1992-12-16December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 43, Pg. 58
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 1~, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:02 p.m.), Mr. David P.
Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.,
Charles S. Martin (arrived at 7:02 p.m.) and Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Martin, to accept the items on the consent agenda as informa-
tion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Memorandum dated December 9, 1992, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden,
Director of Finance, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re:
Virginia Public School Authority Bond Sale, received for information as
follows:
"This is to confirm that the VPSA Bonds were sold on December 1,
1992, at a net increase cost of 5.7477 percent.
Based on the standard agreement with VPSA, the County's interest
rate on the $2,885,000 will be 5.8477 percent, one-tenth of one
percent greater than the sale amount.
Closing on all documents is scheduled for December 17, 1992, at
which time the funds will be available."
Item 5.2. Notice dated December 8, 1992, from the Virginia Department of
Taxation, re: issuance of order temporarily restraining the collection of
Virginia localities taxes arising from the assessment of real estate and
tangible personal property of CSX Transportation, Inc., and Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railway Company, received for information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated December 7, 1992, from Mr. H. Allen Glover, Jr.,
Woods, Rogers and Hazlegrove, forwarding notice of an application with the
State Corporation Commission filed by Appalachian Power Company for an
increase in rates, received for information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated December 9, 1992, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley,
Zoning Administrator, addressed to Ms. Mildred Southard and Mr. Eddie P.
Southard, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1,
Tax Map 32, Parcel 50, received for information.
Item 5.5. Memorandum dated December 15, 1992, from Mr. Tex Weaver,
Information Resource Planner, re: Enhanced 911 Implementation Plan Update,
received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-92-06 & SP-92-33. Donnie and Catherine Dunn
(deferred from November 11, 1992).
Mr. Bowerman announced that there is a request to defer ZMk-92-06 and
SP-92-33 to January 13, 1993.
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer ZMA-92-06 and
SP-92-33, at the applicant's request, until January 13, 1993. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 59
(Page 2)
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-92-56. Schuyler Enterprises (applicant), Teresa
Harris & Brenda Roberts (owners). Public Hearing on request to amend condi-
tion on SP-82-21 in order to increase the number of vehicles which may be
stored on-site (currently no more than 4 tractor trailers can be parked in the
outside area at any one time) & to clarify condition limiting the hours of
operation. Property znd RA on S side of Schuyler Rd (Rt 800) & Howardsville
Turnpike (Rt 602). TM126,P31F. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is developed with a garage and
a graveled storage/parking area. The areas surrounding the site
are wooded and no dwellings are visible from the site. The garage
is visible from the state road.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: This request is to delete condition #7 of
SP-91-21, thus removing the restriction on the number of tractor
trailers which may be parked on-site, and to clarify condition #2
limiting the hours of operation. The applicant currently uses the
site to store and repair equipment used by Schuyler Trucking only.
The applicant currently has similar facilities in Schuyler (Nelson
County). Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, repairing
or replacing tires, brakes, lights, and routine truck maintenance.
Hours of operation are limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No freight is handled or stored on-site. A justifica-
tion for the current request has been provided by the applicant."
PLANNIN~AND ZONING HISTORY:
May 2, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-11 allowing
eight small lots on Parcel 3lA.
June 21, 1990 Staff approved the subdivision plat creating the
lot currently under review.
September 18, 1991 Board of Supervisors approved SP-91-21
permitting a public garage. (The site plan was later approved
administratively).
August 12, 1992 - Board of Supervisors approved SP-92-46 permit-
ting an additional dwelling on this site. (The special use permit
allows a total of two dwellings).
STAFF COMMENT: The history for the special use permit includes a
zoning text amendment (ZTA-91-04) which accompanied SP-92-21.
That zoning text amendment proposed to amend the definition of
public garage to include the temporary storage of motor driven
vehicles. During the Board's review of the special use permit and
zoning text amendment, the Board determined that the public garage
definition did not need to be changed. The special use permit
report for the public garage was prepared under the assumption
that ZTA-91-04 had been approved and the issue of storage
addressed and, therefore, contained no condition limiting the
number of vehicles stored on-site. The Board added a condition to
SP-91-21 limiting the number of tractor trailers on-site to four.
Staff has reviewed all requests for public garages in the Rural
Areas since 1980. A total of eleven applications have been
processed. One was dismissed after it was determined it was an
agricultural service occupation which is permitted by-right, two
requests were withdrawn prior to Board action, three requests were
denied, and five requests were approved (including the public
garage on this site). Four approved requests limited the number
of vehicles awaiting repair to four and one approved request
limited the number of vehicles awaiting repair to two. As can be
seen, all approved requests have limited the number of vehicles
stored on site.
In November, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved ZTA-89-14
which amended the definition of public garage to read: "Garage,
Public: A building or portion thereof, other than a private
garage, designed or used for servicing or repairing vehicles."
The change was made because of the inconsistency of equipping,
renting, selling and storing of vehicles within the purpose and
intent of the Rural Areas.
The Board of Supervisors did not approve ZTA-91-04 which would
have broadened the definition and would have allowed temporary
storage of motor driven vehicles. Staff's analysis of past Board
actions regarding public garages indicates a clear and deliberate
effort to minimize the number of vehicles stored or parked on-
site.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 43, Pg. 60
The site plan for this use was approved administratively after
approval of SP-92-21 which permitted the public garage. The
proposed increased use of the site does not anticipate any addi-
tional clearing, grading or other site development. The existing
gravel parking areas would be used for vehicle storage. Addition-
al plantings adjacent to the public road are proposed. The
additional plantings would consist of a row of white pines planted
15 feet on center. The plan submitted to accompany this request
shows 18 additional spaces (22 total). The applicant currently
has approximately 40 tractors and 80 trailers. Storage on-site
would be short term.
The applicant has been cited for violations of the Building Code,
but these violations have been abated.
The County Attorney and Zoning Administrator have provided com-
ments regarding the categorized definition of the proposed use.
The zoning Administrator does not consider this use to constitute
a 'public garage' as it provides no service to the general public.
The County Attorney supports this position, states he believes
this is a truck terminal, and believes an elimination of the
restriction on trucks further departs from the public garage and
moves this use even more directly into that of a truck terminal.
During the 1991 review of this request, it was noted that a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to review the appropriateness of this
area for this type of use would be most appropriate. The County
Attorney's opinion supports this as the appropriate process. As a
truck terminal the use would be permitted in LI, Light Industry,
district by Special Use permit. The Plan would, thus, need to be
amended to show this area for Industrial Service and the property
rezoned with a special use permit. The Board should address this
issue prior to amending the previous permit conditions.
SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors in favor of
this request:
No additional site development is proposed.
Approval of the request would provide for a centralized
storage center thereby alleviating storage of vehicles in
scattered sites in the County.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable
to this request:
1. The Board has consistently limited the number of vehicles
permitted to be stored in conjunction with public garages in
the Rural Areas.
2. The definition of public garage was amended to delete storage
of vehicles.
3. Approval of this request moves the use further from the
definition of a public garage and towards a truck terminal
which is permitted only in the Light Industry district and
only by special use permit. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this as Rural Area, not as a Growth Area designated for
industrial uses.
Staff opinion is that approval of this request would be inconsis-
tent with past actions of the County in regard to storage of
vehicles. Approval of this request may make denial of similar
requests for storage difficult to deny. For the above stated
reasons, staff recommends denial of SP-92-56. Should the Board of
Supervisor choose to approve this request, staff offers the
following conditions which are identical to the conditions of
SP-92-21 except as noted.
Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday
through Saturday; operation shall be defined as maintenance
work~
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts. Refuse
awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
4. No freight shall be handled or stored on-site;
5. All work shall be conducted within the garage;
6. Repair work and storage shall be limited to equipment owned or
operated by Schuyler Enterprises; and
December 16, 1992 (Regular Nigh~ Me~ting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 43, Pg. 61
8 o
Four to five foot white Dines shall be planted 15 feet on
center across the frontaqe of the deVelOped portion of this
site no later than May 31, 1993."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 17,
1992, by a vote of 4-3, recommended approval of the above-noted request
subject to the following conditions:
Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday
through Saturday; operation shall be defined as maintenance
work, except in case of emerqenc¥;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts. Refuse
awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
4. No freight shall be handled or stored on-site;
5. Ail work shall be conducted within the garage;
6. Repair work and storage shall be limited to equipment owned or
operated by Schuyler Enterprises; and
7. No more than ten tractor trailers can be parked in the outside
area at any one time;
8o
Four to five foot white pines shall be planted 15 feet on
center across the frontaqe of the developed portion of this
site no later than May 31, 1993.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Zoning Administrator was concerned that there
could be some confusion with condition #2, depending on which individual is
making the determination of what constitutes an emergency. He then called
attention to condition $7, which is an increase over the four tractor trailers
now allowed with the current special use permit. There was discussion by the
Commissioners about the appropriateness of expansion, and there were some who
expressed concern that this was becoming more industrial in nature because of
its likeness to a truck terminal.
Mr. Cilimberg handed out copies of the memo (on file in the Clerk's
office) from the Zoning Administrator, dated December 15, 1992, relative to
the second condition. He remarked that the Commissioners who were in support
of the application felt the limit to ten tractor trailers parked in the
outside area, as well as the restriction to hours of operation, would be
binding enough for the use to keep it within the intent of the original
approval.
There were no questions from Board members, so Mr. Bowerman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Jim Clark, representing Schuyler Enterprises, stated that the purpose
of the request is to expand the parking. He said if condition $7, relating
to parking, was dropped completely it would solve the applicant's problem and
the County's problem as well, because there would not have to be County
personnel checking to see if the company is within its parking limits. He
added that ordinarily there would be only ten tractor trailers or less parked
on-site. He said the most trucks would be parked at Thanksgiving, Christmas
and other holidays when drivers come in for long weekends. He feels justifi-
cation for these requests would be that Schuyler Enterprises attempts to allow
most of its drivers to be home for the holidays. He noted that when parking
is prevented, drivers have to take the trucks home with them, which causes the
trucks to be parked all over Albemarle, Greene and Fluvanna counties. He does
not see how the increased parking on-site could cause any more harm than the
parking which is already allowed. When traffic comes off of Route 29 from the
north or south, the traffic drives on Route 6, and then onto Route 800 and,
finally, two-tenths of a mile on Route 602. This property is also located
within two-tenths of a mile of the Nelson County line. More on-site parking
would mean less wear and tear on County highways. He pointed out that there
would be fewer complaints from the citizens throughout the County, because the
drivers would not be taking the trucks home with them. A central location of
the trucks would also prevent theft, damage, etc., to the equipment, and would
make insurance cheaper. The insurance is much more costly if the trucks are
parked all over the County. He next stated that Schuyler Enterprises has no
problem with any of its neighbors, and he made the statement that the person
who has been making speeches and saying that he is a neighbor of Schuyler
Enterprises, lives five and one-half miles away. If that person is a neighbor
of Schuyler Enterprises, then any of the Board members could be a neigb_bor.
He has turned in a petition containing 145 names of people in that neighbor-
hood asking that Schuyler Enterprises be granted permission to park these
trucks. The people in the Schuyler community need the income from Schuyler
Enterprises, because there is no other type of work in that vicinity. He
hopes the Board makes a fair decision about this matter.
Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, urged the Board of
Supervisors to deny the request from Schuyler Enterprises. He is a resident
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 43, Pg. 62
of southern Albemarle County in the Schuyler postal area. He feels that the
owners seek to use this site as a truck depot or terminal. The site is
located on a narrow, winding, secondary road poorly suited to a high volume of
heavy truck traffic. The site is not isolated from residences, but is near
two houses under construction, one of which is about 200 yards from Schuyler
Enterprises truck facility. Citizens for Albemarle believe a facility of the
type that Schuyler Enterprises seeks to operate should be located on land
suitable and zoned for industrial use. At the Planning Commission meeting,
Mr. Clark indicated he would like to be permitted to keep more than ten trucks
at this site. He said the size of his business had tripled in recent years.
It seems unlikely that granting his request would put an end to the story of
changing land use at this site.
