1993-12-08December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
O00g?5
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 8, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., 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. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Hum-
phris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.5 and 5.6 and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda for information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Item 5.1. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for October 14, 1993, received for information.
Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 9, 1993, was
received for information.
Item 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority for October 25, 1993, received for information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated November 29, 1993, from Mr. Nelson J. Shaw, Area
Forester, Albemarle County, Department of Forestry, re: notice that Tax Map
136, Parcel 29, appears to have a small infestation of Southern Pine Beetle,
received for information.
Item 5.5. Appoint Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County Executive, to
the PACC-Tech Committee to replace Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger. By the
recorded vote shown above, Mr. Huff was appointed to the PACC-Tech Committee.
Item 5.6. Appoint Mr. Pete Craddock to the Milton Airport Study
Advisory Committee to replace Mr. Gerald Dixon. By the recorded vote shown
above, Mr. Craddock was appointed to the Milton Airport Study Advisory
Committee.
Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion: Corville Farm Subdivision, central well
system, request for funding (deferred from December 1, 1993).
Mr. Tucker said the request for funding was discussed at the last Board
meeting. The discussion was deferred until this meeting to allow Mr. Casero
to be present and to address specific issues such as whether certain alterna-
tives had been explored.
Mr. Joseph Casero first thanked the Board for the sensitivity it has
shown towards this matter on behalf of a small number of constituents. One of
the alternatives mentioned was cracking which is an attempt to extract a
formation to induce a greater flow. Mr. Hank Tiffany, the previous owner,
tried that method on the well located below the subdivision and it was an
absolute, total failure. The formation is extremely tight. He was told the
flow of the well when it went out of service was approximately eight gallons
per minute. There is no reason to believe that the flow would be less. The
Virginia Department of Health also verified the eight gallons per minute as
continual flow. He thinks that the system which has been outlined, and
concurred by the County Engineer, along with the storage capacity of all the
wells should provide sufficient water for the foreseeable future. This also
means that by cutting back on the pumping rate from the other two wells, there
will be some degree of recharge. The extreme pumping rate from the other two
wells is the problem for the draw-down which has been ongoing for a number of
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
000276
years. The formation is extremely hard rock and there are few fissures and
cavities which would bring in additional water. Cracking is not the answer in
this case. He believes that removal of the old pump, installation of a 30
stage unit with check valves within the system to prevent pressure losses and
additional storage capacity would provide the added volume and would solve the
problem.
Mr. Bain asked what is the current storage capacity. Mr. Casero said
there is currently one, 5000 gallon tank which is in good condition and
normally kept at seven-eights full. Lately this tank has only been three-
quarters full with both wells operating at full speed. Mr. Bain asked how
large is the additional storage tank and if that tank is estimated in the
cost. Mr. Casero said the storage capacity of the additional tank is between
500 and 800 gallons.
Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that if the Board grants this request
due to the financial circumstance of the residents, the income levels of the
residents should be documented so that if a similar situation arises in the
future, the Board can justify not having set a precedent. The two important
issues are the income levels of the residents and the statement by Mr. Casero
that he has paid out all that he can afford to pay. She thinks those two
issues need to be documented. This assistance should also be with the under-
standing that it is one-time only.
Mr. Bain asked if the Board could use County tax records on the assessed
values of the homes to document this as a means of providing affordable
housing. Mr. St. John said he believes one of the reasons this subdivision
was approved had to do with providing affordable housing in the Greenwood
area. Mr. Tucker said staff can look at the real estate appraisals on the
properties and show the assessed values.
At this time there was a consensus of the Board to defer further action
on this request until December 15, 1993, to allow staff time to draft a
resolution to allow the Board to move forward on the request for funding
assistance to Mr. Casero. The resolution should include the reasons for the
request, the affordable housing issue, efforts made thus far by Mr. Casero and
document the exception to the income levels.
(Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:19 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on a request from A. G. Dillard to
amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) to include Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, located in Hunter's Hall Subdivision,
for water service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24 and
December 1, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg said when the Board set this request for public hearing,
it requested more information on the implications of the designation. The
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) indicated that it can provide this
service if requested by the Board, but the designation would require a unique
rating for charges which would have to be determined, initially, on a case-by-
case basis. The ACSA does not currently charge for use of water for fire
protection through fire hydrants. It has no existing individual service for
fire suppression.
