1993-05-12May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)' O000~G
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 12, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting 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.
Not Docketed. The following certification of Executive Session from the
afternoon meeting was adopted:
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mr. Martin
MEETING DATE: May 12 (Afternoon), 1993
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affir-
mative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity 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: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed'on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mr. Bowerman commented that CPA-93-02, Economic Development Policy, is
not on the agenda for public input, but if there are persons present who wish
to speak to this issue, they may do so at this time.
Mr. Don Wagner, a member of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of
Commerce, said the Chamber Board adopted a resolution endorsing the Economic
Development Plan as drafted by the Planning Commission. The Chamber Board
would like to see the plan developed by the Commission implemented. The
Chamber Board understands that there are concerns by some Board members about
aspects of the plan; one of the concerns being costs of implementing certain
parts of the plan. While the Chamber has not had an opportunity for the full
Board to meet, there have been discussions by members and he is comfortable in
saying that this Board can count on the Chamber of Commerce to help pick up
the costs of the Economic Development Council which is one of the key elements
of the plan. He hopes that when this Board goes to public hearing on the
plan, that it hold a public hearing on the full plan as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
00005'7
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Ken Clarry asked Board members to deaI with the plan recommended by
the Planning Commission. He understands the Board's reluctance to obligate
itself to spend a lot of money; however, the Board should keep in mind that
the Chamber of Commerce has offered staff time to help with the Economic
Development Council. The Council is an important element of the plan. The
Council would be the advocate for this plan. If this plan is adopted without
the Council, it would be a plan without an advocate and could get lost within
the overall Comprehensive Plan and not be dealt with in a serious manner. He
urges the Board to approve the Council as part of the plan.
Mr. Chuck Lebo, representing the North Charlottesville Business Council,
also endorsed the Economic Development Policy. The Council will do whatever
it can to assist the Board should it proceed with the plan. The Council feels
this plan can be implemented to lure good, clean industry, provide jobs and
broaden the County's tax base. The Council is a lover of the free enterprise
system and would volunteer its time, if necessary, to see the plan imple-
mented.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Item 5.1 and to accept the
remaining items of information on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution to add Town of Mineral to Regional Solid
Waste Plan. The following resolution was adopted, by the above shown vote:
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR
ADDITION OF TOW~ OF MINERAL TO
THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT
1991 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the member jurisdictions in the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District - the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa and Nelson, and the City of Charlottesville - along with
the towns of Columbia, Scottsville and Standardsville, have
prepared the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Solid Waste
Management Plan, dated July 1, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Waste Management has
approved the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Mineral has requested to be included in
the 1991 Solid Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Waste Management has
requested that each jurisdiction participating in the 1991 Solid
Waste Management Plan agree to add the Town of Mineral to this
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the addition of the Town of Mineral to the Plan
will not require changes to this Plan;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the County of Albemarle does
approve the addition of the Town of Mineral to the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Solid Waste Management Plan of July 1,
1991.
Upon motion by Mrs. HumDhris, seconded by
and adopted on this date: May 12, 1993
Mr. Martin,
Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 6, April 20 and
April 27, 1993, received as information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated April 23, 1993, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller, Direc-
tor, Department of Historic Resources, addressed to Ms. Rosa Luisa Scassa, re:
State Board of Historic Resources has placed Sunnyfields, Albemarle County, on
the Virginia Landmarks Register and has endorsed its being nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places, received for information.
Item 5.4. Copies of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority for February 22 and March 22, 1993, received for
information.
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~8
(Page 3)
Item 5.5. Letter dated April 27, 1993, from The Honorable Thomas J.
Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, re: Environmental Protection Agency's
implementation of financial assurance regulations, received for information.
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated April 29, 1993, from Mr. John Grady,
Deputy zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Michael Merriam, re: Board of
Zoning Appeal's Action - VA-93-12; Tax Map 77, Parcel 15B, received for
information.
Item 5.7. Copy of memorandum dated May 4, 1993, from Mr. Bruce
Woodzell, County Assessor, addressed to Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of
Finance, re: Board of Equalization Appeals, received for information.
Item 5.8. Letter dated April 29, 1993, from Mr. Roy I. Lloyd, Jr., City
Clerk, City of Radford, virginia, re: resolution urging support for Amtrak
rail service to their area, received for information.
Item 5.9. Albemarle County Planning Commission 1992 Annual Report,
received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-93-05. Robert & Victoria Burton. Public
Hearing to rezone 18.5 ac from RA to R-4. Property S of and Adjacent to
Deerwood Subd is in the designated growth area of Hollymead and is recommended
for Industrial service in the Comprehensive Plan. TM32C,P2,Sec3. Rivanna
Dist (defer until June 16, 1993). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April
27 and May 4, 1993.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded Mrs. Humphris, to defer
ZMA-93-05 until June 16, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7, SP-93-07. 1781 Productions (deferred from April 14,
1993).
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following memorandum dated May 10, 1993:
"The Board of Supervisors deferred SP-93-07 on April 14, 1993 to
allow staff time to work with the applicant and residents to
address concerns raised regarding sound, hours of operation and to
define the use. Subsequent to that meeting, Mr. George Gilliam,
representing some of the opposing property owners in the area,
submitted recommended changes in certain conditions and new
conditions to address concerns of property owners (Attachment A--
on file). As these recommendations track the Planning Commission
and staff's recommended conditions, I will use Mr. Gilliam's
letter as the point of reference. Staff comment on each condition
change or addition (per Mr. Gilliam's letter) is as follows:
Development shall be in general accord with, and the number
of buildings shall be limited to three as those shown on,
the sketch dated March 4, 1993 and initialled WDF. The
amphitheater shall accommodate not more than 2000 people.
Paved parking for a minimum of 800 cars shall be provided
on site.
The applicant has submitted a new sketch better defining the area
of development (Attachment B--on file). Limitations as to number
of buildings and maximum capacity of the amphitheater are at the
discretion of the Board, and of course, can be amended by future
Board action. The Zoning Administrator will have to make a deter-
mination of parking requirements at site plan review. Parking
area surface must meet the requirements of Section 4.12 of the
Zoning Ordinance and should be determined at time of site plan
review by the Department of Engineering. Staff would recommend
changing this condition to read:
Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993 and initialled VWC. The
area of development shall be 100 acres + and consistent with
the natural boundaries and boundary distances described on
the sketch. Only those wooded areas necessary to
accommodate development shall be cleared. All other wooded
areas shall be maintained in their natural state.
Productions shall not be scheduled to take place before 7:00
p.m. nor after 10:30 p.m. Production shall only be per-
mitted after 10:30 p.m. due to delays beyond the applicant's
control such as, but not limited to, rain or lighting. In
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
000059
no case shall production extend after 11:00 p.m. No produc-
tions shall take place prior to June nor subsequent to
September 10th in each year.
A concern of neighbors is arrival and departure time for the
public. Opponents apparently do not want the facility opened to
the public before 7:00 p.m. due to existing traffic in the area
during the late afternoon and early evening and concern that those
arriving early may stray onto neighbor's property. It has been
suggested that a condition requiring advertisement of the produc-
tion's time start or a 'gates open' time be included. The Zoning
Administrator indicates that would have to be self-regulating. A
limitation on the latest time at which the public performance can
begin and the time at which it must end seems to be more reason-
able. Opposing neighbors also believe there should be a limita-
tion to months of operation based on the applicant's intended
limitations. Staff sees no identifiable public purpose to such a
restriction. The weather in and of itself will be self-limiting.
Staff recommends:
4. Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure.
This permit is for an outdoor local historical drama theater
only. There shall be no accessory or subordinate uses or
'related' uses except the following: not more than two
permanent, stand-up type concession stands shall be per-
mitted to sell soft drinks, and light snacks requiring no
on-site preparation or heating and to sell historical and
educational materials (such as books about the subject
matter of the historical drama performed at the theater).