Citizens for Albemarle believe that granting this request will only lead
to larger future problems at this site. It is concerned with what appears to
be a breakdown in reasonable and equitable application of land use planning in
handling of the Schuyler Enterprises site and the destructive precedent that
the handling of requests from this site are setting. The truck facility at
this site was constructed initially as a by-right agricultural building, then
it was used for truck fleet maintenance. After being found in violation of
zoning regulations, the owners sought and obtained from this Board a special
permit to operate this site as a public garage. The request was granted
despite opposition of County staff. For example, Mr. St. John, the County
Attorney, stated in a letter of September 22 addressed to Mr. Cilimberg that
he regarded the designation of this facility as a public garage as a "perver-
sion of the English language". Since the granting of this request, Schuyler
Enterprises has violated the conditions of its special permit, particularly
with respect to the number of trucks parked on the site at one time. Schuyler
Enterprises now seeks relaxation of the requirements of the permit. It is
beginning to appear that if someone wants to put land to a use that is not
allowed, that person can get permission for that use by repeatedly breaking
the rules, getting the rules changed, and then breaking those rules, etc.
This Board can make it clear that due processes are in place to protect the
interests of residents of all parts of this County by denying this request
from Schuyler Enterprises.
Mr. Dave Short, an adjacent property owner, said the people speaking in
opposition to this request are certainly not speaking for a majority of the
people in the area. He and a tremendous number of people who own property in
that area have nothing against Schuyler Enterprises operating that facility.
This is a time when the country really needs jobs, and he noted that there are
almost no job opportunities in Southern Albemarle. It seems as if the
Supervisors or the Planning Commission have drawn a line along Interstate 64
and stated that the southern part of Albemarle will be bedroom communities to
service the other parts of Albemarle County. He mentioned that people come
from out of Virginia and buy properties in the southern area to get away from
the hectic ways of Northern Virginia, Connecticut and New Jersey, and then
they want to keep the area exactly the way it was when "The Waltons" lived
there. Mr. Short pointed out that it is almost impossible to get water in the
area where Schuyler Enterprises is located. The place was quarried years ago
by Alberene Stone, and it is almost a wasteland although it would be helpful
if businesses located there so the citizens would not have to drive to other
parts of the County to seek jobs. The people in opposition have not put
millions of dollars into the economy in southern Albemarle, but Schuyler
Enterprises has put quite a few dollars into the economy in that vicinity.
The company has kept a lot of people from going hungry, and it has kept a lot
of people employed. As far as the road being too small for the traffic, Mr.
Short said he is sure the State will grant whatever is needed to access the
property in question. He has driven a truck in the past, and these roads are
large compared to the roads he has traversed in the northeast. Mr. Short said
he and a lot of other people living in the area have nothing against the
applicant's request. He believes Schuyler Enterprises has not been treated
fairly, and he emphasized that the people of southern Albemarle County need
more industry. He reiterated that there is no other business in southern
Albemarle, other than Uniroyal, which provides for employment. He appealed to
this Board to grant the applicant permission to park more trucks on the
property. One of the things that got him involved in this issue, is because
he thinks the situation is totally ridiculous. The people opposed to this
request do not understand trucking, in general. Ten or 15 75-foot trucks
cannot be parked in an industrial park, because the rent on the space would be
too high. There is also not that much vacant space in an industrial park.
Most trucking companies are in outlying areas, and he thinks that southern
Albemarle is the primary area that needs developing.
Mr. Short said he personally feels that this area could not have been
better chosen for a trucking company. It is away from the built up area of
Albemarle where nobody sees it, except for the special interest groups who buy
properties to get away from the hectic places. They then complain when
business follows them. There are a lot of poor people in this area of the
County who have to drive 30 miles to work every day, if they are lucky enough
to have a job. He asked the Supervisors to give Schuyler Enterprises more
leeway so they can operate their business. They cannot operate it with the
restrictions that are on it now, especially during holidays when the truck
drivers have to take their trucks home because there is no place to park them.
They are bringing perishables from such places as California, and the trucks
have to be parked where they can be monitored. They cannot leave the refrig-
erator units running on the trailers, because the trucks have diesel engines,
and they are noisy.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 63
(Page 6)
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Short sounds as if he is a truck driver and
is experienced with the trucking industry. Mr. Short answered that he is a
truck driver, however, he does not work for Schuyler Enterprises. He works
for a company in Gordonsville. He owns property in southern Albemarle
County, and he is going to build there soon. He said Schuyler Enterprises
trucks go by the location of his property, and he has nothing against that
company.
Mr. Tom Powell spoke next. He said that presently no more than four
trucks are allowed at any time on the Schuyler Enterprises lot. This creates
a hardship for Mr. Clark, the company and the drivers. Mr. Clark is forced to
park trucks wherever possible, which means that trucks are parked in subdivi-
sions, on small roads and on the side of the road, creating problems for
everyone. It is not fair to companies like Mr. Clark's to be denied the
request to park as few as ten to 14 trucks on the property for short periods
of time, such as four-day weekends and holidays. He mentioned that other
companies do not have to follow similar rules, such as Faulconer Construction
on Woodburn Road. Faulconer Construction is allowed to park large construc-
tion equipment, both operating and non-operating, in plain view of the road
and only one-eighth of a mile from the newest school in the County, and 100
yards from the County's water supply. There are many reasons to grant Mr.
Clark's request, such as the safety of the citizens of the County. The County
will be safer if tractor-trailers are not driving throughout the County's
subdivisions where children play. If Mr. Clark is granted this request, there
will be fewer complaints from people about large trucks being parked anywhere
they will fit, and there will be less work for the County Police Department in
dealing with complaints about the trucks, as well as vandalism on the trucks.
Mr. Clark is a good businessman and a County resident. Mr. Clark was only one
of a few people who came forward when trucks were needed to carry food and
relief supplies to the victims of the Florida hurricane. Both truck and
driver, were at Mr. Clark's own expense. It is for these reasons that he is
asking the Supervisors to grant Mr. Clark's request to allow more trucks to be
parked on-site, even for short time periods.
Mr. Llourds said that he lives at Schuyler, in Albemarle County. He is
one of the fellows that the previous speaker mentioned as coming to an area
which is less hectic, and not wanting to see things changed. He is also a
neighbor of Tom Olivier. He and Mr. Olivier are very different in their
thoughts. He agreed with a previous speaker that everybody is talking about
economy. More investments, more jobs and more growth are needed. He went on
to say that all of that could be in the Schuyler area, but it seems to be
ignored by the people there, in a sense that it is much more important to have
things, other than businesses located there. It is his understanding that
many dollars were invested in new equipment at Schuyler Enterprises this year.
The payroll was enlarged by approximately ten percent, with four more people
added to the 36 people who were already employed, and business expanded by 30
percent. The Supervisors have already approved the business, and to deny them
the opportunity for that business to grow and benefit the locality is uncon-
scionable. If this business is stopped from growing, the business will go
down. If the business goes down, it will have to let people go. He noted
that there are 40 people working for Schuyler Enterprises, and he understands
that 70 percent of them are minorities. He drives on Routes 6 and 800 several
times a day, and he sees no danger or overcrowding.
Mr. Llourds said he find it is incredible that this Board would approve a
business and then deny it the ability to grow. The area is as poor as it has
been described by previous speakers. Me asked the Board, respectfully, to
consider approving what the applicant has requested.
Mr. Kevin Cox stated that he supports Schuyler Enterprises and jobs in
Albemarle County. He also supports a government which sticks to the issues of
public health, safety and welfare and stays away from aesthetics and people's
values concerning rural character, or at least puts them in their proper
place. This facility is not, as has been stated at other meetings, a truck
stop or a truck terminal. Neither is it a public garage as it has been
designated. It does not have underground fuel tanks or any fuel storage
capability at all. Cargo is not transferred or stored anywhere on the
premises, and it is not open to the public. The facility is a private repair
and storage building used to service and dispatch trucks and trailers owned
only by Schuyler Enterprises and not the general public. He commented that as
a private garage handling only Schuyler Enterprises vehicles it is ideally
located. Access to Route 29 is safe and easy, because it is a quick route for
vehicles traveling down Routes 602 and 800, and then it is only another eight
miles on Route 6 to Route 29 South. This is not in an urban area so the
trucks are not congesting a lot of commuter travel. From Route 29 the trucks
go all over the country, moving manufactured goods from producers to consum-
ers, and food from farmers to supermarkets.
Mr. Cox said the property is ideal for this use because the owners own the
property and the facility. The owners do not own any land zoned Light
Industrial in the urban area, and he does not think the owners can afford to
buy such land at the price for which it is being sold. The site is not good
for much of anything else. He pointed out that, at the public hearing when
the special use permit was issued, the Sheriff of Nelson County came up to him
(Mr. Cox) and laughed about how important it was to preserve agriculture. Mr.
Cox recalled that the Sheriff said that the site is not good for any agricul-
ture, in fact his drug informants told him that marijuana could not even be
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.B. Pg. 64
(Page 7)
grown there. It is a joke to think that the site is worthwhile for agricul-
ture.
Mr. Cox said there are probably a lot of sites in the rural areas of the
County which should be zoned to more intensive uses. It was suggested by
Citizens for Albemarle that this site be rezoned for Light Industrial use.
This suggestion was heard at the Planning Commission meeting. If this
property were rezoned to Light Industrial, similar sites all over the County
should be similarly considered; because this Board would certainly not want to
get bogged down with spot zoning. He said the complaints he has heard focus
on aesthetics and the appearance and rural character of the area. He added
that some folks just do not like the looks of the Schuyler Enterprises
building or the trucks. He does not care a lot for the appearance of the
building, either. It is a big functional building, and he certainly would not
put a picture of it on his living room wall, but, at the same time, he would
not come down here and use the government to interfere with its operation just
because he does not like the looks of it. He would just accept it, as he has
accepted other uses that he thinks are ugly in this County, including a lot of
very expensive and very ugly homes. He hopes this Board decides in the
public's best interest and gets the trucks parked where they belong. He went
on to say that with the economy the way it is, now is not the time to work
against a job generating, revenue producing business, simply because some
people are more concerned about appearances than the public safety that will
be served by getting these trucks on one lot and off the rural roads.
No one else came forward to speak, so, at 7:40 p.m., Mr. Bowerman closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Marshall then made a presentation to the Board, and he used a map to
point out the garage location and two houses belonging to two women by the
names of Brenda and Teresa. He informed the Board that Jim Clark is Brenda's
and Theresa's uncle. He added that sitting next to Jim Clark tonight is
Albert Clark, who, according to Mr. Marshall, had previously owned this land,
but who has now turned it over to his two daughters, Brenda and Theresa. Mr.
Marshall said they are beautiful young ladies, but he cannot remember their
last names. He stated that the two girls' brother, Percy, is sitting two
seats over, and he runs the grocery store located on Route 6.
Mr. Marshall commented that everybody is talking about rural character and
aesthetics, etc., in the County. He has been to this site, walked the land
and has been to the quarries. He then showed the Supervisors, with pictures,
what is there. He pointed out on the map the deep quarries, and he said that
the site is totally surrounded by quarries, and the largest soapstone deposit
in the world is located in this area in Nelson and Albemarle counties. He
distributed pictures of the quarries and houses, and he said that all of the
houses are owned by Alberene Stone Corporation, which is now called the New
Alberene Stone Corporation. He noted that these houses do not have water, and
they have one line of electricity with a light hanging down on a plug. He
said that these people are poor and that they have outhouses instead of
bathrooms. He showed the Supervisors that the back yards of the houses drop
off into the quarry, and the people have thrown all of their trash off of the
top of the hill into the quarry. He said that this is what the property looks
like aesthetically. He pointed out that recently two houses were approved for
location on the property, and these houses belong to Brenda and Theresa. He
distributed pictures of these houses, and he said that they are beautiful
homes, and are certainly an improvement over what is already located in that
area.
Mr. Marshall then showed a picture of the Schuyler Enterprises building to
the Supervisors, and he said that it is certainly a better looking building
than the other pictures that he has shown them. He does not think that
Schuyler Enterprises is doing anything aesthetically wrong to that property.
He noted that the property is only two-tenths of a mile from the Nelson County
line. He said that the land is zoned RA, but he does not know why. He thinks
the land should be zoned for light industrial use, and he said that he hopes
something can be done about this. His proposal is not to leave this business
as it is, but to allow the company to park the trucks in the lot, so that the
business can stay in operation and the people in the area can keep their jobs.
He said that there is nothing wrong with the looks of the building and
certainly there is nothing wrong with the looks of the two new houses which
are being put on this property. He noted that, at some future time, proper
zoning can be given to this property, and he said that he believes that
particular area should be zoned for light industry, because that is how
everything else around it is zoned.