The only precedent for service to provide fire protection was the
Board's adoption of a policy (October 9, 1991) allowing fire hydrants on
existing water lines in the Rural Areas that are outside of the ACSA's service
area boundaries.
By existing Comprehensive Plan policy, any service area change outside
of designated growth areas should be made only when property is adjacent to
existing lines and public health and safety is endangered. The Plan also
warns that extension of utilities to the Rural Areas can increase development
pressures. The Board, in setting this public hearing, determined that water
service for fire suppression may address a public health or safety concern.
Since this request will not cause extension of water lines into new develop-
ment areas, the potential for increased development pressure from this request
is minimal.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is possible that similar requests could be
received in the future (the nearby United Parcel building currently has a
sprinkler system). The ACSA can provide the service and an appropriate rating
for charges, therefore, staff can recommend approval of this request for
"water only to existing structures" for fire suppression only.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the structure has already been remodeled. Mr.
Cilimberg said there have been some work towards the remodeling. Mrs.
Humphris asked when the building permit was issued. Mr. Cilimberg did not
know; but said the Inspections Department indicated the need for the sprinkler
system when it was reviewing the additional work to the building. Mrs.
Humphris wanted to know if the remodeling had begun before the building permit
was issued, therefore, this request is after the fact. Mr. Cilimberg again
said some the work had been started, but he did not know if the work had been
completed. Mrs. Humphris noted that the Inspections Department stated that
the applicant had been strongly encouraged by Inspections to put in a sprin-
kler system. There is a difference between "requiring" and "strongly encour-
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night'Meeting)
(Page 3)
aging". Mr. Cilimberg said there are mechanisms to address fire codes, other
than sprinklers.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Alan G. Dillard said his main concern with not being able to connect
to public water is ~he cost of a storage tank. He received a rough estimate
of approximately $40,000 for the cost of a storage tank. It is his under-
standing that a storage tank is not nearly as reliable as connecting to public
water. He also does not think a tank should be required when there is a water
line running through the property. He asked that the Board vote favorably for
the request.
Mr. Tom Trevillian, the engineer, said there are other alternatives,
such as a substance that can be sprayed on the walls to make the steel beams
resistent to flames, but that would do nothing for the firemen in the building
fighting a fire. That does not stop or put out the fire. The estimated cost
of a tank and pump is approximately $40,000. There is a chance a pump system
would not work, when needed, if it had not been used for several years. All
pumps operate off electricity. If a fire was the result of an electrical
breakdown, there would be no system. He thinks for the safety of the employ-
ees and fire prevention personnel in the County, the most reasonable choice
would be allow connection to water.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the sequence of events and whether the
renovations were complete. Mr. Dillard said they started the building renova-
tions and as they got into the details thought the County needed to be
involved. Inspections then .indicated that the renovations would require a
sprinkler system. Mrs. Humphris asked if the system was "strongly encouraged"
or "required". Mr. Trevillian said the Inspections Department "strongly
recommended".
Mrs. Humphris asked how long the renovations have been ongoing. Mr.
Dillard said the renovations were started in September and lasted about 30 to
45 days. Mrs. Humphris asked when was a building permit issued. Mr. Trevill-
ian said the applicant has not applied for a building permit.
Mr. Marshall asked how many people would work in the building. Mr.
Dillard responded that ten people would work in the building.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Pat Napoleon, a life-long resident of Keswick, said the Comprehen-
sive Plan visions for the Village of Rivanna expressly restricts use of water
lines recently installed along Route 250 East. The Plan states: "Areas north
of Interstate-64 have historic, scenic significance to the County and region,
including possible designation of a rural historical district and have large
acreage in agricultural/forestal districts. To further preserve and protect
these resources, water lines should be sized to serve the Village and Stone
Robinson School only. Capacity shall be reserved for a potential new school
in the Village until such time as determined that the school is not neces-
sary.'' Allowing the requested amendment to the jurisdictional areas would be
contrary to this and other provisions of the Plan. Approval of this request
would lead to the proliferation of connections and development along the route
of this water line which the residents of Keswick feared when Glenmore was
first proposed, and which they were repeatedly assured by the Board would be
prevented. She asked that the Board show the residents they can rely on the
Plan and the assurances of the Board by denying this application.