No apparel (including t-shirts, hats, etc ) or other
souvenirs shall be sold on the premises.
The concern here is to define the uses that are appropriate to the
proposed operation. Staff had originally recommended certain uses
to be excluded, whereas the Planning Commission recommended only
allowing an outdoor drama theater without accessory or subordinate
uses. It is difficult to expand from that and provide an all
inclusive list of accessory/subordinate uses. Therefore, staff
recommends the following:
This permit is for an outdoor drama theater and those
accessory uses customarily incidental to, subordinate to and
directly supportive of an outdoor drama theater. Approval
of this request shall not be deemed to include use such as
craft shows, dog shows, music festivals, rock concerts and
film exhibitions unrelated to the outdoor drama theater.
Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification, if any,
or the generation of noise without sound or amplification
systems, if applicable, in accord with Section 4.14.8 which
shall be required at the time of site plan submittal; sound
barriers shall be constructed to the southeast of the
theater to buffer residences on Boyd Tavern Lane. Sound
barriers shall be constructed to the west side of the
theater to buffer parcel 21K on TM 94. The engineer shall
certify that sound reaching Boyd Tavern Lane or parcel 21K,
TM 94, shall be no greater during and following performances
at the theater than now present ambient noise levels at
those locations. A bond in the amount of $100,000 shall be
required, with approved surety thereon, to ensure that the
noise levels during performances shall not exceed the
approved levels.
The applicant has conducted sound tests which include natural
speech, amplified speech and music, gunshots and applause and will
make a report available to the Board (Attachment C-Summary of
Test--on file). They believe the test indicates that the noise
restrictions of Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance are not
violated and the applicant is agreeable to the prior recommended
condition. Staff has not had an opportunity to review the
findings of the noise report. The Zoning Department has raised
concerns regarding the visual impact of sound barriers and the
utility of holding a bond and how the bond would be used should
there be a violation. Staff recommends the condition as presented
previously:
Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4.14.8 which shall be required at time
of site plan approval.
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
8. Site plan to be reviewed by Planning Commission.
Staff has recommended staff approval of the site plan. Regard-
less, neighboring property owners can appeal the site plan to the
Planning Commission. Practically speaking, it appears the review
would end up being the same either way the condition is written.
9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site. A 200
x 200 left turn and taper lane at Route 616 shall be
required; the grade shall be lowered and the banks shall be
cut back, as recommended by VDoT letter of April 1, 1993.
Staff had offered a condition for the turn lane from Route 250
onto Route 616 based on V DOT and County Police comments (Attach-
ments D and E--on file). However, placing responsibility for
regrading of U. S. Rt. 250 and cutting back the banks with the
applicant is impractical and disproportionate to the proposal's
impact on the roadway. There is debate as to whether the neces-
sity of the turn lane is directly attributable to the proposed
theater's traffic generation or whether it is an existing condi-
tion for which the theater would have only marginal additional
impact. To address this issue, staff can suggest the following as
a separate condition:
10. A 200 x 200 left turn and taper lane from Route 250 onto
Route 616 shall be bonded for three operational seasons of
the theater. At the end of the bonding period, the Board of
Supervisors shall determine if theater traffic has signifi-
cantly affected safety at the intersection. In addition to
such other testimony and opinion as the Board may require,
reports shall be sought from VDOT, County police and emer-
gency services agencies. In the event severe safety
problems occur prior to the end of the bonding period, the
Board may call the bond after appropriate notice
to the applicant.
10. Ail conditions shall be drafted as deed restrictions and
shall be for the benefit of the public, enforceable by any
member of the public, and shall run with the land.
Mr. George St. John, County Attorney has responded to this in
detail (Attachment F--on file). A condition such as this is not
recommended in any form.
11. The activity for which the permit is issued shall have
commenced (which shall be construed to require closing of
the real estate purchase and the obtaining of construction
permits for the improvements) within 18 months of the date
of approval of the SUP request; construction of the improve-
ments shall have been completed within one year thereafter.
The Zoning Ordinance requires commencement within 24 months of
approval. Usually, changes in this time frame for commencement
are based on special circumstances, such as environmental concerns
or remedies to violations. Staff has no further recommendation.
12. The applicant shall file an application for amending the
Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County to conform the Rural
Areas provisions of the Plan to the contemplated uses.
Discussion of the consistency of this general use with the Compre-
hensive. Plan took place with the Zoning Text Amendment. At that
time, staff questioned whether the use 'outdoor theater' was con-
sistent. It was the Board's decision that the use was acceptable
within the Rural Area. Therefore, staff sees this issue as
already having been addressed. Certainly, this issue can be
revisited during the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan,
but staff does not believe such a condition as recommended here is
appropriate."
000060
Mr. Cilimberg said at the time this report was done, staff did not have
the results of the sound study. The Board has now received a copy of the
study. In addition the Engineering Department has responded to the sound test
report, which he distributed to the Board. The Engineering Department's basic
comment is that all of the test results fell below the maximum allowable sound
level readings prescribed in Section 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. There-
fore, it is the determination of the Engineering Department that the proposed
land use is in compliance with County performance standards.
Referring to the staff's recommended condition %10, the County Attorney
had expressed some reservations about the condition and the concern that
possibly allocating the entire responsibility for that turn lane with the
theater and its operation may not be appropriate. The County Attorney
indicated that a better approach would be on a pro rata share basis. Mr.
Cilimberg said any pro rata share approach is going to require an obligation
oooo6m.
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
of either the County or VDoT to provide for the rest of the funding that would
be necessary to build that turn lane based on prescribed times.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from representatives of
the applicant and the residents.
Mr. Fred Payne, representing the applicant, said the staff's recommended
conditions are acceptable to the applicant. He discussed with the County
Attorney the proposed condition ~10, and they have agreed on an amended
condition. He handed to the Board members a recommended change to condition
~10. The condition basically states that the applicant will post a bond with
the Zoning Administrator for its pro rata share of the cost of construction of
a left turn lane. If the County or VDoT appropriates the money to build the
turn lane at anytime within three years, this money can be used to pay the
applicant's pro rata share of the cost of the construction. As far as he is
aware, this is the only issue of contention. The applicants are present and
can answer any further questions.
Mr. Payne said the applicants feel staff has done an excellent job of
working with the parties and arriving at the recommended conditions. This
will be a positive, and certainly not detrimental, use to the County in this
area. Mr. Payne said a representative of the sound engineer is also present
to answer any questions.
Mr. George Gilliam complimented staff for working many hours in an
effort to resolve issues between the applicants and the neighbors, although
the issues were not resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The neighbors do not
think that the conditions suggested by staff go far enough. Issues that they
felt would be easy to come to some agreement were: hours of operation, length
of the season and physical site development characteristics. One of the most
troubling issues to the neighbors is sound.
Mr. Gilliam said as soon as he was provided a copy of the sound reports,
he talked to an engineer from County staff and Mr. Fritz from the Planning
staff trying to understand what the sound report had to say. He thinks there
are a lot of things in the report that is cloudy; both the methodology of the
report and the way it would be construed under the County's ordinance. The
County's entire sound ordinance addresses sounds generated in an industrial
area. Even though the ordinance can be incorporated into this special use
permit, the Board needs to be aware of how it would have to be construed. He
then asked the Board to instruct staff to construe the ordinance in this
fashion. There are three columns in the ordinance. The first shows "octave
band, cycles/second. Basically the lower the sound on the scale, the louder
it can be without being offensive. The second column is "at residential
district boundaries". The ordinance contemplates that the sound would be
generated in an industrial zone by an industrial use and would float over to a
residential area. The third column states "at other lot lines within
district" which clearly means within the industrial district. That column
addresses how loud that noise can be at another industrial lot line. He
thinks the Board really needs to focus on "at residential district
boundaries". The ordinance further states that if the noise is going to be
generated after 7:00 p.m., five decibels should be subtracted from the noise
level shown in the schedule.