Mr. Marshall asked the Supervisors to consider his comments, because
everybody concerned would be satisfied. He was going to make a motion that
the Supervisors support the Planning Commission's recommendations to allow ten
trucks on this property until it can be zoned otherwise. He noted that the
Schuyler Enterprises trucks are not on the road making money. He said that,
instead, they are having to be stored because of the economy. He added that
if the economy was good, the trucks would be on the roads. He stated that now
the trucks are parked at stores, and scattered all over the roads, and, in his
opinion, create a hazard. There is plenty of room on that property for the
trucks. He mentioned, too, that there is no way this business will expand,
because as the Supervisors can see from the pictures, expansion of the
business would mean that the building would fall into a hole. He reiterated
that the business will not get any bigger, because expansion is impossible if
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 43, Pg. 65
the lay of the land is considered. He would be glad to take any of the
Supervisors to the property. He added that with a four-wheel drive vehicle he
can show them what the property is like, and then he thinks the other Supervi-
sors will feel the same way that he does.
Mr. Bowerman said 15 months ago when this Board heard the original
application, much of what Mr. Marshall just mentioned such as the territory
that surrounds the business and the nature of the uses there, was discussed.
He said, at that time, it was suggested that a Comprehensive Plan amendment
for that area be considered, including working with Nelson County and the
community of Schuyler. He said the idea has a lot of merit, but it would
probably take two or three months to perform such a study. Mr. Cilimberg said
if this matter was the staff's highest priority, Mr. Bowerman's statement on
the time limit would be correct.
Mr. Bowerman said the study could be accomplished in a reasonable amount
of time, but the outcome is not guaranteed, and he is speaking only for
himself and not for this Board. He thinks there is a lot of merit in what has
been said tonight about the land in that area, and there is also a lot of
merit in the staff report about limitations, such as access, etc. He believes
all of these things need to be considered, including how Nelson County
officials feel about the area. He asked what has changed between 15 months
ago and now to bring this to a crisis situation at this point in time. It is
his understanding that a deferral of this item is not desired, and that the
applicant would not consider allowing time for a Comprehensive Plan study to
see if this area can be considered in a different light. He noted that 15
months ago, this building was designed to be a repair facility for trucks. At
that time, the applicant did not want to keep driving the trucks to Schuyler
for repair because of the bad conditions on Route 800, and this was a much
better site for repair of the trucks. This request would obviously allow the
applicant to continue repairing trucks on-site. He emphasized that he cannot
imagine what has changed within the last 15 months, and he recalled that Mr.
Marshall had mentioned the bad economy. He asked Mr. Clark if he has doubled
or tripled the number of tractor-trailer trucks that he now owns. Mr. Clark
answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Clark is saying that the business has grown
that much. Mr. Clark responded that the business has grown approximately 30
percent per yea~ during the last three years, and he recalled that industrial
rezoning was discussed 15 months ago. Mr. Bowerman noted that Mr. Bain had
mentioned industrial rezoning 15 months ago. Mr. Clark remarked that Mr.
Cilimberg had commented, at that time, that the rezoning could be done soon.
He pointed out that 15 months have gone by, and nothing has happened. He said
that he understood that the area of southern Albemarle County was to be
considered and put into the Comprehensive Plan for industrial zoning without
the matter being brought back before this Board. He had thought that whatever
the staff decided would be the proper thing to do.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that Mr. Bain's suggestion never became a motion,
and it died at that point, because the other Board members did not support it.
Mr. Clark concurred that this was true. He was given a special use permit at
that time.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Supervisors who agreed with the special use
permit thought that it was enough to accommodate the use without any further
action. Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Peter Way had made the comment on that
particular night relating to quantities of trucks. Mr. Bowerman next inquired
as to how many trucks and trailers Schuyler Enterprises currently owns. Mr.
Clark replied that the business currently owns 44 tractors and 77 trailers.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Schuyler Enterprises had owned one-third of that number
approximately three years ago. Mr. Clark answered that three years ago Schuy-
ler Enterprises owned over 20 tractors and 37 or 38 trailers. He pointed out
that this business also has two locations in Nelson County, and he noted that
trailer repair work is done there also. He said that trailer repair pertains
to signal lights, brakes and tires, and he commented that the major work is
done in Nelson County. Recently his company had to hire work from sources,
such as Harrisonburg and other places, because there would be too many
trailers on the lot if they were all brought in at one time.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if Mr. Clark would object to the Board considering
a comprehensive look at that area, in cooperation with Nelson County, assuming
that Nelson County officials would be agreeable to studying this area jointly.
Mr. Clark replied that he is sure Nelson County officials would be agreeable
to the suggestion, and he noted that his company has had no problems at all
with Nelson County. He asked, though, why Nelson County should be involved
with Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman responded that Nelson County should be
contacted about the proposed study because Schuyler and Nelson County are only
two-tenths of a mile from the property in question. He said that all of this
area is considered to be one community. Mr. Clark asked why his company has
so much trouble with only two-tenths of a mile in Albemarle, and Nelson County
does not give his company any trouble. Mr. Bowerman commented that he is
suggesting that Albemarle County officials need to communicate with Nelson
County officials. He pointed out, however, that this is something that Mr.
Clark does not seem inclined to accept.
Mr. Marshall stated that he does not understand what Mr. Bowerman is
suggesting, and he wondered in what capacity Albemarle County officials would
be talking with Nelson County representatives. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. 43, Pg. 66
(Page 9)
is clear that Nelson County officials are interested in improving the area.
He noted that the Walton Family Museum is now located in that area, and he
pointed out the fact that Schuyler itself is a community that could use more
jobs. He said that there may be limitations which are not known, at this
time, such as water and sewer, but he stated that there is a small sanitary
sewer plant located there.
Mr. Marshall remarked that Mr. Bowerman is talking about rezoning, and he
pointed out that the piece of property in question is on top of a hill totally
surrounded by quarries. He asked if the remainder of the property in that
area of Albemarle County is not already zoned for light industry. Mr. Bain
answered, "no." Mr. Marshall then asked if rock quarries have RA zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the zoning for that area was done lon9 ago.
Mr. Clark commented that he has a copy of the history of Schuyler, and
this book indicates that the area was zoned for industrial use 100 years ago.
He said that the quarries are responsible for the rock piles that the Supervi-
sors saw in the pictures.
Mr. Marshall commented that if the Supervisors will look at the pictures
that he has distributed, they will see that there is no way this property
could have RA zoning.
Next, Mr. Bowerman remarked that the reason he mentioned Schuyler and
Nelson County is because of the proximity of Albemarle and Nelson counties in
that location. If Nelson County officials do not want to participate in the
study, that is fine. He said the site and access could be considered, but to
just rezone a piece of property which is not in compliance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan is not something he wants to do.
Mr. Marshall replied that he is not asking that this be done. He said it
is his own personal opinion that this property is zoned incorrectly, and he
would like for this Board to review it.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to the fact that this is not the issue that
is before this Board tonight. Mr. Marshall stated that he has two issues in
mind. He said that, first, he is asking the Supervisors to approve SP-92-56,
based on what the Planning Commission has indicated. That approval could be
done for a limited period of time, until such time as a resolution can be
considered for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr.
Marshall to which resolution he is referring. Mr. Marshall replied that he
wants to make a resolution to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
establishing a Schuyler growth area. He said that this should satisfy all of
the zoning requirements.
Mr. Bain recalled the first meeting on this issue in September of 1991,
and he noted that Mr. Marshall has also read these minutes. Mr. Bain had
stated, at that time, that if he had to vote on the matter that night, he
would vote against it. Mr. Bain said that he thought Schuyler needed to be
considered, in conjunction with Nelson County, because it is not just a piece
of property sitting by itself. He added that the Board did not accept his
suggestion, so a vote was taken that night, and this is what has gotten the
situation to this point. The Board was told by the applicant at that time,
that this was all that was going to be needed, but now the Supervisors can see
where the situation is going. This is a truck terminal, and that is what is
being discussed. He added that the public hearing is over, and he suggested
that now is the time to make a decision. He is still willing to consider his
previous suggestion, which, he thinks, is the appropriate way to approach the
issue. The Board has received letters from some of the neighbors, and he
pointed out that safety and road issues are involved. Mr. Clark and some
other people in that vicinity may not have the same feelings on the issue, but
there are other people who use the public roads. He emphasized that this
Board needs to look at that entire area, comprehensively, in terms of what
should be done there. He noted that it is not a large area. He said that to
do otherwise is a big mistake, and he pointed out that he had thought the same
thing 15 months ago.
Mr. Marshall stated that if this Board wil.1 do what he, Mr. Marshall,
asks, the staff will come back with a report, there will be a public hearing,
and the Board will have all of its answers. Mr. Bain commented that he is not
prepared to support this request tonight. The applicant has the special
permit, and he can live with that, at this point. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr.
Bain is asking that Mr. Clark be in violation of the special use permit. Mr.
Bain replied, "no." He said that Mr. Clark is supposed to be in compliance
with the special use permit, and he understands that he is. Mr. Clark
answered that he is currently in compliance, but he pointed out that it is a
burden and a hardship. Mr. Bowerman asked if the problem for Mr. Clark
relates to the fact that he has his trucks scattered over several counties.
Mr. Clark answered affirmatively. He then noted that the most dangerous part
of the highway is when Route 800 leaves his property going into Schuyler and
Nelson County. Mr. Bowerman recalled that Mr. Clark had used this argument 15
months ago. Mr. Clark noted that his business is allowed to run the tractor
trailer trucks anywhere they want to go. He said that more than $2,000 a year
in taxes is paid on each truck.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it seems to him that the business can continue
as it is until such a time that this Board has a chance to study the area and
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
M.B. 43, Pg. 67
consider Mr. Bain's suggestions. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is not
unmindful of what he has heard tonight.
Mr. Bain agreed that he is not unmindful of tonight's comments, either.
He said that this was clear 15 months ago.
Mr. Bowerman reminded Board members that 15 months ago there were only
four tractor trailers and a repair facility. The request has totally changed
between that time and today. Me thinks if the business is a major employer in
that area, then it has to be considered in that light. He does not think such
considerations can be done if the Board just looks at this as a special permit
for a garage, and it is his understanding that the County Attorney does not
even believe that the definition applies.
Mr. Marshall asked if it is legal for this Board to increase, for safety
reasons, the number of tractor trailers on that piece of property, until such
time that the review is held on this matter.
Mr. Bain said that it is legal, because the matter is before this Board.
He added, though, that he is not prepared to support such a motion.
Mr. Marshall stated that this will be his motion.
Mrs. Humphris commented that going back over all of the records concerning
this issue, she found that there are four main sets of facts with which this
Board needs to deal. First, Mr. Clark stated at the September 18, 1991,
meeting that there would probably be only two to six trailers in the building
at one time and never more than eight. She said Mr. Clark noted that the
trailers were only brought in when repairs were needed, etc. She pointed out
that this is what caused a majority of the Supervisors to vote for the
original special permit, although she dissented, at that time. Secondly, Mr.
Clark's present request (see Attachment C in the Board members' packets)
indicates that: "The purpose of this request is to expand the parking
requirement limit stated in Item 7, SP-91-21." She said there is absolutely
nothing in this request to expand the parking requirement that was related to
the original request for the special permit, which was for truck repair.
Thirdly, Mrs. Humphris pointed out the Zoning Administrator's memo dated
November 3, 1992, which discussed why public garages are allowed in a rural
area by special permit and which stated, "... the legislative intent appears
to be to provide the rural vehicular service to the general public." She said
the Zoning Administrator went on to say that, "There is no evidence within the
ordinance language, its intent or generally accepted definition for 'public'
that the operation of an individual commercial trucking businesses' mainte-
nance and storage facility, is a public garage." Mrs. Humphris next called
attention to the County Attorney's letter of September 22, 1992, in which he
noted that it had always been his opinion that the Schuyler Enterprises
operation is not a public garage. She read this letter to the Supervisors,
saying it should have a major bearing on the decision of this Board on this
subject. She said that given these four sets of facts, it seems to her that
this Board has no option, in the face of the law, but to deny this special
permit in the hope of moving forward with the investigation for amending the
Comprehensive Plan to change the zoning in the area.
Mr. Marshall stated that, first of all, the Supervisors are the law, and
they were elected to make decisions, although he does not disagree with
anything Mrs. Humphris has said. He went on to say that last week he voted on
a piece of property which, he believes Mrs. Humphris will agree, is consistent
with his thinking tonight. He said that the Architectural Review Board made a
statement about the property, and he supported it, because there was an
infringement on the rights of adjacent property owners. He added that laws
are fine as lonH as they do not hurt people, but when they hurt people, then
it is time to consider changing them.