Ms. Treva Cromwell, speaking for the League of Women Voters, presented a
statement (copy on file) strongly urging the Board to deny the request to
amend the service area boundaries to include water service to this property.
The League does not feel that lower costs only to a land owner should be a
criterion for granting use of public water. Secondly, the staff report'
clearly shows this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
which warns that extension of utilities to Rural Areas can produce pressures
for development. This water line along Route 250 East and its potential for
development was a major issue during most of 1989 when the Glenmore proposal
for residential development was being debated. There was fear on the part of
many residents of that area that the presence of a water line would bring
pressures for tap-ins and spur development. The residents were assured that
the Service Authority's jurisdictional area would be limited to the growth
area. Limiting the service area is the key to preventing strip development
along Route 250. Therefore, expanding the Service Authority's jurisdictional
area is the first step in weakening the commitment to resist development
pressures. The League does not agree with the staff's statement that the
potential for increased development from this particular request is minimal.
Approval of this request would set a precedent and would undoubtedly trigger
other requests, not only along this water line, but along other water lines in
the County.
Ms. Cromwell said that in 1989, the League supported the village
designation, but warned that the League was concerned about the increased
pressure for strip development along that corridor. Only if firm boundaries
are set now does the County have a chance to resist those pressures. The
County did set firm boundaries by restricting the Service Authority's juris-
dictional area to tke designated growth area. The League strongly urges the
Board to support that policy by denying this request tonight.
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
000 78
Ms. Lisa Glass, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council
(PEC), presented a statement (copy on file). PEC regards this application as
having potentially significant ramifications to the entire Route 250 East
corridor, but does not think there is enough information in the record to take
a position, other than to recommend that the Board defer action on this
request until more information is provided. PEC needs to know how the Board
would treat requests from other landowners adjacent to this line for water
service, if this were approved; would the Board be able to deny requests from
these other landowners, if this request is approved; does the applicant have
other means of fire suppression available and how have other existing uses in
this area satisfied their need for fire suppression; would the cost of this
service and the connections be paid solely by the applicant or would it be
subsidized by the existing customers of the Service Authority; and is it
practical to limit the applicant's use to fire suppression only or would
granting this request allow the use for other purposes.
Ms. Glass said because of the likelihood that other landowners along
this line would also try to gain access to this line, and because this could
significantly change the nature of development along Route 250 East from that
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, PEC recommends deferral on this
application until a comprehensive assessment of the effect of this decision
can be made. Ms. Glass said her understanding is that the applicant applied
for a building permit yesterday and there are other alternatives besides a
sprinkler.
Ms. Sarah Lee Hames, a resident of Keswick, said when Glenmore was
approved by the Board, the residents were assured that the use of the water
line required by Glenmore would be restricted to use by Glenmore and Stone
Robinson School. One of the reasons there was such opposition to the Glenmore
development was because of this water line and the potential increase in
development along Route 250. If this application is approved, this will be
the first in a long line of applications and would turn this section of Route
250 East into a commercial strip. She drives that road on a daily basis and
is disappointed and saddened to see the strip of commercial development going
east now like it is on Route 29 North. She asked that the Board not set this
precedent. The time to stop commercial stripping of this road is now by
denying this application. The other businesses in the area have managed to
solve their problem with a sprinkler system. There are other alternatives
that should be considered before allowing the applicant to connect to public
water.
Mr. John Embree, a resident of Shadwell, said the Board must hold to the
Comprehensive Plan if the Plan is to have any meaning. Every effort should be
made to minimize additional development. Allowing this applicant to connect
to the water line would set a precedent. Other requests for more intense use
of this area would result. The increase in development is inevitable once
this precedent is set. He asked that the request be denied.
There being no other comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Humphris said she was disappointed in the change in staff's
position between their memorandum to the Board of November 3 and the memoran-
dum of December 8. On November 3, staff's position was that this capacity
should be reserved for the potential new school and the village, or until a
school was determined to not be necessary. The staff also felt that service
to this parcel was not consistent with the intent of the Plan and could set a
precedent for allowing water service to other parcels along this corridor.
