boundary line between the Town of Scottsville and Albemarle County as set forth in the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has caused this resolution to be duly executed on its behalf by its Chairman and attested by its Clerk. AGREEMENT TO RELOCATE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE TOWN OF SCOTTSVXLLE AND THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 15th day of September, 1993, by and between the TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "Town"), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "County"). WHEREAS, the Town and the County agree that their common boundaries should be changed and relocated so that a certain parcel of land, which is currently within the unincorporated area of the County, will be included within the boundaries of the Town; and WHEREAS, such a relocation of boundaries will be in the best interests of the people of the Town and the County and will further the interest of the Commonwealth of Virginia in promoting the orderly growth and continued viability of its local govern- ments; and WHEREAS, the Town and County intend to proceed pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, et seq., of the Code of Virginia (1950), as September 15, 1993 (RegUlar Night Meeting) 000072 (Page 16) amended, t© petition the circuit Court of the County of Albemarle to order such a boundary adjustment; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: '1. A new boundary line shall be established between the Town and the County to incorporate within the Town certain terri- tory containing approximately 855.89 acres of land which lie generally to the north of the existing Town boundary. 2. Following the incorporation of said territory within the Town, the metes and bounds of the new boundary line between the localities shall be as described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The new boundary line is also depicted on a survey plat, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which consists of two sheets, Sheet one being captioned "Plat of ScottSville Area Acquisition 1993 Adjoining Existing Town of Scottsville and Fluvanna County a Portion of Scottsville Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia, Dated June 3,.1993, and Made by Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc." Sheet Two is a plat of the territory to be incorporated within the Town and showing Tax Map and Parcel Designations. 3. The Town and the County will proceed forthwith under Section 15.1-1031.1, et seq., of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, to have their common boundary line changed as herein agreed. 4. Each party agrees to perform any and all requirements of Section 15.1-1031.1, et seq., of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, necessary to accomplish the agreed-upon boundary reloca- tions. The costs of publication shall be borne equally by the Town and the County. 5. The new boundary line shall become effective at midnight on December 31, 1993. .IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, by their respective Mayor or Chairman and attested by their respective clerks. Agenda Item No. 12. $P-93-24. Demmie Maine (applicant); Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (owner). Public hearing on a request to operate a day care for up to 20 children in existing Chestnut Grove Baptist Church. Property on W sd of Rt 743 approx 600 ft S of Rts 743/663 inters is zoned RA. TM31,P6. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 9, 1993, by a 5/2 vote recommended approval subject to four conditions. The staff had only recom- mended two, but the Planning Commission added a #3 limiting the hours of operation to 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and a #4 prohibiting access to Route 663 during school hours. He said that the lack of sight distance is of concern and relates to the safety of the traveling public in this area, not only for those who would be using the day care facility at the church, but also for the other people traveling Routes 663 and 664. Based on the VDOT staff's determi- nation, 450 feet of sight distance would be necessary from each of the entrances along Routes 663 and 664. Sight distance relative to Route 663 is approximately 250 feet, and on Route 664 is approximately 275 feet~ That is less than would be required for a 45 mile per hour speed limit. Staff did not recommend approval because of the lack of sight distance. He pointed out that there would be significant cost involved to get more sight distance along Route 663 (cutting back a bank and removing trees to the north), and on Route 664 (correcting a vertical curvature by lowering or raising the road). Neither of these are simple tasks. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission members recommended approval of this request adding conditions intended to address the operational aspects to assure that the operation would be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. This would avoid the peak hours of travel. They also prohibited access to Route 663 during school hours. The Commission discussed deferring any decision to allow VDOT to take actual running speed studies along each route. He said this petition was just heard by the Commission last Thursday, but they were asked for an immediate decision in the interest of the applicant. There has not been time since last Thursday to get these running speed studies done by VDOT, however, Mr. Roosevelt has indicated that these studies could be done within the next two weeks. Mr. Cilimberg commented that Mr. Roosevelt has also said that he could investigate various signage and posting of speeds in the area in an effort to try to reduce speeds as vehicles are traveling toward each of the church entrances. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Roosevelt noted that signing the area for a school zone and putting up a lower speed limit with possible flashing lights during the operating hours is usually limited to those schools with school bus traffic, so this may not be an alternative in terms of addressing this particular problem. Mr. Cilimberg said neither entran( meets commercial entrance standards because they are gravel entrances~ and September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meetihg) (Page 17) 000075 their widths and angle to each road do not meet this standard either. VDOT staff would appreciate, as a part of any COndition of approval, that the entrances be Upgraded to %he commercial standard, if this Board approves the request. He emphasized that this request was just made known to him today over the telephone. Mrs. Humphris asked if bOth entrances would need to be upgraded 'to commercial standards. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "yes." Mr. Bain commented that the Commission's action would prohibit access to and from the Route 663 entrance during school hours, so it appears that only the Route 664 entrance would have to be upgraded. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that this is true, if this Board follows the Commission's action. Mrs. Humphris asked what this upgrading would involve. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the entrance would need to have an appropriate angle to the road. There would be the requirement that two cars could pass in the entrance, such as an entering and exiting car. He said, too, that the upgrading would include paving the entrance a distance off of the..state road. He emphasized that the applicant should be on notice because VDOT staff can impose this requirement through its own mechanisms, but they feel it would be best to have this as a condition of the special use permit. Mr. Martin referred to Mr. Cilimberg's comment as to when he heard about this requirement. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that he heard about the commercial entrance requirement as it relates to this application, at 5:00 p.m. today through a telephone call to Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Cilimberg went on to say that unless Mr. Roosevelt has informed the applicant of this requirement, he is sure she does not. know about it. He indicated that this is not in any written comment from VDOT. Mr. Martin commented that he does not want to add the conm~ercial entrance requirement to the special use permit conditions. VDOT can impose this requirement itself, if necessary. Mr. Perkins wondered if VDOT staff can impose this requirement on the church or on the day care center. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he cannot answer this question. He said Mr. Roosevelt had simply said that he might have an obligation, if there was an awareness or a public concern expressed, to make sure that a commercial entrance was established. Mr. Cilimberg added that he does not know the legalities of this condition, and he has not had a chance to delve into any of th£s today. He had no chance to call anyone after Mr. RoOsevelt informed him of this matter. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Supervisors, so Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Ms. Demmie Maine, applicant for the day care center, stated that she is very surprised by these comments because she has been working with Mr. Roosevelt. He had not contacted her with any of this information regarding the entrances. She said she is attempting to create an educational experience for the Earlysville area. The application has been labeled a day care center, but she emphasized that this is a preschool, which will only operate during the morning hours. This school will have a good teacher-to-child ratio with a very good program, particularly for low-income children. The church facility is supporting this preschool in a unique way by providing insurance coverage and a "no fee" facility. There is no way this could be accomplished in any other facility in Albemarle County. Ms. Maine said when the school was formed, there was a misunderstanding between County staff and herself. Last year a woman at the County information desk failed to give her the necessary zoning information. Ms. Maine is now trying to rectify that problem. This program has been offered for a year in the church facility with no problems concerning any of these safety issues of entrances and exits. She commented that she had a meeting on Monday night with the deacons of the church, and they are willing to support this program in any way possible. The condition the Commission placed upon the school to close the entrance onto Route 663 concerned the deacons because they are worried about the liability issue. The deacons have asked that the Board of Supervisors consider a signed notice by the parents that they would neither enter nor exit using the Route 663 entrance because sight distance is limited in that area. It is felt that all of the parents would be willing to support this request. She commented that the parents act as a family because it is a small group, and the school is operated as a unit. The parents are behind the school 100 percent. She believes that if the parents are asked to comply to any measure that is established, they will be more than willing to do anything that is asked of them. Ms. Maine said the preschool is following the Albemarle County school system schedule, which means that it will be in operation from September to May. She pointed out that there is a period of ten to fifteen seconds when cars are not in a visual range. She remarked that she has asked parents when they come to the curve to stop and look into the back side of the turn to make sure that no one is coming into the turn and to wait five seconds to allow vehicles that are already in the turn to come around. She said that if these instructions are followed, it will be certain that there are no vehicles in that area at all. She believes Mr. Fritz has already given the Board one of her color coded charts. She indicated that between 8:55 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000074 (Page 18) there are seven cars going in the direction of the City of Charlottesville, and between 12:25 p.m. and 12:40 p.m., %he~e were seven cars going to the City at approximately the time that the parents would be leaving the school. She pointed out that the hours of operation of the preschool were chosen because it was the lowest time volumes for vehicles in that area. She noted that when the trailer park goes into the Earlysville area there will be a need for this type of preschool experience for children in thaH location. The fee for this school is so low that it will not be found anywhere else. She commented that money is spent only to pay the teachers and for supplies. She is the director and she is not even paid. She works on a volunteer basis. The people involved with the school have found it to be a very safe entrance and exit. It has been used for a year, and there have been no complaints from the parents regarding the entrance. Ms. Maine commented that the pictures will show that the other preschool which operates in Earlysville has a lower visual distance for its main entrance than the entrances at the Chestnut Grove Baptist Church. She is attempting to buy signs which will alert cars and people who are passing that the preschool is there and that there are children in that area. These signs ask that people be safety conscious and that they slow down because cars will be turning in and out of the school entrance during this particular period. She emphasized that the school' staff is trying to be as safety conscious as possible for the children in that area. She mentioned that she got a traffic report from the Police Department, and there have been no fatalities reported since the computer has started taking data, which was 1986. The only traffic reports for that area were at the Routes 663 and 664 intersection. There are approximately two accidents a year between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. She said it is felt that because