Mrs. Humphris responded that this is what she is proposing to do. She
said that she wants to look at the situation and change it. She pointed out,
however, that it cannot be done tonight.
Mr. Marshall concurred that the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
cannot be done tonight. He added that there is a business presently in
operation which needs help, and, in his opinion, is operating in good faith.
He went on to say that he wishes his business had Hrown that fast. The
Supervisors cannot hold this business down because it is doing good, and he
pointed out that he has not seen any opposition from adjacent property owners
to this request. He feels the land is not zoned properly. He added that the
business is sitting on top of a soapstone hill in southern Albemarle, almost
in Nelson County, and it is totally removed from what is going on in the City
of Charlottesville, and the subdivisions close to Charlottesville. There are
some people in that area who don't care much about coming to Charlottesville,
and he stated that there are people in that area who have never been to town.
He commented that it is a different world and an entirely different environ-
ment, and this has to be considered. He said that the Supervisors can't just
look at a piece of paper and say that it is law, and everybody has to abide by
it. He added that the law might work for 90 percent of the people, but there
are Hoing to be a few people who would not fall into the same cateHory, and
Mr. Marshall emphasized that this is one of those cases.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 43, Pg. 68
Mr. Bowerman commented that if the law hurts people, then consideration
has to be given to changing it. He said that the Supervisors cannot just
ignore it. Mr. Marshall said he is not asking the Supervisors to ignore the
law. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Supervisors will vote on the matter tonight
in light of the County Attorney's letter.
Mr. St. John remarked that he would like to take issue with Mr. Bower-
man's comment that the Supervisors will vote on the issue after consideration
of his letter. Mr. Bowerman replied that it is his understanding that this is
what Mr. St. John's letter intended. Mr. St. John answered that this is not
what he meant, and he said that he is sorry if he has given this impression.
He went on to say that the request to him was to express what he saw as legal
ramifications of the issue. Rather than just say that it is legal or that it
sets a bad precedent, he studied the history of his opinion about the situa-
tion, and he continues to think that it was a mistake to designate this
business as a public garage, because the words do not fit the activity.
Everybody in this room knows that, and they knew it at the time the previous
approval was given. He said it was expedient to do it the way it was done at
the time and the Supervisors have now made that mistake. It is an accom-
plished fact, and the Supervisors cannot take the special use permit back,
even though it was a mistake, in his opinion, to issue it for a public garage.
He emphasized that the business is there, and it has a vested right to
continue. If the supervisors could go back and change this, they probably
would, but they cannot, because the business owners already have a special use
permit. Mr. St. John remarked that the Supervisors may see the limitation now
of four trailers as being damaging not only to the owners, but if the Supervi-
sors go along with the proposition that it is bad to have these tractor
trailers scattered all over the County, and it would be better for the public
to grant this change through the special use permit, then he does not see
anything contrary to orderly proceedings, if the matter is handled the way
that Mr. Marshall is suggesting. If this matter were being brought before the
Supervisors for the first time, he would argue again, as he did 15 months ago,
that "public garage" is not the proper designation. He noted that this Board
has to deal with an accomplished fact, now. He reiterated that he never
intended to tell the Supervisors that they could not legally do this without
setting a bad precedent.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. St. John is saying that if this Board made a
mistake 15 months ago, it needs to make another mistake now. Mr. St. John
answered that he does not think the Supervisors are making another mistake now
if they believe, on the evidence that they have, that this condition is
detrimental, not only to the individual, but to the general public, and it
would be better for the public's health and welfare to remove this limitation.
He said he would go even further than to just say that the Board has made a
mistake, although he added that he is not advocating that the Supervisors
believe one way or another. He said, however, that if the supervisors believe
that this is a bad condition, then he would say that it is their duty to
remove the condition now.
Mr. Bain commented that the Supervisors saw the problem in the beginning,
and they see the problem even more now, in terms of the large number of
vehicles traveling on the road. He added that the Supervisors need to look at
the situation in a comprehensive fashion, and approving this request is not
looking at the situation in such a manner.
Mr. Martin agreed that the Supervisors definitely need to look at the
matter in a comprehensive way, but he thinks Mr. Marshall is very reasonable
with his two requests. Mr. Martin said that Mr. Marshall first suggested that
the Supervisors need to make a move to promote jobs in an area which needs
jobs probably more so than any place in Albemarle County. Secondly, Mr.
Martin concurred with Mr. Marshall that this Board should immediately start
looking at the bigger picture by requesting a study, and making decisions
based on the study, as to the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. St. John remarked that he would suggest something other than a motion
on the Comprehensive Plan which would direct staff to look at an amendment to
establish a Schuyler growth area, although he said that this can be examined
if the Board wishes. He feels it might be wise to consider a narrower
Comprehensive Plan amendment which would simply be to designate an area in the
vicinity of this piece of land as industrial zoning. He added that the words,
"growth area," imply a lot more than the word, "industrial." He went on to say
that a growth area indicates population, and if an area is designated as a
growth area, it implies providing utilities, etc.
Mr. Bain stated that he had never talked about the area in legal terms,
such as Mr. St. John has suggested. He said that the Schuyler community is
already there, and he is talking about that particular community which is
located both in Nelson and Albemarle counties.
Mr. St. John said he thinks it is valid to include Nelson County, because
if utilities are provided, then he thinks the Nelson County Service Authority
would be responsible for them, rather than getting Albemarle County's service
authority involved.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board should amend the Comprehensive Plan
first, or should the Board just consider rezoning, since it is such a small
area. Mr. St. John answered that the Supervisors need to look at the Compre-
hensive Plan.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 43, Pg. 69
Mr. Bain stated that rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment could
both be considered. Mr. St. John reiterated that if this Board sees that
there is a condition which is causing tractor trailers to be parked on the
side of the road all over the County, then there is no reason this condition
cannot be removed. He said it is perfectly logical for this to be done.
Mr. Perkins commented that the Supervisors have the opportunity to change
the definition of a public garage. This Board can make a public garage
anything that it wants to make it. He pointed out, however, that the Supervi-
sors denied the original motion relating to this change, on a six to zero
vote, because it was not needed at that time.'
Mr. St. John responded that if a phrase such as, "public garage," is
used, an ordinary person should know what it means. He said that it does not
take a degree to understand that it is a place to serve the public. He added,
though, that if a public garage is defined as something that people have no
access to, the Supervisors have perverted the English language by using a
definition that is inconsistent on its face with the words that are being
defined. He stated that he does not think it is a good idea to change the
meaning of "public garage".
Mr. Perkins said he just wanted to point out the fact that the Board had
considered the definition of "public garage". He does not think the Supervi-
sors made a mistake during their earlier discussions, because the applicant
could make the business a public garage. Mr. Perkins added, however, that he
does not think this would be in the best interest of the public.
Mr. St. John agreed. He said he does not think the applicant ever
intended to make it a public garage.
At this time, Mr. Marshall moved approval of SP-92-56, subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin seconded the
motion.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she believes some attention needs to be given
to the memo from the Zoning Administrator concerning condition #2, relating to
operation in case of an emergency. She read from Mrs. McCulley's December 15,
1992, letter, and asked what this condition means as far as the problem with
the trucks coming and going.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that this matter was discussed during the Planning
Commission's meeting, and the condition was suggested although it was not well
defined at the Commission meeting, but he believes it was considered to be an
opportunity for the applicant to do extra work, in case there are situations
where maintenance work needs to be done outside of the hours of operation.
When this matter was originally brought before the Planning Commission, the
words "except in case of emergency," were not part of the condition. He said
Mr. Clark was satisfied with the original condition, and the emergency clause
was added during the Planning Commission meeting. One commissioner did not
want a complete foreclosure on the opportunity for work to be done on trucks,
if they should come in on Sunday, etc.
Mrs. Humphris then called attention to condition #8. She asked if the
staff is satisfied with the planting of white pines, instead of Virginia
cedars, which are longer lasting. She noted that the County's past history
with white pines has not been very good. Mr. Cilimberg stated that substitute
trees can be accepted if there is a problem. He explained that if white pines
are planted, and they die, and the applicant does not want to keep planting
white pines, so other trees can be substituted. Mrs. Humphris said that if
the condition relating to trees is included, it should anticipate that the
trees will be replaced, if they do not live. Mr. Cilimberg concurred.
Next, Mr. St. John referred to earlier comments relating to the emergency
clause. He said he does not think there can be a definition of an emergency.
He added that if the word, "emergency," by itself, is not good enough, then he
thinks the phrase should be eliminated.
Mr. Martin concurred that the clause should be eliminated.
only person who could identify an emergency would be Mr. Clark.
condition should be left as it was stated originally.
He said the
He thinks the
Mr. St. John explained that the vehicles could be stored on the property
at any time, but they cannot be serviced, except for the hours indicated.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if there would be more of an unsafe condition over
the next three or four months, under the current circumstances, than there
would be if more trucks are allowed to use Route 6 and to park at the current
location. He asked if this is the judgment that this Board will be making if
it supports Mr. Marshall's motion and Mr. St. John's comments. He also
wondered how this judgment can be made. Mr. Bain responded that he does not
think there is evidence before this Board to support such a judgment. Mr.
Martin said the safety aspect is one of the things that he is taking into
consideration.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that if a Schuyler Enterprises truck has a wreck on
Rio Road going to Schuyler, then that could probably be considered as evidence
that having these trucks scattered around the County is indeed a safety
hazard. He went on to say, however, that if there is a wreck on Route 6, then
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
M.B. 43, Pg. 70
this situation will probably imply that the Supervisors were wrong, because
this issue was not considered first. He does not see what Mr. Clark gains or
loses by the Supervisors considering Mr. Marshall's secOnd condition, and
allowing Mr. Clark to continue to operate in the current fashion until there
is enough information to make a logical decision as to the expansion of the
Schuyler Enterprises operation. He does not see how the Supervisors can pick
one situation over the other, as the reason to vote in favor of the motion.
Me said that the evidence is not present.
Mr. Marshall responded that there is also a limitation on size, because
there is no way that the property will get any bigger. Mr. Bowerman con-
curred, but he went on to say that the property could probably accommodate
more than 18 trucks.
Mr. Perkins commented that he probably drives the roads of Albemarle
County more than any of the other Supervisors. He has been by this site on a
number of occasions, and he has never seen a truck coming or going to it. On
Route 6, however, Mr. Perkins stated that a few weeks ago, there were three or
four tractor trailer units at the store, and he believes that these trucks
were being parked there because they could not be parked on Schuyler Enter-
prises property. These trucks were being moved around, and they were coming
out on the highway. Me noted that the speed limit on Route 6 is 55 miles per
hour, with very poor sight distance at this store. He stated that he came
around the curve, and managed to get through the congestion of trucks, but it
was tight.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if these trucks would not have been at the store,
if they could have been parked at the Schuyler Enterprises site. Mr. Perkins
replied that he hopes they would not have been at the store, if they could
have been parked somewhere else. Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris both pointed out
that Mr. Perkins did not know this to be a fact. Mr. Perkins reiterated that
the trucks are creating an unsafe situation on Route 6, and he noted that
Route 602 does not have a high speed limit.
Mr. Marshall asked if it would eliminate the necessity to park the trucks
at the store, if the trucks are allowed to park at the site. Mr. Clark
replied that the trucks would absolutely not be parked at the store, if they
are allowed to be parked at the site.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is willing to consider the Comprehensive
Plan change, the growth area designation change, or even the industrial zoning
change, but he is not willing to alter the permit.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion was denied by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Marshall and Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the motion had failed with a tie vote, and he
asked if there was an alternative motion.
Mr. Marshall stated that he is not sure how to word a resolution. Mr.
Bowerman asked that Mr. Marshall make the resolution broad enough so that the
Supervisors can do whatever needs to be done.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that he thinks everybody understands the growth
area approach as it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan is broad enough, with its statements, to consider the area the way it
needs to be considered within its location. He said that all of southern
Albemarle County does not have to be considered.
Mr. Bowerman concurred that changes for this area could be localized,
since the area in question is surrounded by quarries. Mr. Cilimberg commented
that the staff will probably bring back to the Planning Commission or this
Board, a scope of the area that the staff is proposing, before the Commission
or this Board takes action.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Board has to review the urban growth area at
Hollymead by September 30, 1993, and he is curious as to what impact the
Schuyler proposal will have on this plan. He said that he thinks both plans
need to be approved, if the Supervisors adopt this motion. He suggested that
the Hollymead plan could probably be approved by September 30, 1993, and the
Schuyler plan could also be done in a timely fashion. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that the staff could probably get the Schuyler plan to the Commission by
March. This would also allow the staff time enough to get the Hollymead plan
to this Board by September 30, 1993. Mr. Bowerman inquired if ancillary
action, such as rezoning, could go through the process at the same time as the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is possible.
