Loading...
1993-01-13 M.B. 43, Pg. 106 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 13, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Yo Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jro, Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:44 p.m.) OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert Wo Tucker~ Jro~ County Attorney, George R. St. John; Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Agenda Item No. 4. PUBLIC. There were none. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph- ris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Item 5.6 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall~ Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Notice dated December 31, 1992, from Mr. Edwin C. Bearss, Chief Historian, United States Department of the Interior, that Shack Moun- tain, Charlottesville, Virginia, was designated a National Historic Landmark on October 5, 1992, was received as information. Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for December 15~ 1992, received as information. Item 5.3. Status Report on Implementing the Recommendations of the County's Recycling Program, from the Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, dated January 11, 1993, was received as information. Attached to Mr. Tucker's memorandum was a work program developed by Mr. Robert McKinley, Recycling Program Coordinator. Item 5.4. Memorandum dated January 7, 1993, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilim- berg, Director of Planning & Community Development, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests by the Public, was received as information. In his memorandum, Mr. Cilimberg indicated that a change to at least four times per year for Comprehensive Plan Amendments would be appropriate. However, since the staff will begin review of the Comprehensive Plan this year and the Board typically suspends the citizen amendment request procedure during review, staff recommends that this change be effective after completion of the Comprehensive Plan review. Item 5.5. Memorandum dated January 7, 1993, from Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr.~ Deputy Director of Finance, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu- tive, re: Sales Ratio Study, was received as information. Item 5.6. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of December, 1992, was approved by the above recorded vote. Agenda Item No. 6. CPA-92-02. South Fork Land Trust (to be deferred to no later than September 30, 1993). Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer CPA-92-02 to no later than September 30, 1993o Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-92-06 & SP-92-33. Donnie and Catherine Dunn (deferred from December 16, 1992). M.B. 43, Pg. 107 January 13, 1993 (Page 2) Mr. Cilimberg handed out the following letter dated January 13, 1993, from Mr. Fred S. Landess: "I am writing on behalf of Sanderstead Investment, Inc., owner of Dachlys Farm, which lies on the other side of Route 601 from the Dunn property, which is the subject of the above zoning and special permit request. Unfortunately, I have a conflict and cannot be present at your meeting tonight, and, therefore request you please review this letter on behalf of Sanderstead. Although we recognize the Board adopted Section 5.1.33 of the County Zoning Ordinance to cover this type of use, we do not feel that a commercial operation such as the one proposed by Mr. Dunn is appro- priate in that location. The area in question is currently all agricultural, forestal or very low density residential. Even though Mr. Dunn's application is based on 'natural resources extraction,' in effect, he is proposing a commercial operation within this area. There will be substantially increased traffic from (1) construction activity to build the bottling facility~ (2) employees of the facili- ties going to and from work and (3) tanker and/or delivery trucks hauling the finished product. State Route 601, in this area, is a difficult, narrow and winding secondary route, and is certainly not designated for such traffic. Insofar as the effect on the area in general and specifically on adjoining properties, there is no diffe- rence between the type of operation proposed by Mr. Dunn and any other commercial operation which would involve employee and delivery traf- fic. In addition to the general problem of a commercial operation being located within the agricultural area, there is a more specific problem which is detrimental to Dachlys Farm. Waters from the springs, which Mr. Dunn intends to bottle, flow into streams which in turn flow through the Dachlys Farm property. These waters are very important to the cattle operation being conducted on Dachlys Farm, and any substan- tial reduction in this flow would be of great detriment to Dachlys Farm. The staff report in regard to this operation talks in terms of 30,000 gallons a month. However, it is our understanding this figure is a bare minimum and Mr. Dunn has indicated he needs to bottle about 200,000 gallons in order to make his operation profitable. This reduction in volume could have an impact on Dachlys Farm and ulti- mately upon the future water supply for the entire communitye since the water eventually flows into Buck Mountain Creek, on which the future reservoir for the public water supply is anticipated to be built. Therefore, because the location of the commercial facility within the agricultural area is inappropriate and will have a detrimental effecte not only on Dachlys Farm but on all the surrounding properties, and because the extraction of substantial quantities of water will have a substantial impact on Dachlys Farm and the community water supply, it is respectfully requested you deny the applications set out in ZMA-92-6 and SP-92-33. In addition to the reasons stated above, Sanderstead Investment, Inc., also endorses the position and information supplied by Mrs. Marjorie Paul, in both her oral presentation and written communication with the Planning Department and the Board." Mr. Cilimberg then presented the following memorandum dated January 7, 1993, from Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner: "Attached (on file) please find information submitted since the last Board of Supervisors' review of this request. The Board of Supervi- sors deferred these items in order to allow review of a letter sub- mitted by Ms. Paul, dated November 4, 1992, and to obtain additional professional input on this matter. I will address each item of her letter, independently, based on research and conversations with the applicant. The capture of water is not specific as to 'product' or 'operation'. The 20 percent limit on capture is an absolute limit on all spring water withdrawal. The applicant intends to use collected spring water for both operation and product water in order to avoid the cost for a well. However, the use of wells may be necessary. The proposed method used to sanitize the operation is hot water and/or steam. The use of disposable and pre-sterilized bottles is also envisioned. The use of chemical disinfectants is not envisioned. The disposal of all operation water and domestic waste must be into a Health Department approved system, most likely a standard septic drainfield. The issue regarding maintenance of the bridge is, in the opinion of the applicant, a private matter. Staff sees this as a private agree- ment not subject to this special use permit. M.B. 43, Pg. 108 January 13, 1993 (RegUlar Night Meeting) (Page 3) Regarding questions on procedures for monitoring the facility, the County will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions of the special use permit as it is for all special permit conditions. The bottling facility operations and product are regulated by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services with the assistance of the Health Department. The question of access, both public roads and crossing the flood plain of Buck Mountain Creek, has been raised particularly as it relates to chemical spills. As stated previously, chemical disinfection of equipment is not proposed. Chlorine may be used to sanitize water. However, the applicant is considering UV or ozonization as methods of disinfection. Neither of these processes involve chemicals. There are no special precautions proposed for handling of chlorine if it is used. Possible erosion caused by vehicles during rainy periods and the impact of the use itself, particularly fuel storage, chemical storage, etc., will be addressed at the time of site plan review in order to ensure adequate accessibility and that any environmental concerns or hazards are mitigated. Staff has pursued comments from professionals in order to address the impact on adjacent property water sources. Attached (on file) is a letter from Mr. Terry Wagner with the Ground Water Program at the State Water ContrOl Board addressing this issue. Also attached (on file) is a map showing the approximate distance relationship of existing downstream wells to Buck Mountain Creek. The closest mapped well is approximately 1000 feet from the bottling facilitY and 400 feet from the creek. A second letter from Mr. Tom Gathright of the Division of Mineral Resources is also expected. He has Verbally indicated an opinion similar to that stated by Mr. Wagner." Mro Cilimberg said any erosion that may occur on Route 601 and the impact of the proposed use on the site are issues addressed during site plan review. Staff contacted individuals from the Department of Mineral Resources and State Water Control Board to get their opinion of the effect of spring water extrac- tion on ground water in the area. The comments were consistent in that there should be no real effects on ground water. The Board has received a copy of the comments provided by Mr. Wagner