The engineer who reviewed the report for the Board did not know where on
the octave scale the noise would come out. He, Mr. Fritz and the engineer,
therefore, took the mid point of the scale and at residential boundaries 42
decibels are allowed and since the production will be at night, five decibels
should be subtracted which leaves 37 decibels. None of the noises generated
during the sound test were lower than 37 decibels. Unless the applicant puts
in a lot of buffering and makes a lot of changes in the way sound is handled
at that site, under the County's ordinance the sound test would not pass. The
residents hope the Board does not approve this request, but if it does, they
hope that the Board does not accept that sound test as definitive. They hope
that the Board require the sound test to be redone during the site plan
approval process.
In addition to that, the residents feel that there were some glaring
deficiencies in the way the sound test was conducted. The sound test was
conducted between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the afternoon, on a work day
when there were logging operations occurring between this property and the
Jacob's property. He went out to the area late that afternoon for a meeting
with some of the residents and the noise was loud. The tests were conducted
by measuring the ambient noise, the noise in the air apart from that generated
by the actor generated, which indicated a readings of 42 or so. The actor
then stands up and recites his lines, and various other things were done. All
of that was done when there was substantial ambient noise which is not the
normal conditions. The ambient background noise during that time was
distorted. The neighbors are not worried about some logging operation going
on; they are concerned about what it will be like at 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m.
some summer night once this theater really is operational. This test does not
address that nor does it answer that question. Finally the test was conducted
in a field; there was no stage in place. Stage creates a surface off of which
noise will reverberate and go off in strange directions. A set or backdrop in
the back of actors will cause echoes and cause the sound to travel, but none
of that was taken into consideration. The biggest noise generator in this
entire operation is not an actor speaking his lines, nor is it music, but the
sound of 500 to 600 cars in a parking lot starting up at 10:30 p.m. or later
ooooc .,
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
at night. That issue was not addressed in this report. He hopes that if the
Board does feel it has to approve this permit, that it will call for further
sound testing based on the site plan and realistic conditions.
Finally it has been suggested that this is a jobs issue that unless the
Board vote for this permit, it is against jobs. That is nonsense. The Board
is not being asked to vote to create jobs. This is a land use issue. There
are alternative places where this worthy project can take place. The test in
this case is whether or not the Board can find that this permit would not be
of substantial detriment to adjacent property, the character of the district
would not be changed and the use would be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the Ordinance. He daresay that it would be difficult that this use
would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, etc. He asked
that the Board reject the request, but if it is approved the Board reject the
sound test and hold the applicant to the letter of the Ordinance, and that the
other conditions be tightened to protect the neighbors.
Ms. Cindy Burton, a resident of Running Deer, located less than a mile
from the proposed site. Originally she found the McRaven's dramatic proposal
exciting, but because of contradictory information given to her she decided to
objectively research the impact of the project herself. As she has written to
the Board members, the figures projected by the McRavens do not compute. She
also would remind the Board of the traffic impact study she submitted proving
that traffic will greatly impact all of those who live and travel along Route
250 East. This cannot be ignored. This County's history is her history. Her
mother's family settled here in 1738. She has a great deal of respect for
this County's history which is one of its greatest resources. A stated objec-
tive of the County is to conserve the County's historical resources. Has
everyone forgotten how this will permanently change the character of historic
Boyd Tavern House and Lime Stone Farm which was once owned by President James
Monroe? The exploitation of the County's history for this private enterprise
would destroy the unique historical character of Albemarle County. She asked
if the Board really wants to set a precedent here and open the door for
another Route 60 leading into Williamsburg. She asked if a huge pottery is
next on the agenda. A true historian would not want to harm the character of
this historic area for his own personal gain. It is the residents responsibi-
lity to preserve these historic and rural areas as a legacy for their descen-
dants.
Ms. Burton said growth must occur, but it should be in designated growth
areas only. She personally does not believe this risky commercial venture
will succeed, but regardless it must not be allowed in a rural, designated,
nongrowth area. This venture belongs in a designated growth area which can
provide water, sewage, transportation and other public services. There are
existing sites which should be considered and the County could derive the same
economic benefits. This commercial industry would irreversible harm the
environment and quality of life in historic Boyd Tavern, Shadwell and Keswick.
There is no effective way to control the traffic, pollution, degradation of
ground water, noise, lights and property devaluation or even reverse the rural
land back to agricultural/forestal use. This will change forever the charac-
ter of this area and possibly the whole County. She is holding petitions
tonight signed by about 250 taxpaying adult neighbors. These neighbors
deserve to have their dreams come true too. The investments in their proper-
ties have already been made. She asked the Board to deny this special use
permit.
Mr. Fred Payne again addressed the Board. He said Section 4.14 of the
Zoning Ordinance is intended to apply to industrial districts. He thinks it
is significant that the staff is recommending it here where this is not an
industrial use, but also, this is not an industrial use. It is extraordinary
to apply the Ordinance to this use. The applicants think sound is an appro-
priate concern. As to the proficiency of the test, he agrees with Mr. Gilliam
in that neither of them are sound engineers. It is not his nor Mr. Gilliam's
job to determine the technicalities of sound. The Ordinance outlines a proce-
dure for doing that. The applicants are willing to provide whatever informa-
tion the Engineering Department wants. If the Department determines this
study is insufficient, the applicants will be glad to supplement it. When the
sound tests were done, the engineer magnified every possible sound that was
made well beyond anything that is intended. For example, music was amplified
in such a way that to get the maximum affect, which is not what will be done
during the show. The stage will be set up in such a way as to direct sound
away from the neighbors back towards Route 250. The highway is already there
and is meant to be used. Route 250 is a primary highway. This is a business
and will generate jobs. This is a celebration of the heritage of this County.
As to whether there are other places to put this use, the Board has heard of
the exhaustive studies that have gone into this. It is difficult for him to
conceive of a better place to put this use that would be more consistent with
the history or the infrastructure. If this use has to Ho somewhere, he is
confident somebody else will welcome it, but this is the right place. He will
be happy to answer any questions by Board members.
Mr. Bowerman then closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many speakers were used in the sound test. Mr.
Payne replied one speaker was used. Mrs. Humphris asked how high above the
ground was the speaker placed. Mr. Payne replied the speaker was placed on
the Hround. Mrs. Humphris asked what is the direction of the prevailing wind.
Mr. Payne replied, "westerly".
000063
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mrs. Humphris said the report States: "The recorded results from my
tests were, however, averages of the 150 or more sequential samples taken at
each site." She asked how many samples per second were taken by the
equipment. Mr. Payne said samples were taken over the course of several
hours, but did not he know how many samples per second were taken. Ms. Amelia
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said she did not know either.
Mrs. Humphris said it was her understanding that the request started out
with the term "local historical drama theater" and that seems to have been
changed to "outdoor drama theater", leaving out ,,historical". She thought
,,historical" was the key to this whole application, the fact that it was going
to be a production of local history only. Mr. Bowerman suggested that for the
sake of discussion, that terminology be included in the revised condition #5.
Mr. Payne said the applicants have no objection to that.
Mrs. Humphris said in condition #5 she is concerned about the ,'accessory
uses". She is concerned about who will define "those accessory uses custo-
marily incidental to, subordinate tO and directly supportive of an outdoor.."
She asked what is ,,customarily". Mr. Cilimberg said staff could not come up
with anything that was more inclusive than that language. Mr. St. John said
the alternative to that wording is to try to list at this time every accessory
use that would be permitted there and there would be no other accessory uses.