Mr. Bain said the staff could develop a proposal to show the Commis-
sioners and Supervisors everything that is being considered at the same time.
He added that Nelson County could also be contacted, etc. Mr. Cilimberg con-
curred.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that some of the supervisors had previously men-
tioned rezoning. He said there would need to be a resolution of intent from
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
M.B. 43, Pg. 71
the Commission or the Board to initiate the request. He pointed out that,
otherwise, the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be approved, and then there
would be another delay relating to a rezoning.
Mr. Bowerman said that if it is decided to proceed, the matter will need
to be handled in a timely fashion. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the motion
include a resolution of intent to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan concurrent with zoning and style of growth area and various uses under
that growth area.
Mr. St. John stated that the Board should look at a Comprehensive Plan
amendment which would only be limited to the environment of Schuyler. He said
that this area has traditionally been industrial.
Mr. Marshall said that the staff is making it seem difficult. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that it does not need to be difficult. He said that the
staff will do exactly as Mr. St. John suggested. Mr. St. John stated that the
amendment would be limited to the environment at Schuyler, where the quarries
are located. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Board will make the decision as
far as limitations are concerned. He has told the Supervisors that he will
bring them the information.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that now the Supervisors need to consider the
timing of the matter. If the supervisors approve this motion, it is hoped
that other delays will be avoided by taking care of the rezoning at the same
time. He went on to say that the best time to get this matter to this Board
would be the week following the Commission's action. Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
He said that it could be scheduled in this manner.
Mr. Marshall stated that he realizes the Board members think they are
doing the right thing, but the more that he thinks about it, the less he feels
this is the right avenue to follow. He said that to do what this Board is
doing tonight, for reasons of health and safety, is beyond his comprehension.
Mr. Bain remarked that he felt the same way as Mr. Marshall 15 months ago,
when the Board voted on this matter the first time.
Mr. Marshall responded that he was not a Supervisor 15 months ago, and
this property lies in his magisterial district. He is dealing with people who
might get hurt on that road. He added that if he was the owner of Schuyler
Enterprises, he would move the trucks to the site, even in violation of the
law. He said that he cannot advise the applicant to do this, but he does not
want to see anybody hurt on Route 6, and he does not want it to be on his
conscience.
Next, Mr. Marshall offered motion to adopt the following Resolution of
Intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to consider amend-
ing the Comprehensive Plan to establish Schuyler as a growth area
and concurrent rezoning of same area;
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and rezoning, and does request that the Planning Commission
send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible
date, but no later than March, 1993.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. Marshall wondered if there was a legal way that this issue could be
done before March. Mr. Bowerman responded that it is just a question of
time. Mr. Marshall pointed out that he is concerned about the question of
health and safety. He said there has to be some provision which would allow
for such an important matter to be moved forward. Mr. Bowerman answered that
Mr. Marshall is only expressing his opinion. Mr. Marshall stated that it is
Mr. Perkins' opinion, also. Mr. Bowerman explained that it was not a unani-
mous vote, and there is a difference of opinion which has to be accommodated.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the staff understands the urgency of the
matter, and if it is possible to get the information to the Commission and
this Board any quicker, the staff will certainly do so. Mr. Bowerman con-
curred with Mr. Cilimberg. He added that if the staff can get this matter to
the Supervisors quicker, that is fine, but it should be brought back before
this Board no later than March.
Mr. Marshall said he would appreciate the staff working on this issue as
quickly as possible. He added that if there is anything he can do to speed up
the process, he will be glad to do so.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
M.B. 43, Pg. 72
(The Board recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:38 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing to take comments on the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 1 and December 8, 1992.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following Executive Summary:
,,BACKGROUND: The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition
Plan, which you received at your November 4 meeting, is scheduled
for a public hearing on Wednesday evening to receive comments from
the community, particularly those citizens in the community with a
disability. The Plan, which was developed by an ADA Advisory
Committee over the past slx months, outlines the steps the County
intends to follow in order to be in compliance with the ADA
structural requirements by January, 1995. Although three repre-
sentatives from the disabled community served on the County's
Advisory Committee and were instrumental in putting the plan
together, this hearing provides an additional opportunity for
those in the disabled community who were either not able to serve
on the committee or are not aware of the ADA regulations.
To comply with the ADA regulations, all non-structural changes
outlined in the plan were to have begun January, 1992. All
necessary structural changes must be in place by January, 1995.
All the structural modifications, which are outlined at the end of
the document, are reflected in the CIP project request for
FY 93-94 and FY 94-95 for the County Office Building, Parks &
Recreation, the School Division and the Regional Jail.
Although completion of a transition plan is required by the Act, a
public hearing on the transition plan is not required nor is the
Board required by the Act to formally adopt the plan. However,
since the plan will serve as the County's documentation of its
intentions to comply with the regulations, staff recommends that
the Board give its approval to the plan as presented. Approval of
the plan will provide a framework for action and guidance for
County staff in addressing the ADA requirements."
There were no questions from the Board for Mr. Tucker, so Mr. Bowerman
opened the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, therefore Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
adopt the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan for Albemarle
County, as presented by staff in the December 16, 1992, memo, and as outlined
in the actual document (copy on file in the Clerk's office).
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing to receive comments on the County's
1993/94-1997/98 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1992.)
Mr. Tucker informed the Board that the County's Capital Improvements
Program for FY 1993-94 totals $14,042,320. He said General Government
projects total $2,225,414 and School projects total $11,816,906. He pointed
out that there is a total of $754,400 in miscellaneous school projects which
have been added since the prior recommendation. He went on to say that there
is $11,900,000 proposed for funding through Virginia Public School Authority
(VPSA) bonds for school projects, leaving $2,100,000 to be financed from other
sources. He then stated that projects which were requested but not funded in
the FY 93-94 proposal due to budget limitations, are shown in the information
that was given to the Supervisors. He said that a majority of these projects
have been moved to FY 94-95.
There were no questions from the Board for Mr. Tucker, so Mr. Bowerman
opened the public hearing. He said that it would be more orderly to go
through the CIP on the basis of program areas. He then stated that the Board
would hear comments on Administration and Courts.
There were no comments.
Next, Mr. Bowerman asked for comments on the Education section.
Mrs. Evelyn Meese spoke about the proposal for the Scottsville Park and
improvements at the Scottsville Elementary School (original items Number 29
and 35 on the CIP) . She is representing the Scottsville Parks Development
Association and also the Community of Scottsville and southern Albemarle
County. She supports the capital improvement project which has been proposed
by the County Department of Parks and Recreation. There is no playground in
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 43, Pg. 73
(Page 16)
southern Albemarle County, and there is no soccer program south of Charlottes-
ville. There is not a neighborhood park south of Charlottesville, but there
are 150 children in the summer program which is centered around the Scotts-
ville Library. There are 189 children enrolled in the Scottsville Elementary
School, 157 children at Yancey Elementary School, 560 children at Walton
Middle School and a large and growing number of pre-school children zn the
community. The equipment now in place in Scottsville is poorly maintained and
hazardous.
Mrs. Meese said a group of concerned citizens from the Scottsville
community formed the Scottsville Association in an effort to coordinate
between the Town of Scottsville and the County to promote a park and improve-
ments in the facilities that are provided. The Association is comprised of
the Mayor, several members of Town Council, businessmen in the community, and
several respected members of the community. The Association members canvassed
the community, and, based on their findings, Mr. Bob Crickenberger of the
County Parks and Recreation Department, provided them a proposal of priorities
for development of a park in the Scottsville area which is reflected in the
CIP currently before this Board. The first priority in the FY 1993-94
proposal is a handicapped accessible playground facility in Scottsville, and,
at the same time, the Association members are supporting the replacement of
the equipment at the Scottsville Elementary School. She emphasized that
Association members feel the equipment at the Scottsville Elementary School
truly jeopardizes the health and safety of the children in the community. She
showed the Board members pictures which were taken of the Scottsville Elemen-
tary School playground. Up until the last couple of months, there was a
playground at the Scottsville Elementary School which had essentially post
World War II equipment and had absolutely no support underneath it for
cushioning children if they fell off one of the pieces of equipment. Since
her presentation to the Planning Commission, there has been some bark mulch
put under the equipment. Mrs. Meese pointed out, by showing pictures, the
most dangerous pieces of equipment.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that both projects, at the Community Center and at
Scottsville Elementary School, are to be funded next year. Mrs. Meese thanked
Mr. Tucker for his comment. She said that the proposal made by her Associa-
tion, while working with the County Parks and Recreation Department, is to use
land which has been deeded to the Town of Scottsville for recreational
purposes. This land was gzven to the Scottsville community by the Dorrier
family with the requirement that it be called, "Dorrier Park." She then
showed a rendering, which a local architect, who has volunteered her time,
provided.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if these are the items which were included in the
funding. Mr. Tucker replied that the improvements which related to the
equipment in the photographs are included.
Mrs. Meese said the Scottsville Town Council has given approval for this
property to be used for a park in conjunction with the County, and maintained
and developed by the County. She noted that the majority of the facilities
would be located on one parcel, and it includes several acres. She showed a
tentative plan that the Association members and Mr. Crickenberger have
developed. She stated that the Association members have also circulated a
petition around the community, and there are over 230 signatures from the
community of Scottsville in support of the project. She left this petition
with the Clerk. She then said that to show the Board how much support there
is for this facility in Scottsville, the students at the Scottsville Elementa-
ry School have written the Board a letter, and it is signed by all of the
second graders. In addition, the students have also drawn pictures of
merry-go-rounds and swings, because they do not like the swings which are
currently at the school. She left these items with the Board, also. She next
asked for everybody to stand, who was at the meeting to support the Associ-
ation's proposal (nine people stood). She pointed out that it is difficult
for family people from the Scottsville area to get into town.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker for comments about the proposals which are
shown in the CIP. Mr. Tucker replied that the Community Center improvements
are programmed over a three-year period, and the first part of the proposal
relates to playground equipment. Mr. Bowerman stated that the playground
equipment is shown for FY 1993-94, so that phase would start in July. He also
noted that there are two other phases.
Ms. Meese commented that the Association members would like to accelerate
the phases, if possible. Mr. Bowerman said he appreciates the effort that the
Association members have put into the proposal.
Mr. Bowerman then told the public that, rather than taking the CIP by
categories, the speakers could speak on anything that is in the Capital
Improvements Program.
Mr. Martin Beekman, President of the Lane Babe Ruth Baseball League,
spoke on behalf of many players, parents and volunteers of the Lane League.
He asked the people .who came to this meeting to represent the League to stand
and be recognized (approximately 25 people stood).
Mr Beekman said the Lane League has experienced explosive growth since
1989. Young people from age 13 to 15 have flocked to the Lane League, not
only because of the general population surge and the renewed popularity in
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
M.B. 43, Pg. 74
baseball, but because the Lane League provides a positive recreational
experience for all of its players. Me said the program has grown 51 percent
in three years, and has expanded from a nine team to a 14 team league for the
spring competition. The fall program continues to draw large numbers, and in
1992, 361 youngsters played ball in both programs. Seventy-three percent of
the growth has come from children of families in Albemarle County. Mr.
Beekman said these volunteers freely give of their time and talents to provide
instruction and competition in the game of baseball, and to do a small part to
foster the physical, emotional and social growth of the community's youth.
The Lane League needs to have proper facilities, which are at least as good as
those provided for adults. At present, the Lane League has the use of two
wonderful ball fields, which are Azalea Park and the Lane Field. The Lane
Field is in dire need of physical improvements. The lighting system is
horribly antiquated, terribly inefficient and poses a serious hazard. The
bleachers are in bad shape and a threat to safety. All of the League's
efforts to repair these have failed to remedy the difficulties, and the task
of replacing the lights and the bleachers is beyond the League's means,
without significant help from others.