and Mr. Gathright. Mr. Wagner states "As long as the person who is operating the spring does not make any physical alterations to augment the flow of the spring and only captures water after it has been expressed as surface flow, I would expect no impacts on existing ground water supplies. The only circumstance that I can envision where such a withdrawal would have the potential to impact a water supply would be a situation where a well is drawing water from a near surface aquifer that is closely hydrologically connected to Buck MoUntain creek down stream from the spring. In my opinion, for an impact to occur, the well would have to be located very close to the creek and receive a significant amount of water from the creek through recharge to the aquifer. I d© not believe that this combination of circumstances is likely°" Mr. Gathright's comments are generally more about how wells affect springs, but he does comment in the second paragraPh "Springs are present at those locations where the water table intersects the ground surface and the spring discharge is driven by the hydrologic gradient or slope of the water table. The discharge rate of a spring is governed by the amount of precipitation falling within the recharge area of the spring. The discharge cannot be practically increased or de- creased from its natural rate and has no influence on the discharge of other springs." Mr. Cilimberg said he also talked with Mr. Peyton Robertson, former Water Resources Manager for the County about his opinions and some of the comments expressed in his report. Mr. Robertson did recall that his comments were directed not only at what he thought might be the potential for the future reservoir and the water supply in that reservoir but were also directed at what he felt would be the affect on more immediate downstream water supplies. His basic feeling was that there would not be a significant or detrimental impact. Mr. Cilimberg said after receiving some of these comments he discussed with the County Executive whether there was a need to hire someone to go out to the site and expend County funds to do a more site specific analysis. Considering the comments they were getting on the general and expected affect of spring water withdrawal on ground water in adjacent areas, they did not pursue that and agreed that it probably was not necessary. They did not consider it to be a good expenditure of public funds. Mr. Cilimberg said at the November 11, 1992, meeting, the Board asked staff to determine the meaning of the word "minimum" as suggested by the League of Women Voters. The League rec6mmended that withdrawal be limited to 20 percent of minimum flow of each spring and that the County establish standards by which withdrawal would be measured. Mr. Cilimberg said to make that determination a field analysis and monitoring over an extended period of time would be required. The staff assumed that the League's intent was to limit total water withdrawals to a maximum level. The Planning Commission discussed whether the 30,000 gallons per month requested by the applicant was a minimum or maximum. The staff does not know and does not have knowledge of M.B. 43, Pg. 109 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) what the flow is in that area. If maximum flow is used as a condition, it would have to be based on a number agreed to by the Board and the applicant. He does not feel he could advise the Board on what that number should be. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks Mr. Wagner's analysis is based on the _ circumstances as he knows them, but he does not address the potential draw down or the affect on other individual's ground water supply in the event of one or more commercial wells. In his letter~ Mr. Gathright states: "Reports of well interference with springs or other wells are very rare in Albemarle County". As a lay person she challenges that statement. Board members are familiar with West Leigh~ Meriwether Hills~ Westwood and Kearsarge. All these subdivisions lost their water supply and the Albemarle County Service Autho- rity had to extend their service lines. These incidences might be rare, but when they occur they are major events. .She was totally confused by the statement in the memorandum from Mr. Fritz: "As previously stated~ chemical disinfection of equipment is not proposed. Chlorine may be used to sanitize water." On the first page of the memorandum it states: "The use of chemical disinfectants is not envisioned." Mrs. Humphris said chlorine is a highly toxic and dangerous chemical. In the event of spillage of chlorine at the station on Observatory Mountain, there is an alarm set to go off to allow immediate evacuation of student dorms. The idea of chlorine being used to sanitize water is confusing. Mr. Cilimberg said the reference to no chemicals being used applied to the operation and the equipment. The product, bottled water, may need to be chlorinated to meet drinking water standards. Mrs. Humphris asked if the chlorine would be stored on site. Mr. Cilimberg said only if the water is bottled on site. Mrs. Humphris said at the November 11 meeting she stated that she felt the Board needed to know the maximum flow of each spring and information about the quantity of water to be used because of the potential impact on neighbors and the future Buck Mountain public water supply. She is also concerned about the location and size of the septic field. Mr. Cilimberg said of the total water flow, four-fifths will continue as surface flow and one-fifth of the water will be bottled. Mrs. Humphris commented that the Board does not know how much is one-fifth. Mr. Cilimberg said according to the applicant, the minimum needed is 30,000 gall°ns per month. Mro Cilimberg said the staff did not get into any detailed discussions on the possible establishment of wells for this operation. Wells are a separate issue and not requested with this sPecial permit. Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant would have to come back before the Board before drilling any wells. Mr. Cilimberg said it would depend on whether the Board made that a condition. Mr. Marshall said he is not as concerned about the dangers of chlorine as it is being used in this capacity. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Donnie Dunn, the applicant, said he was not requested to provide any additional input or information after the November ll meeting. He will take this opportunity to respond to questions from Board members. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Dunn about the maximum flow from the springs to be used in the operation. Mr. Dunn said he has been looking at an average of ten gallons per minute of flow from each individual spring. Mr. Bowerman asked if the flow is ten gallons per spring or ten gallons total. Mr. Dunn said the springs will be supplied by rain waters and at times the flow will be swifter than other times. Therefore~ there may be instances where the flow is 20 or 25 gallons per minute from any one of the springs. He thinks that on an average each spring should yield approximately ten gallons per minute. Mrs. Humphris then asked what is the anticipated total flow per day per spring. Mr. Dunn said if a spring yields ten gallons per minute that equates to 600 gallons per hour which would be approximately 4000 to 5000 gallons per spring per eight hour day° Mrs. Humphris asked the amount of water to be used in the operation° Mr. Dunn said he is requesting a minimum of 1000 gallons per day which is what he feels will make the operation viable. All the water would go into a holding tank at the bottling facility. If the bottling is done on site, then it would be that amount of water coming to that facility each day to be bottled. Extra water might be used for keeping the facility clean. He is hoping to utilize the same water from the springs for cleaning purposes and for bottling. Mrs° Humphris said it was her understanding that the 20 percent of the flow to be removed included the amount to be bottled and the amount to be used in the operation. Mr° Dunn said that is C°rrect. Mrs. Humphris asked hOw large a septic field is anticipated to handle the flow. Mr. Dunn said he does not anticipate a large septic field for this facility. The size of the septic field depends on whether there will be a support structure or office facility on site. He envisions this as a small operation~ not on the scale of a large industrial facility. M.B. 43, Pg. 110 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Mrs. Humphris said that if 75 percent of the 20 percent is going to be used in the operation and go into the septic, she still has no idea how much that is because she does not know what the 20 percent is. Mr. Dunn said he is not prepared to give an exact figure on how much flow would go into the septic field. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has no way of knowing whether this site has a location for a septic field because so much of the site is in the flood plain. Mr. Dunn said 100 feet of setback is required from Buck Mountain Creek. He does not foresee a problem in finding an adequate location. Mrs. Humphris said the Board does not have a lot of information. The request is for an unknown quantity of water to be discharged into an unknown size septic field in an unknown area in the flood plain. The septic field for this request is not the same as one for an individual's home. This is a lot of water that has to flow through a system. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has not had any input from the Health Department as to the kind of disposal system they would require or the size of the septic system. He does know the requirements for setback from the flood plain and he does know they have to meet the required waste for disposalpermitting of the Health Department. Mrs. Humphris asked if there could be a problem with finding a septic area if the Board approves the permit° Mr. Cilimberg said that is a possibility with most permits. Mr. Cilimberg said without the Health Department actually reviewing the plans, staff does not have this information. Mro Martin said, not having dealt with this particular type of issue before~ if the water going to the septic field has been heated and steamed with clean sterilized material, it would be the same as washing his car without detergent and having that same water run back into the ground. Mrs. Humphris said she is not talking about the quality of the water, but the quantity. Mr. Martin said it seems like this discussion is about a version of clean water going back into the land. Mrs. HUmphris Said it does not matter whether the water is clean or not because the water has to go into a septic system and the system has to be of a size to accept the water or there will be water on the surface. (Mr. Perkins arrived at the meeting at 7:44 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris said no matter how clean the effluent~ it has to flow through the system. Mr. Bowerman said he is hearing that without knowing the processing requirement it is difficult to size the septic system° He also is hearing that it is possible the applicant might use a treatment method other than steam. If chlorine, for example, were used for sterilization, or some other chemical, or if there was residue of some kind, this would all go through the septic system and these would require Health Department a~proval for the size of the lines. Mrs. Humphris is raising those issues now ~n an attempt to understand the total amount of water being used, not just what is being bottled and taken off site. Mr. Dunn commented that if there has to be sanitization, he can purchase containers that are already sanitized and ready for the water to be put into and shipped. Mr. Bain asked when Mr. Dunn would know whether he will have to drill a well to support the facility. Mr. Dunn said he will not know if he needs a well until the facility is in operation. He should have more information after site preparation begins. Mr. Dunn said if the Board approve~ this request, he would like some flexibility in the 20 percent capture rate from the springs. Mr. Marshall asked if the excess water not used for bottling could be stored and used to wash equipment. Mr. Dunn said that could be done. He then suggested adding a condition that no well can be established in conjunction with the bottled water facility without approval of a special permit by this Board. The Chairman then asked for public comments. MSo Marjorie Paul, presented the following statement: "I am Marjorie Maupin Paul and I own property adjoining the Dunn property. I was here on November 11, with many questions concerning this special permit. To date I have received only a few answers but what I have learned in the meantime has raised many more concerns both about this special permit and about the way Albemarle County transacts business with its citizens. We are not all treated equally, it seems. First, I would like the record to show that the adjoining property owners were not notified of this meeting until after the Friday deadline for submitting information to the Board. (That is why Mr. Landess could not be present at this meeting.) However, I found that the Planning Department had notified Mr. and Mrs. Dunn by letter dated December 23, 1992. I was told on January 7, 1993, that Mr. Cilimberg would call me later that day to verify the date of this meeting. To date, Mr. Cilimberg has not called.me. There now appears in the file a notarized affidavit from Mr. Cilimberg certifying that the notices were sent on January 7, 1993. The notary dated the document January 8, 1993. I am not sure what we are trying to show by this affidavit. M.B. 43, Pg. 111 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) My question on this issue is why were we not notified at the same time as Mr. Dunn. On November 11, you asked for expert information to be gathered so you could make an informed decision about this matter. When the experts had not been found by December 10 the matter was deferred to a January date. Not only has the Planning Department not answered my questions but they have not answered your questions either. Their comments on these questions reflect greater reliance on conversations with the applicant than on independent research. In Mr. Fritz's memo dated January 7, 1993, to Mr. Cilimberg, he talks of 'proposed' methOds of sanitation and that chemicals are not 'envisioned,' however he does not address the impact of any failure to conform to these plans. In addition while he states the 20 percent limit of capture is an absolute limit on all spring water withdrawal he admits the use of wells may be necessary for 'operation' water. No impact of such extraction of well water is discussed nor is the source of well water addressed° Would the wells be on Dunn's property or would he haul it in from some one else's property? I presume the well water will be withdrawn from the same source as my well water. With regard to maintenance of the bridge, staff appears to accept the opinion of the applicant that this is a private matter although approval of the bridge was the subject of a special permit approved by this Board to permit access to a private dwelling and not as an access road to a commercial enterprise. (The County Attorney seems to be suggesting that it is not a private matter.) I must say I have little confidence that the County has the resources for effectively 'ensuring compliance with conditions of the special permit,' nor are there any remedies if changes in the planned use under the special permit create water shortages in the surrounding area. In fact, there has been construction using backhoe equipment with the flood plain near the bridge since we last met here and there does not appear to be a permit for this activity on file with the County. I do agree with at least one comment in Mr. Fritz's memo: ~There are no special precautions proposed for handling the chlorine if it is used.' In fact, no precautions of any kind in the operation of a bottling plant have been provided for! The memorandum concludes with references to letters, from Terry Wagner and Tom Gathright. These experts have sent generic statements dated December 14, 1992 and January 11, 1993; however, we do not know exactly what they were asked. There is no documentation concerning what Mr. Gathright was requested to provide other than the first paragraph of his own letter. However, in paragraph three Mr. Gath- right answers my question about pumping water wells very clearly: ('If pumping wells are located near springs, streams or other water wells they may effect(sic) the discharge rate of the springs, the yield of the nearby water wells, or the flow rate of the stream.') Please remember that the use of well water for operation has not been ruled out. In paragraph four he states the fact that Albemarle County well water yields are commonly very low due to the geologic make up of the area. Both of these letters address general statements concerning springs and well water and neither individual visited the site. In an effort to suggest that wells in the adjacent area would not be affect- ed by the bottling operation, Mr. Fritz states that 'the closest mapped well is approximately 1000 feet from the bottling facility and 400 feet from the creek'. He is well aware, as am I, that other unmapped wells are clearly within this boundary. In my opinion, no commentary on the impact of the bottling facility on the local community could possibly be made without visiting the site, measuring each spring's flow, and determining the availability of well water supply as well as estimating the water requirements of the proposed facility for both 'product' and 'operation' water. It was this kind of scientific evidence that I believe you, the Board, asked for at our last meeting and which continues to elude us. I may not have gotten all my questions answered but I have learned an awful lot about water, springs, wells, environmental pollutants, etc. Basically, what I have learned in a nutshell is that if Mr. Dunn has as much water coming from his springs as he seems to think, then his springs are supplying most of the water in Buck Mountain Creek and if you allow him to remove it, not only will those doWnStream be denied the use of the water, but it will be removed from Albemarle's and possibly Virginia's hydrologic environment° Because the water flowing in Buck Mountain Creek recharges the groundwater along the way and provides moisture for evaporation into the atmosphere as well as irrigation for the farmland downstream~ any water that is used along January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) M.B. 43, Pg. 112 the way is generally returned to the same area from whence it came and the cycle recharges itself. But, if you take the water out of the system and send it to New York or California, you are further deplet- ing Central Virginia's total water supply. Therefore, you must consider that the removal of water at Buck Mountain Creek has the same impact as if you bottled that water here in Charlottesville from a spigot. As a matter of fact, those of us downstream from Mr. Dunn would request that if you permit him to bottle Albemarle County water, that it be collected in Charlottesville, so that Buck Mountain Creek water would continue to be available to us as it is now° Further, you have requested that the amount of water be determined and to date no one seems to know what that number is. We really have no baseline upon which we can determine what woUld be a significant impact on the local area's