of the visual distance into the back side of the curve and the area not being very populated, that it is a very safe place to operate a preschool. She closed her remarks by saying that this is a much needed educational opportunity for the people in that area. She then asked for all of the supporters of the school to stand (11 people stood). Mr. D. E. Williams commented that he lives approximately one and one- half miles from the school, and he introduced his daughter, Christie. He said she attended the school last year, and there was a big improvement with her day-to-day learning experiences. He pointed out that this is not a day care center. The children are being taught moral values, as well as educational values. He thinks it would be a shame if such a school was not in the Earlysville community. It is quality education, and he believes it is good to try to get children to learn while they are young. There are not many places where parents with a middle class income can send their children, especially if there is only a single parent involved. He noted that rates are reason- able, yet it is the best quality of a one-on-one basis of education with the children that he has ever seen. He asked the Supervisors to keep this in mind. Ms. Beth Short, a resident of Earlysville with two children who attended the preschool last year and one this year, stated that Earlysville is full of hills and curves, and no matter where a vehicle is being driven in Earlys- ville, there are driveways everywhere. She said that it is not unusual in Earlysville to have a driveway around a curve and up a hill. She said Chestnut Grove Baptist Church has been there forever. There are activities all day long that occur in the church, such as garden clubs, etc. She said the preschool vehicles are not the only ones using the entrances during the day. She wondered why, if there is a sight distance problem or a safety problem with the driveway, would one group be penalized, rather than solving the driveway problem, reducing the speed limit or decreasing the sight distance. She mentioned that if this school were not in operation parents would have to drive ten miles to meet their children's needs rather than driving one or two miles. Ms. Karen Strickland said she lives in Earlysville. She has a son who went to this preschool last year. She was surprised to hear about Mr. Roose- velt's comments. She attended a lecture given by an Assistant Professor of the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia relating to transpor- tation and learned that transportation rules are over-regulating and prevent- ing people from actually having real lives because of such things as intersec- tions that have to be a certain size so that cars can speed along at 40 miles per hour. She said people have to be able to drive slowly and be aware that there are other people around. She remarked that this church has a 200 year history, and there has been no traffic trouble. It is not hard to sit at the intersection and wait a few minutes before making a left turn to drive into Earlysville. Most of the traffic which drives up to this intersection is coming from Earlysville, and it is making a right turn into the church entrance in the mornings, and a left hand turn out of the church at 12:00 noon. She pointed out that even the transportation experts realize that widening entrances so that two cars can pass is ridiculous. She hopes this Board will approve the special permit. Ms. Kim Davis indicated that she has a daughter enrolled in the three- year old class of the preschool program. There are nine children enrolled in the three year old class, and she will be taking four of them to and from school. She lives close to the church so this situation will eliminate some of the traffic. Other parents are also carpooling. She had informed the Commission that she is very safety conscious about making sure that the children are buckled into their car seats, even though she only lives a half a mile down the road. She remarked that her older children have attended, for September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) the past three years, the bible school that is held at this church in the summer. The bible school program has a lot of people going in and out of the entrance, and there have never been any problems. As far as the requirements are concerned, two cars will not fit in the entrance at the same time. If this preschool is not open, then her daughter, and the other children she keeps, will not be able to go to preschool. It is not practical for her to drive into town four times a day which would be 40 plus miles back and forth. This is not an option for her or the children she keeps. She mentioned that three of the children who are attending the class for three-year olds will be attending the same school next year. Mr. Bill Sutherland, a member and a deacon of Chestnut Grove Church, stated that his children are too old to go to the preschool program, but he would like to comment about the entrance and parking lot of the church. Recently the road was tarred and graveled to the same standards as the County road in front of his house. The entrance on Route 664 side is wide enough for two cars to pass when one is coming into and another is going out of the entrance. He was surprised that the information refers to a gravel road and not a paved road, and he reiterated that the road crossing in front of the church is tarred and graveled. This was done by the church members to cut down on dust during some painting of the church. At this time, no one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Perkins commented that he wished every situation could be tested for a year, and then decisions made. If everything were done that way, the County would be better off, but it is impossible, because people cannot make a commitment for that period of time. He said he is familiar with these roads because he has been driving over them approximately twice a week for the last year. He said that even though the speed limit in that area is 45 miles per hour, he does not believe anybody is going that fast. It is somewhat the same way on Route 664 because of the crooked road. He believes that 90 percent of the drivers in that area know the road and its conditions. He often thinks Highway Department staff exaggerate situations as far as the need for sight distance, etc. He, personally, sometimes cuts through the church parking lot rather than going down to the intersection. He will make a motion to approve this request after the other Supervisors have made their comments. Mr. Martin said he read the minutes of the Planning Commission, and basically agrees with their vote. He said he is a firm believer that anytime the Board is dealing with a situation that is already known based on what has happened in the past, then it is a much better than listening to scientific theory. However, when there is not actual practice to observe, then he believes that scientific theory has to be used. He recalled that one person had asked why this particular group was being harassed. He realizes that legally this group is being held accountable for these entrances because the Board can legally regulate this group, and it can't regulate the others. He thinks it makes good sense that if other larger groups are meeting there then why should this group be singled out just because this Board has the regulato- ry power to do so. He thinks the Supervisors should exercise their right to use the special use permit and grant this request. Mr. Marshall said he will also support a motion for approval for all of the reasons Mr. Perkins and Mr. Martin have mentioned, plus a couple of additional ones. He said when Dr. H. C. Ellis telephones him, he usually considers what Dr. Ellis has to say. He informed the Board that Dr. Ellis is the minister at the Chestnut Grove Baptist Church, and he thinks the church group is lucky to have him. At this time, Mr. Perkins offered a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-93-24, with the four conditions as set forth by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bain commented that he thinks there is a concern because this Board has already approved a similar request at St. John's Church, where there was less traffic. The conditions placed on the St. John's Church request were going to be fairly costly. It is not this particular request that is causing him concern, but it is the fact that the same thing is not being done across the County. The Supervisors can always deal with Highway Department personnel in terms of sight distance, etc. The Commission's action to prohibit access to Route 663 took care of a major problem, but he noted that Route 664 does leave something to be desired. He said that given the limited nature of the hours of operation and the small number of children involved, he will support the motion. AYES: NAYS= Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. No use shall operate without required licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of any September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) Se 4e 000076 required licenses (or proof of exemption from licen- sure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator' of any license expiration, sus- pension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; and These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency; Maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Depart- ment; Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m'.; and Prohibition of access to Route 663 during school hours. Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-93-03. Worrell Land & Cattle Company. Public hearing on a request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in the CO Commercial Office, C-1 Commercial, and HC Highway Commercial districts to permit helistops by special use permit. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Bowerman noted that both Agenda Items 13 and 14 relate to the Worrell Land and Cattle Company° He said that these items deal with a helistopo Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. He said this is a request from the Worrell Land and Cattle Company to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit helistops by special use permit. Currently the County allows helistops and helipads by special use permit in certain zones, but this proposal would allow them as well in the C-l, CO and HC zones by special use permit. He then outlined the concerns that the staff has, such as competition with the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, which he said has to be considered with any special use permit application. The staff also sees the need for helistops and helipads to be supportive of large developments as opposed to small-scale, stand-alone facilities. It is staff's opinion that helistops and helipads are appropriate as a supporting use by special use permit in commer- cial districts. He noted that staff recommended approval of the zoning text amendment. In addition, he said staff would suggest that a seventh supplemen- tal regulation be added which would guide County officials in decision-making. That regulation would basically indicate that any helistops and helipads in commercial industrial districts should support large development. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 31, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the text amendment. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg to summarize the staff report for SP-93-18 since it is dealing with the same thing. He said that the Board would vote on the two items separately, however. Agenda Item No. 14. SP-93-18. Worrell Land & Cattle Company. Public hearing on a request to allow a helistop on 46.5 ac zoned PD-MC. Property on S sd of Rt 250 between State Farm Blvd & 1-64. TM78,P20C. Rivanna Dist.~ (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that assuming the zoning text amendment is ap- proved, staff has reviewed the Worrell request specifically as it relates to the conditions of the supplemental regulations of the ordinance, including the seventh regulation. He then pointed out the property on a map, and said it is where the Peter Jefferson Place master plan has been approved. The location of the helistop as now proposed would be above U.S. 250 next to the major entrance road which would be established for Peter Jefferson Place. The primary flight path desired would be a path going to the southeast toward the Interstate highway interchange with U.S. 250. A Secondary preference for a flight path has been identified which would go north/northeast toward U.S.· 250, and a third preference would have the helicopter~ coming and going from the northweSt° Mr. Marshall asked if at any time the helicopters would be flying across Monticello. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Monticello viewshed is located further back from U.S. 250. He went on to say that the location of the helipad is to be approximately 900 feet from the nearest adjacent property line. Staff feels that, based on the character of the development~ as well as the surrounding land uses in this area, particularly along Route 250, the character of the district will not be affected by a helistop. He remarked that it will not, as an activity, restrict other permitted uses in the September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000077 (Page 21) district. He pointed out the businesses that the helistop is proposed to serve, and he said that it will not interfere with Airport operations. There are to be no maintenance activities, except for possible emergency mainte- nance, and the Airport is where the maintenance and storage would take place. He continued to point out business and residential areas on the map. He told Board members that the staff recommended approval of SP-93-18 subject to five conditions. The Commission, at its August 31, 1993, meeting, also recommended approval with the same five conditions. Mr. Bain asked about the frequency of use, in general, and he wondered if this is included anywhere in the regulations. Mr. Cilimberg replied that frequency of use is not included in the regulations and usually frequency of use is not identifiable. He added that there will be no night time operation, so the helipad will not be lighted. ~ Mr~ Bain reiterated that he is wondering about the frequency of such a use in general. He asked if the staff has considered this. Mr.' Cilimberg answered that staff did not look at this issue in the development of supple- mentary regulations simply because it is hard to identify. He doesn't think there has ever been an issue of What a maximum number would be at any loca- tion, but he stated that this can be investigated, if necessary.. This matter has been considered on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bain commented that he is thinking about the future. He understands what was said at the Planning Commission meeting. He realizes these things are usually handled on a case-by-case basis, but he thinks County officials need to be realistic when the process is started and try to address some of these things generically. No matter where the flight paths are to be located, residential development is still going to be affected. He is not talking just about this particular request. He is also concerned about allowing this use in other zones. Mr. Martin recalled a letter the Supervisors received in which it was implied that different commercial operations may start to compete against each other. He said representatives of a commercial establishment might want a heliport because it might make their place more attractive than if it did not have one. He asked Mr. Cilimberg if he can address this aspect. Mr. Cilim- berg answered that he is unsure of the market locally or nationally for these kinds of facilities. Mr. Martin said if this request is approved, it will be the third such request that this Board has approved. Maybe there will be a proliferation of helicopters in the area, so it seems to him that the Board should consider this matter generically. Mr. Bowerman wondered if there are numerous landings and take-offs every day by helicopters at the Airport. He thinks it would be almost as convenient for people in helicopters to come from Washington, D.C. or Richmond, land at the Airport, and then drive to the desired location. If there was a prolifer- ation of helicopters coming to the Airport, there might be the problem some of the Supervisors are perceiving. Clearly there are not that many helicopters coming to the Airport, so he does not see the economics of such a situation. Mr. Bain noted that the staff report indicates that other facilities have been studied by the staff, and he asked for specifics relating to this issue. Mr. Bowerman commented that helicopters have been around for a long time. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the communities the staff contacted to get information from were Fairfax County, Virginia Beach, Chesterfield County, Henrico County and Roanoke County. Staff wanted to contact communities in a metropolitan, suburban and urban setting which are getting these kinds of developments. Mr. Marshall wondered if the helicopters are going to be used as a sales mechanism. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Mr. Marshall ask the applicant this question. Mr. Martin asked the rationale behind the current policy about allowing helistops and heliports in the Light Industry (LI) but not in commercial districts. Mr. Cilimberg replied that when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980, helistops were allowed in rural areas, as well as LI and HI districts by special use permit. He thinks this was in response to some of the particular characteristics of use that the County had at that time. He assumes that part of the reason was that LI and HI districts were looked at as employment centers which would have heliport or helicopter use in association with their activities. At some point, a heliport was established at one of the commercial uses which was a bank on Route 29 North. He does not remember when this happened, and he does not know how much this influenced the decision not to include the use in commercial zones. Mr. Perkins asked about the situation in Charlottesville. Mr. Cilim- berg answered that he does not know where heliports are allowed in the City° He said they are operating at the University, and he thinks that there will be such an operation from the Virginia Forestry Department at its new location° Mr. Marshall mentioned the Pegasus helicopter. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the Pegasus helicopter used to operate from University property on Route 20 South. Mrs. Humphris asked who was contacted as far as adjacent properties are concerned. She noted that Ashcroft was not included. Mr. Cilimberg replied September 15, 1993 (Regular'Night ~eetihg) 000078 (Page 22) that the applicants made ~ number of contacts beyond what the County staff does as normal procedure. He explained that state law requires that the County follow a standard of notifying all adjacent properties. The applicant could probably speak to his C0htacting of the more distant property owners. Mrs. Humphris commented that this request gives her great concern. For some reason helicopters seem to be over her house all the time, and she is not that close to the Airport. She said it is a very annoying sound. She had a phone call yesterday from someone who lives in Key West who wanted her to find out why there was a helicopter over his house before 6:00 a.m. She added that she referred this person to the Airport since she did not have any information about the matter. She emphasized that the racket that a helicopter makes is a horrible sound, and it is very intrusive. She wonders why the applicant, who has such a beautiful plan which includes a hotel, townhouses and a top of the line operation, would allow something such as this. At this point, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. Andrew Dracropoli, representing Worrell Land and Cattle Company, recalled that when he appeared before this Board in March for the general plan for the Peter Jefferson Place, he had indicated that he is hoping to create a first-class mixed-use business park which will be an asset to the community. He said it will be an employment center for the community in an area where the County wants its growth to take place. Because of the size of the property, 240 acres and a mil.lion square feet of office space, it 'isn't a site that will be filled up with gradual expansion of Charlottesville's office space. He pointed out that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area has been growing at approximately 25,000 to 40,000 square feet of office space a year over the last decade. To fill a million square feet will take well beyond his lifetime and probably his grandchildren's lifetime. He said it has always been contemplated that this plan would accommodate the relocation of corporations from outside the area, whether from Washington D.C. or New England, etc. The Charlottesville/Albemarle area has always been a place that State Economic Development Office personnel say is high on the list for companys wishing to relocate. He would like to provide a facility which could accommodate the needs of those users. Some local expansion will also be accommodated, but the majority of the space will be used over the years from major relocations. Mr. Dracropoli said that helistops are not common in office parks around the country, but they certainly exist. There is one in Innsbrook in Richmond and there is another one on an island in the James River close to downtown Richmond. He gave an example by saying that when the members of the Board of Directors of Phillip Morris mee~, they come in by helicopter to the helipad in Richmond for the convenience of the directors. He remarked that he has talked to the State Department of Transportation, and those are the only two helipads in Richmond that are for private use. The hospitals also use helistops, but these are the only two in commercial use in that area. Mr. Dracropoli said he thinks the idea of proliferation is a misjudgment of the issue. He said the text amendment would be for something contemplated only in the context of a major commercial development. He mentioned such a development on Fontaine Avenue which he said could possibly work out an arrangement with the University Hospital, but he pointed out that the Univer- sity Hospital already has a helipad. The other major developments are around the airport, and there wouldn't be any need for a helipad in those locations because the airport is so close. He pointed out that the FAA has restrictions as to how close helistops can be together. His company sees the helistop as something that will enable the company officials to market their project more successfully. He does not think every corporate user coming to Albemarle County is going to want a helistop or want to use one. There may be one or two for whom having this asset will be a major attraction, and it could make the difference as to whether or not that user will come to the area. Mr. Dracropoli said company officials are trying to get all of the permit approvals in place before they try to market Peter Jefferson Place. He then talked about the physical aspects of the helistop and how it will impact on the beauty of the development. He said the helistop will be a 100 foot square grass patch, with a fence around it, and a wind sock at one end. It will be virtually invisible to the naked eye, and it is proposed to be located next to the main entrance road. It will look like a piece of the landscaping of Peter Jefferson Place. He noted that there will be no lights involved, because it is entirely a daytime operation. There will be no storage of fuel involved, and there will be no hangars, etc. He told the Commission that the helistop is a glorified taxi stand used to drop off and pick up people. He then mentioned the flight paths in and out of the site, and he said that company officials met with the pilot who flies Tom Worrell's helicopter. He informed the Board that for several years Tom Worrell used to land behind the big house on that property periodically. As far as he knows, nobody ever objected to those flights. He emphasized that the proposed helistop site has good approach and take off paths. The reason the southeastern path is the main one is because of the prevailing winds from the northwest. He noted that helicopters like to land into the wind. He said this will be the major flight path, and it will be the one which has the least impact on the residents or on anything elseo This flight path also provides for pilots, who have not been to this site before, a very easy method for finding their way. He explained that the pilots can follow the Interstate and use it as a navigational aid. The other two exits would be valuable if the winds are in a different direc- tion, because they would provide a safe take-off area. There is plenty of ...... 000079 September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) open land underneath the approaches, so if there is an emergency, there is room to set the helicopter down. He said it is highly unlikely that a helicopter would be flying in over Ashcroft because pilots do not like to come down a steep incline to land. He noted, too, that there is no place to land around Ashcroft if there was an emergency. There are a lot of trees in that area, and it is not a safe approach for a pilot to take. Mr. Dracropoli next remarked that one of the concerns mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting was whether or not large helicopters would be brought into this helistop. He explained that the helipad has been sized to accommodate a large corporate size helicopter which has a rotor span of 44 feet. The pad has to be designed to be twice the rotor width so a 100 square foot pad accommodates a helicopter that will carry approximately six people. The bigger helicopters are 70 or more feet in width, so this wouldn't be a site where pilots would feel comfortable landing. The pad is simply too small. He pointed out that this is a private use helipad. It is not for general use. It would only be used for tenants and owners in the development. He emphasized that this helistop would appear on the FAA charts as being restricted, and if pilots want to land there, they have to call a number in the FAA charts to get permission to land. The number listed in the FAA charts will be his company number, and representatives of his company will be giving permission for people to land and take off from that site. If pilots land without permission, they can be cited, and it will appear on their FAA record. He emphasized that it is not something that a pilot would choose to do willingly, except for an emergency. Mr. Dracropoli said he knows a lot of the Supervisors are bothered about the frequency of use, and he does not know how to address that issue. He does not see this as something that will be used by people to commute to work, because someone who has an office at Peter Jefferson Place is not going to commute from Ivy or Keswick in a helicopter. He said that this is not realistic because helicopters are far too expensive for that, and this is a relatively uncongested area. What he sees as a use is when someone wants to fly to Dulles Airport or to the Richmond Airport. He remarked that Peter Jefferson Place is not convenient to the Charlottesville Airport, since it is a 20 minute drive there. A helicopter would give people the ability to fly directly to an out-of-town airport, or they could fly directly to the Washing- ton, D.C. Beltway, if they have a location there. He would be surprised if the helipad were used once a day, or more than a few times a week. If there are two tenants who want to use the