Every operation of this magnitude has to have some accessory uses, for
example, bathrooms are an accessory use.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any reason the accessory or subordinate
uses or related uses could not be limited to restrooms and the concession
stand. Mr. St. John said this language is the classic definition of an
accessory use. The Zoning Administrator decides what is and what is not an
accessory use. The only alternative to using this language is to attempt to
list all of the accessory uses that would be permitted. It is unusual that
the Board would try to do that. He cannot think of any other special permits
where the Board has attempted to list in advance of the use coming into being
all of the accessory uses. It is likely that the Board would eliminate
something that would be acceptable and customary as an accessory use. This is
a subjective term. A good example the Board would face in trying to do this
is whether it will sit here and try to decide every item that can be sold in a
concession stand. This was the staff's thinking in selecting this language
instead of trying to make a list of everything that could be sold out there.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board would know whether drama classes,
workshops, seminars, etc., which might take place during the daytime during
the week might not be judged to be "customarily incidental to.." of this
theater. She does not know where that would fall into this definition. Mr.
Cilimberg said that would be the Zoning Administrators determination. If the
Board did not want that to occur, then it would include that as uses not
permitted in the approval. Mr. St. John said if the Board decide that the
production is all that can take place, then it must decide how to deal with
rehearsals, tryouts, etc., since those are accessory uses. He does not think
the Board can foresee what is necessary. Mrs. Humphris said tryouts, audi-
tions and rehearsals are obviously part of any production. She does not think
that is arguable. Additions such as workshops and seminars which bring
traffic in at other times than the regularly established hours for the
production are something entirely different. She thinks this is something the
Board has to deal with because it was mentioned previously.
Mr. Martin asked what is the problem with the length of the season.
Language was in the previous conditions, but now has been eliminated. Mr.
Pay-ne said language was not in the conditions on the length of the season.
The length of the season was suggested by Mr. Gilliam. To his mind the staff
nor Planning Commission has ever discussed the length of the season. Mr.
Martin said that was one of those issues that the residents felt strongly
about and the McRavens did not feel as strongly about. He asked why a
compromise could not be made. Mr. Payne said the difficulty is that he does
not know that they can say that the first show should start on May 30 or May
15. The applicants do not know the exact day the production will start
because it depends on weather conditions. It could change slightly from year
to year. Mr. Martin asked if there was a problem with the condition that the
production shall not start before a certain date or later than a certain date
to have a time frame. Mr. Payne said he is sure there are some dates that
could be included as long it is understood that there are things that will
have to go on from time to time such as maintenance, deliveries, etc.
Mr. Gilliam said the suggested timeframe of Memorial Day through Labor
Day came from a memorandum, dated January 20, 1993, from Mr. McRaven to the
Planning Department. Mr. Payne said that is what the McRavens anticipate
doing. The problem is that a lot of uses such as this have an introductory
period where productions occur Friday and Saturday only for a couple of weeks.
The difficulty he has in making the condition so restrictive is that it allows
for no flexibility. If such a condition was added, it would have to be
understood that any kind of restriction like that would be on performances
only, not on auditions, set construction or maintenance, etc. It is obvious
to him the neighbors are attempting to kill this with restrictions. Mr.
Martin said he is not attempting to kill this, but this is one of the
reasonable requests that could be accommodated. Mr. Payne said he does not
think there is a problem in restricting performances in some fashion, but not
all the other necessary uses.
000064
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Bowerman said there is no condition that ties this special permit to
the land or the applicant and that would be the only way he could consider
supporting this request. He wants a provision that if the McRavens are
unsuccessful in this endeavor, the permit expires. This request is a unique
presentation made by the McRavens on this site.
Mr. St. John said this is the first time he has heard that as a
suggested condition. He does not think such a condition would be enforceable.
Mr. St. John said suppose the operation is successful and something fatal
happens to the McRavens and they have heirs. If this is a successful business
and production, under such a condition, it would terminate and would have to
sit there empty or be torn down. He does not think it would be enforceable.
He thinks that if the Board issues this permit with such a condition, the
McRavens could immediately have the condition declared unenforceable, but they
would retain the special permit. The basic rule of law is that the special
permit runs with the land. Mr. St. John said he feels that if there is any
outside financing or investing needed in this endeavor, and these investors
see that this venture can exist only if the McRavens stay alive, there would
not be any investors, and the court system would take that into consideration
in looking at such a condition.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John he suggests the Board go about tieing
this special permit to the McRavens given the Board's concern about its poten-
tial for failure or success, the belief that a large part of the success of
this operation is based on the presentations that the McRavens have made, and
their background, expertise and research. Mr. Bain said Mr. St. John is not
saying the permit cannot be tied to the land; it cannot be limited to the
individuals. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been some special permits that had
a condition making it renewable after a certain period of time, but the Board
has to keep in mind that an investment was made. Mr. St. John said he does
not know that he could come up with a way to do this. The Zoning Administra-
tor just suggested something to him that is worth considering. She suggested
that there be a review period in four to five years to review the performance
of this use and see if the conditions are being met and see if there is any
way in which the use has become a nuisance. Mr. Bain said the problem with
that is it would kill the investors before the use starts. Ms. McCulley said
the review could find, for example, that the hours of operation are not
working well and needs to be changed. If the applicants are not complying
with the conditions that would be the time to have the review.
At this time, at the suggestion of the Chairman, Mr. Cilimberg discussed
the final conditions recommended by staff:
Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993, and initialled VWC. The
area of development shall be 100 acres± and consistent with
the natural boundaries and boundary distances described on
the sketch. Only those wooded areas necessary to accommo-
date development shall be cleared. All other wooded areas
shall be maintained in their natural state;
Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage disposal
system has been obtained. Approval shall be of the water
system design and the septic system design, including
suitable soil evaluation and percolation test;
3 o
Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining rural areas
and away from adjacent streets. Lighting spillover onto
public roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not
exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle. Prior to final plan ap-
proval, a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) which shall include
methods for directing light downward;
Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure.
Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board wants to add dates for the performance
season this is where they would go. After some discussion, Mr. Payne said the
applicant has no problem with performances occurring from May 1 to September
30. Mr. Martin suggested performances occur six nights per week from Memorial
Day to Labor Day, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial Day
and after Labor Day.
MrS. Humphris expressed concerns about how late performances can go on.
She felt that there should be some limit even if circumstances occur beyond
the applicant's control. Mr. Bowerman felt the time recommended was reason-
able.
Mr. Cilimberg then read the recommended additional wording to be
included in condition #4: "Public performances shall occur only from May 1 to
September 30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial Day and
after Labor Day." At this time, Mr. Cilimberg suggested that it may be
000065
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
necessary to define "weekend" and determine whether Friday is included as part
of weekend performances.
Mr. Marshall said he was concerned about performances occurring six days
a week and now weekends are being included. He felt that six days should
include the weekends. Mrs. Humphris suggested the wording state six nights,
Monday through Saturday. Mr. Bain suggested that it be two weekend nights.
Mr. Tucker referred back to Mrs. Humphris concern and said an earlier
condition suggested language could be added that "Under no circumstances shall
performances extend beyond midnight". Mrs. Humphris felt that was a fair
condition. Board members agreed to include that language in the fourth
condition.
The Board then continued with discussion of condition ~5:
5. This permit is for an outdoor local.historical drama theater
and those accessory uses customarily incidental to, subordi-
nate to and directly supportive of an outdoor local histori-
cal drama theater. Approval of this request shall not be
deemed to include uses such as craft shows, dog shows, music
festivals, rock concerts and film exhibitions unrelated to
the outdoor local historical drama theater.