groundwater supply. It does not appear that the experts were asked for this kind of detailed analysis. While this sort of detail may not be important t© the planners~ it is critical to the continued viability of my property° My studies have shown that this area of Virginia gets less rainfall than many surrounding areas because the Blue Ridge Mountains tend to act as a snow fence thereby forcing the rain producing clouds farther to the east. Therefore, the water to replenish the groundwater supplies in northern Albemarle is of a limited amount and our wells are low yielding as noted in Mr. Gathright's letter. After all that I have learned about the water shortage in our County, I am not only totally opposed to this special permit, but I am hereby requesting that you, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ rescind Ordinance 5.1.33 Spring Water Extraction and/or Bottling as a means of protecting our precious water supply. No one should be allowed to commercially remove our water from our environment. The study that went into Ordinance 5.1c33 was equally as shallow and flawed as we have witnessed in this process. Please vote "no' on SP-92-33 and ZMA-92-6." Mrs. Paul then asked those persons present who agree that this permit should be denied to stand. (Seven people stood.) Mr. Neil Goodloe, a resident of Buck Mountain Subdivision~ approximately three-quarters mile from the location of the proposed facility, said he is also concerned about the request. He asked if the 20 percent is minimum stream flow or 20 percent of average stream flow. Mr. Cilimberg responded the 20 percent is of all flow at any time. Mr. Goodloe asked if the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has been asked if this operation would affect the creek and the wildlife. Mr. Bowerman responded "no". Mr. Goodloe said that is also his concern. In addition he is a recreational boater. He canoes on that stream. Any water taken out of that stream lessens the number of days he can use the stream recreationally. He is also concerned about heavy truck traffic on Route 601. Bottling trucks up and down that road would be detri- mental to anyone trying to get to and from Charlottesville. Mrs. Catherine Dunn said she would like to speak to some of the issues raised tonight. The traffic situation has already been addressed. All size trucks~ i.e.~ pepsi trucks, water trucks, trucks that are not going to the Ivy Landfill use that road. After reading the statements from Mr. Wagner and Mr. Gathright she was confident that this business would not interfere with Mrs. Paul's water problem on the other side 6f the mountain where she already has her rental units. The only person she feels this operation might affect is the owner directly above Cool Springs Hollow who is Mr. Roger Rogan. The Board has a copy of a letter from Mr. Rogan and he is excited about this venture. She then handed in a petition with signatures of people in support of the request. Mr. Dunn then commented that he has lived in this area for a long time, and he has never seen any canoes in that area. At this time, the Chairman closed the public hearing again. Mr. Perkins asked if any additional conditions were proposed. Mr. Bowerman said the only specific condition addressed so far is not allowing the use of a well. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has been unable to get the information it - needs to provide some understanding of this request. She has accumulated a thick file on this request° For example~ the League of Women Voters requested that withdrawal be limited to 20 percent of minimum flow of each spring because they felt it would be good stewardship of the County to establish clear standards by which withdrawal were measured. The Board cannot establish any clear standards because it does not have any good hard numbers to deal with. She noted a letter, dated November 25, 1992, from Mr. Curtis Wood who strongly urged the Board to get factual information on the amount of natural spring water flowing from each of the springs and to be aware of the potential maximum amount of the water to be used.. The Board received new material M.B. 43, Pg. 113 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) tonight from the owners of a farm across the road. expressing concern that there may not be water for their cattle if this permit is approved. She is particularly concerned with Mrs. Paul's last statement. Mrs. Paul is correct about the water supply in Albemarle County. The County alreadY has water problems. She believes that given the lack of information, and the fact that this would allow a critical natural resource to be diverted from the County's public water impoundment, that the Board should not Proceed with this applica- tion. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion to deny Zl~ 92-06 and SP-92-33o Mr~ Bain seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins said there are questions that need answers but he thinks that rather than deny the request, the Board should take whatever time is necessary to get those questions answered. He thinks the Board is dealing with an issue here where it is not going to get any concrete answers. He thinks Mrs. Humphris' husband could go out with his dowser rod and get as good an answer as anybody else. The letter from the geologist states: "To the best of their knowledge this will not influence other people's water supply .... " Mr. Bain said he does not have a problem with deferring this request to get responses to the questions. He is not happy with the information the Board has received. He thought the Board would be getting some more specific information and something more site specific. He also thinks the letters are fairly generic° Mr. Perkins said he thinks that is all the Board will get. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks part of the problem is that the applicant is unsure of the Board's feelings and does not want to commit a lot of resources to defining the way he will bottle and market the product. He is willing to defer the requests because he thinks the Board is lacking a lot of informa- tion. This is the first time the Board has looked at a request like this. He thinks the request deserves a thorough review, but he hOpes that the Board does not spend a lot of time at the next meeting getting to the same point and still not have the information needed. Mro Perkins said he thinks that a list of questions the Board wants answers to should be prepared and provided to Mr. Dunn for a response. It is up to Mr. Dunn how much expense he is willing to go through to provide those answers. Mr. Perkins said he would like to know specifically what is the amount in gallons that flow from each spring. Although concern has been expressed about Mr. Dunn digging a well, he has about five development rights which means that he can dig five wells if he develops the property. The issue then is which is going to have the most impact on the surrounding neighbors~ five additional wells or this permit. Mr. Bowerman commented that if the Board knew the volume of water to be used for the operation, it could probably answer that question. Mr. Martin said after listening to the conversation he thinks it would be a good idea for the Board to look at some type of control mechanism where if the special permit is approved and as a.result something happens that affects someone else's property or some other detrimental situation arises, the special permit would cease or the request would come back to the Board for review. Although he does not know if it is possible, he thinks that would help the situation. Mrs. Humphris said there is a danger in giving somebody encouragement to establish a business and then stepping back and saying this is not working and it cannot be done. Mr. Martin said that is something that should be discussed when the Board discusses this again. He thinks the Board should also discuss some of those types of mechanisms. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the real issue Mr. Martin is getting at is if there are issues beyond site plan approval which deal with monitoring and with follow-through on the part of the County that would ensure certain things° He suggested defining those first and then determining if the County can monitor and enforce them. Mr. Martin said most questions he has heard tonight are along the lines of what if certain things happen in the future, what if someone's property loses the ability to have water and what if the Buck Mountain Reservoir is actually affected by this permit. The only way the Board will get answers to those questions is by waiting to see what happens. He thinks the Board needs to look at certain mechanisms that could have some control if these situations occur° Mr. Marshall said he agrees with what Board members are saying. He has never seen a business that has not done some type of feasibility study and a prospectus. If the Board had that information, it could make a decision. This is Albemarle County water and it is a precious resource and the Board should have some more information. He does not think enough information has been provided. Rather than deny the request he would prefer to defer it to get that information. Mrs. Humphris then withdrew her motion. Mr. Bain withdrew his second. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion to defer Board consideration of ZMA-92-06 and SP-92-33 until such time as the Board has the information. Mr. Bowerman suggested Mr. Dunn be provided a letter °utlining the discussion in this meeting and specifying what the Board needs answers to. Mr. Tucker suggested staff look at some alternatives bringing them back to the Board on February 3 for the Board's information, i.e., whether the State can provide some on-site analysis and monitoring or if a consultant will be needed° M.B. 43, Pg. 114 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mrs. Humphris said it is obvious the Board is treading in new territory and needs help. In addition, this is a sensitive issue because of the impact on other individuals and the community and the precedent that might be set° What would happen if ten people in the community wanted special permits to bottle water? Mr. Tucker suggested the Board defer these requests until February 3 and the staff report on what it has found and provide a better idea of how long the requests will need to be deferred to get the information. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Mrs. Humphris requested the minutes on this portion of the meeting be provided on February ~. (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 8:14 p.m.) Mr. Perkins said the figure of 20 percent does not mean anything to him unless he knows what the flow is. He then asked Mr. Dunn how many gallons he needs a day to make this a feasible operation. · Mr. Bowerman commented that on February 3 the Board will decide what information it is seeking and set a date by which to get the information. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mro Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (At 8:24 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:29 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Expansion of service area for sewage treatment plant and central well system located at Keswick for compliance with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman said this agenda item is not necessary because the Board reviews the sewage treatment plant and central well system as part of its review of the special permit applications. This item was, therefore, removed from the agenda. Mr. Bowerman said last summer his company furnished fitness equipment to Keswick Acquisition Corporation for equipping their physical fitness room. He does not consider that a conflict, and unless Board members object, he will participate in the discussions. There was no objection. Mr. Cilimberg then gave the staff's reports on SP-92-57, SP-92-58 and SP-92-59: Agenda Item No. 8. SP-92-57. Keswick Acquisition Corporation. Public Hearing to allow 2 flood plain crossings of Carroll Creek for pvt rd construc- tion. Property located in Keswick Country Club development & E of Fairway Dr is zoned RA. TM80,P8(east),8F&109A. Rivanna District° (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 29, 1992 and January 5, 1993) "CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The flood plain crossings are located on either end of an existing lake in an area that is presently undeveloped. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the flood plain crossings to accommodate private road construction for internal access to 33 lots proposed in SP-92-58 for Keswick Acquisition Corporation. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY~ The history of this property is extensive. The most applicable review to this request is SP-86-03 (Tom Curtis, Trustee). On March 4, 1986, the Board of Supervisors approved the petition to allow activity in the flood plain of Carroll Creek for the purpose of completing general renovations to the golf course and the construction of Club Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan states a number of concerns for activity in the flood plain including: "Encroachment into flood plain lands by development and other inappropriate uses can result in increased danger to life, health and property; public costs for flood control measures, rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources, and general degradation of the natural and man- made environment' (1989-2010 Comprehensive Plan, Page 61). The Comprehensive Plan states as a strategy to preserve water quality: 'Restrict all clearing, grading and construction activities to the minimum required for the proposed development' (page 67). This site is not located in a designated growth area. STAFF COMMENT: The locations of the flood plain crossings are shown on Attachment A (on file) and consist of: M.B. 43, Pg. 115 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) An earthen dam with access road proposed to be con- structed allowing access via Cedar Lane to 17 residen- tial lots. Broadmoor Drive proposed to cross the existing Broadmoor Dam for the purpose of providing access to 16 residen- tial lots. The Engineering Department and Water Resources Official have reviewed this proposal. The Engineering Department has stated their support of this submittal and the Water Resources Official will require a major water quality impact assessment (see Attach- ment C-on file). Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In consideration of the Engi- neering Department and Water Resources Official final approval, the stream crossing should not harm adjacent properties and should not change the character of the district° Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-92-57 subject to the following condi- tions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAls: Compliance with all local, state and federal permit require- ments pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream; 2e Department of Engineering approval of crossing designs to ensure compliance with Section 30.3; 4e Water Resources Manager approval of a major water quality impact assessment; and Add to the design limitations that there shall be no rise in the 100-year flood elevation at the north property line adjacent to the railroad tracks and the southern property line adjacent to Interstate 64. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the subdivision request (SP-92-58), and the Board of Supervisor subsequently act to deny SP-92-58, staff recommends a deferral (or denial as submitted) of the flood plain crossing request until a revised (possibly by-right) subdivision plat is resubmitted and reviewed as a part of this request. In order to provide indepen- dent review and to clarify the recommendation to the Board as to this proposed use (flood plain crossing) and its effect on the adjacent properties and the character of the districts the Commis- sion may want to assume Board approval of the subdivision request (SP-92-58)." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-57 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-58. Keswick Acquisition Corporation. Public Hearing to amend SP-85-53 to allow the subdivision of 280.2 acs which is comprised of 30 parcels of record, into 75 residential l°ts With an average size of 3.3 acs to be served by pvt rds. Property bounded by Chesapeake Railroad to the N, Black Cat Rd (Rt 616) to E, 1-64 to S, & Hacktown Rd (Rt 744) & Keswick Rd (Rt 731) to W, is zoned RA & EC. TM80,P's8,8F,8D4,8D2,8J,8C, 8D3,8T,8Z(part),21A,27,29,31,41,41A,43,60,60A,62,70,69,70A,61,96, 97,100,109A, 106&TM94,P42A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 29, 1992 and January 5, 1993) "SECTION 15.1 - 456 REVIEW: As required by the Code of Virginia, the Planning Commission must review the requeSt to serve the proposed lots with the existing sewage treatment plant and central well system for compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission must determine that the location, character and extent of the use is in accord with the adopted plan. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The Keswick area is basically character- ized by farms, large estates and large lOt developments, with scattered single-family residences. There is also a significant number of small lots in the area as shown on the tax map (Attach- ment A-on file). The proposed application plan shows the existing country club area and golf course, the proposed golf course expansion, existing parcels, and 280 acres of land primarily in vacant and woodland uses proposed to be subdivided (Attachment M-on file). Presently, 15 single-family residences are existing on private roads within the development west of Carroll Creek. Royal Acres Subdivision, approved prior to 1969 and approximately M.B. 43, Pg. 116 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 40 percent developed, is located to the west, while Shadwell Estates and Milton Heights, also approved prior to 1969, are to the south across Interstate-64. The Keswick 'center', consisting of the post office, general store and fire station located at the intersection of Routes 22 and 731, is approximately one-half mile to the north of the entrance to the country club area. The entire area shown on the Keswick Application Plan is approxi- mately 600 acres. In addition to the parcels proposed for further division with this request, there are 46 parcels of record, including 24 owned by the KeswickoCorporation, which are not involved in the subdivision proposal (Attachment C-on file). A summary of the status of other projects within the development is included as Attachment D (on file). APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to create 75 lots to be served bY the existing sewage treatment plant and central well system° Extension of the services requires the Section 15.1.-456 review and because the service will be provided to more than 50 users, a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) is required. In order for 'Keswick Utility Company' to obtain this approval, the Board of Supervisors must adopt a resolution allowing applica- tion to be made to the SCC. The resolution is contained herein as Attachment E (on file). The applicant is proposing continued use of the internal private road system which is currently being upgraded to meet Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) mountainous terrain standards. Being reviewed concurrently are special use permits for the golf course expansion and two flood plain crossings to construct private road access to 33 of the proposed lots. A letter from the applicant stating justification for the requests is included herein as Attachment F (on file). The application plan is included at the end of the report as Attachment M (on file). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not demonstrated the 75 proposed lots can be self-supporting with well and septic systems in accordance with Zoning.Ordinance requirements for the Rural Areas and staff opinion is a development of this scale, proposed to be served by central utilities, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends denial of SP-92-58 for the subdivision, and recommends the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors find the Section 15.1-456 request to extend the service area for the sewage treatment plant and central well system inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING ~ISTOR¥: The history on this property is extensive. The following is a summary of the reviews most appli- cable to this application. (SP-85-53) Tom Curtis - Special use permit to allow the subdivision of 37 single-family residential lots on 284 acres located south and east of the golf course was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 4, 1985 after the Planning Commission had recommended approval on August 20, 1985 (see action letter included as Attachment G-on file). This action required Health Department approval of two septic drainfield locations on each proposed lot. The lots were never platted, however~ the special use permit is still valid° (SP-92-21) Keswick Acquisition Corporation - Request to amend Condition #5 of SP-85-53 to allow Club Drive to be a private rather than public road was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 17, 1992. Central Sewer System Review - On June 4, 1986 the Board of Supervisors approved a request, pursuant to County Code Section 10-18, to establish a central sewer system to serve 43 lots and the club and inn facilities (see Attachment H for map-on file). Central Well System Review - On November 14, 1984 the Board of Supervisors approved a request, pursuant to County Code Section 10-18, to construct two wells to establish a central well system. A request to construct a third well was approved on the Board's Consent Agenda on October 31, 1990. The system was designed to serve 56 residential lots and the club and inn facilities. (CPA-84-11) Keswick Country Land Trust - Request for a resolution of intent to study an amendment to the Com- prehensive Plan to allow for the development of the PUD (ZMA-84-20) was denied by the Planning Commission on M.B. 43, Pg. 117 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) October 9, 1984. The applicant continued to pursue the rezoning request after denial of this request. The development proposed as a part of the CPA review was similar to the PUD plan. (ZMA-84-20) Keswick Country Club Land Trust - Request to rezone 491 acres from RA to PUD was denied by the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1985. The plan proposed the development of 147 single-family detached dwelling units of which 80 units were located in one cluster with a total acreage of 35 acres (density of 2.28 d.u./ac) and the remaining 67 units/lots totalled 204 acres (average lot size of 3.05 acres). The gross density of the proposal was one dwelling unit per 3.3 acres. Twenty- six of the lots were proposed to be served by a central water system and individual septic tank systems. The other lots were to be served by central water and cen- tral sewer systems° COMPP.~HENSIV~ PLAN: The property is designated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. In summary, staff opinion is the proposed subdivision (SP-92-58) and the request to extend the service area for the sewage treatment plant and central well system is incon- sistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Issues related to the Comprehensive Plan will be discussed in detail in the following sections of this report. STAFF COMMENT: This portion of the report will be presented in six sections as follows: I. Processinq the Request as an Amendment to SP-85-53: The Zoning Administrator has determined that this subdivision request can be processed as an amendment to SP-85-53 as an 'expansion' of that special permit because it is simply an extension of the subdivision utilizing the same infrastruc- ture, design guidelines, and the like. A map showing the properties added since the review of SP-85-53 is included as Attachment I (on file). The Zoning Ordinance provisions that the original special permit (SP-85-53) were approved under in 1985, allowing the creation of 37 lots, are no longer in the Zoning Ordinance° Upon adoption of the Rural Preservation Development provisions in 1989 (ZTA-89-13)~ special use permits for Rural Area development were limited° The current Zoning Ordinance makes no provisions for: Variation in lot size since two methods of RA by-right development are allowed. Lack of special use permit for lot size variation makes rural preservation development more attractive. Rearranqement of lots from multiple parcels which, instead, can be ~ccommodated by-right under rural preservation development. In accordance with the Zoning Administrator's determination that the current subdivision request can be reviewed as a amendment to SP-85-53, the staff has reviewed $P-92-58 utilizing the Zoning Ordinance regulations in effect before the 1989 ZTA. As in SP-85-53, the applicant proposes the same number of lots as permitted by-right, however, since a change of lot size is proposed and the subdivision involves the reconfiguration of multiple parcels, the amendment to the previous special permit is required. The applicant has submitted a conventional development scheme to demonstrate that no more lots are being achieved by the application plan proposal than could be under current by- right regulations. The conventional development scheme appears to meet basic Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements except demonstration of primary and reserve drainfield on each lot. This issue will be discussed at length in Sections III and IV of this report. The conven- tional development scheme does not make allowance for the area of golf course expansion as shown on the application plan for SP-92-58. It should be noted that the applicant submitted a rural preservation development scheme for preliminary staff review. It was the staff's opinion, with general concurrence by the applicant, that the plan presented did not adequately address the design standards or intent of the rural preservation M.B. 43, Pg. 118 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) -~ development option and that it would be difficult to justify this scale and type of development under this Rural Area option. Subsequently, the decision was made that the subdi- vision could be processed as an amendment to SP-85-53. II. Special Use Permit Criteria For Subdivision In The Rural Area: The existing criteria (Section 10.5.2.1) utilized in deter- mining if the proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is essentially the same criteria utilized in the 1985 review of SP-85-53. The criteria are directed primarily at increased development. In this case~ the issue is whether tracts greater than 21 acres in size should be maintained for future agricultural/forestal pur- poses or whether a lesser lot size should be authorized and allow reconfiguration of multiple tracts. Therefore~ staff analysis will focus on Criteria 1-5 which deal with the suitability of the land for agricultural/forestal uses and the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. The size, shape, topoqraDhy and existinq veqetation of the property in relation to its suitability for aqricul- tural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Aqriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virqinia Department of Forestry° 2o The actual suitability of the soil for aqricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Depart- ment of Aqricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. The site consists of gentle slopes ranging from two to 15 percent. Areas along streams and bluffs consist of hilly and steep slopes with some slopes in excess of 25 percent. The majority of soils on the site are Manteo Channery Silt Loam. This is a very shallow soil with bedrock at ten to 20 inches. The predominate land use except for the golf course is woodland of marginal quality. Due to the soils' shallow depth and low fer- tility, the area is not'considered to be a high quality hardwood producing soil and agricultural potential is limited to primarily low grade pasture-land. The appli- cant's soil analysis estimates only two percent of the area in proposed lots, golf course and roads are prime agricultural soils and, in fact, approximately 80 per- cent of the site consists of soils which have signifi- cant limitations for agricultural and forestal use. The historic commercial aqricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reason- ably available° The County land use records show that none of the prop- erty involved in this proposed development is currently under preferential land use taxation. The applicant has stated there is no historical record of agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950 with the excep- tion of 29 acres formerly owned by CSX which appears to have been clear cut and planted in loblolly pine approx- imately ten years ago. If located in an aqricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this sec- tion, a property shall be deemed to be in an aqricultur- al or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial aqricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In makinq this determination, mountain ridqes, major streams and other physical barri- ers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. Staff analysis indicated the property is not located in an agricultural or forestal area as only 46 percent of land within a one mile radius of this site is in agri- cultural or forestal use. M.B. 43, Pg. 119 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Se The relationship of the property in reqard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this secti°n,a prop- erty shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50} percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In makinq this deter- mination, mountain ridqes, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. Staff analysis indicated the property is not located in a developed rural area as only 20 percent of the land within a one mile radius of this site consists of par- cels less than five acres in size° The applicant's letter of justification states 80 percent of the parcels within a one mile radius of the site are less than five acres. It should be noted that only one of the previous special use permits for Rural Area division reviewed since 1980 has satisfied Criteria 5. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed 33 requests for subdivision by special permit with 16 of the 33 being requests for change in lot size. Of these 16, only one request has been denied° In summary, this property does not appear well-suited to agricultural/forestal uses, therefore, staff can deter- mine no general public benefit in terms of maintaining larger tract (i.e.-greater than 21 acres) for such use. In addition, staff analysis indicates the property is not located in an area of predominantly agricultural or forestal land uses. III. Area And Health Requlations During the review of ZMA-84-20 (Keswick PUD) and SP-85-53, issues were raised as to the.physical ability of the property to support the development. Section 4.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires Rural Area lots, not served by a central sewerage system, to contain a building site including ade- quate area for location of two septic drainfields as approved by the Virginia Department of Health. This requirement was a condition for the 37 lots approved in SP-85-53. The applicant has provided a conventional development scheme which indicates the proposed number of lots (75) could be accommodated in a layout which meets basic ordinance require- ments (road frontage, two acre minimum lot size, etc.). However, the applicant has not demonstrated the subdivision could be physically self-supporting as designed in either the conventional scheme or the application plan. Health Depart- ment approval of drainfield locations has not been pursued° (The applicant is proposing to serve the 75 lots and existing lots within the development with the sewage treatment plant.) Development rights are theoretical in nature and, in general, the intent of the Rural Area district~ and the area and health regulations is to allow subdivision only when the proposed lots can be self-supporting. Although the applicant has shown the conventional development scheme can be laid out to meet Rural Area design requirements, staff opinion is the applicant has not demonstrated the property can physically support the claimed number of development rights without preliminary Health Department approval. Analysis of the soils study indicates approximately 74 per- cent of the area consists of soils with severe restrictions for septic drainfield locations, therefore, development potential of the property may be severely limited without use of the sewage treatment plant. A major concern regarding the use of the sewage treatment plant is the lack of drainfield sites on each lot to provide an alternative sewage disposal method if the plant cannot be operated by Keswick Corporation or a future owner due to any financial or other complica- tions. The Albemarle County Service Authority has stated similar concerns in a letter from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, dated October 23, 1992 (Attachment J-on file; and also Attachment K-on file, a staff memorandum from 1985 regarding concerns related to private central systems). IV. 15.1-456 Review (Includes Resolution for SCC Application): M.B. 43, Pg. 120 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) The sewage treatment plant and central well system already exist, but have not previously been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, however, they were approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 10-18 of the County Code. A review for compliance with the Comprehen- sive Plan is now required for the sewage treatment plant and central well service extension beyond the area originally stated to receive service. The sewage treatment plant was approved in 1986 to serve 43 lots (see Attachment H for map- on file). The central well system, located in the southeast corner of the property, was approved in 1984 and 1990 to serve 56 residential lots (locations not specified) and the club and inn facilities (described as 50 equivalent residen- tial connections). The applicant proposes to serve the 75 proposed lots and existing lots and facilities with these utilities and the establishment of the Keswick Utility Compa- ny (see Attachment L for map of proposed service area-on file). The capacity of the sewage treatment plant is based on the quality of the effluent from the plant. It is possible to serve more lots by changing the processing procedures within the plant. No building expansion would be necessary, howev- er, a revised Health Department approval would be required for the processing change. The central well system was designed for 106 total equivalent residential connections. Tests from January, 1992, monitored by the Engineering De- partment, indicated a total draw for the three wells of 101.13 gallons per minute equating to 202 equivalent residen- tial connections. If a fourth well is necessary to serve this development, Board of Supervisors approval would be required in accordance with Section 10-18 of the County Code. A Comprehensive Plan objective states, 'do not allow residen- tial development in the Rural Areas which requires (emphasis added) central water and sewer systems' (p.206). A Compre- hensive Plan strategy states, 'only allow independent water and sewer systems in the Rural Areas under an adopted County permitting process consistent with rural residential policy and requiring design to ACSA standards~ (p. 152)~ Chapter 10, Article III, of the County Code, establishes the process for Board of Supervisors approval of central sewage and water systems, but it is based on engineering design, inspection, and regulations and not rural residential policy. This 15.1- 456 review, thus, constitutes the policy review. The Compre- hensive Plan states that the 'provision of independent cen- tral utilities outside of growth areas is inconsistent with the growth management policies of this Plan if they allow development over and above what would have been achieved with individual well and septic systems' (p. 152). As noted earlier, the applicant has not attempted to verify that the proposed lots could be sustained on individual systems. The Comprehensive Plan encourages central systems to be designed to ACSA standards to protect the public's interest in the event that the systems fail and must be taken over by the ACSA or Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA). Private systems are a concern because they may require the County to assume responsibility should the systems fail or otherwise become a burden. In the previously referenced Attachment J, the ACSA states several concerns regarding the proposed utility including: Neither the ACSA or RWSA reviewed the design of the sewage treatment plants nor inspected or tested the facilities during construction. Operating the sewer system would be cumbersome without owning the water system. · Impact on ACSA uniform rates (i.e.-The Keswick plant would be ~subsidized' by other customers). Future liability to ACSA occasioned by ever-changing state and federal regulations which could impact the facility. (Note: Mr. Brent's letter recommends the County require a bond, endowment or other means to ensure fiscal accountabili- ty of the utility company to its customers and the public. The County Attorney has advised staff that the County may not be able to lawfully require this. A bond cannot be held indefinitely and must have a default date within reason.) M.B. 43, Pg. 121 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Staff opinion is this request to extend the service area for the sewage treatment plant and central well system facilities is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: The utilities appear to be serving more lots than could otherwise exist under Rural Area zoning allowances. 