helipad, he will be pleasantly surprised~ He does not see proliferation as being a problem. If a city the size of Richmond only has two helipads, then he thinks that there will be no demand for any more than this one in Charlottesville. Mr. Dracropoli mentioned that Tom Worrell has flown his helicopter to that site over the years without any problems, and the head of English Construction flies in periodically in a helicopter and lands on the corner of State Farm Boulevard and Route 250. Me works in an office close to that site and he doesn't notice when the helicopter comes and goes. He thinks helicop- ter use in that area is a quasi use which could'be established without much detriment. With regard to the neighbors, Mr. Dracropoli told Board members he has had two meetings with the Monticello representatives. There is restricted air space over Monticello. His company is more than a mile from Monticello, and the maximum width of the rotors on the helicopter is 44 feet. He asked Board members to imagine standing at Monticello and trying to identify an object 44 feet wide. He said this will be minuscule, and he feels that the restricted air space over Monticello protects it. No one from Monticello came to object at the Planning Commission meeting, although he advised them when it was going to be held. There are no representatives from Monticello at this meeting tonight. He talked to State Farm representatives and they have no objections. He met with the management of Westminster-Canterbury and there were no objections expressed. He also met with the most affected residential develop- er, Ron Langman who is developing Jefferson Pointe Townhomes which are located between Westminster-Canterbury and Route 250. Mr. Langman told Mr. Dracropoli he was familiar with helicopters, and he didn't think they would be a detri- ment to his project. As far as the residential units in Peter Jefferson Place, Mr. Dracropoli said one of the reasons for getting the helistop approved now is because anybody who buys a place will know that the helistop is there. If he brings in such an application at a later date, there could be angry residents of townhouses in his own project. This way, anybody who buys into the project will know immediately that there is to be a helistop there, where it is to be located, and the rules of operation. He thinks his company representatives should be the best judge of whether or not they are hurting themselves with this proposal. In summary, Mr. Dracropoli stated that his company representatives have made a tremendous commitment in money and time to get a truly first class master plan for this property. He does not think there is anything else in the County that can come close in terms of the amount of time, preparation, thought and care that has gone into how it is to developed. The design guidelines are sensitive to the neighbors, and time was spent in developing an economically viable project. His company officials feel that the helistop is an important aspect in the economic viability of this project, and he strongly urged the Board to support it. He asked if he could have an opportunity to respond if there were comments from the public. September 15, 1993 (Regular Ni~htM~eting) (Page 24) · Mrs. Humphris asked ~f~e"h~:1~'~:~'i:~:'s ai~ays ~n the Plans for the Peter Jefferson Place,. Mr, Dr.acropo~i replied, yes. Planning staff members have always known about the helistOp, The zoning text amendment was taken out to keep from complicating the Application Plan. He noted that the helistop has always been planned for that location. Mr. Dan McInniny said he is a homeowner in Ashcroft. He has written a letter which the supervisors should have on file. He went on to say that he doesn't like the sound of helicopters, and he does not like them coming over his house even on a one-time basis even if they are a part of modern life.. If Pegasus was making ten flights over his home, he would settle for the annoy- ance because that is a wonderful use o'f a helicopter. For the convenience of corporate executives, he really has to question how much he wants to sacrifice his peace and contentment for their convenience. When he thinks about the question of a heliport or a helipad, and when he sees that the primary flight path will take the helicopters over his home as some go now, or within a quarter of a mile of his home, he knows that there is going to be noise. He said a heliport Will tend to attract people to whom a heliport is important. He said assumptions can be made about how many flights a day there might be, and he wondered how many companies will be located there. He asked if there will be suppliers, customers, consultants or state officials coming and from where they will' be.Coming. He does not think statistics for Northern Virginia or RichmOnd can be 'compared when the use of helicopters is considered, because when there is a major airport close by, a helicopter is not needed. However, Charlottesville happens to be a place where a helicopter is more convenient than driving to and from Dulles or Richmond. This is a unique situation, and it has nothing to do with how many times helicopters are used in other places. Mr. McInniny referred to a letter Mr. Cilimberg wrote to him in which he (Mr. Cilimberg) indicated that there were no limitations, and that they would be very difficult to enforce if there were limits. If there were five to ten flights a day, he would not like it. Even if there were only three flights a day, he wouldn't like it, but a person' can put up with a certain amount of noise and inconvenience. The number of helicopters which might have been flown in to a certain city ten years ago has no bearing on what might happen within the next five years. If the Board approves the zoning text amendment, there will be a lot more helicopters. There will be problems if this figure is multiplied by some unknown number and there is no control. For the convenience of afew corporations or some intangible marketing benefit, there will be a potentially bad situation and a lot of helicopter landings over which County officials will have no control. Mr. Curtis Crawford, a property owner in the County and a resident of the City of Charlottesville, stated that since he does not have competition from other residents in the City on this particular issue, he will'venture to speak for the residents of Charlottesville rather than property owners, in the County. If helipads are placed all over the County surrounding Charlottes- ville, then the helicopters will be flying over the City as well as the County. He studied the staff reports which were written in connection with this proposal, and was surprised to learn that two, five or ten years from now the possibility of increased helicopter traffic was not discussed except with respect to safety problems relating to the airport, etc. It seemed to him that the report was conscientious about that, but omitted considering what it would do to this lovely and enjoyable place if the number of helicopter flights increased over the City and the County as would likely result from a change in zoning regulations. 'An argument could be made that it wouldn't be so much of an increase, and then the next year the same type argument could be used. County officials will look back to a time when it would have been a lot easier to stop this proliferation. The best way to control the amount of helicopters flying over Charlottesville and Albemarle County is to restrict the number of places where helipads can be built. He would hope that instead of reluctantly giving a permit here and there once every two or three years, County officials would declare a counterattack. One way this can be done. is to reduce the number of helicopter flights allowed and adopt the. criteria that it is acceptable only if it involves a life and death situation. Other than that, he feels there should be'a tremendous burden of proof to justifY inflicting all of that racket on all of those people. Mr. Crawford said he marvels at the nerve of someone who would apply for a helipad permit for a slight convenience to a handful of people. He remarked that he marvels at a person who seems to advertise the fact that he considers his slight conve- nience and the slight convenience of his associates more important than the intrusion and pain that would be inflicted on thousands of people. Mr. Crawford asked what it says about a governmental body that takes the point of view, not of the thousands of people who have racket inflicted on them, but the tiny handful of people whose time schedules are made slightly more convenient by being able to ride a helicopter in some situations. He said a lot of people in Charlottesville wouldn't care if there were ten times the number of helicopter flights that there are today. He agrees that there are a lot of people in this area who adjust to lots of aggravations and stress in their lives, and one of the ways that they adjust to these things is that they do their best to persuade themselves that they don't care° They think this is just part of living in this century, and the technology is there, so it should be used. He does not think that the Supervisors, as a governing body, can want citizens to move in that direction. Every citizen who per~ suades himself that he doesn't care about the quality of his env'ironment~ Or the beauty of the area and the'pleasantness of living in Charlottesville~ is a citizen who then is likely to fail to take the initiatives that he might September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) O0008~.. (Page 25) ....... . ..... ~-~.~ ...... otherwise take to help make this a more beautiful and a more pleasant place to live. If people are oblivious to their surroundings, County officials have not won any victories for fine government. They have just won a trend of helping people become more and more apathetic to their environment, and that is not going to help the Supervisors govern well, and it is not going to help the people to live well in this community. He appealed to the Supervisors to not only resist this change in the Zoning Ordinance, and not only to turn down this permit, but to set their sights higher and aim for a time when the only helicopters that fly over this City will be helicopters flying in health emergencies of life and death. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. He announced that ZTA-93-03 and SP-93-18 were both before the Board. Mrs. Humphris stated that she would like to comment about the helistop in Richmond that is located below the Federal Reserve Building. She said that is in no way similar to this situation whatsoever. There are no residential areas close to that helistop in Richmond. Mrs. Humphris said she read all of the material, and she pointed out that she has been a loyal supporter of the plan for Peter Jefferson Place up until this time. She feels Mr. Crawford has spoken about the issue as eloquently and clearly as possible. She does not want the noise to damage the quality of life of all the people in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville for such a small marketing advantage that this would provide to the project. She emphasized that she cannot support this request. She said that there would be racket and intrusion on everybody's lives, regardless of the flight paths, because flight paths don't mean a thing when the helicopters are in the air. She remarked that this is a tremendous intrusion on the people's right to enjoy the peace and quiet of their homes, and she just can't spoil it. Mr. Martin commented that he has some concerns although he voted for the helistop which is to be located in Keswick. He would like to examine this issue over a longer period of time because he does not think there is a problem with helicopters in the area at this time. The people in Ashcroft are very vocal and very capable of organizing and putting themselves at these meetings in force. This is true with Key West and all of the other neighbor- hoods that are in close proximity to this site. If there was a perceived problem, people from these neighborhoods would be at this meeting tonight en masse. He said that he is concerned about future problems. Mr. Martin suggested having staff take another look at the situation and then make recommendations as to whether or not there should be a ceiling put on the number of flights and whether or not recommendations need to be included as to how many flights are allowed per week. He said he has looked at this overall situation, and after hearing the comments tonight both in favor and against the helistop, he feels certain that if the County were at the point where there were a serious problem, the people would be organized and attending this meeting. He is sure that the people who live close to the proposed helistop site are reading the newspapers, and they would know about this public hearing tonight, as well as the public hearing held last week by the Commission. Mr. Martin said the proposed heliport would be in his district, and he would like to suggest that this matter be brought up again at a later time for further discussion. He added that he would not make a motion at this time, but would wait to see if anybody else has anything to say. Mr. Bain asked how Mr. Martin can make a determination that helicopters are not a problem for this County, and he noted that the Supervisors are also dealing with the quality of life for the entire community. Mr. Bain said that he does not see a project such as this as making or breaking a development. He mentioned that Mr. Dracropoli had written in one of his letters that a heliport would be a marketing tool, but Mr. Bain pointed out that there is no urgency for the heliport. He remarked that the idea is to add this use, by special permit, to-all of the other districts, as well. He realizes that the desire is for this use to be supportive of larger developments, but he has a real concern about continuing to move forward into the Twenty-First Century with everything having to be bigger and better and making more noise. He indicated that this is not something that he thinks the Supervisors should approve. Mr. Martin agreed that' he has the same concerns, but he thinks this issue should be examined in a wide perspective to see what types of problems could occur, as well as also looking at it as a real potential for the future. It bothers him that this Board has already approved two such requests within the last year. He said he would have a hard time discriminating against this request without having some type of information to back up the denial. He mentioned that a zoning text amendment is involved with this request. Mr. Bain pointed out that the zoning text amendment is what is before this Board. The other request is for a special use permit, but a zoning text amendment represents expansion of what is presently included in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Martin noted that even if the text in the ordinance is amended, each request would have to come to this Board for a special use permit~ which would then put them in the same category as the others. He does not see a reason at this time to discriminate against this request when he knows that this Board has recently approved two other requests. He reiterated that he would like for the staff to examine this issue further at a later time. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000082 (Page 26) Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the benefit and nuisance potential of the request in Keswick. Mr. Martin stated that the benefit was basically so that Sir Ashley could fly in and out of Keswick Estates. As far as the nuisance aspect is concerned, the proposed helipad would serve helicopters flying over commercial and industrial areas, as well as residential areas. Ne went on to say that the helicopter at Keswick flies over rural countryside and very few industrial areas. Mr. Bowerman asked again about the benefit versus nuisance potential of this location versus the Keswick location. He said that he is trying to differentiate the Keswick approval from this request. Mr. Martin answered that he thinks the only difference is that the Keswick heliport had the support of everyone, and no one spoke against it. He said the Commission recommended approval of the Keswick request by a six to zero vote, so he sees no difference between the two, except for the fact that two people spoke against this current request. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the heliport at Keswick has far less potential for use than this request. Mr. Martin stated that this is just speculation. He said that the Keswick heliport was not limited to any certain number of trips. Mr. Marshall noted that if Sir Ashley was only using the helicopter for his own private use, then it does not appear that he would be using a heliport as muck as the one proposed. Mr. Bain suggested that the conditions for the Keswick heliport be examined. Mrs. Humphris said she thought there was a limit on the Keswick heliport activities. Mr. Cilimberg said the Keswick representatives submitted what they thought would be their usage, and a limit was based on that usage. He pointed out that this is a self-enforcing condition because the staff is not going to be able to count the helicopter trips. Mr. Martin noted that this situation is just like everything else. He said that if it becomes a nuisance, people will bring it to staff's attention. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the problem would be brought to the Zoning Admini- strator's attention. Mr. Bowerman stated that the question he is trying to have answered is what is the benefit and to whom will the benefit accrue, as well as the potential nuisance. Ne noted that this situation does not relate to physical harm. Mr. Martin remarked that he is not trying to cause an undue amount of discussion about this issue, but he looks at Peter Jefferson Place as poten- tial space for very valuable jobs. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is dependent upon a couple of board members being able to helicopter to the Peter Jefferson Place, versus being able to helicopter to the airport and driving for 20 minutes. He added that he likes the sound of a helicopter, because when it gets to a certain point it stops, and then the pitch changes, and it sounds different. He stated that maybe he has not heard enough of them, because the only helicopter that he hears is Pegasus, which he usually hears a couple of times a week. Mr. Martin comment- ed that he lives near the airport, so he hears a fair amount of them. Because he lives near the Airport may be why he is not bothered by them. Mr. Bowerman stated that he is trying to be reasonable, and he doesn't think that the success of Peter Jefferson Place is dependent upon a heliport. If he thought that it was, then he would have more benefit and nuisance to weigh. He does not believe that a corporate sponsor is going to decide on a place because there is or is not a heliport. Mr. Martin suggested that Mr. Bowerman apply that same thinking to the one at Keswick that has already been approved. Mr. Bowerman responded that he can differentiate between these requests because one heliport is in a rural setting with infrequent use, and the use is not likely to grow. This proposed helistop, however, is in a more urban area with a higher concentration of residences. He can see immediately that each flight will have more of an impact, and he sees immediately that there are no limitations with this request, as with the Keswick proposal. A helipad was something that Keswick representatives asked for and to which no one objected. The helicopter trips were going to be infrequent, and they wouldn't affect very many people. He reminded Mr. Martin that he (Mr. Martin) brought up this comparison, and he (Mr. Bowerman) was just trying to relate the two requests. Mr. Eowerman stated that he is uncomfortable creating nuisances unless there is a good reason to do it. Mr. Martin stated that he is not going to argue about this issue all night. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is just trying to get it straight in his own mind, and that is why he is asking these questions. Mr. Martin reiterated that he thinks the issue is important, but he does not think it is important enough for him to argue about it any longer tonight. Mr. Marshall commented that approximately 15 years agog he crashed in a helicopter. He said that a tail pin sheared off, and the helicopter was only 100 feet in the air. He said the helicopter hit the ground, turned over~ and he was hanging upside down with gasoline all over him. He said he lives close to the Pegasus helipad, and Pegasus and others fly over his home. They are very annoying. On the other hand, Mr. Marshall stated that he understands the September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000083 (Page 27) point that Mr. Martin is making, in that the Peter Jefferson Place has the potential for providing'future jobs for this area. He thinks this issue has to be weighed as to who will benefit'the most from it. Me said he will have to agree with Mr. Bowerman that the benefit is small compared to the nuisance issue. Mr. Perkins i.nquired if there were any comments from the airport representatives about this situation. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "yes." He said there were comments from the FAA on matters regarding the general application. Within the analysis related to the effect on the airport, staff made comments based on information received from the Airport Authority. Mr. Martin remarked that basically there were no negative comments from the Airport Authority except that it did not desire competition. Mr. Cilim- berg pointed out that the Airport Authority's primary concern, since there appeared not to be any competition~at this time, related to the potential for increased use at its facility due to the operation being located on an adjacent facility in the area. He reminded Board members that the airport would have to be used for maintenance and storage, etc. At this time, Mr. Bain made a mo%ion to deny ZTA-93-03, relating to the Worrell Land and Cattle Company's request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in the CO Commercial Office, C-1 Commercial, and HC Highway Commer- cial districts to permit hetistops by special use permit. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowerman commented that SP-93-18 was filed contingent upon the passage of the text amendment. He asked Mr. St. John if the Board needed to act on this special use permit. Mr. St. John answered that there is no ordinance allowance for this use without the approval of the text amendment, but he suggested that the record should show a motion to this effect. Next, Mr. Bain offered a mot£on, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny SP-93-18 relating to Worrell Land and Cattle Company's request to allow a helistop on the south side of Route 250 between State Farm Boulevard and Interstate 64 because the use is not allowed in the County's Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. ZTA-93-04. Hydraulic Road Partnership. Public hearing on a request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in C-1 Commercial, HC Highway Commercial, & LI Light Industry districts to permit indoor athletic facilities as a use by-right. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 24, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of this zoning text amendment. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:10 p.m., and Mr. Bain assumed the chair.) Mr. Bain opened the public hearing and asked if the Board members had any questions for staff. There were no questions from the Board, so Mr. Bain asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Mr. George McCallum, an attorney representing the Hydraulic Road Partnership, stated that one of its two partners, Mr. Robin Lee, was present with him at this meeting. The text for the zoning text amendment arose out of a simple need to build two squash courts in a Light Industrial district. The applicant owns a parcel of land of approximately four acres on Hydraulic Road and this particular parcel has two buildings on it. One is rented to R. E. Lee and Son Construction Company and there is a contractor's office in that building with an adjacent storage yard . The second building holds two uses: Sentry Electric uses part of the building; the second use is the Albemarle Racquet Club which is a small squash club with two courts and changing rooms. He explained that squash is an indoor sport played on a court with a racquet and ball somewhat similar to handball, but it is a faster game because of the racquet. There are two variations of squash -- the North American Game and the International Game. The International Game uses a slightly bigger court and a different type of ball, and it is an olympic demonstration sport. Albemarle Racquet Club representatives found that they needed to build two International sized courts, and they would also like to keep the two North American style courts that they already have. In all other respects this expansion would be permitted on the site. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000084 (Page 28) Mr. McCallum said if the expansion to the existing building were for warehousing space, which is a use by right in the LI district, construction could have already ocCUrred. Ho~eve~' because within the confines of that structure there are two squash courts proposed which are athletic in nature and which are not allowed as a use by right in the LI district, the expansion cannot occur unless there is some type of authorization for it within the Zoning Ordinance. The squash courts which are already there are grandfathered by virtue of being pre-existing uses. He and County staff members went through the Zoning Ordinance trying to find an existing use category the applicant could request either by right or by special use within the LI district, but they found only three. First there were swim, golf, tennis and similar athletic facilities which are a use by special permit in the rural areas, village residential and a series of residential districts including the PRD and PUD. This use represented an outdoor type of facility but was not included in commercial districts. Second, a health spa is permitted by right in the C-l, HC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning districts. Third, by special use permit, commercial recreational establishments, including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls are permitted in the C-l, MC, PD-SC and PD-MC zoning Districts. None of these three uses fit the request for an indoor athletic facility for athletic pursuit of indoor court games. Mr. McCallum said he and the applicant developed a term called an "indoor athletic facility" and made an application feeling the Zoning Ordi- nance would be better served by having this use category which is more in keeping with other activities and one which people might want within Albemarle County. Mr. McCallum said he feels this term, as a use category, should be in the Zoning Ordinance as a by-right use in Commercial, Highway Commercial and Light Industrial districts. The only quibble the applicant had with respect to staff's recommendation and the recommendation of the Planning Commission is that in the Light Industrial districts, the indoor athletic facility would be by special use permit rather than by-right. Staff and the Commission both recommended that in the C-1 and HC commercial districts, the indoor athletic facility be by- right. Me does not understand the rationale behind the recommendation. He does not understand why it cannot be a by-right use in Light Industrial. He read from the "Intent" section of the Zoning Ordinance and said this facility would be compatible, and it is a limited light