Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1993-07-14
000; 43 July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 14, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin (arrived at 7:04 p.m.) and Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:02 p.m.) ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County ~ttorney, George R. St. John; and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Kevin Cox came forward to make a general statement about housing in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area which is still at the bottom of the affordability index as determined by Virginia Commonwealth University's Department for Real Estate Research. Reasons for that are: relatively low wages due to a lack of competition for employees, and high per unit housing costs. This is due in part to a lack of supply of residentially zoned land. Albemarle County has 740 square miles of land and of that only one and one- half percent is residentially zoned, developable land in the growth areas. This causes the continued development of that 95 percent of the county that has been zoned for rural preservation. Another consequence is increased pressure to rezone the rural areas in a piecemeal fashion. If the CountY is going to plan well for development and encourage the provision of an adequate supply of moderately priced homes and encourage the creation of jobs, more rural land will have to be zoned for high density residential development. Otherwise, the rural areas will be consumed by large lot zoning, with more people commu~ing from outside of the area. Mr. Cox said he had one other comment. He will actually be defending the Board and staff. He is tired of hearing people whining and complaining that they have not been informed of what is going on "down here", and that they have been betrayed and backstabbed by the actions of this Board and the Planning Commission, and that there is some kind of conspiracy among the different government bodies. Mr. Cox said he has been coming to the County Building for at least three years, and been to about one-half of the Board's meetings. He has also been in the Planning Department quite a bit, and he thinks the Planning Staff does a great job, as does the County Executive's staff. He also thinks the press does a good job in covering the stories. He has heard many complaints that people did not know about real estate tax relief for the elderly, but the information is sent out with each tax bill. The public has an obligation to make itself aware of what is happening. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph- ris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to accept the items on the consent agenda for information (conversation relating to each item will be shown with that item). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Letter dated June 30, 1993, from Nelson J. Shaw, Area Forester, Department of Forestry, concerning outbreak of Southern Pine Bark Beetle in Albemarle County. Concerning this item, Mrs. Humphris asked for a report on what the County is doing on its own land about the outbreak of the pine park beetle. Mr. Tucker suggested that on August 4 an extension agent come to the meeting to explain what is happening. Item 5.2. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for June 8, June 15 (amended) and June 29, 1993, received for information. Item 5.3. Notice dated June 30, 1993~ from the State Corporation Commission of an application filed by Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of Peak Day Pricing Pilot - Ride~ K, received for information. Item 5.4. Copy of the Final Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 1993-94 for the Interstate, Primary, Urban and Secondary Highway Systems, Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including the Six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1993-94 through 1998-99. Concerning this item, Mrs. Humphris July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000244 (Page 2) asked about a figure on Page 54 of the report titled "Route 29 Albemarle Interchanges" showing an amount of $26 million for right-of-way and a total of $29.1 million. Mrs. Humphris said the complete total was given in the FEIS as approximately $29 million. She asked what that figure means. Mr. Bowerman said the answer to that question will be included on the consent agenda next week. Mrs. Humphris also mentioned Page 56, an item showing the Charlottes- ville McIntire Road/Meadow Creek Parkway, at a total at $9.961 million for one-half of mile of road construction from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road at the Northern City Limits. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, said the City portion of the project has been shortened to start from the Route 250 Bypass and for some reason, the report may show the figure for the full length. He iwill get an answer to this question. Mrs. Mumphris asked if there will be an interchange at the bypass. Mr. Roosevelt said this estimate may include an interchange; he is not familiar with what is included in this estimate. Mr. Bain said he would like to know about this. Item 5.5. Memorandum dated July 9, 1993, from Forrest D. Kerns, Charlottesville Housing Foundation, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu- tive, David Benish, Chief of Community Development, re: Update on Crozet Crossing, received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Pablic Hearing on Secondary Road Improvement Budget or Fiscal Year 1993-94. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized information which previously had been presented to the Board. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, was present to answer questions. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tim Lindstrom asked that when the Highway Department gets around to paving Route 610, that the paving be stopped at about two miles off of Route 20 and the road left in its present, graveled condition. It is a lightly used road which lies in the Southwest Mountains Historic District, and much of the land along its perimeter is preserved with conservation easements, etc. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion as offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Secondary Road Improvement Budget, as presented, and set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. ALBEMARLE COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION BUDGET: REGULAR CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATION UNPAVED ROAD ALLOCATION NET FUNDS FOR DISTRIBUTION $ 3,042,296 532,678, $ 3,574,874 DISTRIBUTION: Incidental Improvements: Route 625 - Operate Hatton Ferry at James River $ 15,000 $ 15tO00 NUMBERED PROJECTS: Regular Improvements: Rte 654 fr Rte 1406 to Rte 656, widen to 4 lanes Rte 631 fr NCL Charlottesville to CSX Railroad (New alignment, 4-lanes Rte 631 fr 1.34 mi S Rte 1-64 to 0.14 mi S Rte 1-64 widen to 4 lanes Rte 743 fr Rte 657 to Rte 631, widen to 4 lanes Unpaved Road Improvements Rte 682 fr Rte 250 to 1.7 mi S Rte 787 (Widen & surface treat gravel road) TOTAL ALLOCATION $186,270 187,376 993,650 1,000,000 $ 532,578 $ 3,027,296 $ 532,578 $ 3,574,874 Agenda Item No. 7. Pablic Hearing to consider requests for funding under the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program. The Keswick Garden Club, Archibald Craige and Robert Hammond are requesting $68,800 for screening of the CSX rail siding and yard on Route 22 at Keswick, Virginia. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation is requesting $3,668,488 in two phases ($2,376,392 in Phase I) for improvements to the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) from Route 20 to the entrance at Monticello. Ail non- July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000245 (Page 3) Federal matching funds for e&~ '~'~'~-~'~ ~O~ided from priVate sOurces. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Supervisors have two requests before them relating to the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program. The requests are under a new program funded through the ISTEA legislation of the Federal government which provides an opportunity to do some unique kinds iof road work in Virginia through this application process, which is a state- !wide competitive process. One of the requests involves the screening of the rail siding and rail yard at Keswick along Route 22. The other request relates to improvements to the Thomas Jefferson Parkway, requested by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. In both cases the local match require- ment, which is 20 percent of the total cost, is being provided by the appli- cant. It would not be a County cost, although the County would have to guarantee to the State that the monies would be provided, and the County would also have to administer the grants should they be awarded. Mrs.. Humphris mentioned that the Train Station has been submitted from the City of Charlottesville for some of these funds. She called attention to the booklet in which the rules for the allocation of the funds are listed. She read, "Projects that are within a metropolitan planning organization area require the endorsement of the appropriate MPC." She noted that the City is asking the MPC to endorse that project It is Mrs. Humphris' understanding that neither the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation proposal nor the Keswick proposal are in the urbanized area, and, therefore, do not meet the require- ment of MPC endorsement. She asked if her understanding of the situation is correct. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he had asked that question of the members of the Planning District Commission which administers the MPC, and they suggested that it would be safer to go through the MPO's process for its endorsement. Mrs. Mumphris asked Mr. Cilimberg if he is referring to both proposals. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. He said the MPC Technical Committee looked at these two projects as well as the Train Station project last week. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she finds this situation confusing. She then wondered if this Board of Supervisors were to endorse these two projects at this public hearing, and Mr. Bain and she, as representatives of this Board on the MPC are asked to endorse the Train Station, will they be in conflict and competition. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the MPC will actually be asked to endorse all three projects. He said the MPC Technical Committee was not asked to rank the projects. This is not a requirement for the submittal of the projects in Richmond. He noted that the MPC Technical Committee voted, with one abstention, to endorse all three projects. Mrs. Humphris said it would be a tough decision, since the criteria is unknown, and the Supervisors will not know how to weigh and measure the benefit to the community. Mr. Bowerman commented that he would hope that, as a community minded organization, the four City/County MPC members would collectively arrive at what would be best for the community after considering whatever requirements are available at the time the matter is discussed. At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. Archibald Craige spoke on behalf of the Keswick Garden Club. He noted that the Supervisors have been given information on this project, and they have in hand an excellent letter from the County's Architectural Review Board, which describes the project. He said that he was present to answer questions. Mr. Dan Jordan, Executive Director of Monticello, said the case for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway is two-fold. First, it will enhance the approach to Monticello as recommended in the County's Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1991. The Parkway would be scenic, protected and accessible to hikers, bikers and handicapped people. Secondly, the Parkway would preserve and protect the rural setting that is also in the County's Comprehensive Plan, by putting it to public use in the form of a park which would have over 175 acres, an arboretum, native plant areas, brooks and ponds, two miles of hiking and biking trails and many other trails. He proposed to the Supervisors the Thomas Jefferson Parkway as a community asset, on its own terms, but also as a fitting way to remember Mr. Jefferson on the occasion of commemoration of the 250th anniversary of his birth. Mr. Will Rieley, landscape architect working for the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, said he has worked on the conceptual plan for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway. Me thanked the County's Planning staff, particularly Wayne Cilimberg and Ken Baker, for their careful review and suggestions during the preparation of the plan. Me thanked Mr. Dan Roosevelt for his early advice and referral to the appropriate VDoT officials. Me then showed slides, and made remarks during the slide process. Mr. Bowerman asked how much of the cost of this project is directly attributable to road improvements. Mr. Rieley answered that roadside improve- ments in Phase One amount to $508,000. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000246 (Page 4) Mr. Brent Cool, Dean of Administrative Inserv~ces at Piedmont Virginia community College, voiced the college's support for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway project. As a very close neighbor of Monticello, the college is acutely aware of its significance to the community, not only in terms of history, but also in terms of the economic and cultural benefits it provides for the region. With this statement, he is very pleased to add PVCC's support to this important project. Ms. Elizabeth Seabrook, Executive Director of the Senior Center, stated that she finds the project to be very appropriate, not just for senior citi- zens, but for the entire community. She would like to add the Senior Center's support of the project. Mr. Joe Fellini, who is on the Executive Committee of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said that the club represents 940 local members and 12,000 members state-wide. He commented that the Executive Committee has reviewed the conceptual plans for the parkway, and finds it to be a great idea. He added that it is a visionary bargain by any standard, and emphasized that the Sierra Club of Virginia supports the parkway plan. Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, read a prepared statement in support of the application for the parkway by the Thomas Jeffer- son Memorial Foundation. He concluded his remarks by saying that his organi- zation would also like to support the screening for the CSX rail siding and yard at Keswick along Route 22, as it was proposed by Mr. Craige and some of Mr. Craige's associates. He stated that this is a much more modest project, but small projects also contribute to the quality of life in Albemarle County. Mr. Tim Lindstrom, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council, endorsed the Monticello project. He thinks that this project is a very well conceived and extremely professionally put-together proposal. He noted that Monticello is the only home in the United States on the rural heritage list. He also wanted to emphasize the Piedmont Environmental Coun- cil's support for the Route 22 project which is equally important in its own way. This property adjoins one of the largest rural historic districts designated in the country. Route 22 is a scenic road, and is probably one of the best examples of rural land in the entire County. Mr. Bob Hammon, representing the Ivy Creek Foundation, supported the Monticello project. He stated that his organization believes the parkway will make Charlottesville and Albemarle County a better place for visitors to come and a better place for the County's citizens to work and live. Ms. Gay Bailey stated that she represents the Jefferson Chapter of the Virginia Native Plant Society. She heartily endorsed and recommended the Thomas Jefferson Parkway project, and asked that this Board give it good consideration. There were no further public comments, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mr. Marshall commented that, since Monticello is in his district and he has been told that he holds the seat on this Board that Mr. Jefferson once held, he certainly supports this request. He does not want to let this opportunity go by, though, without reminding the Supervisors of his request of approximately a month ago. He said the City of Charlottesville is doing a beautiful job of keeping the grass cut in the medians and planting flowers within the City limits on Route 20 South, but the state-maintained portion of Route 20 is shabby. He mentioned that he asked Mr. Roosevelt to have the grass cut along Route 20, and this was done, but the road still looks very shabby. He would like to make sure that in next year's budget, money can be included for that stretch of Route 20 between the City of Charlottesville and Route 53, which would actually be the end of this parkway. He pointed out that the Visitor's Center cannot even be seen now because the road is so overgrown, and he is concerned that traffic would go past it. Mr. Bowerman said staff has been asked for a proposal which deals not only with Route 20, but other areas of the County, as a county-wide area of interest. Mr. Marshall stated that he appreciates the Board's response to his request, but he did not want to let this opportunity go by without reminding the Board of the Route 20 situation. He said that this is very important to the community. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to clarify the project endorsement resolution as it relates to the, "Be It Further Resolved," section. She mentioned that in this section the County agrees to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, plus right-of-way and construction of the project, and to reimburse VDoT for the total amount of the costs expended by VDoT. Mr. Cilimberg said each of the applicants is listed, on behalf of the County, as agreeing to pay the 20 percent. He noted that the County has to take on the obligation of guaranteeing to VDoT that if the project is can- celed, reimbursement will be made of VDoT's costs expended through the date that VDoT is notified of such cancellation. Mr. Martin asked if only the County can cancel the project. He asked what would happen if the money was not forthcoming from the public, and the project canceled itself. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the County will need a separate agreement with each of the grant requests, beyond the resolution. If July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000247 (Page 5) either of these projects is ap~ SuperviSors Will have to have an agreement with either or both of these applicants which will spell out the applicant's and County's obligations. He reiterated that the County will be held as the responsible agency to the State. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. St. John if the Board should approve the two resolutions without having an agreement with the applicants in place. Mr. St. John replied, "yes." He recalled that 15 years ago the Attorney General would have said that this could not be done, but this has all changed, and it is now the accepted practice. Me added that if the Supervisors want these projects done, then they will have to agree to it. He stated that the Attorney General has said that it is lawful for this Board to enter into this kind of agree- ment. He reminded the Board that it takes a chance even when it enters into such an agreement. Mr. Martin said he assumes that any agreement with these two applicants would also indicate that the County has the right to cancel the project for whatever reason. He noted that the resolution includes such a statement. Mr. St. John replied that this stipulation could be included with the agreement, but he is not sure that he understands the reason for doing so. Mr. Cilimberg stated that in the Community Development Block Grants that the County received for AHIP to do rehabilitation projects, the County has been the applicant, and has put money into the projects. He noted that there have been assurances of funds from other sources through matching opportuni- ties. He indicated that the first step in the process is to be awarded the grant. He said that the grant can be declined if it is found that funds will not be available to proceed. He added that if the County accepts the grant, this is when an agreemeDt is entered into with the other entities to assure that they will adhere to the commitment that they have made. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following resolution approving the request from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation: WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion program an enhancement project in Albemarle County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervi- sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project for the screening of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (U.S. Route 53), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (on behalf of Albemarle County) does hereby agree to pay twenty percent of the total cost for planning and design, right of way, and construction of this project, and that if Albemarle County subsequently elects to cancel this project, Albemarle County hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution approving the request from the Keswick Garden Club: WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion program an enhancement project in Albemarle County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervi- sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project for the screening of the CSX rail siding and yard at Keswick along Route 22, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Keswick Garden Club (on behalf of Albemarle County) does hereby agree to pay twenty percent of the total cost for planning and design, right of way, and construction of this project, and that if Albemarle County subsequently elects to cancel this project, Albemarle County hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000248 (Page 6) AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman' Mrs, ~m~h~r~ ~eSSrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-93-07. Forest Lakes Associates. Public Hearing to rezone 2.3 ac from R-1 to PUD & 2.6 ac from PUD to R-1 to facili- tate the exchange of land between Forest Lakes South PUD (ZMA-91-04) & adjacent property. Located in eastern portion of development (Blk C). TM46,Ps26E&26F. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) (Mr. Bain said he represents one of the applicants so will abstain. He left the room at 7:59 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-93-07, with the existing proffers of ZMA-91-04 remaining in effect on the property zoned PUD. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Kessler was present to answer questions. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-93-07 with existing proffers of ZMA-91-04 to remain in effect on the property zoned PUD. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain. (Note: Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 8:04 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-93-15. Ram/BSE Communications (applicant), Crown Orchard Company (owner). Public Hearing for an approx 300 ft tower located on Carter's Mtn zoned RA. TM91,P28. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which had previously been distributed to the Board, and which is a part of the Board's permanent records. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 8, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of SP-93-15, subject to the following conditions. He noted that condition #3 had been amended from that condition recommended by the staff to allow a strobe light during daylight hours only. 1. Tower heights shall not exceed 300 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. In the event that lighting is required, only red lighting shall be used for nighttime obstruction marking. Day- light tower lighting for obstruction purposes is permitted. Ail tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No adminis- trative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae adminis- tratively approved under this section. Mr. Bowerman asked why strobe lighting would be necessary. Mr. Cilim- berg replied that the applicant has indicated that for daylight hours, it might be acceptable to use strobe lighting and then have red lighting at night. During the daylight hours, strobe lighting would not be as visible to the surrounding area. A substitute to that is to have painted colors. This may not be necessary because the applicant is trying to work with the FAA and not have the light at all, or maybe paint the tower, instead, because the other towers in that vicinity are already lighted. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Terry Wright was present in support of the petition. He stated agreement with the staff's recommendations. He said that he is available to answer any questions that the Board members might have. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wright if he has a concern about moving the daylight tower lighting. Mr. Wright answered that his company would be willing to comply with FAA regulations which would be the red lighting at night and contrasting red and white bands for daytime use. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall offered a motion to approve SP-93-15 relating to a request by Ram/BSE Communications for the location of an approximately 300 foot tower July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000249 (Page 7) on Carter's Mountain, with the four conditions as ShOWn in the staff report, including the amendment to Condition Number Three, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall if he is including in his motion the daylight tower lighting for obstruction purposes. Mr. Marshall replied that he is including the red light at night and the strobe lighting in the daytime in his motion. He said that at first thought, it appears that strobe lighting is not needed in the daytime, but it could be very useful if there was fog in the area. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Marshall is changing the staff's recommenda- tion. Mr. Marshall answered, "no." Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mrs. Humphris inquired if she was right in thinking that only red light- ing should be used at night. Mr. Bowerman replied that Mrs. Humphris is correct, but he informed her that, according to Mr. Marshall's motion, strobe lighting would be permitted during daylight hours. Several Board members commented that they did not see why strobe lighting would be necessary in the daytime. Mr. Perkins responded that on foggy days, strobe lighting could be helpful. Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr. Bain noted that there are towers located in the same vicinity which are the same height as the proposed tower, and they don't have daytime strobe lighting. Mr. Bowerman commented that for years red lights have served the purpose for both night and fog visibility. Mr. Marshall remarked that the applicant will not want to spend the money for strobe lighting unless the FAA requires it. Roll was called, but the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. ABSTAINING: Mr. Martin. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was an alternative motion. Mr Marshall stated that he would make an alternative motion, but he was the reason for the previous motion's defeat. The Supervisors indicated that the strobe lighting was the reason for their concern. Mr. Marshall then stated that he would amend his motion to include only the red lighting at night. Mr. Cilimberg informed Mr. Marshall that the red lighting at night stipulation could be covered by the staff's Number Three condition. Mr. Bowerman commented that he would prefer to modify Mr. Marshall's motion. He explained that it would involve deleting the one sentence from the Planning Commission's Condition Number Three, which reads, "Daylight tower lighting for obstruction purposes is permitted." Mr. Perkins remarked that Condition Number Three could also stipulate that only lighting as required by FAA would be permitted. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the original third sentence of Condition Number Three stated that, "No daylight tower lighting for obstruction purposes is permitted unless required by a Federal agency." Mr. Bain reiterated that he does not want strobe lighting on the tower. Mr. Martin stated that this is the first time a request for a tower with strobe lighting has come before this Board, since he has been a member. He said that he would like to hear some reasons why some of the other Supervisors are against strobe lighting. Mr. Bowerman recalled that a similar issue was before this Board two weeks ago relative to a tower in Crozet, and that particular tower was ap- proved without a strobe light. He mentioned the tower that belongs to Centel on Rio Road which was approximately 100 feet tall with a red light on it. He added that approximately five or six years ago Centel changed to a 200 foot tower with a strobe light. He stated everybody that in the community suddenly knew that there was a tower located there, but prior to that time, the tower was unnoticed. He went on to say that the strobe lighting is equally visible during the day. He said that, in his opinion, the strobe lighting is eye catching, and draws attention to the tower in a way that is unnecessary. He - does not see a need for a strobe light unless the FAA, for its own purposes, requires it, and he emphasized that it is not required by the FAA. He said that strobe lighting is a type of visual pollution that is not needed, and the aesthetics issue is the total reason for voting against strobe lighting. Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bowerman, except Mrs. Humphris pointed out that there is a safety issue involved, also. Mr. Bowerman stated that the safety issue is covered as long as the FAA is satisfied with the red light and the color markings during the day. He noted, too, the fact that there is a tower farm already in that location. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000250 (Page 8) Mr. Marshall then amended his mo%i°n to eliminate strobe lighting. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman explained that the motion has been made and seconded to approve SP-93-15, with the four conditions approved by the Planning Commis- sion, with the one change to Condition Number Three which would remove the sentence, "Daylight tower lighting for obstruction purposes is permitted." Roll was called on the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote: : NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Tower heights shall not exceed 300 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. In the event that lighting is required, only red lighting shall be used for nighttime obstruction marking. No daylight tower lighting for obstruction purposes is permitted unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No adminis- trative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae adminis- tratively approved under this section. Item No. 10. Reconsideration of SP-93-06. Thomas Cato, Inc. (appli- cant); Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership (owner). Public Hearing to amend SP-91-43 to allow food & alcohol sales at a billiard center. Property in Greenbrier Square which is on N side of Greenbrier Dr W of Rt 29 N is zoned HC. TM61W,P5,Sec 1,Blk A. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is a part of the Board's permanent records. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 16, 1993, by a vote of 4/2/1, recommended approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive; The sale of alcohol shall require reapproval two years after the date of Board of Supervisors' approval of this permit; 3e Hours of operation shall be limited to: Monday - Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight Friday - Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sunday 12 noon to 10:00 p.m. 4. Cooperative parking is permitted pursuant to Section 4.12,4. The public hearing was opened. First to speak was the applicant, Mr. Jim Cato. He opened in January, 1992 and it has been a struggle. His efforts have been uncompromising to keep the place attractive. He hopes the Supervi- sors may have had a chance to see this. He has kept the decorum such that anyone in the community would be comfortable on the premises. Mr. Cato mentioned that the billiard center has customers from all parts of the County and neighboring counties. Some of his customers have come to this meeting tonight to lend moral support. He added that the business needs to be enhanced if it is to remain open and provide a service to County'residents. He feels the sale of alcohol is an appropriate way to enhance the business. His company is not interested in trouble and stands on its good record. All his company wants is a chance, and he hopes the Supervisors will allow him that chance. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cato if his business would still be marketed as family-oriented, if alcohol is added. Mr. Cato answered that he is not sure just how much of the advertising copy has used the word, "family" in it, if any. He said his company puts forth the idea that both men and women would be comfortable, and he emphasized that certainly women would be comfortable at his place of business. This business is new and unique to this particular County, and emphasis would still be placed on the fact that men and women would feel comfortable at the billiard center. He stated that this is where the emphasis has been in the past, also. Mrs. Humphris recalled Mr. Cato's original approach to this Board with the first permit. She said Mr. Cato encouraged the Board members to be in favor of the request because it was for family entertainment. Nr. Cato had indicated that families would be encouraged to come to the billiard center and July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 00025 ! bring their children. Now, after a year, Mrs. Humphris commented that Mr. Cato is requesting a permit to sell alcohol. Mr. Cato said there is a two-part answer to Mrs. Humphris' concern. When his company first went into this business, alcohol and food would have been added complications for management and ownership to deal with. Company officials hoped the company would be successful in its own right, without alcohol. This has not been the case, and although there have been some families visit, families have not turned out to be a significant part of the clientele. Adding alcohol consumption would make this business no different from walking into any nice restaurant in town that serves alcohol. Mrs. Humphris inquired as to how many teenagers under 18 years of age are usually in the center at night. Mr. Cato replied that few teenagers under 18 come to his establishment, although it is difficult to sort out the 20 year old from the 24, 28 or 30 year old. His company understands its responsi- bilities to these minors, in terms of alcohol sales, and will enforce the letter of the law as carefully as anyone can or does now. The place is well lit, and there are no hidden areas. The room is visible to management° He stated that it makes good business sense for his company to control the situation. Mrs. Humphris asked why Mr. Cato did not add a food component first. Mr. Cato answered that it requires an investment to serve food. The primary part of the investment is the seating and meeting Health Department require- ments, waste disposal, sink and refrigeration. The sale of beer would require very little investment. He noted that the gross profit associated with beer is traditionally greater than that associated with food. His business will not be a high volume, super efficient food operation, and he does not expect to see a high profit margin relating to food sales. However, a small opera- tion such as his has the opportunity to make a good profit'margin with beer sales. He said that food and beer go hand in hand, and this is the reason that his company would like to sell beer and food. Mrs. Humphris wondered if serving alcohol would really make a difference in the billiard center's profits. Mr. Cato replied that he believes it will. Mr. Marshall said he thinks Mr. Cato is familiar with a similar opera- tion in Richmond which serves alcoholic beverages. He asked Mr. Cato to comment. Mr. Cato said there are several similar businesses with which he is familiar. These places are similar in appearance to his except that in the rear of the building there is a different arrangement, because there is a counter for the passing across of food and beverage. Sometimes there are two to four tables with chairs in the rear of the building. Otherwise, Mr. Cato said that to walk into one of these other businesses would be similar to walking into his center as it now appears. His management peoPle Visited the other businesses in Richmond to learn from mistakes that the other businesses made. These other businesses have been successful with the concept and have not had a problem in terms of controlling the situati°n with that type of operation. Mr. Marshall said one of the individuals in Richmond to whom Mr. Cato referred is a cousin of his (Mr. Marshall's). Mr. Cato responded that he hopes that Mr. Marshall's knowledge of his cousin's operation will confirm Mr. Cato's comments. Mr. Marshall commented that the point he is trying to make is that he is familiar with a similar operation. Mr. Roger Sprouse said he is a patron of the billiard center. He enjoys going to the center. He had not played billiards for a long time until this center opened, and it has been fun for him. He went on to say that the center's management is nice, the place has a good atmosphere, and it is a good place to be. He emphasized that he supports Mr. Cato's request. There was no further public comment, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris told other Board members that they have to remember the circumstances under which the original application was approved. She recalled her previous discussion about the billiard center and said that she was sold on the idea of family entertainment in that location, because cooperative parking was required. The information now available indicates that more parking is required, because when people come in to eat food in addition to playing billiards, they will spend a longer period of time, which would require more parking. She learned from the information given the Board that there is 6100 square feet of space in that shopping center still to be leased, and there isn't any more parking space. She the Board was stretching the point when it approved the first permit. Because of the complications of the parking, she cannot support the application. Mrs. Humphris said she feels she was enticed into approving the applica- tion the first time because the applicant said that if the application was approved, alcohol would not be served, and there would be family entertainment on that particular site. She does not think, however, that it is wise to mix alcohol with family entertainment, when there is an activity involved. This activity involves people moving around. People will be leaving who have been drinking, and there is a potential for problems in the parking lot. She does not want to see anybody fail in a business, and she does not want to be the July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0002~2 (Page 10) cause of it. She stated that she cannot support the request because her principles tell her that this is not an appropriate change. Mr. Bowerman recalled that this application was denied when it came before this Board a few months ago. At that meeting, the applicant made a very cursory presentation, with no questioning by this Board. Although he was not there for the original approval, he did not support the application with alcohol sales being included since he did not think it was appropriate. After the application was denied, he had occasion to talk to the applicant, the applicant's wife, he has been in the establishment, and has heard from some of his neighbors speaking both for and against this request. This has been difficult for him because he does not think that beer sales are necessarily counter to family activities. The potential for problems is greater with hard liquor and wine sales. Mr. Bowerman said when he first read this report, he was drawn to the fact that there were two disturbances at this location close to the time that the center opened. Even though the report indicated the disturbances were not associated with activities at the center (it was a domestic altercation between one of the employees at the center and a spouse), it still gave Mr. Bowerman concern. He noted that there haven't been any police reports since that time. While he has some reservations, Mr. Bowerman said he would be willing to grant a permit for a year to see if during that period of time it remains as it is now, a well-kept, well-run establishment operating without any difficulties. After that year, he would be willing to review the applica- tion again. He feels that to give permission beyond a year would be unreason- able based upon the request originally proposed to this Board, and based on some of the concerns he shares with Mrs. Humphris. He believes the decision is close enough that he can err on the side of the applicant in this case. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman's criteria for approval of this application. She hopes the criteria does not relate just to the number of calls to the police. Mr. Bowerman said people who have used the billiard center from time to time communicated with him after the denial. These people indicated that they wouldn't mind having a beer at 9:00 p.m. while they are playing pool. These people indicated that they would still go to the center even if they couldn't have a beer, but they don't see any real problem with beer being served. The people to whom he has spoken are adults with families. His decision would not be based solely on police activity, but if there was any police activity, he would not vote to renew the permit. He thinks the Supervisors should go by the center from time to time to see how it is operated. He went on to say that the proposed food service would be a deli type of food service because the management does not want to get into the problem of fire department requirements for a hood, fire extinguisher and stainless steel. There would be no wine or hard liquor permitted, but there would be a wine cooler which has the same alcoholic content as beer, and is permitted with a beer license. Mr. Bain asked about the cooperative parking situation. Mr. Bowerman replied that parking for two of the major users listed in the staff report seems to be excessive. There has to be one parking space per one hundred square feet. There are a lot of parking spaces available, and most of the businesses are not open at night. He considered these things when the shared parking was discussed. He had the same concerns as Mrs. Humphris about the shared parking, so he looked at the other users. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she goes to the Pizza Hut in that vicinity, and there is a requirement of two parking spaces for pizza pickup. She added that Pizza Hut needs considerably more parking than is required so there are two sides to the situation. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Bowerman is suggesting a fifth condition. Mr. Bowerman answered that he is suggesting that, if the Supervisors choose to approve the request, the Planning Commission's condition relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages be changed to a one-year permit renewal instead of two years. Mr. Bain remarked that the Supervisors went over this request in detail three months ago. He would not say the difference between this request and Kegler's is significant, other than the fact that there are establishments close to the billiard center. Kegler's is set back off the road and has a very definite separate parking area and is a larger facility. He knows that as a businessman, Mr. Cato is saying that his business is not what he had hoped it would be. Yet, Mr. Bain thinks that if the Supervisors had known in the beginning about the businesses in Richmond, etc., which were successful because they had liquor licenses, then the Supervisors would not have approved the center in the first place. Mr. Martin commented that, in his opinion, this is one of the cases where he does not have any strong objections against, nor is he strongly in favor of the request. He has been to the establishment on a couple of occa- sions. He took a group of Jack Jouett students there to give them lessons during the day. It is a nicely run place and is well-kept. He believes that the year's limit Mr. Bowerman is proposing will give the Board a chance to reevaluate the situation and decide if it is still a nice place where a person could take a class of Jack Jouett students. He said that if the answer to that question is "no," then the Supervisors would not reapprove the permit. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0002~ (Page 11) . Mr. St. John expressed a concern about the situation. It is not a bad idea to have a year's trial, but the supervisors need to lay dOWn criteria now. With such an arrangement the applicant will know that if he adheres to that criteria the Supervisors cannot take the permit from him. He said the Supervisors cannot just leave the matter open as to how they will feel a year from now. Mr. Bowerman agreed that Mr. St. John's suggestion is reasonable. He pointed out that the ABC Board plays a large role in this matter too. If there were any significant ABC violations such as the sale of hard beverage to a minor, in his opinion that would be cause not to renew the license regard- less of what the ABC Board did. He added that this is one of his main concerns, and he believes it should be part of the criteria the BOard sets. Mr. Bain asked what will happen in a year's time. Mr. Bowerman replied that he would want to remove the requirement, and then it would be the responsibility of the ABC Board to enforce the regulations. Mr. Bain inquired as to why it is not the ABC Board's responsibility now. Mr. Bowerman responded that this Board is expressing some reservations about the permit, and he thinks it is legitimate for this Board to place a limit on it so the situation can be reevaluated. He said that it is difficult to void a special permit. Mr. Martin said he understands Mr. St. John's remarks concerning having criteria in place for the permit, but he wonders if the criteria can be subjective. Mr. St. John answered that the words are mutually exclusive. He said that criteria are not needed if the decision is subjective. Mr. Martin stated that if the decision is objective, then the only things involved are police reports and ABC reports. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Martin to give him some idea of what he means by subjective criteria. Mr. Martin reiterated that he does not see how the matter can be objec- tive other than if police and ABC reports are considered. He asked if the number of patrons would be considered, such as how the number of female patrons versus the number of children. He wondered who will be responsible for tabulating these figures. Mr. St. John replied that Mr. Martin has pointed out the problem with the situation. The Board can have subjective criteria in mind with a review in a year, and the Board could put something in place that sounds good now. He emphasized that the Board will not be able to terminate this permit unless there are some objective criteria in place that have been violated. He repeated that it sounds good, but it will be unen- forceable without these objective criteria. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is not a distinction between renewing the permit and repealing it once it is in place. He said it becomes a legislative matter for the Board again in twelve months. Mr. St. John stated that, in other words, Mr. Bowerman is saying the Board will approve the permit for a year, but it will expire in a year unless it is renewed and reapproved by this Board. Mr. Bowerman noted that the Planning Commission approved the permit for two years. However, he thinks it would be more appropriate if this Board approves the permit with a one-year limit. He pointed out that he, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain have some concerns about the matter. Mr. St. John said he thinks the Board wants to make a distinction without a real difference. When the year is over, this Board can either refuse to renew the permit or disapprove it, but the applicant has made his investment. The applicant has indicated that he would rather have a license to sell beer before he makes an investment for food service. If the applicant makes this investment~ and this Board does not renew the permit after a year, he thinks it will result in a court case. He believes, too, that the judge will tell this Board it has to have some articulable reason why the applicant is not entitled to keep the permit. The reason has to be something this Board told the applicant he has to do, and the applicant failed to comply. Mr. Marshall said that even if there were ABC violations, the appli- cant's license would not be taken for one violation. Mr. St. John said the ABC Board might not revoke the applicant's license for one violation, but this Board could do so. He went on to say that this is an example of objective criteria, if the Board had it in place from the beginning. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks any significant activity indicating there are problems at the billiard center would be reason to deny renewal of the permit. He added that he does not want to make a big issue out of this situation. Mr. St. John said he is not going to make a big issue out it either, or discourage the Board from putting a time limit on the permit. He just wanted the Board members to be aware of the potential problems at the end of the year. Mr. Bowerman stated that he has no problem with limiting the permit to a year and basing renewal upon an absence of ABC violations and police reports which would indicate a problem with the activities going on in this establish- ment. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 00025:4 (Page 12) Mr. Martin stated that the nicest place in the world can have a fight happen at its location. Mr. Bowerman noted that there have not been any fights during the last 12 months. Mr. Bowerman said he is willing to be reasonable if the Supervisors can reach some agreement on the matter. Mr. Marshall commented that he supported Mr. Bowerman in his views on the situation when the matter was brought before this Board previously, and he is willing to support him this time. Mr. Marshall said that this is Mr. Bowerman's district, and he believes that he (Mr. Bowerman) knows the people better in his own district than he (Mr. Marshall) knows them. Mr. Marshall went on to say, however, that he has a relative who owns a similar business. He said that this relative contacted him about the matter after Mr. Marshall voted on it the last time. Mr. Marshall stated that he then went to visit the relative's establishment, and it was a well-run operation. He added that the relative is doing better with that establishment than he (Mr. Marshall) is doing with his drug business. He said that the relative has not had any violations. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Mar- shall, to approve SP-93-06 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission changing No. 2 to include a one-year reapproval process with the proviso that there are some objective criteria under which the Board will renew this application in 12 months, specifically relating to any Alcohol Beverage Control violations and police activities. Mrs. Humphris commented that she will not support the motion. She supported the request the first time it was before this Board because the application was for a family use. It was an intriguing idea, and she hoped it would work. She does not think that alcohol mixes with this particular situation in this particular location given these particular circumstances. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive; 2. The sale of alcohol shall require reapproval one year from this approval of the permit by the Board of Supervisors, i.e., July 14, 1994; 3. Hours of operation shall be limited to: Monday - Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight Friday - Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sunday 12 noon to 10:00 p.m. 4. Cooperative parking is permitted pursuant to Section 4.12.4. (Note: Mr. Martin and Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:47 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. Reconsideration of ZMA-92-13. George & William Clark. P~blic Hearing to rezone approx 102.89 ac from RA to VR (proffered). Property in SE corner of inters of Red Hill School Rd & North Garden Lane (Rts 760/712). Site located in designated growth area (North Garden Village is recommended for village use (1 du/ac). TM87P57C&66-76; TM99,P109-116. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report and mentioned the new proffers which had been filed with staff since the Board heard this request previously. The proposal drops the number of lots from 52 t° 35 and includes the lots that had fronted on Route 712, with the exception of the existing lot. All lots will be interior to the site. Access will be taken from the approved stream crossing and internal roads. The reduction in number of lots has removed the need for a groundwater study. All lots are two acres or greater in size Which will allow for on-site septic systems and wells. (Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 8:50 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the significance of the new access at the cul-de-sac, and why the dotted lines widen into a diagonal area where the road connects to the new access easement. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant may be able to answer Mrs. Humphris' question concerning use of the easement. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:52 p.m.) At this point, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. A. L. Yancey, the applicant, replied to Mrs. Humphris' that there is a driveway shown for Mr. Powell who owns the adjacent property. Mr. Yancey stated that he (Mr. Yancey) only intends to use the road to which Mrs. Humphris referred for emergency entrance and exit. There will be a gate with a lock, so it will not be a public road. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000235 (Page 13) Mr. Yancey said that tonight he will only address things related to the new plan because he thinks the situation has already been discussed enough over the last six months. He mentioned that he read the minutes from the last Board of Supervisors' meeting, and every concern expressed by the Supervisors has been met. Mr. Perkins was concerned about the number of lots on the road, and lots have been totally eliminated from that road. Me explained to MrS. Numphris that the plan calls for less than the 39 units which Mrs. Numphris indicated was acceptable to her. He met with Mr. Bain and his concern about the lot size was satisfied with the increase of the lot size to two acres. Anything else he would say would be covering old information. Mrs. Ann Smith stated that she and her son own the property at the corner of Routes 692 and 712. Tonight is the first time she has seen the new plan. She understands the plan shows a natural area access and utility easement across her property. She has not been advised of this, and she would like to know if this can be done without a person's permission. When her son built his house, he had to pay $1000 to put the electric lines underground. She does not think it is right for connections to be made at her son's house to provide electricity to these lots. The lines did not go across her land previously because she did not want the trees cut down. She still does not want to cut down the trees. Ms. Reecye Modny announced that she had not come to this meeting to speak about this particular issue, but something has been mentioned that relates to the reason she is present. She pointed out that Mr. Yancey has indicated that there is an emergency road that will have a gate and lock. She wondered how it will be an emergency access road if this is the case. She asked if the emergency vehicle would have to drive through the gate. She asked the Board to reconsider the proposal. Mr. David Franzen stated that the Board has heard from him before. He lives across the road from this planned development. He is in favor of the development, and he strongly urged the Board to approve it. Mr. Joe Garofalo commented that the Board has also heard from him before on this issue. He is glad to see that there is now a sensible plan that doesn't put houses in the flood plain, but he still has a concern that was not addressed by the applicant. He volunteers a lot of his time with the North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, and he has been to many accidents along the roads in North Garden. He urged the Supervisors to restrict the number of houses built until the roads are improved. Considering the number of acci- dents he has seen in the area, he is sure that people are going to be hurt by the increased traffic. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Garofalo if he is aware that the number of houses has been reduced and that the new plan shows a better configuration. Mr. Garofalo answered that the proposed plan is much better than before, but he is asking the Supervisors to restrict the number of houses that can be built before the roads are improved. Ne said that he has been to many car accidents during the last couple of years, and he can tell the Board that somebody is going to get hurt. Ms. Paula Hoffman said she has also been before this Board before and she is opposed to the plan. She knows the applicant has the right t° build the subdivision, but she wants to talk about the roads. The roads are terrible. She was on Route 760 with her two year old child approximately a week and a half ago when a pickup truck came around the bend. She said that the only reason they were not hit was because she was trying to get the child to go to sleep, so she was driving slow. The roads are atrocious and some- thing needs to be done about them before the applicant puts up a development. She comes to these meetings over and over but the Supervisors are not doing anything about the roads. She commented that it is absolutely infuriating to her. Mr. John Mesinger said he is back again and he wanted to congratulate the people who finally got the plan right. He stated that while looking for a home site, he came into the Planning Department and asked if there were problems with the North Garden area. Ne was told about the water supply problems, but was also told that there was not going to be a village in North Garden until there was an adequate water supply either piped in from a river, or a reservoir was constructed. He thanked this person, followed his advice and made sure that he had a good well as a condition of building in that vicinity. ~ He asked if the precedent that is being set now is going to mean that the North Garden village will grow. In the course of talking to neigh- bors he heard about their two, four-hundred foot deep wells. It is not known yet what the real status of the water supply in the North Garden area is. Ne asked the Supervisors to be careful about what is approved and the conditions that are added to the approvals before unacceptable precedents are set. Mr. Dan Beaker said he lives close to the proposed development. He supports Mr. Mesinger's comments. The area to be developed is not within the area shown for village residential in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the area in yellow on the map is to the south and east of Route 712, and he understands that this development is going to the south and west of that road. He supports the Comprehensive Plan as it is written, and he is con- cerned about any variance from that plan with high density development. 000256 July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) " Mr. Bowerman asked Mr, Cilimberg to answer Mr. Beaker's question. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he believes Mr. Beaker is referring to the summary of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. He said the Plan adopted in 1989 is the approved plan of the County. During the Board's deliberations in 1989, the growth area boundaries of North Garden were expanded. Mr. Bowerman inquired if this application is within the growth area boundaries adopted in 1989. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mr. Beaker commented that there is a farm less than a mile from this development that recently sold that is going to be developed, and there is also a farm of over 100 acres that is across the road from the property in question which is for sale. He cautioned the Board about approving these sorts of developments because of the precedent that might be set for develop- ment in this rural area. Mr. Yancey said there are two issues which he wants to address which are new to the situation. The easement referred to in the plan should not worry Ms. Smith. The easement for utilities is totally on the property that will be developed; he certainly would not ask to go through her property. Concerning the idea of setting a precedent, he is asking for less than his by-right division rights. If there were a 200 acre farm or a 500 acre farm, the owners would have to obtain the Supervisors' approval in order to develop it into two-acre lots, so the Supervisors have control. He does not think a precedent is being set with this application since the applicant is dealing only with theoretical rights. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Yancey to address the issue of the locked gate. Mr. Yancey said that it the Type River bridge can wash out, then the same thing could certainly happen to the bridge in this area. He emphasized that this emergency entrance will be locked until there is such an emergency. He said that if such an emergency arises, the gate would be unlocked so the people could exit out of the area. Mr. Will Rieley stated that this proposal has been a difficult one for him from the beginning. It began with one of his neighbors and friends asking if he would oppose the project. At the time there was no plan, and it was relatively easy to oppose a project that didn't have a plan. After the plan was developed, he thought it needed additional work, and advocated delaying the project. The last time it was considered, he offered qualified support. Now, this is a plan that he can support without qualification because it protects the stream valley, it is less than the development that is allowed by right, it is a reasonable plan, and he thinks it will be good for the communi- ty. He advocated the Board's approval. Ms. Ann Messina said it is apparent that work has gone into the plan since the first time she viewed it. She wanted to mention the precedent that is being set at North Garden. Mr. Yancey used two acres as the only precedent being set. However, she wondered if the precedent that is being set would be less than one acre. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the minimum lot size is proffered at two acres. Mr. Martin explained that to have water and sewer on a piece of property, there cannot be less than two acres. He went on to say that Mr. Yancey referred to the fact that if one of the farms mentioned were subdivided, it would have to be subdivided into at least two-acre lots because that is the least amount of land a person can have without at least one public utility. Mr. Bain stated that the rezoning is for village residential, but there is a two-acre proffer, so a precedent is not being set in terms of allowing one-acre lots or 60,000 square foot lots. Ms. Messina then wondered what had happened to the proffer of putting in a central well system. She understands that the applicant does not have to do this, but she asked if he could do it if he needed to. Mr. Cilimberg replied that a central well system would be subject to the Board's approval. At this time, Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mr. Bain said he feels it is still a fine balancing act as far as this project is concerned. However, the new proffers make it easier to approve the development. Even though this is a village residential rezoning, the lots will be two acres in size. He remarked that this was discussed the first time the Board voted on the petition. He believes that this Board'has done nothing to indicate it would approve anything less than two acres, and he said this is a key part of his decision. There is a rural area of density with this development, and even though, theoretically, the applicant has development rights, the lots will not be less than two acres each. This is the first time the applicant has proffered having a two-acre minimum lot size. Given all of the other things this Board studied during the several meetings on this petition, he can support this request. Mr. Bain said he does not know how road issues can be addressed. There are two roads that are graveled between this property and Route 29 that are numbers 3 and 4 on the Board's gravel roads priority list. The problem is that there is only $600,000 a year in the budget earmarked for these gravel roads, and he does not think that these two roads will be improved before 1997 or later. He would like to see some minor improvements made to the roads in question. He thinks this is a plan now that he can support, and he will make a motion at the appropriate time. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~57 (Page 15) ~ Mr. Bain called attention to Proffer Number Two where it states that: "The owner reserves the right to redesign the location of the interior road and lot lines to best accommodate 35 or less lots within the boundaries of the developed area." He asked if the staff has any problem with this portion of Proffer Number Two. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "no." The issues with the stream crossing and the area of development have been settled. This proffer relates to a reconfiguration within the area of development once the stream has been crossed. Because of the stream crossing, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the area is limited to a specific area of sight distance along Route 712. He reiterated that this proffer will not pose a problem in terms of dealing with that during the subdivision process. Mr. Bowerman asked how the Supervisors would feel if there was no village designation with this request. Mr. Bain replied that he would still feel the same way. He does not think there is any other way to deal with the issue. Mr. Bowerman commented that this plan is preferable to what could be put in place using Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Mr. Bain remarked that the applicant has theoretical development rights. He understands, too, that if 'the applicant developed these development rights, he might only have 30 lots instead of 39, but the plan would not be as good as this one. He is not saying this is a terrific plan, but he thinks it is a good one. The designation of Village Residential is not significant to him in this instance. At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Hump- hris, to approve ZMA-92-13 with the four proffers in a letter dated June 28, 1993, addressed to Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman, all as set out below: I would like to make the following proffers, conditional upon rezoning request ZMA-92-13 being approved. These proffers are substituted for prior proffers made by letters of February 17, March 3, 1993, draft copy March 16, March 26, April 7, 1993, April 12, 1993, May 13, 1993 and June 8, 1993. e The subject property will not be divided into more than 35 building lots, each being two acres or more, with over 25 acres of the property left in its natural state. All devel- opment will be in general accord with the same conceptual site plan that has been submitted for staff's review and comment dated June 28, 1993 and there will be no development on the road side of the river. The outer boundaries of the development will be along the flood plain line so as to preserve the size and location of the natural area. The owner reserves the right to redesign the location of the interior road and lot lines to best accommodate 35 or less lots within the boundaries of the developed area. The main entrance to the subject property will be construct- ed as shown on the conceptual site plan for Southern Hills Subdivision, Architects Brown, Eichman, Dagliesh, Gilpin, and Paxton, dated June 28, 1993. The entrance will be in accordance with and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The stream crossing as shown on the same conceptual site plan and approved by SP-93-02 shall be designed in accordance with County, State and Federal Stan- dards and Regulations. Plans and calculations shall be submitted to the County Engineering Department for review and approval prior to construction. Underground gasoline and heating oil tanks will not be permitted. Mr. Bowerman stated that the only reason he will support the motion, based upon everything the Board has been through, is because he believes this is a better plan than what could have been done by right. He has serious reservations relating to whether the Board should continue to keep North Garden as a village without a public commitment to provide sewer and water or some sort of public utilities. Because this approval will not set a prece- dent, he can support the motion, but it is under very limited provisions. Mr. Bain believes that if there had been another way to handle this matter, the applicant would have tried to do it. Mrs. Humphris stated that this situation serves notice to this Board that special attention needs to be given to the problems in the North Garden area. Mr. Martin said he thinks approving this application with the proffers makes good sense. As to the road issue, he believes that multiple entrances onto a dirt road are more dangerous than just the one entrance. Me said that when the safety'issue is considered, in his opinion, the Supervisors are making improvements. Mr. Bain brought out the fact that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is considering the whole groundwater issue. It is an July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0002~8 (Page 16) issue that is clearly being examined around the State. It will not be easy to solve in terms of the scientific approach. He emphasized that data already taken in this area will be helpful in trying to tie in all of the different facts. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: At 9:24 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.) (Note: The following two petitions were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-92-14. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing to rezone approx 57 acs from RA to R-15 (Proffered). Property on E sd of Rt 606 approx 0.6 mi S of Rt 649. Site is in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) & is recommended for high density residential (10.01 to 34 du/ac) in the Comprehensive Plan. TM32, Ps50,53,54,55&56. The following additional parcels are affected by the proposed road network: TM32,Ps42A,42B,42C,42D,42E, 44,45&TM46,P5 to remain zoned Rural Areas with proffers. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) Agenda Item No. 13. SP-93-13. United Land Corporation. to establish mobile home park on approx 57 acs under ZMA-92-14. in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) Public Hearing (Advertised Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report for these petitions; this report is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 13, 1993, by a vote of 6/1, recommended approval of the above noted petitions; ZMA-92-14 is subject to the following proffers: The mobile home park is proffered for a period of not less than fifteen years from the start of development in accor- dance with the Comprehensive Plan. The start of development is defined as the date the first building permit is issued. (The Planning Commission accepted this proffer with the understanding it would be amended before reaching the Board of Supervisors to provide for a mechanism to return RA zoning to the property in the event the special use permit is not perfected.) The frontage of Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels 43A, 43, 42E, 42D, 42B, 42C, 42A and Tax Map 46, Parcel 5, shall contain not more than three entrances. The County may require closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of any new entrance such that the total number of entrances does not exceed three. An access road between the mobile home sales area and mobile home park shall be developed at the time of establishment of the mobile home sales use. This access road shall be used only for the movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency access. The Planning Commission also recommended the following conditions for SP-93-13: Deletion/relocation of all lots within fifty feet of an adjacent parcel; 2. Planning Commission approval of final site plan; Staff approval of all mobile home units proposed for loca- tion within the mobile home park to ensure compliance with the acoustical performance standards of Section 30.2.5; Staff approval of private road maintenance agreements at such time as the property may be subdivided; Maintenance of recreation facilities shall be the responsi- bility of the property owner in accord with Section 4.16.3.2; No direct connection to Route 29 shall be made without amendment of this permit; Provision of a conventional "T" intersection with Route 606 constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Trans- July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (100259 (Page 17) portation requirements. Access is shown on a plan initial- led "WDF" dated 7/8/93; No plan of development shall be submitted for review until the necessary easements and/or right-of-way acquisition for the Route 606 entrance have been obtained; 9. Provision of access to Tax Map 32, Parcel 46. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff report addressed three issues: access, the Airport impact area, and the Comprehensive Plan. Since the mobile home park is proposed to be located in the Airport Impact area, noise attenuation standards of the ordinance have to be met, Mr. Bain wondered why the Board would spend time on the matter if the noise standards cannot be met. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff does not have information in hand t© verify that the noise standards will or will not be met. The County's Inspections Office has provided criteria by which the applicant would have to verify that he can meet the noise standards before units can be located there. Mr. Martin asked if each individual trailer would have to pass a noise test. Mr. Cilimberg answered that each unit would have to be certified in some way when the building permit is issued. Mr. Cilimberg said during discussion of the amendment to the Compre- hensive Plan, there was extensive discussion about the area where the proposed mobile home park will be located and its relationship to surrounding land uses, as well as the Airport and its impact to the road system. Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the first proffer which was to be amended for tonight's Board of Supervisors' meeting. The applicant has provided such a proffer, and he distributed copies of this proffer to the Board, the proffer reading as follows: The mobile home park is proffered for a period of not less than fifteen years from the start of development in accor- dance with the Comprehensive Plan. During that period of time, the property shall not be available to any other R-15, Residential uses except nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Zoning Administrator from authorizing uses deemed accessory and subordinate to the mobile home park. In the event the conditions of SP-93-13 are not met, or at the time of expiration of SP-93-13 in accordance with Sec- tion 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant shall permit the property to be rezoned to RA, Rural Areas, by the Board of Supervisors and thereafter the property shall enjoy all RA uses. For the purposes of this proffer, the term "start of development" is defined as the date of issuance of the first mobile home building permit. Nothing herein shall prohibit the Board of Supervisors from granting an extension of the expiration date of SP-93-13 in accordance with Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said amended Proffer Number One for ZMA-92-14 provides for a mechanism to ensure that if this property is not developed as a mobile home park then the zoning on the property will return to rural areas zoning. This proffer also ensures that this property will be developed only as a mobile home park during the 15 years that have been proffered by the applicant and as stated as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Bain inquired, from the staff's perspective, as to what the holdup is in terms of the access issue. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the applicant has some alternatives in mind which would not require the Airport Authority's property. There may be a need outside of the existing right-of-way for a sight easement. That will be established through a final plan. There has not yet been a survey of the property boundaries to determine whether or not the road is on the Airport Authority's property. FAA officials will probably want the County's decision before FAA will rule on whether or not the right-of-way or easement will be allowed. Mr. Bain wondered how difficult it would be to have a mobile home subdivision rather than a mobile home park. Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to look at the mobile home subdivision regulations, because he is unsure how subdivisions and mobile home parks compare relative to lot size. Mrs. Humphris asked if there was ever any discussion about a vegetative buffer on the Route 606 side of the project. Mr. Cilimberg said the property located on Route 606 if off of the applicant's site. There is an area out of the actual mobile home development lots that is being provided as a setback which could be considered as screening for the mobile homes. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are screening requirements. Mr. Cilimberg answered "yes." Mrs. Humphris wondered if this plan would work at a lower density than R-15. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes that R-10 is the minimum. Mr. St. John stated it doesn't make any difference because one of the proffers indicates O00 GO July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) how many units there will'bei'"~'~'~f~'~';~'happen, there is another proffer which states that the property will return to RA zoning. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Wendell Wood addressed two of the issues which concerned staff. The access involved with FAA approval is shown on the map and is outlined in red. This road does not have to be built to that size during the first phase of the project. The road can be shifted further north, but the land has not been surveyed, so it is unknown if this would be a problem. The red area on the map consists of approximately 68 square feet and he does not believe the FAA is going to be concerned about that. He intends to remind the FAA that his company contributed a quarter of a million dollars to build a sewer, which is a public utility. Mr. Wood said that last October the road was shown going all of the way from Route 606 to Route 29. This is the preferred road. At that time, it was staff's recommendation to build the road in two stages. He is not opposed to having the entrance off of Route 29. That is how it was first proposed. There is also the possibility of shifting into the adjoining, privately-owned property to the south. Next, Mr. Wood addressed the sound issue. He said there has been criteria set by the Deputy Zoning Administrator which spells out in detail the decibel level that has to be met in these homes. If this level cannot be met, the homes cannot be put there. There is no question that this criteria can be met, but the question is whether or not these homes currently meet it. He said a test has not been done, but it is believed that the homes can meet this criteria now. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wood if he anticipates that all of the mobile homes in this development will be new. Will there be some that are used? Can the older mobile homes meet the requirements? Mr. Wood replied that the manufacturer would have to make a statement that the older home is built to meet the sound criteria. Mr. Bowerman then wondered if a home is five years old, would the manu- facturer still be able to certify that home. Mr. Wood answered affirmatively. Mr. Wood mentioned the road issue again. He said there has been a lot of talk about it, but FAA won't make a decision based on a theoretical road. If the FAA does not approve the access road, his company will have to have an alternative, and he believes that alternatives are available. As far as sight distance is concerned, Mr. Wood stated that there is sight distance without going to FAA, so the only issue is the approximately 68 square feet of land that is needed. Mr. Wood reiterated that he is willing to have the entrance road on Route 29. His company owns the property except for one piece of land, and he can get access across it. His company is currently in negotiations about this property, and will probably own all of it soon. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Wood's company owned the property with the crossover to Route 29. Mr. Wood replied that he already owns the land out on Route 29. Mr. Perkins wondered about the crossover between the two lanes. Mr. Wood answered that if a crossover between the two lanes is a condition, he is prepared to build it. He believes the crossover will be needed when the commercial part of the property along the front is eventually developed. He pointed out that his company cannot submit a plan for the front of the property until he has constructed 100 mobile home spaces. He said that PEC asked for this restriction, but, if this Board chooses to change this restric- tion, he will be glad to go along with the Board's wishes. He said there were three entrances and exits granted along Route 29, and there had been a potential of 11 entrances and exits. This plan is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wood said another issue brought out at the Planning Commission meeting related to the time involved with getting this request through the approval process. He has a letter dated 1990, which was the beginning of this issue. The Comprehensive Plan change was approved September 8, 1992. He noted that he has probably dealt with the County staff on no less than a weekly basis since then. A lot of time has been spent on road designs. He believes there have been at least seven different concepts submitted that include buffers, etc. The mobile home park requirement regarding buffers is greater than for any other zoning category. He said this Board granted approval for 300 units on 50 acres, and there are now 57 acres, but they can only contain 236 units because of road requirements, setback requirements and recreation requirements. He stated that economics are working against the project. Mr. Wood noted that he and Mr. Tom Muncaster, an engineer, would be glad to answer questions. He believes the mobile home park is needed because it is the only affordable housing approach which can fit into this category. He asked the Board to look favorably upon this proposal. Ms. Nancy Haussmann, a resident of Earlysville, urged the Board of Supervisors to disapprove the plan. She objected to any further high density 000 6i July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) housing developments within the COunty where the support infrastructure is already stretched beyond the normal capacity and where the possible solutions are postponed or nonexistent, in terms of schools and roads. She also questioned the location of housing in an area just off of a runway, and not very far from where planes taxi and wait for takeoff. Planes emit fumes during this time and have high noise levels. Ms. Haussmann said she believes the Planning Commission and others have been incorrectly persuaded that this is an answer to low-income housing in this County. Opposition to the mobile home park has been described by the developer as elitist and by the Daily Proqress as unaccepting. She said Mr. Wood is a businessman, and the mobile home units will be rentals on his property. If Mr. Wood or a future owner decides to build another striP mall or some other type business on the property, all of these people could be turned out in 15 years. She believes this takes advantage of low income families who have so little choice about where they live in this county. She is not against the County providing housing opportunities for those of lower income, but she wonders what alternatives to mobile homes the Planning Commission has examined to address this situation. Ms. Haussmann pointed out that at last night's Commission meeting, when someone raised the point about the 15 year time limit for the plan, it was said that the immediate problem needed to be addressed, and the future was not being considered. She asked who is considering the impact in the future of such a development if the Planning Commission is not. She is frustrated that decisions made to allow for the high density housing in this area last year are used as a defense for approval now. It seems that the wheels were all set in motion after the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was approved last fall, so much so that the School Board members told her at a public hearing in June that the mobile home park was already approved, and there would be students with which to "reckon." This misinformation has led many Broadus Wood parents to believe that there wasn't any chance of changing that deci- sion. She noted that the School Board just voted Monday night to put this area in the Broadus Wood School district pending a public hearing. She said the Supervisors are responsible for guiding the growth and development in this community, and for ensuring health, safety, housing opportunities, good education, traffic flow and control, etc. She asked where is the true comprehensive community planning, and then asked that the Supervisors reject Mr. Wood's application. Mrs. Eleanor Ives said she has been requested to read a letter her husband sent to the Planning Commission. She send a copy of Mr. Ives' letter to Mr. Bowerman, and she hopes all of the Supervisors have received a copy. She then read the letter in which her husband pointed out the dangers of aircraft accidents when there is a development next to an airport. Mrs. Ives said she and her husband live in Earlysville Forest, and three or four years ago an airplane crashed at the end of their street. The only thing that saved the houses is that it was a small aircraft, and the trees stopped it. She asked the Board to please consider her husband's concerns. Ms. Karen Strickland said that last evening at the Planning Commission's meeting, she presented her concerns and those of her neighbors, as far as the impact this development would have on the local schools and on the main commuting route, Route 743. In response to her comments, a Commission member reprimanded her for getting involved so late in the process. Her involvement in this issue began when she learned the mobile home park children would be attending Broadus Wood Elementary School. Monday night of this week the School Board officially redistricted the mobile home park children to Broadus Wood. This was not enough time to notify the Broadus Wood parents in the middle of the summer and alert them to the overcrowding that will occur at their children's school. Broadus Wood has been a small community school which, in recent history, has been renovated twice to accommodate more children. It has been renovated to the limits of its property. She questions the numbers given in the staff report about the number of elementary school children who will be coming from this proposed mobile home development. If the numbers hold true for the mobile home park, there could be 150 children coming to Broadus Wood. Mr. Wood has indicated that he could bring these trailers into the development as fast as the people COuld move in, so this means that people could be coming to Broadus Wood next year. Ms. Strickland said after reading the staff report carefully, she became concerned on two fronts. She pointed out a statement from the Airport Authority saying other localities are moving people out of these impact areas. She asked how County officials can knowingly move people into such an area when the chances of them being harmed and suing the County are very strong. She asked who is going to bear the costs of these lawsuits. Ms. Strickland said arguments have been repeatedly made on behalf of the applicant that affordable housing is so necessary that all other concerns are secondary. She asked if these affordable homes are really affordable. She did some research and found that a trailer costs between $20,000 and $30,000. With $120 for rent of the lot and the utilities, the cost could be as much as $700 a month. Trailers depreciate as quickly as cars, and there will be no equity buildup for these mobile home owners. She quoted from John Sheldon, of the National Consumer Law Center, who said that, "The core issue of mobile homes parks is that a mobile home is not really mobile. Once you are there, you are stuck. It is too expensive to move if the rent is increased." She 000;262 July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) requested that this proposal'be, if not denied, at least delayed, because her main concern is with the impact on Broadus Wood Elementary School. Mr. William Sipe, who lives on Earlysville Road, said he moved to the Earlysville area because it is beautiful country, and he loves the mountains. Since he moved to Route 743, he believes traffic has doubled or tripled. He suggested that Route 743 be examined on the map, because the distance to the City of Charlottesville is only two miles less going via Route 743 to the Airport than it is to go via Route 29. Before considering a mobile home park in that area, Mr. Sipe thinks the Supervisors need to consider increased police protection and a four-lane or dual highway on Route 743. He wonders if a feasibility study could be done by the Highway Department for that road before the proposed trailer park is located. He believes there are a lot of unresolved issues about the mobile home park, and he thinks they should be considered before giving any final approval. Mr. Vince Lidel, a resident of Earlysville Forest, said his children attend Broadus Wood Elementary School. He feels the expanded facilities might be in jeopardy with the unplanned arrival of the potential students from this new trailer park. He is concerned about this, and listening to this evening's discussion, he is wondering why Mr. Wood should be the beneficiary of favors as a result of a $250,000 contribution. He said he did not understand that, or why it was even mentioned. Mr. Lidel indicated that he is a student pilot. He has just started lessons at the Airport. He parks his plane with the engines pointed toward the proposed location of the trailer park, and that is where the pilots rev up their engines. The plane he uses is a quiet plane, but he can imagine a big jet doing the same thing in that location. He thinks more is owed to the people and children who will live in this trailer park than to put them in an environment that is obviously spoiled. Mr. Lidel said he worked for the GE Fanuc Company, and when a jet plane took off, all conversation in that building stopped. He added that while these trailers might be insulated, activities will have to be stopped out in the trailer park when a jet plane takes off. As a personal observation, Mr. Lidel indicated that last weekend, as a student pilot, he made six take-offs and near crash landings in that area. He has not yet mastered the final approach, and this part of the flight is right over the area where the proposed trailer park will be located. He asked the Board to reconsider the danger aspects of this application. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left at 10:29 p.m., and returned at 10:32 p.m.) Ms. Marcia Joseph said she has lived in Earlysville Forest for nine years. The first home that she owned was in a mobile home park. It was a way for she and her family to acquire equity, a yard for her children and some privacy and quiet. When she first moved to Earlysville Forest, she had a child at Broadus Wood. She imagines that there were a lot of children from Earlysville Forest who were just beginning at Broadus Wood and they probably burgeoned the rolls at that point also. Her children have had the opportunity of going to Albemarle County Schools which are very good schools. Her two children are National Merit scholars, and she thinks there are other people who deserve the opportunity for their children to go to Albemarle County Schools to be able to succeed in whatever it is that they choose to pursue. Ms. Joseph said she thinks this is an important aspect, but she also thinks that there are some problems with the plan as far as the access is concerned. She asked that the Supervisors change the condition giving a 15 year time limit to state "15 years after buildout." She stated that this housing will have to be replaced with something else when the time comes for another use to be considered for this area. It is going to be difficult for some of these people to replace this housing. She suggested that if this is a 15 year plan, then other areas in the County should be considered for affordable housing. Ms. Joseph said County officials need to think more seriously about what will be done in the way of affordable housing. The County needs to have something similar to this mobile home park plan. She knows her neighbors will not be happy with her remarks at this meeting. She lives near the Airport runway, and the noise is loud when she goes outside her home. She added that one of the attributes of the mobile homes is that they are built to energy efficiency standards, which contributes to very iow noise levels inside the mobile homes. It is a difficult situation, but low income people need some housing also. She knows the mobile home park can be done right and sensitive- ly and with an abundance of vegetation so it can be a nice place for people to live in. Mr. Charles Johnson, a resident of Earlysville, stated his opposition to the mobile home park. First, the schools are strained to absorb the current families at Forest Lakes. Someone, earlier, alluded to the fact that Holly- mead Elementary School is overcrowded, and Broadus Wood soon will be if the mobile home park is located near the Airport. The projected enrollment increase at Broadus Wood, without the mobile home park, will take all of its currently projected capacity within the next year to a year and a half. To put the mobile home park in that area at this time, without having plans on the drawing board and/or under construction for another elementary school in the northern district, is not being very wise and is not proper planning. He pointed out that the next elementary school is not projected until 1998 for that corridor, and all of the elementary schools will be overcrowded soon. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000263 (Page 21) Second, Mr. Johnson noted that Route 29 North, which is strained to its capacity, will be undergoing massive reconstruction from four lanes to six lanes beginning next fall. Third, he is concerned about the Airport safety issue. As high density housing of this sort goes in around the Airport, it represents not only a safety problem, but a problem to the development of the Airport. He asked if the taxpayers are willing to support moving this entire Airport within 10 to 15 years to another location. He, as a taxpayer, certainly hopes that this possibility won't even be considered. Last, Mr. Johnson said that concerning roads, Route 743 is inadequate to support high density housing of this sort. He thinks it represents a clear and present danger to public safety. He hopes the Board of Supervisors will take his concerns into consideration. Mr. Kevin Cox said he is confused. He has heard two people say that on Monday night the School Board redistricted the mobile home park site into the Broadus Wood School district. He called the School Board office today and was told that this did not happen, the School Board set a date to take comments from the public on the proposed redistricting. He thinks the issue of where children are going to school needs to be addressed at the School Board hearing. He noted that the children will be going to school somewhere in the County, because they are already residents in the County. Mr. Cox said the staff has pointed out in its report that the County has lost and/or is about to lose 250 lots in other mobile home parks. A represen- tative of the Piedmont Environmental Council pointed out to the Planning Commission that residential construction doesn't bring people into Albemarle County. It is jobs and opportunities that d° this. He stated that the people are already in the County, and there is a need for housing. Maybe this plan is not perfect, but he believes the need is so great that some of these problems need to be, not overlooked, but lived with and fixed as best as possible to get this plan underway. There are other sites that would be better and are zoned already. He doesn't like this site. He thinks it has some .imperfections, but people have got to live somewhere. Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Director of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said when the Comprehensive Plan amendment was considered last year, the Supervi- sors struggled with the issue of this location and the whole issue of afford- able housing. After a great deal of consideration, this Board did support the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and that amendment was extensively negotiated. The amendment was specifically designed to ensure that a significant number of mobile homes would be built before the rather considerable commercial plan was approved, which was required to be developed according to a master plan. The PEC supports the mobile home park plan because finding a site that has all the necessary attributes is virtually impossible. Public/private partnerships for affordable housing, which this Board has appropriately gotten involved with in Crozet, are very complicated and take a long time to put together Available subsidies are getting smaller all the time. To the Council, this plan seemed to be the best opportunity to replace the rather significant depletion of this kind of housing in Albemarle County. Also, the site is close to the biggest employment centers in the County. The PEC supported the CPA and also supports this proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said in preparation for this meeting, he looked carefully at the application and more carefully at the Zoning Ordinance, which governs the location of mobile home parks. The ordinance is very stringent and very detailed. There will not be another Rio Road or Southwood mobile home park problem because the current Zoning Ordinance will not allow that to happen. In addition, Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he, Reuben Clark and Francis Fife, went to Verona to visit the mobile home park to which Mr. Wood alluded. He said Mr. Wood has operated this mobile home park in Verona for over 20 years. It is a well-managed park, and it is a decent place to live, although not the best place in the world to live. It is a lot better than most people have a chance for in that income bracket. This gives him some confidence that this park will be managed in a decent and appropriate fashion. Mr. Lindstrom said he also examined the proffers, and they have improved dramatically since last night's Commission meeting. He believes County officials will get what they are bargaining for because they will get a mobile home park or the zoning will change to RA zoning. If the mobile home park is approved, it will be approved for 15 years. All of these things were negoti- ated during the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and he thinks they all need to be taken as part of a package. All of the things that the people have said tonight point out the reasons why it is very difficult to locate a mobile home park satisfactorily. He pointed out that this site probably has the least immediate residential development adjoining it than any site that is likely to be found, and the type of utilities that are available makes it more desir- able. Mr. George Dellaganna said he addressed the Planning Commission last night, and got an education there. One of two things that struck in his mind from last night's civics lesson was that by the time the public hearing is held, the decision has already been made. The second thing he learned is that the Planning Commission is very concerned about What is happening today, but is not too concerned about what is going to happen 15 years from now. He wonders what will happen to the 236 families in the mobile home park 15 years from now when the zoning changes. He feels that issue needs to be addressed now. It seems that this is the only option people with a~low income will get, 00026.4 July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) ~ ......... and this will be a low-income neighborhood. Fifteen years from now it will also be the neighborhood from which these families will have to move. Mr. Dellaganna said the school issue has been addressed, but he has gotten some figures that should be of interest to this Board. From the redis- tricting material he found that there are currently 104 empty seats at Br°adus Wood, 51 empty seats at Agnor-Hurt, 79 empty seats at Woodbrook, and Hollymead - is 109 seats short. This leaves approximately 125 empty seats in the area. According to the Planning Commission, it is estimated that there will be approximately 81 students in the K-5 grades from this mobile home park to go into the elementary schools. He does not think that this figure is correct. He based his numbers on what happened at Forest Lakes where the student population is approximately one-half student per household. Assuming low income families have the same number of children as middle income families, there would be one-half child per hOusehOld fr°m the m°biie h0m~ Park WhiCh would be closer to 120 or 125 students in grades K-5. This number of children will fill all of the empty seats that are currently available. Mr. Dellaganna said he went to the School Board meeting on Monday, and the School Board was concerned, after looking at the Capital Improvements Program, as to where the extra seats would be found. He believes the improve- ment proposed at Woodbrook will add approximately 100 seats. The School Board is also planning for children from Forest Lakes South to go to Woodbrook School. They were not only concerned about the extra students from Forest Lakes South, but are also worried as to how the students from the other subdivisions planned to be built in that area will be handled. He thinks a hard look needs to be given as to how the students will be acCommodated in the County schools. Mr. Truby Kegley remarked that he gave Mr. Cilimberg some pictures of some nice, well-kept mobile homes in a mobile home park in Western Albemarle County. If the Supervisors can say the Pledge of Allegiance where it speaks of liberty and justice, then they need to approve the plan for the mobile home park since the low to middle income people in Albemarle County have nowhere to go. He noted that 250 mobile home sites have been lost in Albemarle County. He does not know where the $700/month figure mentioned earlier came from, but it is false. He lives in a mobile home because he chooses to live in a mobile home. He could afford to buy a house in Albemarle County, and he owns property in Fluvanna County. Mr. Kegley said that in a decent mobile home with three bedrooms, a heat pump, and upgraded carpeting and insulation, it might be possible to hear sound from a plane flying over. He cannot hear Pegasus when it flies over his trailer, but he knows people who live in homes across the street and they can hear Pegasus when it flies over their homes. The incomes of some of these people have to be considered because County officials are not promoting new businesses in Albemarle County as they should. Mr. Kegley thanked Mr. Wood for making this housing opportunity for some of the people who are less fortunate. He reminded the people in the room that, in his opinion, a person is supposed to love his neighbor, and try to help him. He understands that there is a 15 year time limit for this mobile home park, but for a lot of people, if they can have ten or 12 years in a mobile home, they can bring up their income capabilities to get into a regular home. He heard one lady state at this meeting that trailers depreciate. He asked the Board of Supervisors, if trailers depreciate, why hasn't his appraisal and the taxes on his mobile home done the same thing in the last four years. There was one mobile home located approximately three trailers away from where he lives. The owners bought the mobile home for $21,000. Three years later Bukrim Mobile Home Realtors sold the mobile home for $24,500. If the trailer is well-kept, and a person takes pride in it, it can keep its value. Mr. Kegley said that now it is the middle-class people who are going into mobile homes. It is hard for people who work at places such as Hardee's and McDonald's to get into a new mobile home because there has to be a down payment, and the person has to pay rent. It is possible to get the financing on a decent mobile home. The cost of his mobile home is approximately $30,000, with a purchase price of $26,000. The extra coSt was due to putting in a heat pump, upgraded insulation, carpeting and sheetrock and changing the windows to triple pane. He said a person gets what he pays for, but a person needs to go to a reputable dealer. It is possible to get a nice mobile home that will last for 20 to 30 years. He knows of a mobile home in Fluvanna County which a man has had for 22 years, and it looks as it did the day it was put in the spot on private property. It is all in the pride of the owner. Mr. Kegley said there is talk about the other mobile home parks being mismanaged and that they are an eyesore. If anyone comes to the Crozet mobile - home park and looks around, that person will see that it is a well-managed park. If a person does not abide by the rules, that person is gone. He understands that Mr. Wood is representing the same type of trailer park. As far as the planes flying over the mobile homes, there are few plane fatalities around airports, there is about as much chance of him falling down on a banana peel and breaking his neck. A person takes a chance at life every morning when he or she gets out of bed. Everyone's days are numbered, but only God knows how many days everyone has. He could be killed tonight in a car wreck, or a plane could fall on him driving down the road. He agrees that this is not the perfect plan as far as putting the mobile homes near the Airport, but July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~5 (Page 23) some of the less fortunate people of Albemarle County need a place to call home. Mr. Craig VandeCastle stated that he would be speaking for Mr. Willie Birckhead, a friend of his who is the son of the owner of the property shown on Tax Map 32, Parcel 46. He said Mr. Birckhead's concern is with Condition Number Nine, which is the access condition on the special permit. Ne noted that the Birckheads originally owned 140 acres. Since 1850, according to Mr. VandeCastle, the Birckheads have made conveyances to different people which are found if tax maps and surveys are examined for the different Birckhead estates and ownerships. Mr. VandeCastle commented that Parcel 46 is a long parcel, and he noted that the Birckhead's access to Route 606 is across the Wendell Wood property. Mr. VandeCastle stated that this has always been the case, and Mr. Birckhead would like for this access to be protected. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a deed of easement involved with this property. Mr. VandeCastle replied that he does not have definite information. Mr. St. John informed Board members that nothing they can do will either enhance or diminish a private right-of-way. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the situation to which Mr. VandeCastle is referring is the reason for Condition Number Nine and he read the condition which provides for provision of access to Tax Map 32, Parcel 46. Next, Mr. VandeCastle stated that Mr. Birckhead had asked him to make appropriate comments relating to a discussion with Mr. Bill Fritz where it was indicated that there were some uncertainties as to whether this mobile home park could be built. He said Mr. Birckhead wonders why this Board would take action on this proposal when it appears as though the applicant could provide more definite information on certain matters before the Board is called upon to make its decision. Mr. VandeCastle referred to the Comprehensive Plan amendment and said the intent is to provide affordable housing. It seems the Board should know for sure that the road can serve the intended development and that the houses intended to go there will meet ordinance criteria. Mr. VandeCastle remarked that 110 feet has been mentioned as already going from the fartherest point of Mr. Wood's boundary line, and it appears that this 110 feet cannot be altered, but he wondered to what the 110 feet refers. If Mr. Wood has alternate plans which he believes are acceptable, why aren't those plans here now. He noted that Mr. Wood said he feels confident that the mobile home park will be approved. Why, then, is he asking the Supervisors to make a major land use decision without more evidence and with just his belief that the plan will pass ordinance standards? In some cases, setback standards can be waived, but he does not believe that the sound standards can be waived. The Birckheads are also concerned about screening, and he hopes that there will be adequate vegetative screening. The Compre- hensive Plan amendment recommendation said that adequate screening was to be provided between industrial and high density residential areas. Parcel 46 is a 28-acre parcel which is partially pasture and partially woodland and which is zoned RA. This particular parcel will suffer more than any other from the loss of the existing vegetative barrier, and he would hope to see as much of it retained as possible. (Note: Mr. Bain left the room at 10:58 p.m. and returned at 11:00 p.m.) Ms. Billie Kaser, from Earlysville Forest, thanked the Supervisors for staying awake and listening to everyone's comments. She said the citizens are sincere in needing the Supervisors' attention to this matter because it is the citizens' lives that are on the line. She too got a lesson in civics last night that was a very difficult one to hear. She hopes the Supervisors still have open hearts and minds, and that they did not come to this meeting with their minds made up already, and that this is not really a farce. Many of the citizens left last night's Commission meeting feeling they had wasted every- thing coming to that meeting because they weren't heard. She will not reiterate all of her concerns, but she is seriously concerned about'Route 743. It is a dangerous road and will become far more dangerous. No one can know how dangerous Route 743 is unless they travel it every day and see the kinds of things that are happening on that road. She would fear having many more cars put on that road. She is also concerned about the mobile homes not having enforceable limits on them. Who will be trying to enforce the limits three or four years from now so that people will have mobile homes where the noise is buffered. She doubts that these regula- tions will be enforced. Ms. Kaser asked for responsible planning in the way of roads and schools prior to putting in high density homes. She is not opposed to the mobile home park, but would prefer less people to be living there. She asked the Supervi- sors to compare a situation where there might be a house on an acre lot. She said Mr. Wood is proposing putting 40 families on that same size lot. She asked if any Supervisor would vote for this trailer park to be next door to his house with all of the traffic problems and all of the school problems. She feels it is easy to vote yes if it is outside of the Supervisor's area of feeling or knowledge. She invited the Supervisors to become a part of what the citizens in that area will have to live with if they vote yes to this proposal. She said Mr. Wood indicated that economics would be working against him if the density was lowered. She does not believe that. As to Mr. Wood's comment earlier about the amount of money he has given, she apologized for talking out in public when it was not her turn. She thinks the process here July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 000Z66 has made people afraid that something had been done before the public had a chance to speak. She hopes the people's voices at this meeting are just as. strong as someone who has money. Mr. Harold Sheeby, an Earlysville resident, stated that he has been sitting at this meeting for approximately three hours, and knows nothing about this issue, so he is speaking unprepared and without any notes. He thinks one point has been missed. He looks at the situation as a great deal for Mr. Wood. He wonders, however, how good a deal it is for the low-income individu- al. These individuals need a lot of help, especially in this area. There are more low-income people in this area than there are in many places of the country where he has been. This group of people is getting bigger and bigger because there are no jobs available. That means there is less competition for the people who are hire low-income people. If there was competition, it would force some employers to pay more money. Mr. Sheeby said he does not understand how a person can buy a mobile home for $30,000. In today's market, for $20,000 a person does not get very much. Where will people get the $20,000 or $30,000 that they need. These people will have to borrow the money and finance it over 15 years; there is a 15 year deadline on this mobile home park. There is even the possibility that the people will be asked to move from this park after 15 years. After that time, the mobile home will be completely depreciated in most cases, and these people will have invested $70,000 to $80,000 in that home. How will the people get out of this situation? Mr. Wood, on the other hand, according to Mr. Sheeby, remains on very valuable property, which in 15 years, has appreci- ated. He said Mr. Wood can then turn it over to some other enterprise and gain by this. It will be the poor individuals who are going to put their low income money into a mortgage, and have it do nothing for them in the end except that they will have a mobile home which will have to be moved and put somewhere else. This is going to cost more money, and he asked from where they will get this money. Ms. Reecye Modney spoke again. She said that this is just for levity, but she could probably get $250,000 together, and asked if there is something she can do for the County. She mentioned that there was a gentleman earlier who wanted to put strobe lights on a tower, and he was told he couldn't do it. She asked why. She said that she had asked a question earlier about the emergency access road. She asked how the Board feels about emergency access roads that are chained. She said that, again, the Supervisors will not answer the question. She commented that Mr. Cilimberg made a statement that the interior roads will be one ownership for a while unless they are subdivided. She asked what this means. She added that, again, no one will answer her question. Mr. Bowerman explained that he believes Ms. Modney is asking whether or not the road standards are such that the trailer park could develop into a mobile home subdivision. He said that initially these roads will not be public roads, but, instead, they