Mrs. Humphris said her problem with this condition is the potential for
confusion, misinterpretation, etc. Nobody has told her whether workshops and
seminars during the week are accessory uses that are customarily incidental to
this operation. She feels the language is too broad. She does not under-
stand why anything other than the production of the drama, the restrooms and
the concession stands should be allowed. Mr. Martin said he is concerned
about sitting here trying to determine at this time what is needed. Mr. Bain
said he does not necessarily disagree with Mr. Martin, but, for example, if
the language stated "no apparel" that is clear.
Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him that the language is as specific as it
can get according to the County Attorney which is customary in this type of
request to limit it to the primary use on. Certainly the language relies on
the zoning Administrator to exercise judgement and research. At this time
there was no consensus on changing the language in condition #5.
The Board then reviewed the following condition $6 which was not
recommended for change:
6. Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved
by the Planning Department.
The Board next discussed condition $7:
7. Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4.14.8 which shall be required at the
time of site plan submittal.
Mrs. Humphris asked why industrial sounds standards are being used and
not residential sound standards. Mr. Cilimberg said the application, by the
Zoning Ordinance, is going to be for sound at residential property. The Board
may want to add language to the effect that measurement will based on sounds
at a residential property line. Mr. Martin felt that was common sense.
There were no concerns expressed with conditions #8 and $9:
8. Staff approval of site plan.
Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said the following language for condition $10 was sub-
mitted by Mr. Pa]me based on his discussions with Mr. St. John:
10.
The applicant shall post with the Zoning Administrator a
bond for its pro rata share of the cost of construction of a
left turn lane and taper (200 feet + 200 feet) within the
existing right-of-way of U. S. Route 250 onto State Route
616 (northbound). Such pro rata share shall be the fraction
of the estimated cost of construction of such lane of which
the numerator is equal to one-half the projected traffic to
be generated by the proposed use (expressed in vehicle trips
per day) and the denominator is the total traffic using the
relevant section of U. S. Route 250 (expressed in vehicle
trips per day) according to the most recent VDoT traffic
count. The bond shall be conditioned that the principal
thereof shall be available to be used to pay the applicant's
pro rata share of the cost of construction of the said turn
lane if, at any time within three (3) years from the issu-
ance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed use, the
County and/or VDoT shall have appropriated money sufficient
May 12r 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000066
to pay the balance of the construction cost therefor. In
the event that the County and/or VDoT shall not have
appropriated the balance of such construction cost within
three (3) years from the date of issuance of the certificate
of occupancy, the bond shall be released to the applicant.
The amount, terms, security and form of the bond shall be
subject to the reasonable approval of the Zoning Adminis-
trator.
Mr. Martin said it makes sense that the bond be proportionate to the use
generated. He thinks the applicant's bond should be for his pro rata share of
the traffic.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John if the language provided by Mr. Payne
was acceptable. Mr. St. John replied, "yes", but there has to be some
mechanism to figure out the amount of the bond.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff did not recommend any other further
conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg then suggested the following amended language for
condition #4:
4. Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure. Under no
circumstances shall performances extend beyond midnight.
Public performances shall occur only from May 1 to September
30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial
Day and after Labor Day. Weekend performances shall only
occur on two (2) of the three (3) weekend nights. From
Memorial Day to Labor Day, performances shall occur not more
than six (6) nights per week.
Mr. Bain asked if any structures constructed other than that set out on
the sketch in condition #1 would be an amendment to the permit. Mr. Cilimberg
responded, "yes"
Mr. Marshall asked if this request is approved with the sound provi-
sions, if those provisions are not limiting the use of the adjacent acreage
because this noise cannot be extended over into the residential area which
limits the future development of the adjacent property. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that he did not think so. This language is stating that the
established property lines are going to be the lines where the measurements
will take place. Mr. Marshall asked how could a residential development be
built with that noise level. Mr. Cilimberg said at the onset the sound tests
must meet the requirements for a residential area on the 100 acres.
Mrs. Humphris asked when is the issue of parking discussed. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that parking is dealt with at the site plan level. Mrs.
Humphris asked what happens if staff determine that parking cannot be
accommodated in the designated area. The applicant is expecting three persons
per vehicle. Mr. Cilimberg said if parking went significantly beyond the
boundary, he thinks it would require an amendment to the special permit. The
Zoning Administrator would have to make the determination. Mrs. Humphris
asked if there is a way to deal with this situation in advance. It is
important that the parking area not be sitting out there in a "horse field".
Mr. Cilimberg said without a site plan it would be difficult. The staff
cannot know how much beyond the boundary line the parking would extend until
the site plan is done. The Zoning Administrator also does not know at this
time what actual parking requirements will be imposed. There is opportunity
to vary parking based on particular circumstances that relate to the use.
Mr. Martin said this property lies in his district. He thinks the
majority of the people already know how he feels about the proposal. Mr.
Martin then offered motion to approve SP-93-07 subject to the ten conditions
discussed and amended by the Board tonight. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain said everyone has spent a lot of time contemplating this
proposal. He is basing his decision on the rural areas. He thinks the
project is potentially an excellent project, but it should not be in the rural
areas, and clearly not in this location. He opposed the concept of allowing
this use as a special permit in the rural areas, although there may be a
location where this use could fit in the rural areas. He thinks this project
can work in this community. He can remember when the Board discussed the
special permit for Blandemar Farms. That request was denied on a three to
three vote. That request was also close to a major artery and that request
had little traffic and little impact. This is a much more intensive use. He
thinks that rural areas have to mean something and this is a substantial
commercial venture in the rural areas. This issue is not about jobs. He
knows that the applicant has spent many years researching this venture and he
is trying to refine the proposal in terms of what will and what will not work.
If it means that the applicant goes to Fluvanna or Greene counties, then so be
it. He does not want to chase people out of the County, but the issue is what
this project really means to the community. The people who live in the rural
areas live there for specific reasons; they give up the amenities that are in
the urban areas. The people move out to the rural areas because they expect
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000067
(Page 12)
certain things. He just nOt think this is the right place and he is not sure
that the rural areas is the right place. He cannot support the motion.
Mrs. Humphris congratulated Mr. and Mrs. McRaven for their persistence
and creativity in what they are attempting to bring to the County. There is
no question in her mind that in the right location this is a potential boom to
Albemarle County. However, the way she look at this has to do with the people
in that neighborhood in that rural area. The reason for the rural areas
designation in the Comprehensive Plan is to prevent commercial ventures in the
rural areas. When the Comprehensive Plan was constructed, that was the will
of the people. People came in huge numbers to many, many public meetings and
they said they believed that the historical, natural and beautiful resources
of the County are worth preserving and protecting, and they agreed that was
the way they wanted the elected officials to preserve those areas. She
believes that as worthy an endeavor as this is, it is a commercial venture and
it would change the nature of that area forever. She understands the frustra-
tion and outrage of the people who fought this proposal. In her years on the
Board she has not had as much communication by telephone or written material
on any issue as she has on this one. Her vote is for the people and she
cannot support the motion.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this is a worthwhile venture for the County.
He also has received a lot of telephone calls and attended various meetings
with the citizens. When this request first came to his attention, he was
shocked that staff was in support of it. He does not think this will be the
monster that a lot of people think it will be. The sound report is available.
There has to be another sound report done during site plan review. He thinks
that traffic is an issue but staff reports indicate that the traffic is not
going to be the issue that some people think that it will be.
Mr. Bowerman said both Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain spoke to the appropri-
ateness of this use in the rural areas and that is also what he will address.