commer- cial use that is supportive of industrial employment. People would be using this facility all times of the day. There are other by-right activities currently in the Light Industrial district which appear to have similar characteristics. He gave as examples: the by-right section relating to scientific and technical education facilities. These are not industrial in its nature, but are educational in nature. A contractor's office and equip- ment/storage yard is not a fabrication or manufacturing type of facility. Business and professional office buildings are permitted by right, as well as warehouse facilities. These uses which are permitted by right are different than manufacturing or fabricating of a light nature. He does not see the distinction between an indoor athletic facility and the warehouse facility. Mr. McCallum said staff noted the possible convertibility and alternate use of warehouse space and an indoor athletic facility particularly for courts. He explained that a warehouse facility could be converted to an indoor athletic facility. This interchange is better served if it can be done by right. He gave an example of the old Safeway Store at the corner of Hydraulic Road and Route 29 North which stood vacant for quite awhile. The Atlantic Coast Athletic Club started an indoor athletic facility in that store space, and later the same space became Blockbuster Video. This is an example of how there can be a change in use within a large structure. Mr. McCallum commented that the staff members' rationale really comes down to their opinion. They stated that not all LI locations are appropriate for indoor facilities, and this was their reason for the recommendation regarding special use permits. The staff's training and experience gives that recommendation great weight, but he did not see anything articulated in the staff report for the recommendation other than their opinion on the matter. This causes him to feel there should be a distinction made so that the indoor athletic facility cannot be by-right as requested by the applicant. He noted that the applicant 'has a practical timing issue. If the Supervisors see fit to permit the indoor athletic facility by-right in the LI district, then the applicant can proceed with the desired project immediately. If a special use permit is required, there is an additional application fee of $780 and the earliest time the applicant can be heard by this Board is December 12. Mr. McCallum thanked the Supervisors for their time and attention, and said he would be happy to answer any questions. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:14 p.m.) Mr. Martin stated that he has read both of the packets. He said that he thought one packet related to an increase in racquet ball courts on Hydraulic Road next to R. E. Lee, and the other one was referring to bumper carts behind Kegler's. He asked how these two requests are related. Mr. Bowerman answered that the two requests involve totally different applications, but they are both recreational in some respects. Mr. Marshall pointed out that one of these applications involves indoor recreation, and the other relates to outdoor recreation. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the application regarding September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~ (Page 29) the indoor sqUash court is actually just for a zoning text amendment. This application does not relate to the use'on Hydraulic Road. At this time, Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing, since there were no further public comments. Mr. Bain asked what the staff sees as a real limitation on the by-right use in the LI district. Mr. Cilimberg answered that staff considered the intent of the LI and CO districts, and he recalled that Mr. McCallum has already spoken to the intent involving the types of activities allowed in those districts. He said both of these districts are primary employment districts, and they are for the purpose of office, research and industrial use. The staff feels, and it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan, that those areas designated for office and industrial use should be used primarily for those uses. He stated that both areas also allow supportive commercial uses. In the Zoning Ordinance, the LI district has supporting commercial use, but it is by special use permit. Staff considered the indoor athletic type of activity as a supporting use to the primary use of employment in industry and office, etc, and this is why staff made a differentiation. Although he does not think there will be a prolifera- tion of these indoor athletic activities, there could be an application by right for a site plan for commercial type of development on LI property. He said there are commercial zones to handle that, but in developing LI dis- tricts, the basic intent was to keep the emphasis on industrial and office types of development. Mr. Bowerman said that in this particular case an indoor athletic activity might be an appropriate use by right in the LI district, but there are other situations where it could be very problematic. Mr. Bain pointed out that this LI district was recognized under the Zoning Ordinance in 1980, and that is the only reason it remained as an LI district. The land lies the Reservoir area, and only those parcels that had uses of an industrfal or commercial nature already associated with them were recognized. That is why this application is different. Mr. Cilimberg stated that since there was a contractor's type of operation on this particular property, it was considered as an LI district, but the activity of squash was already there. He went on to say that circum- stances will change from site to site, but as a use by special permit, the situations can be evaluated, and it can be decided what is appropriate or inappropriate in a particular case. In this case, the applicant has gotten caught in somewhat of an odd situation of having industrial zoning applied to the property in 1980, but there is actually some non-industrial use of that zoned property. Mr. Bowerman commented that he agrees with the staff's recommendations, although he understands that this applicant is caught in the middle of the situation. Mr. Bain concurred. Mrs. Humphris inqUired if the Planning Commission approved the reqUest, as staff recommended, with the special permit reqUirement in the LI and CO districts° Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Next, Mrs. Humphris made a motion to adopt an ordinance (set out. in full below) approving the reqUest of Hydraulic Road Partnership as forwarded to this Board by the Commission, and which includes the additional language by Mr. St. John and the deletion of the health spa change, and which specifically reqUires that the indoor athletic facility use in the LI district be by special permit. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Notes The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) O R D I N A N C E AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDANDREENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED that certain sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance are amended and reenacted to read as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS Add a definition of Indoor Athletic Facility to read as follows: Indoor Athletic Facility: A building or structure in which are conducted recreational, therapeutic or athletic activities, whether or not under instruction, September 15, 1993 (Regular N~'~h~ ~%ing)' (Page 30) 22.0 22.2 22.2.1 23.0 23.2 23.2.2 000056 such as, but not limited to: tennis and other court games, swimming, aerobics, and weight lifting but excluding such uses as: bowling alley, billiard hall, bingo, miniature golf, amusement center and dance halls. COI~fl~IERCIAL - C-1 PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT Add a section 22.2.1.b.24 reading Indoor athletic facilities. * * * * * COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO PERMITTED USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Add a section 23.2.2.14 reading Indoor athletic facilities. 24.0 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC 24.2 PERMITTED USES 24.2.1 BY RIGHT 27.0 27.2 27.2.2 Add a section 24.2.1.42 reading Indoor athletic facil- ities. LIGHT INDUSTRY - LI PERMITTED USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Add a section 27.2.2.15 reading Indoor athletic facilities. (Notes The following two items were heard concurrently. Agenda Item No. 16. ZMA-93-09. C. Todd Shields. Public hearing to rezone approx 5 acs from R-6 to HC. Property on W sd of Rt 29N W of Kegler's Bowling Alley/Miniature Golf Course about 0.7 mi N of Rio Rd. Property recommended for Regional Service in the Comprehensive Plan. TM45,Pl12(part). Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report (which is on file). The main portion reading: "The applicant's proposal is to rezone a portion of Parcel 112 from R-6 to HC. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for Regional Service. HC is an appropriate zoning in areas designated Regional Service. This site includes a portion of the proposed Berkmar Drive Extended and has an existing access easement permit- ting access to Route 29 over the Kegler's access road. The applicant has agreed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to the County. No critical slopes are located on-site which would prohibit commercial development. The areas adjacent to this site are also recommended for Regional Service. The land opposite Berkmar Drive Extended is recommended for Medium Density Residen- tial. The only negative factor staff has identified is the lack of sewer to the site. This can be overcome by upgrading the existing Woodbrook Pump Station that serves this drainage basin, delaying development until gravity sewer is installed (estimated to be no earlier than 1998) or serving any use with a septic field. Staff opinion is that lack of sewer capacity at this time does not present a sufficient justification for denial as several alternatives are available and all can be addressed at the time of any development proposal. "Any development which occurs on-site will have to satisfy the tree canopy provisions. Due to the construction of Berkmar Drive and alignment of this site with the roadway, the existing vegeta- tion will be removed. The operation of the landscape portion of the Zoning Ordinance will require revegetation as well as land- scaping adjacent to the roadway and screening of objectionable features. These provisions combined with setbacks will effective- ly eliminate adverse impacts to potential'residential development on the opposite site of Berkmar Drive. "Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with the COmprehensive Plan recommendations for the property. No proffers are proposed and staff opinion is that none are necessary as all September 15, 1993 (RegUlar Night Meeting) 000087 (Page 31) issues which would be regulated by proffers can be addressed during site plan review (access, utilities, landscaping, buffers, etc.). Based on the above comments, staff recommends approval of ZMA-93-09." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at is meeting on August' 31, 1993, recommended approval of this petition subject to the following proffer: "Dedication of the necessary right-of-way for Berkmar Drive upon completion of final road plans." Mr. Cilimberg noted that since the Commission meeting the following written proffer has been received: "September 10, 1993 Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Department of Planning & Community Development Albemarle County 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: AdventureLand (ZMA-93-09) Dear Mr. Fritz: The following proffer is offered in regard to this rezoning request: Dedication of the necessary right-of-way for Berkmar Drive upon completion of' final road plans with satisfactory hori- zontal and vertical alignment. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, (Signed) W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr., P.E." Agenda Item No. 17. SP-93-20. C. Todd Shields. For a commercial recreation establishment on approx 5 acs. See description under ZMA-93-09. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 31 and September 7, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report (which is on file). The main portion reads: "The applicant is proposing a recreational facility containing a number of amusement features. Staff has reviewed all recreational activities involving a special use permit submitted since .1970. These facilities have been for a broad range of uses including, but not limited to, skating rinks, dance halls, arcade, billiard center, indoor tennis, miniature golf courses, and driving ranges. From the analysis of comments made in past reviews, the major issues involving recreational activities have been impact on residential areas and impact on schools (site suitability has been an issue in some cases, but is addressed by the requirements of a site plan). "Staff has not identified any factors which are unfavorable to this request. Staff does note that ... the existing sewer line serving this area is at capacity. Staff recommends approval with conditions, one of which is designed to address the discharge of water from the bumper boat pool (this condition assumes that this site is served by private septic system)." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 31, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the following conditions: 1. No alcohol sales; 2e The bumper boat pool shall not be constructed until a method of handling the waste water has been approved by the Depart- ment of Environmental Quality; Fencing shown on the site plan shall not be bonded and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 4. Compliance with Section 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; Uses shall be limited to those uses shown on the site plan (go-kart races, batting cage, children's play areas bumper boats, miniature golf course and fun center). September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000088 (Page 32) Mr. Cilimberg also noted that the~planning commission, by a vote of 6/1, had approved the Todd Shields.Preliminary Site Plan with one condition reading: "At such time as a sewer line with adequate capacity is in place within 200 feet of the building, the applicant will connect to public sewer." Mr. Cilimberg answered questions for Board members concerning the petition and the zoning categories in the area. In reply to a question from Mrs. Humphris as to the location of the septic drainfield, Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is to be located under the parking area. The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Steve Blaine, speaking for the applicant. He said the staff did an excellent job in pulling together the land use planning considerations for the application. He said AdventureLand Fun Park is about family-oriented entertainment. One reason miniature golf is so popular is that basically anybody can do it, and it is outdoors. The Fun Park is about good, clean fun. There will be no alcohol permitted on this property. A place is needed where parents can let their teenagers off and they need not be concerned about drugs and alcohol. Mr. Blaine handed to the Board petitions containing approximately 150 signatures of County residents, many who live in the Forest Lakes Subdivision, who are in support of this application. Mr. Blaine said the size of the whole parcel is 10.6 acres. The project involves approximately five acres. The parcel is in close proximity to the Agnor-Hurt School, and the principal was contacted, and she did not think there will be a problem with truancy. The applicant is agreeable to the condition concerning public sewer. The septic system will be located below the parking 'lot. Berkmar Drive Extended will separate the uses between HC and residential. The siting of the improvements and consideration of adjacent uses was taken into consideration in the site plan, that being the reason for the extensive landscaping. The proffer of the road will save the County about $115,000 at current land value. Safety concerns were not raised. All of the employees (30 employees per shift) will be trained in health and safety including CPR. Mrs. Numphris asked about the idea of having a septic drainfield under a parking lot. Mr. Tom Muncaster said it is a common practice. The Health Department routinely allows that. They do require that the parking lot be paved if this is allowed. Mrs. Humphris asked who conducted the noise study. Mr. Blaine said they have noise studies from the industry, but have not done a specific study of this site because it has not been completed. Site characteristics make a big difference in noise impact, but that can be taken into account during design of the buffers. Mr. Marshall asked if the drainfields will go under the areas where children walk. Mr. MUncaster said they can, but the parking lot is where most of the drainfields will go. Mr. Blaine asked if it is true that Kegler's has a private septic system. Mr. Bowerman said "no", Kegler's is on the public system, and that is a big point of contention between the County, the Service Authority, and six residents in Woodbrook who were denied capacity, and Kegler's got it. Mr. John Cruicshank, a resident of Albemarle County in the Earlysville area, and the father of two teenage children who attend County schools, and a preschool child, spoke next. He is an educator employed by the County School Board. He is strongly opposed to construction of an amusement park on Route 29 near Kegler's. He understands the types of amusements which the facility will include, but does not believe the creation of a park of this type is in the best interests of the children, or most of the adults in Albemarle County. All citizens need to be concerned with the intellectual, social, emotional and physical development of children. This type of amusement arcade contributes nothing to this type of development. He believes it will actually interfere with participation in the types of activities that do contribute to learning and healthy maceration. Activities like organized sports, cultural activi- ties, outdoor recreation, reading study, scouts, are the types of activities he wants children involved in. He wants the community to value learning over amusement, and to consider the interests of children above the interests of business. He urged the Board to vote against the petition because he feels it will detract from the quality of the community. Ms. Demmie Maine said she signed a petition. They got over 100 names in one day opposed to this facility. She became aware of the request about 10 days ago by reading the local newspaper. As a parent of three young children, and a teacher and educator, she reiterates what Mr. Cruicshank just said° She sympathizes with the applicant in trying to start a new business since she is also involved in the same activity. She looks at Hollymead and Woodbrook Elementary schools as part of their communities and he cannot envision go- karts and elementary schools existing as a community. The County is looking to provide affordable housing in the community, therefore, she requests that the property be retained in R-6 so that the Agnor-Hurt School can have a community to back it up. She also believes that this type of business is often trendy, and short-lived. If the zoning is changed, then it will be left open to whatever type of future development might locate there. September 15, 1993 (RegUlar Night Meeting) 0000~9 (Page 33) Ms. Maine suggested that the Board look at the type and number of people who might be drawn to this type of fac'ility in an elementary school area. She thinks it would be a threat to the safety of the children who probably frequent the playground in the afternoons at Agnor-Hurt. The facility will only be one-third of a mile away and that is not a great distance for a child to travel. She asked the Board to think wisely where the children are concerned, and to vote "no" to the rezoning so that the community and school might still exist for the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. She has spoken to many parents who said this is not the type of entertainment they want for their children. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Maine how she collected the signatures on the petitions. Ms. Maine said they were passed to different people to get them signed. Mr. Les Folger said he has been a resident of Charlottesville for about one and one-half years. He finds the area lacking in entertainment facili- ties. He does not feel this will be a high school hang-out. These are family facilities, but he believes University students will also use the facilities. He talked to some people with children and they support the request. He asked that the Board support the request. Mr. Mac Warner said he is a resident of Charlottesville. He sees this as an opportunity to do something for his kids. He has four children, and is the uncle of 17 nieces and nephews all under the age of seventeen. They all love to come to Charlottesville and he spends time looking for good, wholesome activities for the children to get involved in. He asked the Board to approve the request tonight. Although Charlottesville is a good place to live, there is not an opportunity to take good children out for good, wholesome entertain- ment, especially outdoors. He has read about the plans in the newspapers and believes it is well thought out and well put forward. There is a small version of this, LeisureLand, at Forest Lakes, and he has been there eight times in the month of September. He has taken about 16 different children to LeisureLand for good activities. He is very excited about this request, and does not believe the children will be stopped from doing outdoor activities by not approving it. He believes the Board will be passing up a good opportunity by not approving it, and strongly recommends approval. Next to speak was Ms. Karen Strickland from Earlysville. She attended the Planning Commission meeting, and believes the Commission looked at the letter of the Zoning Ordinance and not the intent. She quoted from the Comprehensive Plan where it says that "Route 29 North should be sensitive to its status as an entrance corridor." She said that this facility will be located on a hill so it will be visible, and she believes it should be judged by the entrance corridor regulations. She said there is a stated need for affordable housing in the area. Removal of the residential zoning category from this property will affect the balance of residential properties. Ms. Strickland said she does not object to a recreation center of this type, and there is probably a need for it although she would not allow her children to attend one. She thinks the location is the problem. Nearer to the Airport would be better. The noise coming from this facility (as stated at the Commission meeting) is the same as 15 to'lB lawnmowers. She said the Comprehensive Plan states that the west side of Berkmar Drive should be all residential. With this complex just across the street, what effect will it have on that residential development. She thinks this development in this spot is inappropriate. Ms. Strickland said she has two concerns about the entrance to the property. She understands the entrance is. on Route 29 since Berkmar Drive Extended does not exist at this time. That means there will be traffic congestion and probably another stop light on 29. If Berkmar Drive Extended gets developed, there will be an entrance onto Berkmar Drive, and there will be the connection to the school, and the connection to residential. She thinks this development is premature. The request for development in this spot is premature. With the Comprehensive Plan review upcoming, maybe the applicant can wait and see how the Plan develops and where residential will go and where an appropriate site for this type of activity should be. She believes it should be delayed until the road is actually built. Mr. Lloyd Wood said he has operated the Putt-Putt Golf Course for 35 years in Albemarle County. It has provided the same type of entertainment for a long time, and in a fine fashion. He is not speaking against this type of entertainment in Albemarle County, but instead is opposed to this particular project. He speaks in opposition only to the bad aspects. It is a long way from Route 29 just to Kegler"s and then there is a five-acre tract behind Kegler's that the applicants are trying to rezone. The main entrance for this parcel will be on the new Berkmar Drive Extended. There will be no sequential zoning in effect from this parcel back out to Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the highway use on a regional basis in this area, but more strongly, it recognizes the R-6 residential uses in this area. Four years ago when the Comprehensive Plan was studied in great detail, this area was emphasized as a place for much needed low-income housing. It was already zoned R-6 at that time, and kept as R-6 for residential use. It ties in with the sequential type of zoning which would place heavy commercial close to the highway and then changing zoning gradually as you move back from the highway. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Mee~ing) 000090 (Page 34) Mr. Wood said the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, and some common sense should be used when changing zoning categories. In the four years since the Plan was revised, this Board has given greater emphasis to that R-6 zoning to support the school in the area. A library has been put in Albemarle Square for the use of residential zones in that area. The new Agnor-Hurt Elementary School has been built recently in the area to provide educational services for this residential use, as well as other residential uses in the County. There has also been emphasis placed on the increasing need for affordable housing during the past four years. The County built a portion of the feeder road (Berkmar Drive) by extending it across Rio Road to eliminate some of the traffic problems from regional uses like Sam's Club and Wal-Mart. There is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that says this particular piece of property should be rezoned to highway commercial, the highest density commercial zoning. Mr. Wood asked the Board not to take away from the good things which have been done during the past four years and change this parcel from residen- tial to highway use. Mr. Wood said he would like to address some of the aspects of the actual uses proposed for this site. Miniature golf has been in the community for thirty-five years. It is a family type of operation, and all ages can enjoy the use. He noted a recent article in the Daily Progress where someone is quoted as saying it is a "trendy" business. Mr. Wood said the go-karts were "trendy" twenty-five years ago, but it wasn't too long after that that they not popular, and one could hardly find a go-kart track. Fifteen years ago, batting cages were "trendy", and then popularity waned. Mr. Wood said the zoning on the tract will not be trendy since the zoning runs with the land. Mr. Wood said one other aspect of this petition is the game room, or the arcade which is proposed. Sears, Roebuck had a game room in its store, but had to get rid of it because of vandalism, drugs, and constant problems with controlling violence. The mall itself had a big game room at the main entrance, but was not able to afford proper security to keep out the drugs, violence and other things. It is no longer in the mall. Mr. Wood said he feels it is simply an exchange of the bad elements from the mall over to a parcel of land close to the school. Mr. Wood said it is unheard of in the industries with which he is involved to take a five-acre tract of land that is now residential