The staff provided a strong recommendation to not proceed to public hearing
for water service to this parcel. The staff's memo of December 8 uses as its
logic for changing and recommending this jurisdictional area change the fact
that the Board, in deciding to go to this public hearing, determined that
water service for fire suppression may address a public health and safety
concern. She cannot follow that logic because she thought the reason they
went to public hearing was to hear from the public on what the public wanted.
She prefers the original assessment that this could set a precedent. Hearing
the statement from the League, takes her back to 1989 when the Board was
discussing the extension of that water line to the Village of Rivanna and the
potential for future growth. She sat out in the audience and heard over and
over again from the then members of this Board that there need be no fear,
that this was firm, that this water line would not be used for stripping
development along Route 250 East, and the people out there were protected.
She is concerned as to why the applicant moved forward with a renovation
project without getting a building permit. Alternatives should have been
investigated at the on-set, not after the fact. She feels the Board was
correct in 1989 when it stated the purpose of that water line out. She thinks
there has been no change of circumstance to change that position and she hopes
this Board will keep the faith with the people and let them know that they can
trust the Board to do the right thing. The right thing is not to make an
exception for the benefit of one individual.
Mr. Martin said he disagrees with Mrs. Humphris about disappointment in
staff. He thinks staff did the right thing which was to look at this as a
safety issue that could be applied to other places. He thinks that is the
only reason for this request to go to public hearing. He agrees with Mrs.
Humphris that it is important to preserve the capacity for what might be
another school and there were some assurances from the Board that the use of
this water line would be prohibited for safety and health uses only.
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
000279
Mr. Martin then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny the
request for water service only to Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, located in Hunter's
Hall Subdivision.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are fire hydrants along Route 250. Mr.'J. W.
Brent, Executive Director of the ACSA, said in the area that is within the
jurisdictional area, there is a fire hydrant at least every 800 feet. In the
area outside the jurisdictional area, they are there when the property owner
elects to pay for them and have them installed. He does not believe there is
a hydrant at this intersection.
Mr. Bain said he will support the motion. This could be a safety issue
but there are ways of addressing the issue other than allowing this connec-
tion.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the health and safety issue.
is concerned about the type of system used at UPS. He cannot see the Board
opening this line up to any new development or to anyone else but to have a
building that is already there is a different issue.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall
(Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 2.1-4(c) known as the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" to
add parcels located on Rt 621, Rt 612 and Rt 20N. The proposed addition
contains 135.188 ac. in 8 parcels. The proposed time period is the same as
for the original district, or 10 years from October 13, 1993. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 24 and December 1, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November
9, 1993, recommended by a 4-1 vote, approval of the request with the exception
of the Rushton property (Tax Map 63, Parcel 14I) for which an application had
not been received, with the understanding that the life estate/ownership
question on the Casaday property would be resolved before the recommendation
came back to the Board of Supervisors. The application for Rushton was
received following the Planning Commission meeting, and since it was not
possible to resolve the life estate question definitively, the Casaday
property was withdrawn following agreement between the applicant, staff,
zoning administrator and deputy county attorney.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environment Council (PEC),
said PEC supports agricultural/forestal districts and asked the Board to
support the application.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain said in reading the Planning Commission's minutes some of the
discussion was that an agricultural/forestal district might tend to devalue
property. He asked if staff had looked at that aspect in any detail. Mr.
Cilimberg said that is not something staff had been asked to study. He thinks
the conversation with the Commission had more to do with the affect an
agricultural/forestal district designation had on adjacent properties that
might choose to intensify uses by special permit. Staff is supposed to take
into consideration the existence of an agricultural/forestal district in
evaluating a special permit. Mr. Bain said he thinks that is something that
needs to be looked at as the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed.
Mr. Marshall said he will support the additional parcels in this
district but he is concerned about people moving into the County and subdivid-
ing parcels of land in 21 acre lots, building a house and then getting into an
agricultural/foresta'l district. He feels that when the Board reviews the
Comprehensive Plan it needs to seriously look at the acreage to see what it is
doing to the rural areas.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(c), the "Eastham Agricultural and
Forestal District" to add 135.188 acres contained in eight parcels, for the
same time period as the original district, or ten years from October 13, 1993.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000280
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
IN SECTION 2.1-4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of Chapter 2.1, Agricultural
and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle be amended and
reenacted in subsection (c) known as the "Eastham Agricultural and
Forestal District" by the addition of parcels, all as follows:
(c)
The district known as the "Eastham Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 63, parcels 1, iA, IAI, 2, 4,
14G, 14H, 14I, 26, 26A, 27, 30F, 30G, 4lA, 41Al.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-93-26. Kermit & Ellen Roberts. Public Hearing
on a request for a home occupation-Class B to permit a one chair barber shop.