About a year ago there was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment before the Board
where it changed the Plan to allow this use in the rural areas. Although not
unanimously, the change was adopted. At that time, it was his opinion that a
historic drama of this nature in the rural areas was consistent with the Plan
and could only be successful if it was in a setting that contemplated where
the historic drama took place. Otherwise, the Board would not have enter-
tained changing the Plan to put this use in the rural areas, but would have
put it ina commercial area. He thinks the change in the Plan was appropriate
and he voted to do so. Once there is a specific location, the permit has to
be reviewed. He does not know any place that this drama can be located where
it would not affect some group of people. He saw the map of the areas that
the McRavens looked at. Some of the locational criteria that was necessary
was access to a primary highway or a good secondary road. There are few
locations in the County where there is this particular circumstance. He
thinks that this type of activity demands that it be in the rural area for the
success of the endeavor, and he thinks it is supportive of the historic
references in the Plan because it promotes the County. If he felt that this
application in this location was a significant detriment, then he could not
support it. He does not feel that with the conditions, approval of this
application represents a significant detriment to the adjacent property
owners. The operation will not be invisible. This is a hard decision but he
will support the application.
Roll was then called and the mOtion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Marshall.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Development shal~ be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993, and initialled VWC
(attached). The area of development shall be 100 acres~ and
consistent with the natural boundaries and boundary dis-
tances described on the sketch. Only those wooded areas
necessary to accommodate development shall be cleared. All
other wooded areas shall be maintained in their natural
state;
Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage disposal
system has been obtained. Approval shall be of the water
system design and the septic system design, including
suitable soil evaluation and percolation test;
3 o
Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining rural areas
and away from adjacent streets. Lighting spillover onto
public roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not
exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle. Prior to final plan ap-
proval, a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) which shall include
methods for directing light downward;
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
oooOss
5o
7o
8 o
10.
Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure. Under no
circumstances shall performances extend beyond midnight.
Public performances shall occur only from May 1 to September
30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial
Day and after Labor Day. Weekend performances shall only
occur on two (2) of the three (3) weekend nights. From
Memorial Day to Labor Day, performances shall occur not more
than six (6) nights per week;
This permit is for an outdoor, local historical drama
theater and those accessory uses customarily incidental to,
subordinate to and directly supportive of an outdoor, local
historical drama theater. Approval of this request shall
not be deemed to include uses such as craft shows, dog
shows, music festivals, rock concerts and film exhibitions
unrelated to the outdoor, local historical drama theater;
Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved
by the Planning Department;
Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4.14.8 which shall be required at the
time of site plan submittal;
Staff approval of site plan;
Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site;
The applicant shall post with the Zoning Administrator a
bond for its pro rata share of the cost of construction of a
left turn lane and taper (200 feet + 200 feet) within the
existing right-of-way of U.S. Route 250 onto State Route 616
(northbound). Such pro rata share shall be the fraction of
the estimated cost of construction of such lane of which the
numerator is equal to one-half the projected traffic to be
generated by the proposed use (expressed in vehicle trips
per day) and the denominator is the total traffic using the
relevant section of U.S. Route 250 (expressed in vehicle
trips per day) according to the most recent VDoT traffic
count. The bond shall be conditioned that the principal
thereof shall be available to be used to pay the applicant's
pro rata share of the cost of construction of the said turn
lane if, at any time within three (3) years from the issu-
ance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed use, the
County and/or VDoT shall have appropriated money sufficient
to pay the balance of the construction cost therefor. In
the event that the County and/or VDoT shall not have
appropriated the balance of such construction cost within
three (3) years from the date of issuance of the certificate
of occupancy, the bond shall be released to the applicant.
The amount, terms, security and form of the bond shall be
subject to the reasonable approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-93-02. Radio Towers. Public Hearing on a
resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors to delete the wording
"excluding multi-legged tower structures" from the following zoning ordinance
sections: 10.2.1.6; 12.2.1.6; 13.2.1.6; 14.2.1.6; 15.2.1.8; 16.2.1.11;
17.2.1.11; 18.2.1.11; 19.3.1.6; 20.3.1.6; 25.2.1.2; 25A.2.1.2; 22.2.1b.17;
23.2.1.7; 24.2.1.35; ~7.2.1.11; 28.2.1.20; and 30.3.5.1.1.5. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 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. The Board
adopted a Resolution of Intent to require all towers, whether multi-legged or
monopole by special use permit, rather than by-right. Currently monopole
towers are permitted by-right in certain circumstances. This amendment would
remove the reference to multi-legged tower structures only being by special
use permit under the by-right sections of various sections of the Zoning
- Ordinance.
The public hearing was opened. There being no public comments, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact certain sections of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance by deleting the word "multi-legged" from those sections. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
000069
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(page 14)
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the following sections of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance are amended and reenacted by deleting the
word ,,multi-legged" from each section as set out following:
10.0
RURAL AREAS DISTRICT~ R~.
10.2 PERMITTED USES
10.2.1 BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding ~ tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
12.0
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL - VR
12.2
PERMITTED USES
12.2.1
BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding ---~,.~ ~ .... ~ tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
13.0
RESIDENTIAL - R-1
13.2
13.2.1
PERMITTED USES
BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding multi Ice,cd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
14.0
RESIDENTIAL - R-2
000070
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
14.2 PERMITTED USES
14.2.1 BY RIGHT
6 o
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding ~ tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
15.0
RESiDENTiAL - R-4
15.2
PERMITTED USES
15.2.1
BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding multi !c~cd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
16.0
RESIDENTIAL - R-6
16.2
PERMITTED USES
16.2.1
BY RIGHT
11.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding multi !c~gcd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
17.0
RESIDENTIAL - R-10
17.2
PERMITTED USES
17.2.1
BY RIGHT
11.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding multi ic~c~ tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
O000?X
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
18.0. RESIDENTIAL R-15
18.2 PERMITTED USES
18.2.1 BY RIGHT
11.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding ~ tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
19.0
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD
19.3
PERMITTED USES
19.3.1
BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding m;a!ti !c~gcd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations, and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
20.0
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - PUD
20.3
PERMITTED USES RESIDENTIAL
20.3.1
BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding multi !c~cd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
22.0
COMMERCIAL - C-1
22.2
PERMITTED USES
22 .2 .1
BY RIGHT
The following services and public establish-
ments:
17.
Electric, gas, oil and communication
facilities excluding multi Icggc~ tower
structures and including poles, lines,
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
00007
transformers, pipes, meters and related
facilities for distribution of local ser-
vice and owned and operated by a public
utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Service Authority.
23 .Q,
23.2
COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO
PERMITTED USES
23.2.1
BY RIGHT
7o
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities,
excluding ~ tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
24.0
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC
24.2
PERMITTED USES
24.2.1
BY RIGHT
35.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding multi lc~cd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
25.0
P?,aNNED DEVELOPMENT - SHOPPING CENTERS PD-SC
25.2
PERMITTED USES
25.2.1
BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding m;alti icg~cd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
25A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - MIXED COMMERCIAL PD-MC
25A.2 PERMITTED USES
25A.2.1 BY RIGHT
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding multi !c~gcd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
00007;1
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
27.0.
27.2
LIGHT INDUSTRY~ LI
PERMITTED USES
27.2.1 BY RIGHT
11.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding ~ tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with
Chapter 10 of the COde of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
28.0
HEA%"I INDUSTRY~ HI
28.2
PERMITTED USES
28.2.1
BY RIGHT
20.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities
excluding multi !cg~cd tower structures and
including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution
of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurte-
nances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
30.0
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
30.3
FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICT - FH
30.3.5 PERMITTED USES
30.3.5.1 BY RIGHT
30.3.5.1.1 BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY
Electric, gas, oil and communications facili-
ties, including poles, lines, pipes, meters and
related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public util-
ity, but excluding multi ice,cd tower struc-
tures.
(Not Docketed: At 8:56 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting
reconvened at 9:10 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-92-08. Dominion Lands, Inc. Public Hearing to
amend ZMA-91-03 to delete the residential use of property & to add 16,150 sq
ft commercial structure. Property, zoned PD-MC, located in SW quadrant of
inters of Berkmar Dr & Rio Rd. TM61M, P1B,Secl2 is located in Neighborhood 1
and is recommended for Community Service in the Comprehensive Plan. Char-
lottesville Dist. (Property located in designated growth area.) (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1993.)