and rezone it to highway commercial with no public sewer. This project could draw in excess of 1000 people per day during peak times in the summer. This has been his experience with the Putt-Putt. To put that many people on a five-acre tract with no public sewer is unheard of. The septic tank would be put under a parking lot, but that septic drainfield has to breathe in order to work. Mr. Wood said in the next year, the County will be studying the Compre- hensive Plan for the next five-year revision, and he thinks if this property is rezoned to a high density commercial use now, the die will be cast, the precedent will be set, and there will be a commercial strip all the way for a mile plus to Rio Road. On behalf of himself in this matter, and in speaking for others who had to leave the meeting earlier, he would ask the Board to vote against this request. He does not believe it is good for the County. Ms. Kim Davis said she has two children in school at Broadus Wood. Earlysville is represented here tonight because these children will be going to Agnor-Hurt School in the future after the redistricting. All other elemen- tary schools in the County are supported by neighborhoods and subdivisions close by. Agnor-Hurt is at a disadvantage because it is already behind a shopping center. She thinks changing the zoning to highway commercial will set a precedent and there will never be any affordable housing built in the area to support that school. Ms. Davis said she feels it would be an advan- tage for the school to have residential support. The petition that was signed by 150 people is from the Forest Lakes area, and all of those children go to Hollymead School. She feels highway commercial should be restricted to the highway. It was mentioned that in a couple of weeks a petition from Fast- Tracks is to be heard, and that facility is a similar activity. She feels the school will just be surrounded by commercial activity. She thinks these people could find another location which is not so close to school activity. Mr. Todd Shields, the applicant, spoke next. He said that as a busi- nessman there is, of course, a profit motive involved. They hired consultants and based on the information obtained, they identified a need in the communi- ty, and are trying to fill that void. They would not pursue an activity that proved to be an economic hardship on the applicants. He said this facility is not a harbinger of bad activities, it depends on management. They will have security on the premises, and expect to have a well-managed, well-maintained, well-located and well-designed project. They will monitor those type of elements and will not allow them on the premises. The location was selected based on the Comprehensive Plan and the proximity of the land to other similar activities. He feels this is a natural location for this type of activity by grouping it with the bowling alley and miniature golf course. Mr. Shields said he has talked to literally hundreds of people this past year while working on this project, and has heard nothing but support. He did obtain signatures of people in favor of the facility, and they are from all over the region, not just from Forest Lakes. Mr. Shields said he does not think it is the business of government to tell people which activities are suitable for their children. This is a good, clean, wholesome activity that is supervised. For those in favor, there is nothing else in the Charlottes- ville area that is similar. Market research indicated a desire for this type September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 00009~ (Page 35) of activity. The different activities were not arbitrarily chosen. It is not a trendy type of operation. It has been around for a long time. These will be new generation go-karts, which are not as loud as a lawnmower. Mr. Shields said the fun center is a mixture of food service, arcade, soft play area for children and redemption; it is not an arcade like the one at Fashion Square. It is a children's center type of area, although teenagers will also be present. Mr. Bowerman interrupted to ask the meaning of "redemp- tion.'' Mr. Shields said these are activities where children receive tickets, and then redeem them for novelty items. He then asked the Board to approve his request° With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman said when he gets a lot of correspondence from the public, it is usually from people who are directly affected by an activity. Immedi- ately after the Planning Commission meeting on these petitions, he received five separate letters none of which were signed by people anywhere close to this location, yet all opposed the use proposed. He has had difficulty with these applications because there are two issues involved. One has to do with the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning of the property. Second is the special use permit for the specific use in highway commercial zoning. Mr. Bowerman said he was a member of the Planning Commission for ten years, and this is his fourth year as a member of the Board of Supervisors. The area between the SPCA Road and Route 29 North was looked at as a combina- tion of residential and commercial. There was development occurring there, and during the review of the Comprehensive Plan five years ago, they looked at Berkmar Drive Extension as the demarkation line between the commercial and the residential activity. The existing commercial activity (Rio Hill Shopping Center, the back of Colonial Auto Center, and the school), does not have the same intensity of use that highway commercial would have in this location. One of the reasons Agnor-Hurt School was put in this location was that it was to be supported by the residential community around it, plus that in other areas nearby. They wanted the location of the school to have some connection to immediate residential properties. Mr. Bowerman said he is mindful of the comments he heard about the residential zoning, and the fact that residential land continues to be removed from the urban area and changed to commercial. He is not sure the Comprehen- sive Plan recommends residential only on the west side of Berkmar or whether it is a combination of compatible uses of residential and commercial in that area. He has a problem that the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial use and regional service there and the fact that this use is compatible with that designation. Mr. Bowerman said the second issue is the special permit. The uses involved in it give him concern. It is the concern expressed by people who do not live near it, and who have also expressed concern here tonight. He shares these feelings because the community has expressed concern in general about the facility. He knows a lot of people do not feel the use is objectionable, and is one they can support. However, he would not support the special permit even if the land were already zoned highway commercial. It has taken him the whole conduct of this meeting to arrive at this thinking. It is a complicated issue because the Comprehensive Plan is involved, zoning designations and a special permit are all involved. He is very uncomfortable with the special use permit request for the use on this piece of property. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She does not feel highway commercial is an appropriate zoning category in this location. Until the next review of the Comprehensive Plan, she feels the property should remain zoned as R-6 residen- tial. She shares Mr. Wood's concern about the sewer situation on the proper- ty, and she cannot support either the rezoning or the special use permit. Mr. Martin said he thinks the applicant is offering something, contrary to what some people believe, that can be a nice place if properly run. He believes there is a need for recreational facilities for kids in this communi- ty. There are some parents who believe their children should spend all of their time with educational type activities, but he personally knows that children like to go out and do something different, and he would like to have a decent place to take his kids. He was not a member of the Board when the Agnor-Murt School was placed in its location, and it does need to have some type of support closer than a mile and a half away. Also, he has been a strong advocate for affordable housing since he became a Board member, and he does not believe there can be affordable housing without high density zoning, and he cannot see moving R-6 land into commercial zoning when it is the last remaining residential land near the school. Mr. Bain said the whole area is "tough" when it comes to zoning catego- ries. Even though the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as regional service, to change to the intensity of highway commercial is not required. The Board needs to look at the sequence of zoning from Rio Road northward, only part of it being developed at this time. The Board needs to be careful about what it zones the property in this area. He is sure the applicants have researched carefully for their request, and they know what the community would like to have in the way of facilities. Mr. Bain said he does not think highway commercial is an appropriate zoning in this location. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) 000092 Mr. Marshall asked if he could vote on this request since Mr. Wood is his cousin. They own no property together and are not in business together. Mr. Bowerman said he could see no reason why Mr~ Marshall could not vote, having expressed his connection it is not now a conflict. There being no further discussion by the Board members, motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny ZMA-93-09. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny the request for SP-93-20 since the rezoning request failed. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman~ NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: May 13(A) and May 13(N), 1992, June 16 and August 4, 1993. Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of August 4, 1993, pages 1 through 41 (at item 5.3). She said these minutes contained the Personnel Policies which were readopted by the Board. She found these policies particularly difficult to understand. She has asked the Clerk to verify the correctness of the policies as set out. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of May 13, 1993 (Night), and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of June 16, 1993, pages 29 (from Item 10) to the End, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris~ seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker noted that the Fiscal Impact Committee, on last Thursday afternoon, reached a decision on two consulting firms which had been inter- viewed to look at an economic development model as well as the fiscal impact model. The Committee recommended negotiating a price with Tischler and Associates. Hearing no objections from the Board, staff will proceed with this matter. No objections were voiced. Mr. Tucker said he had received a telephone call from Mr. Forbes Reback who said that Mr. Ray Pethtel is going before the Virginia Outdoors Foundation on October 5, 1993, to ask them to reconsider their action regarding the Mil- lington Bridge over the Moormants River (Route 671). Mr. Reback requested the Chairman and other Board members to attend and note the Board's action on this matter to date. Mr. Bowerman said he will go if staff will prepare a statement that the whole Board can agree to without seeing it first. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Tucker to discuss Route 678 with Mr. Roosevelt, to see where this project stands. The Board needs to let the citizens know what is going on. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Walter Johnson took it upon himself to approach the Daily Progress concerning their listing of coming events which is pub- lished every Monday on Page B2. The Daily Progress has agreed to include items of county-wide interest if an agenda is faxed to them at 10 A.M. the Friday before the Wednesday meeting. Mr. St. John suggested that the items included may well be thought by the public to be the only items which will be discussed. He suggested that it be all or none. After a short discussion, Mr. Bowerman suggested that a staff report saying why this cannot be done be included on the consent agenda on October 6. Mrs. Humphris asked about amendments to the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said drafting of amendments is taking a lot of research time. Mr. Bowerman asked for a status report on October 6. September 15, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 37) 000093 Mrs. Humphris again mentioned the request concerning the amphitheater (1781 Productions) and the play being written for presentation. There being no consensus as to wha~ ~igh~'"be done,"~?~0werman asked Mr. Tucker to prepare a letter for his signature, to be included on the next agenda, so the Board can work on it. He voted for the zoning text amendment to promote the historical characteristics of Albemarle County and he would like to stick to that for anything that is done. He did not vote for blatant fictitious dramas which are just for commercial reasons and which do not support the historic character of Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall again mentioned eliminating the 50-foot restriction in the County's hunting laws. There was no consensus to take any action at this time. Mr. Marshall said he had given Mr. Bowerman a letter from Mr. Jim Kesterson about the resolution the Board recently enacted concerning liability for certain improvements on highway right-of-way. (Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 12:14 a.m.) He is concerned that it will be done at taxpayer's expense. Mr. Bowerman suggested the staff look at the letter and give the Board a review. Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:17 A.M.