Property consists of 128.25 ac zoned RA & is located on a pvt rd approx 0.45
mi E of Rt 663 & 600 ft N of the Rt 664/Rt 663 inters. TM9,P24. White Hall
Dist. (Property is not located in designated growth area.) {Advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 22 and Nove~ber 29, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed as part of
the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on November 9, 1993, by a vote of 4-2, recommended approval of
SP-93-26 subject to conditions.
Mr. St. John said his impression from reading the minutes of the
Planning Commission was that the Commission felt if this barber chair was in
the home instead of in an accessory building, that it would be by-right use.
He and the Zoning Administrator both disagree with that interpretation. He
base his opinion on Section 5.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that
"... No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation and greater volumes
than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood .... "
The Chairman a'sked the applicant for comments. Mr. Kermit Roberts said
he knows that he does not have adequate site distance, but there is nothing he
can do about it. He has tried to purchase property from his neighbors, but
they have not been willing to sell. He was a barber in Charlottesville for 28
years. He purchased the home place from his father 15 years ago and started
farming. It got to the point where he could not maintain the farming opera-
tion and the barber shop, but he could not make a living from farming. He has
provided staff with traffic counts taken on two separate occasions. There are
times when he is in and out of his property with heavy equipment more often
than people coming to get hair cut. This farm has been in his family since
the 1920s. There is nothing he can do about the site distance if the people
are not willing to sell him the property. To his knowledge there has never
been an accident at this location. The people who come and get a hair cut
know the conditions and know that they have to be careful entering and exiting
the site. He asked the people present in support of his application to stand
(eleven people stood).
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Keith Ford said the barber shop is good for the neighborhood. The
residents do not have to fight traffic trying to come to Charlottesville.
This is not a large business; it is like a little hill-billy country club that
everyone gathers at. The driveway may not be ideal, but there have not been
any accidents.
Mr. Joe Shaver said Mr. Roberts has been cutting his hair since he
became a barber. He has no problem going in and out of the driveway with his
truck and trailers. ' There is a lot more visibility coming out of Mr. Roberts
road than it is coming out of the lower parking lot of the County Office
Building where school buses park on McIntire Road and block the site distance.
He thinks people just need to be careful because they know there is a site
distance problem. He asked the Board to approve the request.
Mr. Gary Hagermeyer said he also supports the request. He does not
think regulations were intended to keep someone like Mr. Roberts from operat-
ing a small business on his family farm. He should be commended for wanting
to operate the farm. He asked the Board to support the request.
(Mr. Martin returned at 8:25 p.m.)
Mr. Jimmy Bibb said there is not a lot of vehicles coming and going.
Mr. Roberts is a good barber. This is not a large operation and it serves a
good purpose. He asked the Board to approve the request.
Mr. George Mahanes said he also has been going to Mr. Roberts to get a
hair cut for a number of years. He thinks it is a lot safer to go to Mr.
Roberts place than to come into Charlottesville. He thinks it would be an
injustice to deny this operation and he asked the Board to support it.
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
'O00ES'l
Mr. J. B. Morris said there are no speed limit signs between the
intersection of Route 664 and Route 663 coming back towards Chestnut Grove
Church. There is a caution sign which indicates 40 mph. In the absence of
speed limit signs one might assume that the speed limit is 55 mph. A~ything
above 35 mph on tha~ section of road is hazardous to the public and should be
brought to the attention of the Highway Department. There has never been an
accident at Mr. Roberts driveway but there have been accidents at the inter-
section. He thinks the main issue is not Mr. Roberts site distance but the
speed limit that should be imposed on that section of road.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins said he also thinks the key issue is the speed limit. Mr.