(Mr. Bowerman disqualified himself from discussion on this item. He and
his partner have a contract to purchase a lot in this development. Mr. Bain
acted as Chairman.)
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. The proposal
is to amend the approved application plan and replace the 13 dwelling units
000074
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Permitted with a 16,150 square foot commercial use. The approved agreements
are also proposed to be amended to reflect the revised use, to provide for
fencing and landscaping.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-92-08 subject to the following agree-
ments which are identical to those approved for ZMA-91-03 except as noted to
permit the requested commercial use.
1. Building~ ~r, E1 and E2 shall be limited to those uses per-
mitted in the CO, Commercial Office and C-i, Commercial
District.
The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Hotels, motels and inns [24.2.1(20)];
Motor vehicle sales, service and rental [24.2.1(25)];
This prohibition shall not include the ,'installation"
of "new parts" by wholesale distributors if done under
roof in buildinq.
Mobile home and trailer sales and service
[24.2.1(23)];
d. Modular building sales [24.2.1(24)];
Sales of major recreational equipment and vehicles
[24.2.1(32)];
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
[24.3.1(22)];
g. Heating oil sales and distribution [24.2.1(39)];
All exterior lighting shall be face mounted to the exterior
of the buildings.
Roof mounted mechanical structures shall be adequately
screened from adjacent residential development.
Landscaping shall be of species similar to that on the
adjacent Daily Progress site.
(12) dwcl!ing units.
6. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Privacy fence shall be maintained in good condition by the
developer, his successors or assigns.
Fencing, designed to prevent pedestrian access, shall be
installed adjacent to the residential development (and
existing right-of-way shown in Deed Book 804, Page 527) in
Berkeley prior to the commencement of grading activities for
development of the site.
An eight (8) foot high privacy fence shall be installed
adjacent to the residential development (and existing
right-of-way shown in Deed Book 804, Page 527) in Berkeley
and shall overlap for ten (10) feet the existing fence on
Tax Map 61M, Block 9, Parcel 9. Adjacent to Tax Map 61M,
Block 6, Parcel 2 the fence shall be offset from the proper-
ty line approximately 5 feet and shall be 6 feet in heiqht.
The area between the fence and residential property shall be
planted with shrubs planted at a spacinq of 5 feet if street
shrubs are used and 10 feet if screeninq shrubs are used.
10. No burning on-site.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 20, 1993, unanimously
recommended approval of ZMA-92-08 as recommended by staff, with the following
amendment to agreement #9:
An eight (8) foot high privacy fence shall be installed
adjacent to the residential development (and existing right-
of-way shown in Deed Book 804, Page 527) in Berkeley and
shall overlap for ten (10) feet the existing fence on Tax
Map 61M, Block 9, Parcel 9. Adjacent to Tax Map 61M, Block
6, Parcel 2, the fence shall be offset from the property
line approximately five (5) feet and shall be six (6) feet
in heiqht. The area between the fence and residential
property shall be planted with shrubs planted at a spacinq
of five (5) feet if street shrubs are used and ten (10) feet
000075
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
if screeninq shrubs are used. These improvements shall b~
installed with the first buildinq..
Mrs. Humphris asked what was meant by the new language in condition #2b.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested the applicant answer that question.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Smith, said he is part of the
development team that has contracted to purchase this property from Dominion
Lands. When this property was rezoned to PD-MC, a section of the property was
added after the fact to allow as a secondary use residential. At that time it
was thought that traffic could use Berkeley Subdivision, thus the property was
designated as residential. After meeting with residents of Berkeley Subdivi-
sion the owners realized they would be in an up-hill fight. It was decided
that the property might better be served as commercial. The owners have
worked closely with the adjacent property owners.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
ZMA-92-08 subject to the agreements recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
(The agreements are set out in full below:)
1. Buildings E1 and E2 shall be limited to those uses permitted
in the CO, Commercial office, and C-i, Commercial District;
2. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Hotels, motels and inns [24.2.1(20)];
Motor vehicle sales, service and rental
[24.2.1(25)]; This prohibition shall not
include the "installation" of "new parts"
by wholesale distributors if done under
roof in building;
Co
Mobile home and trailer sales and service
[24.2.1(23)];
d. Modular building sales [24.2.1(24)];
Sales of major recreational equipment and
vehicles [24.2.1(32)];
fo
Machinery and equipment sales, service and
rental [24.3.1(22)];
Heating oil sales and distribution
[24.2.1(39)];
3 o
Ail exterior lighting shall be face mounted to
the exterior of the buildings;
Roof mounted mechanical structures shall be
adequately screened from adjacent residential
development;
Landscaping shall be of species similar to that
on the adjacent Daily Progress site;
6. Administrative approval of final site plan;
7o
Privacy fence shall be maintained in good condi-
tion by the developer, his successors or as-
signs;
8 o
Fencing, designed, to prevent pedestrian access,
shall be installed adjacent to the residential
development (and existing right-of-way shown in
Deed Book 804, Page 527) in Berkeley prior to
the commencement of grading activities for de-
velopment of the site;
An eight (8) foot high privacy fence shall be
installed adjacent to the residential develop-
ment (and existing right-of-way shown in Deed
Book 804, Page 527) in Berkeley and shall over-
lap for ten (10) feet the existing fence on Tax
000076
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Map 61M, Block 9, Parcel 9. Adjacent to Tax Map
61M, Block 6, Parcel 2 the fence shall be offset
from the property line approximately five (5)
feet and shall be six (6) feet in height. The
area between the fence and residential property
shall be planted with shrubs planted at a spac-
ing of five (5) feet if street shrubs are used
and ten (10) feet if screening shrubs are used.
These improvements shall be installed with the
first building; and
10.
No burning on-site.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-93-04. Covenant Church. Public Hearing to
rezone about 1.266 ac from R-4 to CO for church use only. Property on N sd of
Rio Rd N of and adjacent to existing Church. Church lies in Neigb_borhood 2
and is recommended for Neighborhood Service in the Comprehensive Plan.
TM61,P154(part). (Property located in designated growth area.) Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1993.)
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 9:20 p.m.)
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. The applicant
is proposing to rezone approximately 1.27 acres from R-4 to CO to accommodate
the expansion of the church. The applicant has proffered:
"The church proffers that uses of the property being requested for
rezoning shall be similar to those submitted for ZMA-90-28. That
is, uses shall be restricted to those uses listed under Section
23.2.1, Items 4, 7, 8 and those uses listed under Section 23.2.2."
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has reviewed the rezoning for compliance with
the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and
recommends approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 4,
1993, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-93-04 subject to acceptance of
the applicant's proffer.
Mr. St. John asked why this rezoning is necessary if these offices are
to be used as offices for the church. He asked why these offices were
determined to be an accessory use to the church. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Zoning Administrator would need to address that issue since she received the
application. Mr. St. John said parking or an office is an accessory use, and
he does not see the need for a rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has
listed proffered uses which allows that flexibility beyond what is shown on
the site plan. Mr. St. John said the answer may be that the use is not just
for the church.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for
the project, said he agrees with the staff report and will answer any
questions Board members may have.
Rev. Harold Bare, Pastor of Covenant Church, said he was present to
answer any questions from Board members.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve
ZMA-93-04 subject to the following proffer submitted by the applicant:
"The church proffers that uses of the property being requested for
rezoning shall be similar to those submitted for ZMA-90-28. That
is, uses shall be restricted to those uses listed under SectiOn
23.2.1, Items 4, 7, 8 and those uses listed under Section 23.2.2."