will be private roads, and will not be built to public standards. Ms. Modney asked if the roads will still all be owned by the same person. Mr. Bowerman responded, "yes." He said the roads will be owned by the same person until such time as that they can be taken over by the public sector and are dedicated to public use. Ms. Modney then inquired if each of the individual cul-de-sacs could become public. Mr. Bowerman replied that ultimately, under a scenario of a mobile home subdivision, that could be the case. He said, though, that the roads could remain private. It will depend on what the applicant wants to do when he makes that application. He stated that the Planning Commission deals every week with private and public roads. Ms. Modney then asked what will happen to the land after 15 years. Mr. Bowerman answered that the answers to all of these questions are in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the designations shownin that are industri- al, and ultimately the area will be for industrial or commercial use. He added that all of this was discussed last November during review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ms. Modney asked why Mr. Bowerman is speaking to her in this manner. Mr. Bowerman responded that he is a little frustrated, and indicated that he would speak frankly. Articles regarding this matter have been in the newspa- per eight times, with six of those times being since 1989. There have been two stories on the front page, and two editorials over the past four years. It has been advertised by the Clerk of this Board eight times, and, yet, it is being spoken of tonight as though this is the first time that people have heard of the proposal. He reiterated that it is frustrating to spend money to advertise, because no one pays any attention, until they notice that there could be some personal detriment to themselves. Then they come forward and say that they have no prior knowledge of the situation. He said the Supervi- sors spend a lot of time promoting and advertising everything that happens in the County. Ms. Modney asked if Mr. Bowerman expects her to come to every Board of Supervisors' meeting. Mr. Bowerman replied that someone from Ms. Modney's neighborhood association could do that. He said that many neighborhood associations send representatives to the Supervisors' meetings. Ms. Modney answered that she does not have a neighborhood association, and that she does not want to continue this discussion any longer. Mr. Bowerman told Ms. Modney he thinks she needs to speak t© the issue and say what is on her mind, as everyone else has done. Ms. Modney replied that this is what she has done. The plans for the mobile home park have changed a lot since September. This was originally a mobile home park on Route 29, and she commented that there is not anything else that anyone can do to Route 29 to make it any uglier. She didn't care about the location of this mobile home park before because those children weren't going to go to Broadus Wood. She asked the Supervisors to be fair. She wondered if it is possible that the FAA will assume that the County has done its homework and is willing to accept all of the liabilities, and that the County officials will not bother the FAA with this matter unless they are absolutely sure that it is safe. She remarked that there was no answer, again. She asked who sets the criteria for the sound abatement. Mr. Bowerman answered that it is spelled out specifically in the ordinance, and he suggested that Ms. Modney check with the Planning Office staff. Ms. Modney asked if the Planning staff developed the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman responded that the Board of Supervisors approved the ordinance. Ms. Modney repeated Mr. Bowerman's statement that the Board of Supervisors approved the ordinance. She asked who set it up. She asked if it was set up by HUD. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain to respond to Ms. Modney's questions. Mr. Bain stated that the ordinance is set up by the appropriate engineering criteria. Next, Ms. Modney inquired if it takes the FAA two years to reply if Mr. Wood will have to start back at the beginning of the process for approval, or will he get automatic approval after the two years. Mr. Bowerman indicated that Mr. Wood has a site plan which has to be considered next if this applica- tion is approved. That site plan will have to have the FAA's approval included with it. Mr. Martin stated that the whole process comes in stages. He explained that different sets of things are approved, and this is the second time that this Board has dealt with this issue. There will be other processes dealing with the same issue, if this application is approved. Mr. Martin said the reason the Supervisors are being quiet at this point is because this is a public hearing. This is a situation where the Board is supposed to listen to what the public is saying, even when questions are asked. He noted that if there were back and forth responses from the Board to every individual question from Ms. Modney, or other members of the public, it would slow down the process. He told Ms. Modney that he feels the individual Supervisors are taking note of every question that she asks, and then when the Chairman puts this issue before the Board, all of the Supervisors will have the opportunity to speak to it. He said that the Supervisors will try to answer those questions, although, the individual members might have differing viewpoints. Ms. Modney stated that she could appreciate what Mr. Martin is saying. She then asked how many homes would be in Phase One of the project. She also inquired as to where on the map Phase One is located. She noted that Mr. Tim Lindstrom had mentioned that the park is close to the biggest employment center in the area. She wondered what this employment center is. She wanted to know if a study has been made to determine how many apartments, duplexes and rental units exist in Albemarle County currently, and what the price ranges are. She asked if the Board had ever rejected a proposal because of highway safety considerations, or if this is in the Supervisors' power. She asked if the Board has ever rejected a proposal because of overcrowded conditions in the schools, and if this is in their power. She wondered if the Board has ever rejected a proposal because of health concerns, and if this is in their power. Mr. Bowerman replied that the answer is "yes" to all of those concerns. Ms. Modney next stated that current financing of mobile homes, according to someone she talked to in Ruckersville, is available at 10 to 11 percent. She said that most bankers with whom she spoke will not finance mobile homes. She mentioned that, according to the County, low- to moderate-income families earn between $24,000 and $37,000 a year, depending on how many children are in the family. She concluded her remarks by agreeing that Albemarle County is a wonderful place to live, and that this is why she lives here. She thinks, though, that it can easily be made into a place where people won't want to live. Mr. Nat Cuttita, from Bedford Hills, remarked that earlier in the year when an article about this request was in the newspaper, he contacted Mr. Bowerman who responded that this matter had been going on for a couple of months. He added that not everyone gets to glance at every article in the newspaper. While talking to Mr. Bowerman, he got the feeling that the matter was settled, even though Mr. Bowerman did not actually tell him so. Mr. Cuttita when he saw the headlines on Monday, it surprised him. He did hear all of the remarks at the Commission meeting, but Ms. Huckle remarked that it is a win/win situation for Mr. Wood, and a lose/lose situation for the people who are going to be buying these mobile homes, as well as the County because of taxes, etc. He explained that mobile homeowners do not pay taxes 000: 6S July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) ' such as average people do. His concern is that the Commission voted six to one for approval, and the County citizens were losers even after the big plea they made to the Commission. Mr. Cuttita said he went to the Planning office today and saw Mr. Ron Keeler. He did not know who Mr. Keeler was, but he had seen him at the commission meeting. A lady later gave him a card which indicated who Mr. Keeler was. Mr. Cuttita mentioned Ms. Huckle's statement to Mr. Keeler, and Mr. Keeler responded that he was really not too much in favor of the project anyway. He told Mr. Keeler he could not believe something like this could occur with all of the problems that have been pointed out. Mr. Keeler answered that the problem lies in the fact that there are many trailers in the City that are shabby. These lots will be cleared out, and the people will move into this new area. He told Mr. Keeler he does not think these people can afford it. In the meantime, Mr. Cuttita said Mr. Keeler walked away, and that was the end of the conversation. Mr. Cuttita wondered how these poor people can move from their shabby places that they can't afford to improve and go to a new place. He agrees with Ms. Huckle that this would be a win/win situation for Mr. Wood and a lose/lose situation for the poor families, especially because of the 15 year time limit. He thinks these families could be saving some of their money for a down payment on a house. If Mr. Wood was going to be building an inexpen- sive house, then the land the house is on would be important, along with the house. If a home is on somebody else's land, it is not that person's home. If the Supervisors want the people to be happy and to feel as though they have something affordable, then the people need something that will be on their own land. He thinks Mr. Wood could sell his land if he is so anxious to make some money. He concluded his remarks by saying that this is what he wants to happen. Mr. Bowerman responded that when this matter was reviewed in November, many decisions were made in terms of land use considerations. Everything was taken into account at the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan change, the Airport Overlay district, the entire ownership of this parcel and its relationship to Route 29 and Route 606r and the fact that it was currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan for light industrial and commercial zoning. At that time, specifics such as how many mobile homes would be there, where the roads would go and the actual rezoning were not known. Part of the give and take between the public and private sector for the use of this property was settled at that meeting. Mr. Cuttita replied that he had never meant that Mr. Bowerman had not been honest. Mr. Cuttita said he is not knowledgeable about these things. What he learned just this week from the newspaper headline caused him to go to the Planning Commission meeting and to this meeting tonight. He reiterated that citizens, innocently, don't get to see the headlines all the time. He asked why the Planning office can't have articles in the newspaper when there are situations in the different neighborhoods Mr. Bowerman answered that many neighborhood associations follow every action by this Board, the Planning Commission, and the School Board. He added that this is often the way things are communicated throughout the County and City. Mr. Cuttita stated that citizens need to know what is going on at the planning level. He said he always thought it was the Supervisors who made the final decision. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that there were articles in the newspaper relating to these public hearings, and advertising was done by the Board's Clerk and by the Planning staff. Information was also on the radio. This was public business which was conducted in public. Mr. Cuttita responded that he understands about neighborhood associa- tions, and the people who live in those neighborhoods always hear about the problems that affect them. He believes that when there is a situation which affects a large neighborhood, such as 236 houses, then the situation should be made more public. It should not just be advertised in newspaper headlines, but the Planning office needs to have some big notice which would show what is going to happen in that neighborhood. He almost missed this morning's article in t~he newspaper because it was in the bottom left hand corner of the paper. The media is not responsible for situations such as this one. The Planning office should be responsible for making it clear to the citizens when there is something that affects a lot of people. He does not expect notification of every little thing. If someone could get this word to Mr. Keeler, then these types of situations would not be going on all the time where people are upsetting the Supervisors, and everyone would not have to stay at the meeting all night trying to resolve them. He told the Supervisors that he is sorry that they have to stay so late because of this matter. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. No one else came forward, so Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wood if he wanted to make any remarks. Mr. Wood said he wanted to briefly respond to a couple of items to clear up what he considers to be a misinterpretation. He realizes the Supervisors are aware of his $250,000 contribution, but the public obviously is not~ and he would like to clarify it. This money was in the form of a contribution to build a sewer line that his company constructed out to'the Airport. The Airport is controlled by the FAA. It was not a donation to the FAA. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~69 (Page 27) Mr. Wood said he has faith the Supervisors can decipher the statements made. He noted many misstatements Were made tonight about the cost to live in a mobile home. He said it costs less than $400 a month. He also mentioned that he has been in this business for 27 years, and as far as depreciation is concerned, most mobile homes resell for more than the original sale price. He reiterated that this is not a new venture for him and not something he just started. One lady mentioned putting 40 units on an acre. He noted that instead of 40 units per acre, there will only be four units. He suggested that if the people would listen to the facts and go see what actually has been done, the fear that has been brought out about the mobile home park being in the Broadus Wood School District would not be present. He said this Board knows misinformation has been given at this meeting. He offered to answer any questions that the Board wished to ask. At 11:27 p.m., with no one else rising to speak, Mr. Bowerman closed the public portion of the meeting and placed the special permit application and the rezoning issue before the Board. Mr. Martin said the public can call the Board Clerk's Office, as well as the School Board Clerk, and have their names put on the mailing list to get a copy of all agendas. He stated that during the last discussion about this matter, it was assumed that the children from the mobile home park would be going to Hollymead Elementary because that is the way the district lines were drawn. Now the lines are being redrawn to put this area in the Broadus Wood school district, but there is reason to believe that by next year, or two years from now, the lines may be completely different again. Mr. Martin said this property lies within the Rivanna District. He has not heard any comments from anyone in Forest Lakes, Hollymead or his own neighbors in Terrybrook. This is important because of the concerns expressed with school districting. He said there is capacity in the system. People are saying that the school system is just getting started with its enrollment, but in 1988 when he was on the School Board, there was a long range plan drafted. That plan shows exactly what is expected to happen at Broadus Wood Elementary School this year and for the next several years. That long range plan talks about a new southern school (Cale Elementary School), and another new elemen- tary school (Agnor-Hurt). County officials knew the County was growing. They have done a good job over the years predicting how much the County will grow in terms of students, if the plan is considered county-wide. That long range plan started in motion a lot of what is being seen today, such as the two new elementary schools, the revamping of Murray Elementary and renovations at Broadus Wood. Mr. Martin said the capacity is available in the school system, unless people are moving from outside the County. The students in the County will have to go to school somewhere, anyway. The problem lies in the fact that the specific area cannot be determined, so this means that redistricting has to take place every year. This is the first year since he has been involved with the School Board or the Board of Supervisors that there was not a redistrict- ing to move the capacity around. Each time redistricting is done, the people affected get upset and come to these meetings. Mr. Martin mentioned that the CIP includes the possibility of building a new northern elementary school. The Board also discussed last week, building another high school. When the additional elementary schools were built, it was known that the children attending those schools would eventually become middle school age, so in 1988 a new middle school was predicted, as well as a third high school. It is not as though all of this has come about without any warning. Ail of it has been in the plan, but lines have to be shifted for the different school districts in order to keep school populations equalized. This is what he wanted to say about the issue of where the children in the mobile home park will be going to school. Someone said there was a lot of politicking going on, and children were moved out of the Hollymead School district and into the Broadus Wood School district. The simple reason for this is that Hollymead is over capacity and Broadus Wood is under capacity. That is where the decision rests, and not with any type of politicking behind the scenes. Mr. Martin said he has not addressed the issue of the trailer park; he will do that later. Mr. Bain commented that many of the land use concerns expressed by the citizens tonight are important. He said the Supervisors deal with these types of issues every month, and the citizens do not. He mentioned that people in North Garden did not know about the Comprehensive Plan amendment until he asked for a decision from them about the changes. The Supervisors have tried to address the concerns, but the availability of infrastructure has to be considered, and the growth which is coming to this community whether or not it is desired, has to accommodated. The Supervisors don't have the power to stop the growth. Mr. Bain said Virginia is not like some states where, if the infrastruc- ture is not in place, someone else has to pay for it, or rezoning does not have to be granted and buildings don't have to be allowed. He reiterated that Virginia does not have these rights, and the County is restricted in terms of what it has the authority to do or not to do. As far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned, Mr. Bain said, in addition to what was adopted last fall for this particular area, other changes have been discussed as to how the people, businesses and industries will be accommodated. Roads and schools never come before development in any community, but some commUnities do a (Page 28) ' better job than others of keeping up with changes. He said the Henley Middle School has used six or more trailers for years. Plans are made to accommodate growth as quickly as it can be accommodated giVen the cost and the County's debt service. None of these are easy issues. Mr. Bain recalled the discussion last fall about the access points to Route 29, which under the current plan, have decreased from 11 to three. County officials have been trying to do something with that section of Route 29 for approximately ten years, and little progress has been made. In response to a comment that a Planning Commissioner made saying safety and health are not important, Mr. Bain said he believes safety and health do not take a back seat to anything. The overall picture has to be considered, accommodations have to be made, needs have to be examined, and the greater needs have to be decided upon. Every time the Supervisors take a vote, they do this, but it doesn't make it any less difficult to make a decision on this issue. Mr. Bain said he was extremely concerned about the lack of ownership of the lot on which the mobile home will be placed, and this was discussed in detail. The discussion centered around helping people to buy into the property and having a piece of land on which they could make improvements. The people will probably improve the property, even if they are renting, if they know it is for a reasonable time. Such a stipulation is not in this proposal, but he would like to go further with this issue. He believes this plan does provide for some lower-cost housing that is needed in Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks everyone recognizes that a mobile home park or mobile home subdivision, is a transitional use. The problem the County has had for years involves having utilities available on an appropriate piece of land that isn't so overpriced mobile homes cannot be put on it. County officials have spent the better part of ten years talking about this subject, and this is the first time a piece of land with readily accessible utilities, a decent road infrastructure and a commitment from the developer to keep the project in place for a certain period of time, has gotten to this point in the process. The Zoning Ordinance was amended six or seven years ago in anticipa- tion of a project such as this one. The mobile home park is not without its problems, and they have been discussed tonight. He thinks the Supervisors were aware of a majority of these problems when the project was examined last November. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a workable one. Mr. Bowerman said that approximately 11 or 12 years ago he was a member of the Planning Commission when the Earlysville Forest Subdivision request was brought before the Commission. There were concerns about Chris Greene Lake in terms of the runoff from the development. There were also concerns about the Airport Impact Area because some of the houses are located in that area. There were concerns raised about traffic on Route 743. There were concerns raised about the impact this developmentwould have on sr°adUs WOOd ElementarY School. This was taken into account when Broadus Wood School was improved the first time. All of these were considered ten years ago when Daley Craig came to the County and said he wanted to create a community of moderately priced homes. The basic home in Earlysville Forest, ten years ago, cost approximate- ly $90,000. There were problems with that proposal, but it was approved, and now there are 200+ families living in the subdivision. Mr. Bowerman said he will not apologize for the planning that is done for the County because he thinks County officials do as good a job of planning for this County as anywhere in the country. There is a 20-year plan and a five-year plan, but all that anyone can do is look at the facts and make the best educated judgment possible about the future. The County has a 20-year transportation plan to deal with this community's transportation problems through the year 2015. The County has a 10-year, long range plan for the schools. It is known now that a new elementary school will be needed in the near future. In a democracy, Mr. Bowerman explained that there is not the flexibility to pay for these things before they are needed, because the voters won't put up with it. He said the need is created, and then improvements are made. In the meantime, the school system uses trailers temporarily because there have to be enough children to fill a new school. Mobile classrooms are put at Broadus Wood, Hollymead and Woodbrook, until a school such as Agnor- Hurt is built. Mr. Bowerman said Albemarle County is a growing community, and this will continue. County officials will plan for this growth as best they can, and there will be discussions, such as the one tonight, where there are honest differences of opinion about some of the facts. He emphasized that the Supervisors try to plan for this growth, and spend hours examining these subjects. There will be some frustration shown at times when issues that are fully in the public record and have been fully discussed are approached as never having been discussed. It is frustrating that this Board, the Planning Commission and the School Board spend so much time advertising what is being done, yet there is a total lack of interest by the general public in the activities that take place. This is why he talked about neighborhood associa- tions. There is only so much the Supervisors can do to communicate to the public what is affecting them today and not affecting them tomorrow, when there are nearly 70,000 people in the County. He reiterated that County officials do the best job they can do, and he thinks that they do a good job. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Supervisors are preaching too much. The hour is late and he thinks the Supervisors need to stick to the issue. He asked what the build-out period will be for this mobile home park~ or the July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) ..... yearly need for mobile homes in this County. unit build-out would occur within three years. 00027 !. Mr. Wood responded that the 236 Mr. Perkins said he believes Mr. Wood said the plan is not exactly what he wanted, and it is not what he (Mr. Perkins) envisioned when the Comprehen- sive Plan was changed. Mr. Perkins said he does not believe the traffic that is going to be generated should be handled by Route 606, but one of the condi- tions is that Mr. Wood will have to come back to this Board before he can get access to Route 29. He thinks one of the conditions should indicate that the project should have access to Route 29 now, as well as Route 606, however, he thinks the primary access should be from Route 29. He asked the reasoning behind putting the traffic on Route 606 when it has to travel Route 743 to come to Charlottesville, or it has to go out by the Airport, which is probably the most dangerous intersection in the County, to get to Route 29. Mr. Perkins said he thought when the discussion relating to affordable housing took place, that the access to Route 29 was one of the things that Mr. Wood was using to get this Board's approval. Mr. Wood replied that he has no objection to the trailer park accessing Route 29. Mr. Bowerman said that is not the issue. The issue relates to the fact that if there is to be access on Route 29, there has to be a north and south access. This has to be done with a crossover, and the Highway Department is eliminating crossovers. He reiterated that the Highway Department is not going to approve a crossover, and this Board has to work with the facts. Mr. Perkins argued that there has to be a crossover sometime for the three proposed accesses to Route 29. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this is correct, at some point, if Mr. Wood wants to have further development. He said, however, that the crossover will have to be at a different location. Mr. Perkins said again that he thinks Route 29 should be accessed now. He stated that what Mr. Wood is proposing at this time is certainly a develop- ment. Mr. Cilimberg commented that Mr. Perkins is exactly right, and that Mr. Wood has indicated the entrance which will have access to Route 29. One of the reasons for the delay of this access, however, is that VDoT officials are just as concerned about creating a crossover as Mr. Bowerman pointed out. He said this is a situation where Route 29 is taking on a whole different character in the eyes of State and Federal officials. Route 29 has been designated a National Highway System road, with limited access~ for the future. The difficulty lies in getting positive feedback from VDoT officials, and they have been very negative about making this connection to Route 29. That is why the access to Route 29 was divorced from this issue~ so the Board could proceed with the matter tonight to see what could be done with the second phase of the development of this overall property. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that there is a committee being formed to deal with the whole corridor from the South Fork Rivanna River to Warrenton, so the County is caught in the middle in dealing with these types of situations. He reiterated that Mr. Wood is exactly right, as far as the way he has presented the accesses to his project. Mr. Bain asked the width of the Airport Impact Area from the runway to the property in question. Mr. Cilimberg showed Mr. Bain the location of the runway on the map, and he stated that it projects south. There is a fan at the end of the runway which is the safety impact area, and it rises as it moves in distance away from the runway. He used a scale to demonstrate the safety impact area, and he said that the runway itself projects into the edge of the property approximatelY 1200 feet. He noted that if the fan is consid- ered, it might be as little as 500 to 600 feet to the safety zone. Mr. Bain asked the requirements for the safety zone. He asked if the safety zone, before it fans out, is 300 feet. Mr. Cilimberg replied that at the south runway the clear zone is 1000 feet where it connects to the primary surface, which is the runway. At the southern boundary of the fan, the clear zone is 1750 feet. Mrs. Humphris remarked that Mr. Bain has strong feelings about the zoning of this property, and she asked him to address the issue. She then asked about the possibility of having an R-10 designation. Mr. Bowerman responded that the property is going to be used for commercial/industrial. The Comprehensive Plan does not show any type of residential other than this particular use. The Plan would have to be changed again for any other use. Because of the Airport, the whole area is designated long term for industri- al/commercial use. Mr. Bain explained that in reality the property is zoned R-15. He said that Mrs. Humphris might be correct about the R-10 designation sometime in the future. Mr. Bowerman agreed that the property is zoned R-15, but he said that the property will not be used for that because of the economics. He added that it is almost impossible to approve this plan because of the economics. Mrs. Humphris wondered if the proffer relating to the use of the property for the mobile home park could indicate that the property would be used for the mobile home park for not less than 15 years after build-out. She thinks that this would be a good idea. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the proffer indicates that the property can be used for a mobile home park after build-out, it could mean that the mobile home park might be in existence for 18 years. Mrs. Humphris agreed that this is true, if the build-out takes three years. Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Bowerman remarked that this is a proffer July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) 000~72 by the applicant, and he would have to agree to it. Mr. Bain recalled that on Page Three of the COmprehensive Plan amendment, the language indicated that there would be a minimum of 15 years for the use of the property. Mrs. Humphris asked Board members to share their thoughts with her on this matter. Mr. Martin said he would like to hear what the applicant has to say about it. He asked Mr. Bain if he is concerned about the Comprehensive Plan amendment language indicating a 15-year time limit. Mr. Bain replied, "no." He was just pointing out where the 15-year time limit came from, and he reiterated that the language indicates a minimum 15-year time limit. Mr. Bowerman explained that the Board wanted a 15-year time limit on the plan so there would be a significant period of time the mobile homes could be occupied on this property. Mr. Marshall commented that the time limit keeps increasing. He thinks the time limit should be kept at 15 years. He said he has listened to more untruths tonight than at any meeting he has ever attended. He said he flew into Charlottesville yesterday from Orlando. When he left the Orlando Airport, it was hard to see where the runway ended and the houses started. He observed the same thing when he landed in Charlotte, North Carolina. When he got to Charlottesville, he saw a lot of trees. There is no congestion around the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. He suggested that if people want to see congestion, they should go to some of the other cities. Mr. Marshall mentioned cost. He asked how many people know, the average price of a lot in Albemarle County. He pointed out that the cost of a lot in Albemarle County is more than one of these trailers cost. He then inquired as to the interest on $30,000 for 15 years. He stated that people are always talking about affordable housing, but he wondered where cheaper housing than $400/month can be found. He has a lot of rental property in Charlottesville, and he has nothing that rents for less than $600. He said a person cannot find a home to rent in Albemarle County for anywhere near what it costs to buy a trailer. He asked if it is better to rent property at $600 a month or buy a trailer for $400 a month. He asked the Board to think about it. He said that the way the trailers are built today, they are better than his house. He recalled that when this matter was discussed before, a gentleman pointed out that a house would not last very long if it was put on a trailer and driven down the road. He said that people talk about affordable housing and traffic. Me has lived in Albemarle County all of his life, and he remembers, as a child, that if a person was hitchhiking to Charlottesville on Route 20 South, that person might not ever get a ride. He added that today 8000 cars go by his driveway in eight hours time. He said that it is a fact of life that the County is growing, and if the traffic is not coming from his district, it is coming from Buckingham County. Mr. Marshall said the County is changing, and the Supervisors have to change with it. Most of the people who came to this meeting have lived somewhere else. He is concerned that there are people who were born and raised in this County who don't have an education, and they do not have a decent place to live, and they don't have a decent place to work. He comment- ed that he ran for this office for two reasons, affordable housing and decent jobs for the County citizens. He added that he was going to stick by these reasons. He asked the other Supervisors to approve this application. Mrs. Humphris stated that she has a lot of questions that she still needs to ask. She asked Mr. Wood if he would give any consideration to a time limit of 15 years after build-out, and if he plans to complete the build-out in three years so that the latecomers could have a 15 year opportunity. Mr. Wood told Mrs. Humphris that he will consider this, but he went on to remind her that the time limit was negotiated by a committee. Mr. Bowerman said that this committee was not official, and the committee was formed because of concerns raised by the public. Mr. Wood stated that if he has to negotiate again, he will do so, but he negotiated in good faith with that committee. He and the committee came up with these solutions, and he would like to honor them. Mrs. Humphris asked what is involved with Phase One. Mr. Wood replied that the first proposal showed the mobile home park further south, and staff wanted it to be placed more to the north. Me said the mobile home park plan has now been moved to the north, and the first phase will be the northern portion. Mrs. Humphris inquired if the first phase would be north of the spine road. Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Wood responded that the first phase would be north of the entrance road. Mrs. Humphris said one of the things brought to her attention today that seems to be a major problem in mobile home parks, and even affects the mobile home park in Verona, is the lack of outdoor storage. She wondered if it is possible to have some provision on the site so that people would have some- where for outdoor storage. She said the outbuildings that people put around their trailers become a problem. Mr. Bowerman said this situation is covered with specific requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, respond- ed that this was seen as one of the issues with mobile home parks because there is a lot of clutter. She said the Zoning Ordinance speaks to this issue specifically, and it indicates that an outdoor living area shall be provided July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) 000 78 for each mobile home lot. It has to be at least 100 square feet, and it has to be hard surfaced. In addition, there is some language which speaks to providing an area for recreational vehicles to be stored, which might be necessary beyond the limits of the lot. She noted that the language in the Zoning Ordinance also addresses storage sheds. Mrs. Humphris inquired as to whether storage sheds are allowed. Mr. Cilimberg read from the Zoning Ordinance that, "An outdoor living area shall be provided on each mobile home loto At least one hundred square feet shall be hard surfaced. Storage buildings not to exceed one hundred fifty square feet in aggregate shall be permitted in a designated area on eaCh lot. Additional storage facilities may be provided in common areas." Mrs. Humphris emphasized that the existence of these outdoor storage buildings is one of the major detractors from a mobile home park. She wondered if there could be a provision, even if the area had to be rented, for storage areas away from the individual home sites. Mr. Wood replied, "no." He went on to say that the trailer park in Verona has the same regulations as Briarwood relating to outdoor storage buildings. Upon approval, a designated structure will be allowed. A person cannot put up a canvas bag. It has to be a shed, and most people who have these structures use them for lawn mowers and bicycles, etc. He has to provide a path if a person desires to build a shed. He said the people in Briarwood are allowed to have a shed on their property, and he pointed out that the lots in Briarwood are 30 percent smaller than the proposed mobile home lots. Mrs. Humphris asked if this separate storage building could be put off site from the mobile home lots. Mr. Wood said there are several such rental places in the Route 29 area now. He is not sure how such a plan would be accepted by the mobile home families. Mrs. Humphris said since none of the other Supervisors seem to be interested in a separate storage building, the best she can do is suggest that Mr. Wood consider this during site plan review. The buildings of all differ- ent designs and materials are a problem and are a detracting factor in any mobile home park. She thinks a separate building is worth considering, and since Mr. Wood is an entrepreneur, it might even be income producing. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has delved deeply for a long period of time into the need for affordable housing in this community. When the public missed all of those discussions, in addition to all of the other things that have been discussed and planned, it is hard for the people to understand how the Supervisors weigh and measure the positives and negatives of a situation. If this group of people did not hear the other people before this Board telling of the need for affordable housing, they cannot understand how deep and broad those needs are. She thinks the people at this meeting tonight will have to trust the Board and the Commission in their decision-making because the Supervisors have been dealing with some of these problems for a long time. It is a very difficult balancing situation. She added that nobody wants to deliberately put somebody in an airport approach zone, but it may be the only place available at this time. Mrs. Humphris told the group that what it doesn't know is how long the Supervisors have been searching for a place where people could have affordable housing where there are utilities available. She thinks the best thing to come out of this situation is that the public is aware of its responsibility to participate in the Comprehensive Plan review process when it starts this Fall. If the citizens had understood about the Comprehensive Plan amendment discussed in August, September and October of 1992, she feels they would have participated and would have followed and been a part of the process. Just because some of the citizens missed out on that process, she hopes they won't miss out on it again. It is the public that tells the Supervisors what it wants, and that is the framework within which the Supervisors have to operate to do the balancing. She tells everyone who calls her that it is not a question of whether the County is going to grow or not, but it is how it will be done. She hopes the citizens will continue to tell the Supervisors how they want it done. She, certainly, wants to make sure all children in Albemarle County have a fine education, that the roads are safe and that the people who live in the mobile home park are safe. She concluded by saying that it is simply not easy to do all of that. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-92-14, with the three proffers from the Planning Commission replacing No. 1 with the language in a letter dated July 14, 1993, from W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr., addressed to William D. Fritz, Senior Planner, all as follows: The mobile home park is proffered for a period of not less than fifteen years from the start of development in accor- dance with the Comprehensive Plan. During that period of time, the property shall not be available to any other R-15, Residential uses except nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Zoning Administrator from authorizing uses deemed accessory and subordinate to the mobile home park. In the event the conditions of SP-93-13 are not met, or at the time of expiration of SP-93-13 in accordance with Sec- tion 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant shall permit the property to be rezoned to RA, Rural Areas, by the Board of Supervisors and thereafter the property shall enjoy July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 3e all RA uses. For the purposes of this proffer, the term "start of development"-is defined as the date of issuance of the first mobile home building permit. Nothing herein shall prohibit the Board of Supervisors from granting an extension of the expiration date of SP-93-13 in accordance with Sec- tion 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The frontage of Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels 43A, 43, 42E, 42D, 42B, 42C, 42A and Tax Map 46, Parcel 5, shall contain not more than three entrances. The County may require closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of any new entrance such that the total number of entrances does not exceed three. An access road between the mobile home sales area and mobile home park shall be developed at the time of establishment of the mobile home sales use. This access road shall be used only for the movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency access. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-92-13 with the nine conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Referring back to his original question, Mr. Perkins asked how the Highway Department can deny Mr. Wood access. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he is not sure if VDoT officials have indicated that there will be a denial of access to Route 29. Mr. Perkins stated that Mr. Wood has three accesses to Route 29. Cilimberg agreed. He said that VDoT officials w°Uld not neceSsarilY be denying Mr. Wood any of the three accesses. Mr. Mr. Perkins responded that he feels this is the key. Even if VDoT officials won't let Mr. Wood build crossovers, it doesn't prevent someone from making a U-turn and coming back to one of the accesses. He thinks the accesses are needed so that Route 29 can be accessed from this mobile home park. Mr. Cilimberg stated that VDoT officials' comments regarding acceSS to Route 29 have all been negative up to this point. There was no review of any access VDoT officials thought would work. He is not saying, however, that it won't work. Mr. Perkins remarked that as bad as Route 29 is, it is still more capable of handling that traffic than Route 606. Mrs. Humphris called attention to Condition Number #3 which provides for staff approval of all mobile home units proposed for location to ensure compliance with the acoustical performance standards. She asked how this will be accomplished. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Building Inspections Depart- ment has already issued two approaches to be used by the applicant to satisfy that section of the ordinance. He said when a building permit is applied for, one or both of these approaches will be satisfied. Mrs. Humphris asked if the mechanics of satisfying these requirements involves paperwork or other action. Ms. Patterson answered that paperwork will be involved in that the County, as in many other cases, will be accepting certification done by an outside party. Mrs. Humphris asked if this certification will come from the builder of the mobile home. Ms. Patterson responded that the builder of the mobile homes or a certified engineer will be responsible for the certification. Mr. Bain commented that he thinks the acoustical certification is key to the issue, and he thinks staff will see that the certification requirements will be met. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He is not as concerned about the new homes that Mr. Wood will be selling as he is about the ones that have already been manufactured, and the way that there will be control over the requirements for those mobile homes. Mr. Wood told the Supervisors that there will be some mobile homes in the sales lot which will not meet the acoustical requirements. Mr. Bowerman said that the mobile homes which do not meet these require- ments will not be able to locate in this mobile home park. Mr. Wo°d con- curred. Mr. Perkins asked if two access points are needed if there are over 50 units located in an area. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." He went on to say that a divided entrance is provided, as it is at The Highlands at Mechum~ which will provide for access to one part of the area. He said there is also the connection to the sales center, which can be used as an emergency access to Route 606. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 000275 At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. (Notes The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Deletion/relocation of all lots within fifty feet of an adjacent parcel; 2. Planning Commission approval of final site plan; e Staff approval of all mobile home units proposed for loca- tion within the mobile home park to ensure compliance with the acoustical performance standards of Section 30.2.5; 4e Staff approval of private road maintenance agreements at such time as the property may be subdivided; Maintenance of recreation facilities shall be the responsi- bility of the property owner in accord with Section 4.16.- 3.2; No direct connection to Route 29 shall be made without amendment of this permit; 7e Provision of a conventional "T'~ intersection with Route 606 constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Trans- portation requirements. Access is shown on a plan initial- led "WDF" dated 7/8/93; No plan of development shall be submitted for review until the necessary easements and/or right-of-way acquisition for the Route 606 entrance have been obtained; 9. Provision of access to Tax Map 32, Parcel 46. (Notes The following two petitions were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 14. ZMA-93-06. United Land Corporation. Public Hearing to rezone 7.9 acs from RA to HC (Proffered) located on W sd of Rt 29 approx 600 ft S of Timberwood Blvd. Site is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) & is recommended for regional service in the Comprehensive Plan, TM32,Ps43&43A. The following additional parcels are affected by the proposed road network: TM32,Ps42A,42B,42C,42D,42E,44,45 & TM46,P5 to remain zoned Rural Areas with proffers. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993). Agenda Item No. 15. SP-93-14. United Land Corporation. Public Hearing to establish outdoor storage & display & sales of mobile homes on 7.9 ac zoned RA & EC (See ZMA-93-06 above). Property on W sd of Rt 29 approx 600 ft S of Timberwood Blvd. TM32,Ps43&43A. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 29 and July 6, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 13, 1993, by a vote of 4/3 recommended approval of the petitions, ZMA-93-06 being subject to the following proffers: The mobile home sales lot use will be limited to mobile home sales and existing grocery store and gasoline sales. The mobile home sales lot entrance will be closed or altered if required by the future plan of development for the re- maining area designated office and regional service in the Comprehensive Plan. The frontage on Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels 43A, 43, 42E, 42D, 42B, 42C, 42A and Tax Map 46, Parcel 5, shall contain not more than three entrances. The County may require closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of any new entrances such that the total number of entrances does not exceed three. The site plan for the mobile home sales lot will not be signed until the site plan for a minimum of 100 mobile home units is signed. An access road between the. mobile home sales area and mobile home park shall be developed at the time of establishment of the mobile home sales use. This access road shall be used only for the movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency access. July 14, 1993 (Regular N~Meeting) 000~76 (Page 34) ...... Mr. Cilimberg said no conditions are necessary for the special permit, but it will be subject to a certificate of appropriateness from the Architec- tural Review Board during the site development plan process. Of the Planning Commission's 4/3 vote, the three people giving negative votes cited two things. One was the general impact on the entrance corridor. The second related to this property not being developed as part of a consolidated plan for all of the commercial areas. The public hearing was opened at 12:22 a.m. Mr. Wood said these two petitions have to do with the mobile home park. He does not think there is a problem with the sound requirements for the new homes. If he has to meet the requirements to honor his commitment, this means he has to commit to having these homes specially built with the extra acousti- cal requirements built into them. In order to do that, he needs a sales location. He has the property and nothing else can be located there since he proffered that this property could not be used for anything but a sales location. Mr. Bowerman asked if when this use is no longer economical Mr. Wood would request another zoning for another use. Mr. Wood replied, "absolutely." He added that this would not be an economical use of that land when the whole 50 acres is developed. Mr. Bain asked the actual zoning on the property along Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg answered that there is commercial zoning to the north of this property. The property south to the river on that side of Route 29 is zoned RA. Mr. Wood indicated that currently Maupin's Store and the Chevron Station are on this property, so it is being operated as commercial property now. He said that these businesses would remain on the property. Mr. Martin asked what kind of site work Mr. Wood is anticipating. Mr. Wood replied that the plan he submitted to the ARB shows very little grading on the property. The ARB believes that the plan can be accomplished. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Wood to comment on his remark that he did not feel he should have to renegotiate the issue relating to the 15 year time limit from the end of build-out. She said Mr. Wood is asking the Supervisors to reconsider whether or not to honor the agreement that this area would not be developed except with a Master Plan in place. She asked why he thinks he should not have to renegotiate the build-out issue, but the Supervisors should be willing to renegotiate the development of the area in question. Mr. Marshall said he thinks it will be difficult to find trailers that meet the criteria which has been set forth if there is not someone like Mr. Wood selling them. Mrs. Humphris responded that if somebody is willing to pay for the trailers, someone will be willing to sell them. Mr. Tim Lindstrom commented that the Comprehensive Plan amendment was a two-part item. Taking all of the 50 acres on Route 29 zoned as RA and making it commercial is a significant move. It was done to ensure that there was enough economic incentive for the applicant to go ahead with the mobile home park. The second part was the reduction in the number of entrances from eleven to three, which is secured by a proffer, and the assurance that this commercial development would only occur according to the Master Plan. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that Mr. Wood has made a good point, and he, Mr. Lindstrom, has no objection if the special permit limits this to mobile homes specifically designed to be used because of the Airport impact problem. The PEC opposes this because the staff has said it does not have a problem with this deviation from the plan because this request is directly related to the mobile home park. If what has been described is an addition to the special permit, he thinks it clearly would be directly and uniquely related to the mobile home park. He noted that any little shopping center or any other commercial endeavor on this property which would serve the mobile home park is just as directly related to it as the mobile home sales office. Anybody can buy mobile homes at this mobile home sales site, and the people who are going to live in the mobile home park can buy their mobile home any place they want and put it in the park. He is not sure if this is a legal precedent, but it weakens the County's case in the future if someone wants to put in a neigh- borhood shopping center because the people in the trailer park need it. He said that, then, the whole thing begins to dissolve. He thinks it is impor- tant that the Master Plan not be used. He emphasized that this is why PEC is concerned. Mr. Truby Kegley stated that Mr. Wood needs some way to control the quality of the mobile homes that go in his park. He said that a person can buy a mobile home for as little as $12,000, but you get what you pay for. He said if Mr. Wood sells the mobile homes on the property, he can abide by the County ordinance as far as sound specifications are concerned, and he can have quality control of what goes into the mobile homes. He said Mr. Wood can make it more of an upgraded, presentable park, and it would be something that people would want to ride through and see. Mr. St. John commented that he is not an expert in this matter, but in the Code of Virginia there is the Mobile Home Park Act. This Act specifically July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) .............. operator's park to those who buy the operator's mobile homes. There are a lot more terms in this Act° He asked if the Supervisors are aware of this Act. Mr. Wood responded that there are rules relating to retired people and limits on children. He pointed out that his mobile home park will have an additional restriction, which relates to the sound specifications. Mr. St. John remarked that he is not advocating one way or the other. He just wanted to make sure that everybody is aware that this Act exists, and that there are a lot of terms with which to comply. Mr. Wood said he had proffered that the commercial area would not be expanded but Mr. Lindstrom seems to think that he (Mr. Wood) has not already done this. Mr. Wood said he is willing to make this proffer in terminology that will be satisfactory if he has not already done so. Mr. Bowerman read the proffer which states that, "Mobile home sales lot use will be limited to mobile home sales and existing grocery store and gasoline sales." Mr. St. John told the Supervisors that they should not make Mr. Wood proffer that all of the mobile homes sold there will only go into his park. Mr. Wood agreed with Mr. St. John. He said he cannot make such a proffer. He was referring to Mr. Lindstrom's remarks concerning piecemeal development. He will proffer whatever terminology it takes that there will not be any other requests for stores or businesses because of the mobile home park. He reiterated that he thinks he has already done this, but if someone thinks that he has not and has better wording, he is willing to accept that. With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing at 12:32 a.m.. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks the request for this deviation is reasonable in consideration of the use related to the mobile home park. He asked if identifying this Board's intent to recognize that the only deviation relates to mobile home sales is sufficient to deal with the concern that was raised. Mr. Marshall asked if it is possible to expand on the first proffer. Mr. Bowerman said that does not speak to the issue to which Mr. Lindstrom referred. Mr. Marshall responded that wording could be added to the first proffer if there is a concern. He said that the words "and no other future use" could be added. Mr. Bain remarked that this issue was considered last Fall, and the Board decided on certain things. Now staff is indicating that there is a deviation because this request is directly related to the mobile home park, so this takes it out of the overall plan's requirement. Me is not sure, however, if he agrees with the staff on this matter. Mr. Martin suggested that wording be added to Proffer Number One which would state that, "these mobile homes are allowed only to facilitate the trailer park." Mrs. Humphris disagreed. She said that this does not cure the problem. Mr. Wood suggested that he proffer not to come before this Board with any other requests for this property. Mr. Bowerman then spoke directly to Mr. Lindstrom. He said this is a deviation, but he wondered if the Supervisors found this to be in keeping with the spirit of their prior action, if this would be sufficient to alleviate Mr. Lindstrom's concern. Mr. Lindstrom answered that he thinks the way to truly address the issue is to decide whether Mr. Wood, or anyone else who buys a part or all of the 50 acres, can come back at any time and ask for some other part of that property to be rezoned. The first thing that will be noticed is the deviation from the Comprehensive Plan. The special permit could have a condition which would state, "if necessary to provide homes meeting the Airport noise standards, there have to be special manufactured units." He does not disagree with Mr. Wood at all, because Mr. Wood should be able to sell the mobile homes there and not have to worry about who is going to sell them and how it will be done. He understands what Mr. St. John is saying because anybody else should be able to buy the mobile homes. He said the residents of the mobile home park can purchase any manufactured house that they want if they meet the noise stan- dards. If Mr. Wood has to go out and specifically have these homes built so that he can get this park in operation, he should be able to use this sales office on the property. He thinks that if a condition of the special permit specifically spoke to that, then there would be something that is clearly and directly related to facilitating this park. He honestly cannot tell the Supervisors that simply having a mobile home sales lot is directly related to facilitating this park, because it will facilitate anybody who wants to buy a mobile home anywhere. He thinks it is important for the Supervisors to address the matter. Mr. Bowerman said Oakwood Mobile Homes could provide the same unique service, if it wanted to carry the inventory. He asked if this is correct. Mr. Lindstrom concurred. Me said it may give the developer of the park, who may have to invest some money to develop special designed mobile homes, some reasonable opportunity to provide this service. He thinks that this is uniquely attributable in a way that is different from other situations. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) '~ 000278 Mr. St. John remarked that there could be a condition which indicated that no other business would be permitted on this property, except as part of a plan of development. Mr. Martin suggested that a condition state that the mobile home sales lot will not have any trailers on it that do not meet the standards required to go into that particular trailer park. Mr. Bowerman explained that Mr. Wood is not asking for that because he could sell other trailers to people who will not be living there. Mr. Martin responded that if it is limited to the fact that the only place the trailers can be sold is on his own lot, that is illegal, but Mr. Wood could be permitted to carry an inventory of trailers that meet the needs of that park. Mr. Lindstrom stated that Mr. Martin is getting close to the terminology that is needed. Mr. Lindstrom said a condition could be placed on the permit indicating that "the sales lot shall be used to provide trailers that meet the requirements of ZMA-92-14 for noise attenuation standards." He said this makes the sales office unique to this development, but it does not preclude Mr. Wood from selling other mobile homes. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is important that the Supervisors recognize this matter as an issue, deal with it and make some decision on it, and move forward. Mrs. Humphris asked if it is essential for people to buy their mobile homes from Mr. Wood in order to have a home which meets the sound standards. Mr. Bowerman replied, "no." Mrs. Humphris said if it is not essential for these people to buy their mobile homes from Mr. Wood, then she does not see any reason why this sales lot should even be on the property. She stated that it certainly does deviate from the plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it makes sense that a condition be put on the permit which would indicate that mobile homes will be offered for sale which meet the noise attenuation standards required. Mr. Martin said he thinks Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion is reasonable. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-93-06 with five proffers as follows: The mobile home sales lot use will be limited to mobile home sales and existing grocery store and gasoline sales. The mobile home sales lot entrance will be closed or altered if required by the future plan of development for the re- maining area designated office and regional service in the Comprehensive Plan. 3t The frontage on Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels 43A, 43, 42E, 42D, 42B, 42C, 42A and Tax Map 46, Parcel 5 shall contain not more than three entrances. The County may require closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of any new entrances such that the total number of entrances does not exceed three. 4e The site plan for the mobile home sales lot will not be signed until the site plan for a minimum of 100 mobile home units is signed. An access road between the mobile home sales area and mobile home park shall be developed at the time of establishment of the mobile home sales use. This access road shall be used only for the movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency access. Mrs. Humphris stated that she does not think this use will do anything at all to enhance the entrance corridor, and she thinks that the Supervisors should adhere to the original agreement that nothing like this would happen until 100 units were already in place, and there was a Master Plan for the site. Mr. Marshall called Mrs. Humphris' attention to Proffer Number Four. He said that this proffer relates to Mrs. Humphris comments. Mrs. Humphris disagreed. She stated that the fourth proffer only says that the site plan for the mobile home sales lot will not be signed until the site plan for a minimum of 100 mobile home units is signed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the fourth proffer was to ensure that the park and the mobile home sales lot were being developed together. Mrs. Humphris recalled that the stipulation to which she referred was that at least 100 mobile homes would be in place. Mr. Bain responded to Mrs. Humphris' comment that he is not sure that is what was intended. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the proffer is trying to ensure that there will be 100 homes in place. Mr. Cilimberg read from the Comprehensive Plan and stated that according to the Comprehensive Plan, there has to be a minimum of 100 mobile home sites developed before developing a commercial area, and that it should be developed under an overall plan of development. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 37) AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris. 000279 Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-93-14 with a condition reading: "The inventory shall include mobile homes which meet the noise attenuation standards on ZMA-92-14." Mr. Wood emphasized that not all of the mobile homes would meet these standards. Mr. Bowerman agreed that not all of the mobile homes on the sales lot would have to meet the noise standards, but Mr. Wood would have to have some inventory of mobile homes that would meet these standards. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Highway Revenue Sharing Projects (deferred from July 7, 1993). Mr. Tucker said this item was deferred to this meeting so staff could speak with VDoT officials. VDoT officials have changed their whole attitude in dealing with revenue sharing funds, they are much more flexible° The County does not have to actually appropriate the matching funds until the funds are needed. If a project is not in the County's Six-Year Plan, the County can still use revenue sharing money. The real key to the situation is that projects can be substituted in the revenue sharing plan four times a year - October, January, April and July. Mr. Tucker said the only issue relates to funding. The staff's first choice is the CIP Fund Balance or the General Fund Balance. If the CIP Fund balance is used, the money will have to come from unexpended balances on projects where funds have been saved. The CIP Fund Balance is normally used to fund the CIP in the following year. Mr. Tucker said he sent each Supervisor the latest draft of the CIP for next year, but he reiterated that the money can be taken from that fund balance if the Supervisors choose to fund other projects now. If the Supervi- sors concur, the staff will indicate to the State that the County is willing to take the full funding amount of $424,300. Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve maintaining the current local appropriation of $276,734 to complete the Route 250 East landscaping project. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: April 1, April 8 and October 14, 1992; and February 17, 1993. Mr. Bowerman reported that he had read the entire set of minutes for October 14, 1992, and given the Clerk a list of typographical errors to correct. Otherwise the minutes were in good order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes of October 14, 1992, as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Perkins requested the Board to endorse having staff speed up the public hearing process for a special use permit application from the Albemarle County Fair which is to be filed in the near future. It was the consensus that it would be okay, particularly since Mr. Cilimberg said there was no way to speed up the process for the Planning Commission. The speed up would take place between the Planning Commission hearing and the Board of Supervisors' meeting. Mr. Bain did not agree at all with this idea. Mr. Bain asked about a committee recommended by Citizens for Albemarle which would determine who in this county is unemployed and who is underem- ployed. Mr. Bowerman said he had spoken to representatives at the Chamber of Commerce about private sources of funding for some of this study. He suggest- ed the Board discuss the idea on August 4, 1993. July 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 38) Mr. Bain said he had a meeting with the private haulers and discussed the Recycling Ordinance. Some changes will be recommended in parts of the ordinance which is to be discussed by the Board again on August 4, 1993. Mr. Bowerman noted that Mr. Blake Hurt has resigned from the Fiscal Impact Committee. He suggested that Mr. Charles J. (Chuck) Rotgin, Jr. be appointed to take his place on the Committee. Mo%ion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Mrs. Humphris handed to Mr. Cilimberg an article from a magazine entitled Cellular Marketinq noting that the antennae for these cellular units are being hidden in many different, innovative places. Mr. Marshall said he does not know what went wrong with the Rural Service Center amendment to the Comprehensive plan while he was away from the Board's meeting last week. He understood the Board would bring back the Schuyler Enterprises petition, but has now been told that is not possible. Mr. Bowerman noted that the petition was denied by a tie vote last December, but he thought last week that it had been deferred. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the issue needs to be reconsidered' Mr. Marshall then offered motion, which was seconded by Mr. Martin, to suspend the Boards' Rules of Procedure. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to rehear SP-92-56 for Schuyler Enterprises. The motion failed by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at