Perkins then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-93-26
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, changing the time
in Condition ~1 to be from 3:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:
Approval is for a one-chair barber shop with operational hours and
days limited to 3:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays;
2 o
Combine parcels into one tract by deed. No subsequent subdivision
(including family division) nor establishment of any additional
dwellings shall be permitted unless this special use permit is
abandoned (Restoration of parcels shall be permitted without
compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.);
3. Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-93-27. David A. Currier. Public Hearing on a
request for a home occupation-Class B to permit an artist's studio utilizing
an accessory structure which does not meet the required setbacks for a primary
structure. Property consists of 2.0 ac zoned RA & is located on W side of Rt
678 approx 0.7 mi W of Rt 678/Rt 601 inters. TM29,P69E. White Hall Dist.
(Property is not located in designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1993.)
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 8:33 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed with the
permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on November 9, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of this petition
subject to conditions.
Mr. Bain asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Currier said he had
nothing to add.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-93-27 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
Setback requirements of Section 5.2.2.1(b) is hereby modi-
fied to allow usage of existing shed structure;
2 o
Compliance with all other provisions of Section 5.2 includ-
ing improvement of sight distance at entrance (5.2.1) as
recommended by Virginia Department of Transportation.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-93-30. Grayson Vaughn (applicant); Rio Road
Limited Partnership. Public Hearing on a request for a commercial recreation
establishment to allow slot car racing on 22.87 acs zoned PD-SC. Property in
Albemarle Square. TM61,P123. Charlottesville Dist. Site is recommended for
Community Service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and
November 29, 1993.)
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting aG 8:35 p.m.)
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed as a part of
the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
000282
meeting on November 9, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the petition
subject to conditions.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Vaughn had no
comments.
The public hearing was opened. There being no one present to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve
SP-93-30, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
No alcohol sales;
Use is limited to 1649 Seminole Trail;
Commercial recreation uses shall be limited to slot car
racing and video games.
Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-93-06. Neighborhood Three Study. Public
Hearing to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, re: the recommen-
dations of the Neighborhood Three Study Committee to guide future development
within Neighborhood Three. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22
and November 29, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report. He said the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on November 9, 1993, unanimously recommended
approval of CPA-93-06 as recommended by staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to include the following statement as a recommendation in the Neighborhood
Three Profile, at the beginning of the Neighborhood Three Study Document
itself:
Consider the recommendations of the Neighborhood Three Study as a
guide for development. Adoption of this study as a guide does not
constitute a commitment by the County toward the funding of
proposed projects or programs outlined. Possible funding may only
occur after the full impact of a project or program in regards to
all capital, personnel and operating costs are fully understood.
Also, all projects and programs recommended in this Study must be
properly evaluated and prioritized relative to all other County
projects in terms of possible funding.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:41 p.m.)
The public hearing was opened. There being no public comments, the
public hearing was close.
Mr. Martin commended the people who worked on the study saying they did
a good job reflecting the attitudes and sentiments of the residents.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the relationship between this amendment and
amendments that are a part of the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Cilimberg
said this amendment focused on design quality issues that supplement the land
use recommendations and major infrastructure recommendations in the Plan.
Staff does not plan to do any more of these until review of the Plan, but
committees will continue to be formed to work on general land use issues.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
CPA-93-06 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the statement set out
above as a recommendation in the Neighborhood Three Profile. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: May 13(A), No~ember 4,
December 2 and December 9, 1992; March 15(A) and May 12, 1993.
Mr. Bowerman had read December 2, 1992 (Pages 1 - 15 at item #12) and
December 9, 1992, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bain had read December 2, 1992 (Pages 15 at Item #12 to the end) and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Martin had read November 4, 1992, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall had read March 15(A), 1993, and found them to be in order.
December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000283
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker asked Board members to return any notebooks they had left
from last year's budget so they can be reused this year.
Mr. Perkins mentioned a letter he had received from Whitney and Rosemary
Critzer concerning the renaming of Critzer Shop Road. The Board requested
staff to prepare a letter, for the Chairman's signature, expressing the
Board's opposition to renaming Critzer Shop Road as Patrick Henry Highway.
Mr. Bain reported on a hearing held by V DoT concerning the improvement
project for Route 682. His impression from the meeting was that the residents
who were opposed to certain parts of the project were impressed with the
degree to which VDoT had gone to minimize the design speed and address other
concerns.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 8:53
P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn
into executive session to discuss personnel matters.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Certify Executive Session.
At 9:30 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the following
certificate of executive session:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of
Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi-
ty with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bain.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Chairman