Mr. Bain said the acreage may not be significant in this particular
case, but once again the Board would be reducing the County's residential
holding capacity.
Mr. St. John said he does not want to prolong the discussion any longer
but he would like an answer to his question. If the use is to be ancillary to
the church, this action does not need to be taken. He is not sure that state
_ law allows a church to just invest in commercial property if that is what this
request is about. Mr. Cilimberg said the proffers limit the use. Mr. St.
John said if this is for the church use, the property does not need to be
rezoned.
Pastor Bare said the land is consumed with the site plan. The acre that
is being petitioned for rezoning is reclaimed wasteland, and the church is in
the process of submitting all of these parcels of land to be recorded as one
plat. The purpose is to have all the property on one plat with one zoning and
000077
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
for one use. Mr. St. John said he will not delay the issue any further, but
that has nothing to do with the question he raised.
Mrs. Humphris said in the Planning Commission minutes in answer to Ms.
Huckle's earlier question, the Rev. Harold Bare explained that the addition
would be used for classroom space, a fellowship and recreation activities. He
confirmed that this plan would meet the churches needs for the foreseeable
future. Mr. Cilimberg said it is his understanding that in terms of those
activities, the building area would not be in the area proposed for rezoning.
Mr. St. John said although he does not understand this, since the zoning
Administrator and Planning staff have made a determination, he will rely on
their judgements.
At this time the Board requested that the zoning Administrator provide
for the June 2, 1993 consent agenda the reason she determined the request
required a rezoning permit.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request from Gloria Fennell to subdivide one six
acre parcel (Tax Map 42, Parcel 42-B-1) located in the Moorman's River
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is requesting the Board's approval to
subdivide one - six acre parcel from Tax Map 42, Parcel 42-B1 to convey the
parcel to the farm manager who intends to build a house and reside there. The
agricultural/forestal districts ordinance provides that any parcel in an
agricultural/forestal district shall not be developed to a more intensive use
without prior approval of the Board. Included among the definitions of more
intensive use is any division of land other than a subdivision having a
minimum lot size of 21 acres. That is the reason this request is before the
Board for consideration.
Staff opinion is that the proposed arrangement meets the intent of the
agricultural/forestal district act and promotes the continued use of this
property for agriculture. Staff recommends approval of the request.
The Chairman asked the applicant for any comments. Ms. Gloria Fennell
said she was present to answer any question.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the request from Gloria Fennell to subdivide one - six acre parcel. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Resolution of support for Jaycees.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution of support for the Jaycees. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
None.
(The adopted resolution is set out in full below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees, a bona fide
community service organization, has faithfully and continuously
provided a Fourth of July Fireworks Display in the local parks for
the last 25 years at its own expense; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees has provided
this community service for crowds of over 7000 and more at these
parks, with more citizens watching from the convenience of their
homes, and at no charge to the entire Community; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees has rarely
received financial help for the same, except most recently through
the generosity of a few local corporations; and
000078
May 12~ 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees is a "not-
for-profit" organization which exists solely to train tomorrow's
leaders through Community Service, has operational budgets and
budgets earmarked for specific Community projects, and conse-
quently does not have large case reserves; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees needs
Community support to continue this patriotic local tradition; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees often is not
even associated with the Fireworks Show that they themselves fund
and execute, resulting in low citizen awareness of the genuine
Community service being provided and the struggle of bearing the
costs; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees is aware of
the critical fiscal position the County's Board of Supervisors is
in with regard to funding such events;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors recognizes the benefit of this celebration by
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees to this Community and
encourages this local Community to support this effort; and
FURTHER RESOLVES that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors will consider other non-monetary methods of assisting
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees in accomplishing this
genuine Community service, which has grown and could possibly be
an asset to area tourism in the future, with Community support.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: CPA-93-02 - Economic Development
Policy - set for public hearing or schedule work session.
Mr. Bowerman said at last week's meeting he mentioned that the County
had initiated a procedure whereby prospects who are interested in property in
the County for either rezoning, commercial or industrial use, were being
referred to the County by the Chamber of Commerce. He has provided the Board
a summary of the process which he would like to have formalized. The other
issue before the Board is to look at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was
recommended to the Board. He has receives comments from the public both in
support and opposed to the policy, with the majority of the concern seemed to
be that elements of the policy required funding. He has discussed with staff
funding requirements of the Economic Development Office and the Economic
Development Council. It was staff's opinion that although the Council would
be manned by volunteers, it would require some staff support in order to be
successful. His recommendation is that the Board go to public hearing with
the balance of the plan for incorporation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bain said prior to going to public hearing he would prefer that the
Board hold a work session and discuss individually the objectives and
strategies.
Mrs. Humphris said she also would prefer to have a work session first
before going to public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said he thought the Board wanted to have input from the
public; it could hold a public hearing and then have a work session. He
thinks it is important that the Board deal with the recommendation from the
Commission, whether in a work session or a public hearing. As a result of the
Board's discussion last week, there was clearly a difference of an opinion on
the Board so he has attempted to provide something for discussion.
Mr. Bain said this is a lot of information for consideration. The
Commission did not undertake it in one meeting. These are extensive changes
to what is currently in place. He has a lot of questions on how these
strategies and objectives would be undertaken. He wants to have some
discussion before going to public hearing.
Mr. Marshall said he would prefer to have a public hearing first and
then a work session, if one is needed. He does not want to talk this thing to
death and then let it die.
Mr. Bain said he is looking at how some of these objectives and
strategies are going to be accomplished. He wants to know what is meant by
some of the language. He wants to know if the objective is to put this plan
in place before review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Martin said at some point he wants to here from the public and he
thinks there needs to be a work session. He does not care about what order
that happens.
Mr. Bain said he was trying to get a sense of where the Board members
are.
000079
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board is going to go to public hearing, he
suggests it go to public hearing with the plan adopted by the Commission
first. It should be made clear at the meeting that the Board would not be
making a decision on the plan that evening. Mr. Marshall said he would agree
with that. Mrs. Humphris said the intent then would be to hold a work session
after the public hearing. Mr. Perkins said he thinks that should be a policy
of the Board that it have an opportunity to incorporate public comments in
issues such as this.
Motion was then offered by Mr Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
set a public hearing for June 16, 1993 on CPA-93-02, Economic Development
Policy, as presented and approved by the Planning Commission. The Board
intends to schedule a work session, following the public hearing, and, if
necessary, schedule another public hearing. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend the Code of
Albemarle by the addition of a Recycling Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has been provided a proposed ordinance and
staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the County
Code to include the Recycling Ordinance in the Code and set a public hearing
for June 9, 1993. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bain had indicated to him that he would
prefer the Board hold a work session on the proposed ordinance prior to the
public hearing.
MOtion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to schedule a
work session for June 2, 1993 on the proposed Recycling Ordinance and set a
public hearing for the same on June 16, 1993. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: March 4 and April 8, 1992;
and February 3, 1993.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of February 3, 1993, pages 10 (Item
7b) 21 (Item 14), and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of March 4, 1992, pages 6 - 16 (Item
11), and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Bain commented on a letter dated May 12, 1993 received from Mr.
George W. Clark, asking the Board to reconsider ZMA-92-13. The applicants
have offered proffers they feel answer the Board's concerns. Mr. Bain said he
has not changed his opinion.
Mr. Marshall felt the proposed plan was better than the previous plan.
Following some discussion, the Board agreed to schedule this item for
further discussion on June 2, 1993. Mr. Bain indicated that he would contact
the applicants to set up a meeting with staff to discuss this request prior to
the June 2 meeting.
000080
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Bain announced that he was running for reelection for the Samuel
Miller District seat on the Board of Supervisors in November.
Agenda Item No. 17. Cancel Board meeting for May 19, 1993.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to cancel the
Board meeting for May 19, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.