Mr. Beekman said that for the past two years the Lane League has been in a
leadership phase of a funding drive to purchase a new lighting system, a
system which will be more efficient and environmentally sensitive, while
remedying the intensity, visibility, electrical and safety problems which
plague the current system. With the support of the County, the City, local
businesses, civic organizations, parents and friends of the Lane League, he
believes that this goal can be accomplished, and in doing so, generations of
the community's youth will benefit. He urged the supervisors to join this
partnership by approving the funding requested for the Lane League in the
1993-94 Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Bowerman informed Mr. Beekman and the other representatives from the
Lane League, that their proposal is in the CIP plan. Mr. Bain commented that
he understands that the CIP funds will help, but there will still be a
shortage of money. He was interested to know where the Lane League is going
to obtain the other funding. Mr. Beekman answered that in the County's
proposal there is $10,000 requested for lights, and $7,000 for the replacement
of bleachers at the Lane Field. There is a similar proposal before the City
of Charlottesville. The City Planning Commission has considered the proposal,
and he will also speak to the City Council. As far as private efforts are
concerned, Mr. Beekman stated that he is pleased to report, at this point,
that with a lot of hard work, there has been close to $8,700 in pledges and
contributions collected, and $6,600 of that amount is actually in the bank.
He said that with $10,000 from the County and $10,000 from the City, the
project can be moved forward, and he believes it can be completed.
Ms. Steele Howen, Associate Principal at Albemarle High School, thanked
the Supervisors for putting some of Albemarle High School's projects on the
list of priorities which are being funded for next year. She said these
projects relate to safety issues which involve bleachers and the replacement
of doors. A building which was built in 1953 becomes increasingly more
difficult to maintain every year, even though Mr. Reaser and his staff do an
excellent job. She noted that things are wearing out at Albemarle High
School, and the Supervisors' awareness of that fact is greatly appreciated.
Ms. Pam Starling, President of the Woodbrook School PTO, spoke in support
of the School bond projects. She said that other than the $8,000,000 for the
new Hollymead Middle School, the bond will fund improvements for older schools
and recreational facilities which have been repeatedly deferred for lack of
funds. It is a liability to continue to defer these projects, because many of
the playgrounds are two and three decades old and are not in compliance with
the current safety standards. School populations have changed, and special
education students are now included in all of these schools in regular
education classrooms. Playground equipment has not been adapted for their
safe use. She feels it makes good financial sense to consolidate these
projects. It is more cost-effective to do all of the projects at the same
time, buy the equipment in bulk and contract labor for several projects
together. She stated her appreciation to the Board for its willingness to
include these projects in the bond package for 1993.
Ms. Meg West stated that she is a member of the PTO Board from Browns-
ville Elementary School and she is also on the Playground Committee. Because
Brownsville School had its Christmas program tonight, she does not have a
roomful of supporters behind her. As far as she knows, the request for the
appropriation of funds for the playground for Brownsville Elementary School is
approved for 1994-95, and she emphasized that she is requesting that the funds
be moved to 1993-94.
Mr. Tucker and Mr. Bowerman indicated that the funds for the Brownsville
Elementary School playground have been moved forward to FY 1993-94. Ms. West
responded that she will take this time, then, to thank the Board for these
funds. She next mentioned redistricting and the plan for the Brownsville
addition. Mr. Tucker stated that this project has been moved back one year,
which would have the first phase beginning with the 1994-95 fiscal year.
Ms. Donna Selle, Library Director, spoke in favor of the request for the
Northside Library. She thanked the supervisors who came yesterday to the
Library's first birthday celebration. She mentioned that the Library has 3600
new registered borrowers, and it has circulated over 250,000 books in a year.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 43, Pg. 75
(Page 18)
She noted that this branch library opened with 20,000 books and yesterday
there were 37,000 books there. She remarked that the County has given the
Library $64,000 this year from its operating budget, and the request before
this Board tonight is for an additional amount of money for books and shelving
for the long wall located in the library. She noted that if this long wall
could be shelved, it would maximize the shelving that is needed to finish out
the development of the building.
Ms. Selle said another issue was originally proposed for 1994-95 was the
replacement and repair of the mechanical system for the Central Library. She
stated the City's CIP is not in the same stage as the County's, and she
believes the Central Library may be approaching an emergency. Funding may
have to be moved around to accommodate this system in the Central Library.
She remarked that the thermostats are no longer effective at the Central
Library, and every room is a different temperature.
A gentleman from the Peach Tree Babe Ruth League said he is at this
meeting in conjunction with the Crozet Park Board relative to the Capital
Improvements budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year. He said the Peach Tree
League had 310 children in five age groups, and they play on five or six
different fields at different times. His League does the maintenance work on
the fields, and it is a nonprofit organization. This League has been in this
County for over 35 years, and to his knowledge, the Peach Tree Babe Ruth
League has never asked for funds for operations. He pointed out that the
fields have no lights, and the League needs a central location. The ages of
the children range from five years to 16, and they play at Greenwood, Western
Albemarle High School and Crozet Park. With money that could be funded from
the Capital Improvements budget and with private donations, a field could be
built at Crozet Park, that would house all three age groups of children. He
said that there is a Bambino Division which has children from seven to 12
years of age, and it is equivalent to a Little League team. He said the
Crozet area needs a field that will accommodate all of the children, and he
does not think that this is a lot to ask. Western Albemarle is in a growth
area, there are new subdivisions being built, and this League is going to grow
into a very big League. The League has close to a $30,000 operating budget,
and it is all funded by the League. He emphasized that the League does not
ask for any outside help, except for sponsorships of the teams and programs.
The incoming President of the Crozet Park Board of Directors stated that
the County officials have been supporting the League during the past years as
far as upgrading park facilities, and he said that with the addition of the
Peach Tree League, there has been an incredible usage of Crozet Park. He
commented that revitalization needs to continue in the area. He mentioned the
amount of growth in the area and the new homes that are being built. He said
that this will be an opportunity to provide a necessary service to the youth
in the area. It brings families and the community together, and it is a whole
networking of the community. He said this growth needs to continue. The
Crozet Park Board of Directors is fully behind the Peach Tree League and what
it has done, and he noted the energy that the families have put into continu-
ing its operation. To have everything housed at one location would be a boon
to the League.
Next, Mr. Perkins read a letter from Ms. Ann Benner, on behalf of the
Crozet School PTO Citizens Support Committee, which described a forum held at
Crozet Elementary School on November 17, 1992, relative to the expansion of
Brownsville Elementary School, to accommodate anticipated growth in the
Crozet/ Brownsville areas (see letter dated December 15, 1992, to Mr. Perkins
from Ms. Ann Benner). Mr. Perkins stated that Mr. A1 Reaser might want to
comment on this matter. He is not sure there was a consensus of the group or
that a vote was taken as to which plan should be followed. He thinks the
people's concerns relate to redistricting, and that is a School Board matter.
With no one else coming forward to speak, Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. A1 Reaser if it would be possible to resur-.
face the Albemarle High School track before March, or if weather and money
would be problems. Mr. Reaser replied that the track could not be resurfaced
before March, and he agreed that both money and the weather would be problems.
He said that he has talked to a contractor, and April 15 would be the first
deadline to which the contractor would commit, as far as having the track
completed. Mr. Bain said he thinks most of the problems relate to the
weather. Mr. Tucker concurred. He went on to say that they will use asphalt
material to pave the track, and a certain number of days of warm weather are
needed for this. Mr. Bowerman commented that the track is in bad shape, and
track season starts in March. He understands the track cannot be used in its
current condition, because of safety problems. The track needs to be repaired
as soon as possible, and he feels that whatever arrangements need to be made
to shift monies into this project would be appropriate. Mr. Tucker responded
that the staff will consider the matter, and will keep this Board informed.
Mr. Perkins then commented that he did not know what more he could add to
the Peach Tree Babe Ruth League's request. He emphasized that there is a need
in the western area of Albemarle for more ballfields.
Mr. Bain said he had considered the idea of changing some of the priori-
ties around, such as moving Project Number 38, Crozet Park Building and Ground
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B.43, Pg. 76
(Page 19)
Improvements, ahead of Project Number 54, Western Albemarle High School public
address and master clock. He then called attention to the budget proposal for
Crozet which related to the installation of the two baseball backstops,
outfield fencing and infield work, which was scheduled for the upcoming fiscal
year. He emphasized that the priority list, however, does not show any of
this being done for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Mr. Tucker responded that he
would like to have the Parks and Recreation staff look into this matter. He
said that there was $85,000 funded prior to this, and he would like to know if
any of that funding is still available or if it has already been expended for
other improvements. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Tucker inform the Board
in January if there is a possibility that something might be done in the
upcoming fiscal year. Many children would be benefitted at a relatively small
price.
Mr. Marshall called attention to the Avon Street/Route 20 South connector
road. He said work is scheduled to begin on this road in the 1994-95 fiscal
year. He knows this road has been moved ahead several times, but he has many
reasons for requesting that this project be moved ahead as quickly as possi-
ble. He said getting businesses to move into the industrial park at Mill
Creek will depend on when the road is completed.
Mr. Bowerman said he understood the present improvements to Avon and
Route 20 would suffice until such time as the connector road is constructed.
Mr. Bain called attention to the funding of the Avon connector road as shown
in the Capital Improvements Program budget. He asked if this is the total
funding. Mr. Tucker responded that the total cost is shown in the CIP, but it
is hoped to obtain the developer contributions for the improvement. Mr.
Marshall stated that he would like to assure interested persons that construc-
tion on the Avon connector road will begin in 1994-95. Mr. Bain stated that
such decisions are not made a year ahead.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the contract for the engineering study for
the Avon Street/Route 20 South connector has been funded. This needs to be
done so it can go through VDoT approval before construction begins. He stated
that the monies have not been committed, although they are appropriated, but
the money which has been appropriated will take care of all of the engineering
work for that alignment so that the plans can go to VDoT for approval. He
added that the actual cost of the project will be clearer at this time.
Mr. Bain was interested in knowing when the engineering study would be
finished. Mr. Tucker responded that he is unsure of the timeframe, but he
noted that there is an allocation of almost $78,000 for this engineering
study.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that there are a number of projects which might
need something done soon, so this Board may want to consider a bond referendum
or split billing of the real estate tax. These projects are beginning to
escalate, and the costs are getting greater. He added that Berkmar Drive,
Avon Street and some other streets, as well as other public utilities, may
have to be done soon. Mr. Tucker said when the Board gets to that point, all
of those types of projects will be considered. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He said
this may be something the Supervisors will need to take to the public as an
issue, because the public has a right to participate in this decision. Mr.
Perkins concurred.
Mr. Bain said he will not commit to a bond referendum for these projects.
The Supervisors are elected every four years, and the public looks to them to
make these types of decisions. He added that these issues have been discussed
before, but it has never been decided that they were important enough for a
bond referendum. He thinks the percentage of the indebtedness in bonds has to
be considered, and the way to approach the issue is to decide if County
officials are comfortable with this percentage of indebtedness. He does not
think that roads and school projects should be put into one bond issue,
because the bond issue would be so large. He pointed out that the cost of a
new high school could be from $25.0 million to $30.0 million.
Mr. Bowerman said just one segment of the Meadow Creek Parkway is
estimated to cost $35.0 million, but several Supervisors have raised issues
concerning projects that need to be done soon. He is just saying that these
issues will need to be considered comprehensively, at some point, and the
Supervisors are going to have to make a decision as to how they want to
proceed. During this decision-making process, he thinks there should be
public input, because the projects appear to him to be adding up to a lot of
money.
Mr. Marshall said he wanted to make his point because the Avon Street/
Route 20 South Connector road is needed as quickly as possible. He then
called attention to Priority Items 11 and 12, shown under Expanded and New
Requests, relating to the County Office Building Renovation and Information
Services Computer Upgrade, respectively. He is curious as to what future
needs will be, such as an addition to the County Office Building. Mr. Tucker
replied that a determination has been made not to expand the County Office
Building and not to put any additional buildings on this site. Some of the
space needed for existing staff will be acquired when the Albemarle County
Service Authority and the other Federal and State agencies, who are currently
renting space, move to other locations within the next year or so.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 77
(page 20)
Mr. Marshall inquired if this will be all of the space that is needed for
existing staff. Mr. Tucker answered that this space will be adequate for a
few years.
Next, Mr. Marshall mentioned the computer system. He thinks that a
complete analysis is needed for this project also. Mr. Bowerman replied that
such an analysis has already been done. The computer system was looked at in
depth, and the total package was considered over a five-year period. The
report was given to this Board recently. The information reported at the last
joint School Board meeting, in terms of Information Services for the schools,
was part of that overall report, and it was explained, at that time, that it
is all being tied into one system to save money, etc. Most of the work is now
being done in the Information Services office, rather than splitting the work
between the Information Services office and the School Division offices. The
report was written in terms that the Board members could understand because
the first time he and Mr. Bain saw the report, it was full of terms they could
not understand.
Mr. Marshall then mentioned the County Fire Station, which he said is a
few years away. He remarked that one of the sites discussed for this station
is the same location as one of the ballfields. He wonders if the request for
putting in a lot of lights and upgrading the ballfield is wise. Mr. Bowerman
commented that he thought the proposed site for a fire station, a police sub
station and administration offices was in the Route 29 North area. Mr. Tucker
responded that a site is being considered in the Hollymead area. He added
that this site was donated by the developer of the southern Forest Lakes
development plan. Any type of satellite station, which is envisioned at this
point, will probably be temporarily put in rental space in the Route 29 North
corridor urban area. Later, a more comprehensive governmental substation will
be considered for the property in the Hollymead area.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that even the expansion of the County Office
Building would not affect the Lane ballfield. He said the Board will take
action on the Capital Improvements Plan in January after better financial
figures are available.
Mr. Martin recalled Mr. Bain's idea of putting all of the small school
projects into one bond issue.
Mr. Bowerman replied that the projects to which Mr. Martin referred are
all together in one package, and they amount to approximately $740,000. He
said that this package includes all of the recreational improvements to the
schools, plus other items.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board will vote on the total Capital Improvements
Program in January.
(Mr. Marshall left the room at 9:34 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on request to include property of
David Booth and Goco, Inc., in service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority; water service only to TM79,P19 zoned C-1; water service
only to existing structures to TM79,P18 zoned RA. Properties located at
inters of Rt 22 & Rt 250E. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1992.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer until
February 3, 1993, at the request of the applicant, this request to include
property of David Booth and Goco, Inc., in service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:35 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-92-10. Virginia Department of Forestry. Public
Hearing on Resolution of Intent to rezone 33.2 acs from R-1 to CO. Property
on S side of Fontaine Ave., E of US Rt 29 Bypass. TM76,P17A. Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and
December 8, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Resolution of Intent to rezone 33.2 acres from R-i,
Residential, to CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax
Map 76, Parcel 17A is located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue
east of the U.S. Route 29 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. This site is located in a designated growth area
(Neighborhood 6) and is designated for Office Service.
Character of the Area: The property is being developed for the
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night' Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 43, Pg. 78
Virginia Department of Forestry' Headquarters. Adjacent property
to the northeast is being developed for the University Real Estate
Foundation's (UREF) office park.
Proposal: The Resolution of Intent proposes to rezone the proper-
ty to CO, Commercial Office, to be consistent with the Comprehen-
sive Plan designation and to remove setback requirements for the
adjacent UREF development.
Planninq and Zoninq History: The property is owned by the Common-
wealth of Virginia and has been zoned R-I, Residential, as a
'holding' zone in case it might ever be sold to private interests.
The Board of Supervisors, on November 4 1992, passed a Resolution
of Intent to rezone the property to CO, Commercial Office, for the
reasons described in the following Summary and Recommendation.
Summary and Recommendation: Tax Map 76, Parcel 17A, is designated
for Office Service use in the Comprehensive Plan and is under de-
velopment by the Virginia Department of Forestry for its headquar-
ters with access from Fontaine Avenue. The existing R-1 zoning
poses potential problems for the adjacent UREF property, Parcel
76-17B, which is zoned CO with a development plan, and proffers.
Building setback from R-1 for CO is 50 feet with a 20 foot undis-
turbed buffer. There is no setback adjacent to commercial zoning
for CO except the building separation necessary to meet building
code fire ratings. To remove the residential setback requirements
from a property that is not developing residentially and to make
the Forestry Department property zoning match the type of develop-
ment occurring (which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan),
staff recommends rezoning of Parcel 76-17A from R-1 to CO."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
December 8, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-92-10.
(Mr. St. John left the room at 9:35 p.m.)
There were no questions for staff, so Mr. Bain, Acting Chairman, opened
the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Bain closed the public hearing.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved approval of ZMA-92-10, to rezone 33.2
acres from R-1 to CO, located on the south side of Fontaine Avenue, east of
the U.S. Route 29 Bypass, known as Tax Map 76, Parcel 17A. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain inquired if all of the regulations are being met on this
property, as far as grading, etc., and if the County will be responsible for
inspecting this project. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he is not sure. Mr.
Tucker said he is not sure if the Forestry Department's property is being
inspected by County personnel, but he knows of no problems that have arisen
with this property.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:37 p.m.)
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion which carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(Mr. Martin left the room at 9:38 p.m.).
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact
the Code of Albemarle in Article IX, Industrial Development Authority, Section
2-49 to add a subsection (h) reading: facilities for use by an organization
(other than an organization organized and operated exclusively for religious
purposes) whose purposes are exclusively both charitable and educational as
described in Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended ("IRC"), which is exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to
Section 501(a) of the IRC; and to amend Section 2-52 to increase the number of
outstanding bond issuances for the Authority from fourteen to fifteen.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1992)
Mr. Tucker stated that the Albemarle County Industrial Development
Authority has considered the application of the University of Virginia Darden
School Foundation requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in
an amount not to exceed $45,500,000 to be used to provide academic, adminis-
trative and conference facilities at the University's School of Business. He
noted that the Authority has recommended approval of the project, and the
staff recommends that Sections 2-49 and 2-52 of the County Code be amended as
presented. He also noted that it is necessary that a resolution be adopted
(Item #13 on tonight's agenda) authorizing the issuance of the bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
M.B. 43, Pg. 79
(Mr. Martin returned at 9:40 p.m., but left again).
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing, since there were no questions for
staff.
Mr. Steve Blaine stated that he is representing the applicant. He
introduced Mr. Mark Reisler, Associate Dean for Administration at the Darden
School, and Vice President for Finance with the Darden Foundation. Me said
that he and Mr. Reisler would be happy to answer questions.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Perkins then made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact the Code of Albemarle in Article IX, Industrial
Development Authority, Section 2-49 to add a new subsection (h), and also to
amend Section 2-52 to increase the number of outstanding bond issuances for
the Authority from 14 to 15.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE IN
ARTICLE IX, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Article IX of the Code of Albemarle, known
as the Industrial Development Authority ordinance be amended and
reenacted in Sections 2-49 and 2-52 as follows:
Sec. 2-49. Powers and duties qenerall¥.
The public and corporate powers of the industrial development
authority of the county are solely and exclusively limited to the
power to finance: (a) industrial pollution control facilities for
industries presently located in the county; (b) industrial plant
expansion for industries presently located in the county, requir-
ing minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the
substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents
and domiciles of the county; (c) new industrial facilities in the
county, which new industrial facilities shall be exclusively
limited to light manufacturing industries and research-oriented
industries requiring minimum local public utilities and providing
new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by
prior residents and domiciles of the county; (d) medical facili-
ties and facilities for the residence or care of the aged and
handicapped in the county; (e) multi-state, regional or national
headquarters offices or operations centers for research-oriented
businesses, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing
new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by
prior residents and domiciles of the county; (f) shopping or
service facilities which the industrial development authority of
the county finds are for the convenience of any of the aforemen-
tioned facilities or the employees thereof and the current resi-
dents and domiciles of the surrounding area, provided such shop-
ping or service facilities are compatible with the current compre-
hensive plan of the county; (g) airports and office and support
facilities relating to airports; and (h) facilities for use by an
organization (other than an organization organized and operated
exclusively for religious purposes) whose purposes are exclusively
both charitable and educational aS described in Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("IRC"), which is
exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to Section 501 (a) of
the IRC.
Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than fifteen bond issuances of the
industrial development authority of the county in existence at any
one time.
Agenda Item No. 13. Resolution: Albemarle County Industrial Development
Authority Bond Issue for the Darden School Foundation.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
M.B. 43, Pg. 80
Mr. Perkins offered a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution relating to the IDA Bond Issue for the Darden School
Foundation.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of The
University of Virginia Darden School Foundation ("Foundation")
requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an
amount not to exceed $45,500,000 ("Bonds") to be applied by the
Foundation for one or more of the following purposes (collective-
ly, "Project"): (i) to finance the construction and equipping of
an approximately 195,000 square-foot facility consisting of
multiple buildings to be located on the North Grounds of the
University of Virginia ("University") on Massie Road adjacent to
Sponsors Hall and the Recreation Center, between Arlington Boule-
vard and Alderman Road, in Albemarle County, Virginia for use by
the University's School of Business as an academic, administrative
and conference facility; and (ii) to fund certain reserve funds,
capitalized interest accounts and certain costs of issuance as may
be required by the proposed issuance of bonds (collectively, the
"Project"); and has held a public hearing on such proposed financ-
ing on November 23, 1992.
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having
jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over
the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of
private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of
the bonds.
The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the Projects are located in
Albemarle County, Virginia ("County"); and the Board of Supervi-
sors of the County ("Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County.
The Authority has recommended that the Board approve the
issuance of the Bonds.
A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance
of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon; the Authori-
ty's certificate of public hearing; and a Fiscal Impact Statement
have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by
Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the
Authority to assist in the financing of the project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds
of the creditworthiness of the Projects or the Foundation.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary
Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this resolution
will remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of
its adoption.
4. This resolution will take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
(Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 9:42 p.m.).
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend
and reenact the Code of Albemarle in Article IX, Industrial
Development Authority, Section 2-49 to add a subsection (i)
reading: facilities receiving loans through the Virginia Depart-
ment of Housing and Community Development from its Virginia
Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund; and to amend Section 2-
52 to increase the number of outstanding bond issuances for the
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
M.B. 43, Pg. 81
Authority from fifteen to sixteen. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 1 and December 8, 1992.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following Executive Summary:
"BACKGROUND: Acme Design Technology, Inc. has applied to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development for a
$700,000 loan through the Virginia Economic Development Revolving
Loan Program as a part of a financing package designed to keep the
company from having its assets liquidated through bankruptcy
proceedings and provide ongoing employment for approximately 110
workers. This Revolving Loan Program is structured such that the
County's Industrial Development Authority must be the conduit
through which the loan proceeds pass. The state program does not
require Board of Supervisor's approval; however, Section 2-50 of
the Code of Albemarle prevents the IDA from financing any projects
without Board of Supervisors' approval. Although technically not
a bond financing, the County Attorney's office felt that Section
2-49 of the County Code needed to be amended to provide for this
type of financing and Section 2-52 amended to increase the number
of outstanding issues. Lastly, the resolution (on file) will
provide the necessary approval for the IDA to participate in this
program.
DISCUSSION: The attachments (on file) reflect the terms and
conditions of the loan that the IDA is considering as well as
assurances from the State and County Attorney's Office regarding
the County's lack of financial liability in the project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance
amendments and adoption of the resolution authorizing the IDA to
participate in the project."
Mrs. Humphris called attention to the letter to Mr. Richard Huff from the
Department of Housing and Community Development, dated October 30, 1992. She
noted that the third paragraph of this letter states that the IDA is responsi-
ble for collecting payments, etc. She wondered what mechanism would be used
for these collections. Mr. Tucker replied that these collections will be done
through the County's Finance Department.
Next, Mrs. Humphris mentioned the letter to Mr. Richard Huff from the
Department of Housing and Community Development, dated December 10, 1992. She
noted that the first paragraph states that if a company defaults on a loan
and it becomes necessary to liquidate the collateral securing the loan, the
Authority will be required to coordinate the activities associated with such
liquidation. She asked if the County's staff would also handle these activi-
ties. Mr. Tucker answered that the County Attorney's staff would handle such
an activity. He stated that he understands any costs borne by the County
Attorney's Office will be reimbursed.
Mr. Khroner, representing Acme, introduced Mr. and Mrs. Hall, the owners
of Acme, to the Board. He said that he and the Halls were willing to answer
questions.
Mr. Jim Murray, Chairman of the Albemarle County Industrial Development
Authority, stated that the Authority Board members have asked that he inform
this Board that they feel the jobs at Acme are worth saving, and that this is
a project which needs this Board's attention. The Authority has in the past
been nothing but a passive conduit through which other people's funds have
been loaned, and the County has, mostly, been uninvolved, but this financing
involves the Industrial Development Authority as the nominal lender. He
called attention to two critical points. The first one is that the County
would be administering the loan and keeping track of the payments, etc.
Second, there is the credit risk of having to liquidate the collateral and
having to find a way to sell the machines and get rid of the hardware. He
noted that the County can be reimbursed, but it is still a burden that the
County is undertaking for the first time. He believes the small risks are
more than outweighed by the risk to the 130 families whose jobs are at stake.
He went on to say that because the County's name is on this loan, he wanted to
make it clear that there has not been a credit analysis or due diligence, and
he pointed out that there is no idea of the quality of the borrower. He added
that the Authority is relying on the State, and the Authority is simply doing
what the State officials have recommended. He stated that this whole loan
question raises some larger questions about the County's ordinance. He said
that the members of this Board have appointed some competent businessmen to
serve on the Authority, and he believes that these businessmen will be willing
to meet with this Board and talk about whether or not the ordinance should be
reviewed, particularly for this type of loan. He would be happy to arrange
this meeting. He concluded by saying that if this loan is approved, everybody
will be beneficiary, particularly Acme's employees, but it does highlight some
possible problems with the ordinance, and these problems deserve some study.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg.82
(Page 25)
Mr. Marshall said he would 'support this request. He does not know Mr.
Hall personally, but he knows his reputation as a businessman, and he is
impressed with what he has learned.
Mr. Marshall then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact the Code of Albemarle in Article IX, Industrial
Development Authority, Section 2-49, to add a new subsection (i) and to amend
Section 2-52 to increase the number of outstanding bond issuances for the
Authority from 15 to 16.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that the County would be required to liquidate
the secured assets in the event of default. She wondered who would know what
this equipment is, what the market is for it, and who would be interested
in buying it. Mr. Bain noted that Mr. Jim Bowling's December 10, 1992,
letter indicated that liquidating the assets would involve outside experts.
Mrs. Humphris stated that this does not give the Supervisors any assurance
that it will be possible to do. Mr. Bain responded that all the County has to
do is to provide the County Attorney's staff to help with the liquidation. He
assumes the County staff has clearly reviewed the documents from the State
Department of Housing and Community Development to make sure that the County
will be reimbursed if there is a default.
Mr. Tucker said he believes Mr. Bowling has reviewed this information.
Mr. St. John concurred. He went on to say that in the event of liquidation,
and if the plant and equipment do not bring enough to pay off the loan, the
County is not responsible for any deficiency. The lending authority is held
responsible unless there is a fraudulent act on the County's part. He pointed
out that the people involved are bonded with a fidelity bond, but he added
that~Mrs. Humphris' inquiry is a valid observation. The closing on this
financing will take place tomorrow, and he believes there will be a list of
the equipment included with the closing documents.
Mr. Khroner agreed that there will be a list of the equipment attached to
the security agreement, and these documents will be recorded in the Albemarle
County Clerk's Office and in the UCC Office in Richmond.
Mr. Marshall stated that he feels comfortable with this arrangement. The
Acme business is now diversified, and it is not the old visible record system
that computers have put out of business. He noted that the new name of the
company is Acme Design Technology, Inc., which he says indicates that the
company is getting into more and different things, and there is a good market
for these things. He inquired as to whether Acme has contracts ready to be
signed with the government. Mr. Khroner stated that Acme currently has some
government contracts in house and is working on others.
Mr. St. John emphasized that the County is not in any way responsible for
the success or failure of this project. Although Mr. Marshall has confidence
that the project will not fail, County officials need not be financially
concerned with the business' success or failure.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she believes everybody thinks this is a
wonderful thing to happen to this community. She then called attention to a
statement in the December 10, 1992, letter from the Department of Housing and
Community Development, which stated that the Virginia Economic Development
Revolving Loan Fund would be responsible for any losses and unpaid collection
cost. She believes this statement says it all.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE IN
ARTICLE IX, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Article IX of the Code of Albemarle, known
as the Industrial Development Authority Ordinance be amended and
reenacted in Sections 2-49 and 2-52 as follows:
Sec. 2-49. Powers and duties qenerall¥.
The public and corporate powers of the industrial development
authority of the county are solely and exclusively limited to the
power to finance: (a) industrial pollution control facilities for
industries presently located in the county; (b) industrial plant
expansion for industries presently located in the county, requir-
ing minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the
substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents
and domiciles of the county; (c) new industrial facilities in the
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
M.B. 43, Pg. 83
county, which new industrial facilities shall be exclusively
limited to light manufacturing industries and research-oriented
industries requiring minimum local public utilities and providing
new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by
prior residents and domiciles of the county; (d) medical facili-
ties and facilities for the residence or care of the aged and
handicapped in the county; (e) multi-state, regional or national
headquarters offices or operations centers for research-oriented
businesses, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing
new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by
prior residents and domiciles of the county; (f) shopping or
service facilities which the industrial development authority of
the county finds are for the convenience of any of the aforemen-
tioned facilities or the employees thereof and the current resi-
dents and domiciles of the surrounding area, provided such shop-
ping or service facilities are compatible with the current compre-
hensive plan of the county; (g) airports and office and support
facilities relating to airports; (h) facilities for use by an
organization (other than an organization organized and operated
exclusively for religious purposes) whose purposes are exclusively
both charitable and educational as described in Section 501(c) (3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("IRC"), which is
exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to Section 501(a) of
the IRC; and (i) facilities receiving loans through the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development from its Virginia
Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund.
Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than sixteen bond issuances of the
industrial development authority of the county in existence at any
one time.
Agenda Item No. 15. Resolution: Approve Funding for Acme Design Technol-
ogy, Inc.
Mrs. Humphris offered a motion to adopt the following resolution to
approve funding for Acme Design Technology, Inc. Mr. Bain seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development,
an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 501 North 2nd Street,
Richmond, Virginia, 23219, {the "Department) is the designated
agency to administer loan funds allocated by the General Assembly
of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia,
22902-4596, (the "Authority") is a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth, established by ordinance of Albemarle County,
Virginia, under the Industrial Development and Revenue Code Bond
Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, Acme Design Technology, Inc. (the "Company")
wishes to own and operate a plant that will produce filing and
storage systems which will require one hundred and ten full-time
jobs; and
WHEREAS, in order to promote the economic growth and develop-
ment of the Albemarle County community and to promote the welfare
of its citizens, the Authority, for the benefit of the Company,
has applied to the Department for a loan in the principal sum of
Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000) to be used by the
Company in its business;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the loan by the Authority for the
benefit of the Company, as required by Section 15.1-1378(12) of
the Virginia Code, and Section 2-50 of the Code of Albemarle, to
permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
M.B. 43, Pg. 84
(Note: The Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 13.)
Mr. Bain called attention to the resolution for the Darden School
Foundation. He said the fiscal impact statement shows no taxes, and he
wondered if the County will be able to collect real estate taxes from this
project. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." He said the Darden School facility is
primarily educational whereas the Health Services Foundation project was not
viewed in the same light since it is an accounting and collection conduit for
the Medical Center's staff. He added that these are two different entities,
and that is the reason the taxing ability is not recommended for the Darden
School Foundation.
Mr. Bain stated that this does not answer his question completely, but he
said that he would not make an issue out of it tonight. He believes such
things should be carefully examined, and he noted that the Darden School is
educational, but it is also a lot more than that. He said that this facility
seems to be closer to a research facility, and he called attention to the fact
that it is also a conference facility.
Mr. Murray spoke about the revenue that would be used to cover this loan.
He said it was pointed out that the revenues would come from the summer for-
profit programs where the Darden School will be educating executives from
outside of Charlottesville.
Mr. Bain said that is his point. The Law School and the Graduate
Business School are being considered totally as separate entities having
nothing to do with the University in terms of financing. He said these
schools are conducting programs all on their own, and they are making profits.
He added, though, that a lot of the profits are funneled back into the
University. He emphasized that a lot of money is involved. Mr. Tucker noted
that the matter will have to be considered in terms of ownership of the land.
Mr. Bain stated that the funding for colleges and universities is
changing, and it has been reduced considerably, and the professional schools
are a totally different thing. To a certain extent the professional schools
are profit-making entities. He emphasized that County officials really do
need to consider this matter.
Mr. Perkins wondered if these schools are tax exempt. Mr. Bain replied
that the schools are not necessarily exempt from real estate taxes. He said
that the schools which are private and non-profit would be exempt from some
of the other taxes, however.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these issues should be taken up with Planning and
Coordination Council members or with the State Legislature. Mr. Bain respond-
ed that he would rather examine the issue with PACC, first. Mrs. Humphris
suggested the Board members should have more information before they meet with
PACC representatives. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said that it is a complicated
subject. Mrs. Humphris commented that the Board members need to know the
right questions to ask PACC representatives, and they need to know how to ask
them.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain and Mr. St. John to work with Mr. Tucker to
develop some information so that the Board can take this matter to the next
step. He believes Mr. Bain is ahead of the other Board'members in terms of
knowing the issues that are involved with this matter. He added that it would
be good if the information that is gathered could relate to the City, County
and the University.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Discussion: Funding for Teen Center.
Mr. Tucker stated that the County's share to employ an Executive Director
for the Teen Center amounts to $5930, and the funding will run from February
through June. He noted, however, that the decision has not been made as to
who will supervise this individual and where the office will be located. He
said the staff is recommending, if the Board chooses to approve this
funding, that the $5930 be funded from the Board's Contingency Fund.
Mrs. Humphris brought out the fact that she noticed in the Teen Center's
request that there is an amount of $200 shown for food. She had thought the
children would be paying for their own food. Mr. Tucker replied that he sees
this request for money for food as an initiation amount to get the Teen Center
started. He said that the Teen Center's representatives will start asking for
a lot of donations, and they will be applying for grants, etc., and other
types of funding.
Mr. Martin stated that he understood that the Teen Center representatives
were proposing the actual cost of items, with the idea in mind that they would
be able to get a lot of donations, and the cost would not actually be there.
Mr. Perkins agreed with Mrs. Humphris. He said that food is something
that could be sold, and a profit made from it. Mrs. Humphris commented that
she does not think that people would expect to come to a Teen Center and have
these things provided for them. Mr. Tucker suggested that the supervisors
could reduce their funding by $100, if the cost of the food is a problem to
them.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 85
(Page 28)
Mr. Bain stated that he would rather leave the funding as it is, but it
should be made clear that the funding for food is probably not appropriate.
He said that the funding has to be estimated in the beginning, anyway.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that nothing has been budgeted for operating
expenses. She said that there will have to be a fund to pay for things such
as letterhead paper, etc., to start with, so she thinks the funds should be
left as it is. She added that she is just not sure the funding should
be spent for food.
Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution to transfer $5930 from the Board's Contingency Fund, as
its share to employ an Executive Director for the Teen Center from February,
1993, through June, 1993.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920026
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING OF COUNTY SHARE OF TEEN CENTER
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100071017110000
1100011010999999
SALARIES-TEEN CENTER
BOARD OF SUPV. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$5,930.00
(5,930.00)
$ 0.00
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Supervisors about their discussion at last week's
meeting concerning the Community Services Act relating to a regional approach
for funding for the City and County for social services for juvenile needs,
etc. He said that it was indicated at that meeting that application for a
grant had been made, and he has just learned that a grant of $350,000 has been
secured and will be a part of this funding source.
Mr. Bain stated that while reading some minutes of a Planning Commission
meeting, he became aware of a monopole cellular mobile system being installed
at Buck's Elbow in Crozet that did not require a special permit. He said that
he had asked for documentation, and he has received it. He added that he
thinks the Board should consider this situation, because it gets into the
question of what is a public utility and what is not. He said that if it is a
monopole, this Board does not have any right to approve or disapprove it, but
if it is a multi-legged system, then it is a different situation, and it does
require a special permit. He reiterated that he thinks this situation needs
to be examined, because it involves proliferation of towers, depending on the
nature of the tower, etc. He said that he thinks this Board needs to be aware
of the matter, and should address it in a comprehensive fashion. He suggested
that it be discussed at the January day meeting.
Mr. Marshall remarked that some time ago he had a discussion with Mr.
Bill Nitchmann about helping him (Mr. Marshall) develop an economic develop-
ment organization for the County. He said that Mr. Nitchmann has written a
document, which will be coming to the Board members some time in the future.
Mr. Marshall stated that he would appreciate it if the Supervisors would study
it and offer suggestions. He said that Mr. Nitchmann plans to take this
information to the Planning Commission first, but Mr. Marshall said that he
thinks it would be good if the Board members had a copy of it to study.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 10:12 p.m., Mr. Bain made a motion for the Board to go into executive
session for personnel matters to discuss specific individuals and their
positions; property disposition relative to the YMCA property; and legal
matters. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman noted that there is no action anticipated when the Board
finishes with its executive session.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
December 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 86
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 16b. Certify Executive Session.
(At 10:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session:)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following Certificate of an Executive Meeting:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has con-
vened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative
recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virgin-
ia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies,
and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in
the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed
or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris,
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
ABSTAIN DURING VOTE: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Chairman