2e The utilities have not been designed to be consistent with ACSA/RWSA standards. Should the Board determine the request is consistent with the Plan, the Board needs to adopt the resolution approving the application of Keswick Utility Company to obtain a Certifi- cate of Convenience and Necessity from the State Corporation Commission (SCC)~ included herein as Attachment E. Once a facility of this type serves-50 or more residential lots, it is considered a public utility (immune from condemnation by ACSA) and requires $CC approval. The proposed service area shown on Attachment L indicates the applicant's intended area of service for the water and sewer utilities and is presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for informational purposes. The final boundaries of the service area will be determined by the SCCo V. Other Comprehensive Plan Issues Relative To The Subdivision: This special permit would allow the rearrangement of lots on multiple parcels creating 75 lots. As proposed~ the develop- ment would consist of a total of 121 lots (46 existing par- cels and 75 proposed lots)~ club and inn facilities~ and 27 holes of golf. While no specific minimum or maximum popula- tion or dwelling unit standards have been set for the County's growth area designations, the scale of this request appears to be more of a Village scale and not consistent with the scale intended for the Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan does provide a series of scales for residential develop- ment (p. 155). As with density standards, these recommenda- tions cannot be considered as absolutes, but should be regarded as guiding principles for both private developers and County decision-makers. e Limit rural residential developments to a maximum of twenty dwelling units. Develop conventional developments at up to seventy-five dwelling units. The appropriate locations for conven- tional developments are designated Villages~ Communi- ties, and the Urban Area. 3e Require unified planned developments for projects with 75 or more dwelling units. The appropriate locations for unified planned developments are designated Communi- ties and the Urban Area, and in those Villages which can support this scale of development (p. 155). Furthers Comprehensive Plan strategy states~ 'Permit ... rearrangement of lots on multiple parcels only if the appli- cant can demonstrate that the new arrangement is clearly superior because it provides an environmental or public benefit' (p. 205). Approval of this request would establish a development consisting of 121 lots, with a country club served by a sewage treatment plant and water system. The request provides no verification that the proposed lots could be developed using well and septic On-site. The proposal for sewage treatment in lieu of septic to support these lots is justified as an environmental benefit and environmentally sensitive areas are proposed to be protected in the new golf course and with easements on new lots. It is staff opinion that, while these proposals provide some environmental bene- fits~ the basis for the development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: No verification has been provided demonstrating that the proposed lots could be self-sustaining with on-site well and septic. Therefore, there appears to be more lots proposed than could otherwise exist. Se The proposal is not consistent with the character and scale for Rural Area development. 3. No clear public benefit has been identified. M.B. 43, Pg. 122 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Staff opinion is that approval of this proposal would create a Village scale development, and a Comprehensive Plan Amend- ment process to designate this area as a Village would be a more appropriate review process to determine if a development of this scale should be permitted in this area. However, it should be reiterated that in,1984 the Planning Commission denied a resolution of intent to study this area for a Com- prehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-84-11). VI. Summary of Issues/Recommendations/Actions To Be Taken: The application plan has been revised to address staff recom- mendations as to physical layout, including compliance with the recommendations of the Open Space Plan. The major issues to be addressed in the Commission and Board review of this development is the scale of development in the Rural Areas and the proposal for utilization of central utilities to serve the property. As identified by staff, the following is a list of issues favorable and unfavorable to this proposal: Favorable Approval would allow this property to deVelop under a cohesive application plan. This property is not located in an area of predominantly agricUltural or forestal land uses and does not appear to be a property well-suited to agricultural or forestal use. Provision has been made.for compliance with the recom- mendations of the Open Space Plan (recommended condition of Approval #5). Unfavorable The applicant has not demonstrated the 75 proposed lots are self-supporting with well and septic systems and, therefore, it is highly questionable whether this number of lots could be developed without service by the sewage treatment plant. The provision of independent central utilities outside of Growth Areas is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan when they allow development over and above what would have been achieved with individual well and septic systems. The Albemarle County Service Authority~s concerns regarding the establishment of the Keswick Utility Company as stated in Mr. Brent's letter of October 23, 1992. The scale of the development appears to be of a Village scale rather than that intended for the Rural Area. The property is not located in an area considered to be a developed rural area. Staff opinion is that the factors unfavorable to the request are significant as compared to those favorable to the request and, therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-92-58 for thesubdivi- sion, and recommends the Planning Commission and Board of Supervi- sors find the Section 15.1-456 request to extend the service area for the sewage treatment plantand central well system inconsis- tent with the Comprehensive Plan. List of Actions to be Taken: Section 15.1 - 456 Review - Determine if the extension of the service area for the central utilities is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2e Resolution for Application to the $CC - If the Board of Supervisors finds the utilities comply with the Compre- hensive Plan, thus approving the request to serve the development with central utilities, the resolution included herein as Attachment E must be adopted. If the finding is non-compliance and the request is denied, no action is necessary. M.B. 43, Pg. 123 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 3 $P-92-58 - Staff does not recommend approval of SP-92-58 without approval of the sewage treatment plant service area request o__rpreliminary Health Department approval of drainfield locations. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve SP-92-58, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Development of the subdivision shall be in general accordance with the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated August 25~ 1992 and revised October 26, 1992; 2e 3e Approval of SP-92-59 for flood plain crossings to allow private road construction; Water Resource Manager approval of a water quality impact assessment; 4e Compliance with State Corporation Commission requirements for water and sewer utility services; Se In the review of future plats and plans, provision shall be made for protection of stream valley areas located on pro- posed lots by the conveyance of additional open space and/or resource protection easements to the homeowner's association or other entity agreeable to the developer and the County for the purpose of permanent protection of these areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-58 subject to the five conditions recommended by staff the following sixth condition: 6o The utility service shall be limited to the boundaries as shown on Attachment L in the SP-92-58 staff report except for: (1) Future extension to Tax Map 80~ Parcels 93-95; and (2) Allow- ance for extension in cases of septic drainfield failure emergencies of presently developed parcels located adjacent to the Keswick Estate property as delineated on the application plan. Mr. Cilimberg said in addition, during review for compliance with Section 15.1-456 of the Code, the Planning Commission found the proposed utilities service area expansion to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bain asked what were the specific reasons for the applicant not doing a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said it is his understanding the applicant was concerned about timing and some of the issues that arose during review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Rivanna Growth Area. In addition, the applicants did not feel they were trying to begin a growth area in this location; they wanted to complete the plans that had always been expected 'for Keswick. Mr. Bain asked if separate rates could be charged by the ACSA if the ACSA had to take over the public utility due to failure. Mr. St. John said higher rates could be set if the cost of operating the system is higher. An ACSA service area can be classified higher as long as there is a rational basis for the difference. Mro St. John added that this system will be governed by the State Corporation CommisSion (SCC). If the sodom fails, the SCC has the authority to appoint a trustee to manage the system. Mr. Cilimberg handed out a letter dated January 13, 1993, from Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Development Planner, Keswick Corporation, requesting an amendment to condition #6 of the Planning Commission's recommended conditions. Keswick Corporation proposes that the "Keswick Utility Company to include al! those parcels of land which are contiguous to the lands currently owned by Keswick Corporation which are bounded within the larger area of State Route 616~ State Route 731, State Route 744, Interstate Route 64 and the CSX Railroad right-of- way." Agenda Item No. 11. SP-92-59. Keswick Acquisition Corporation. Public Hearing to allow expansion of golf course within Keswick Country Club develop- ment from 18 to 27 holes. Property bounded by existing golf course & Club Dr to N, Black Cat Rd (Rt 616) to E, 1-64 to S, & Hacktown Road (Rt 744) & Keswick Rd (Rt 731) to W is zoned RA & EC. TM80,P's8,8C,8D2,8D3, 8D4,8J, 8Z(part),9,9A,29,31,41,41A,43,60,60A,61,62,69,70&70A. Rivanna Dist. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on December 29, 1992 and January 3, 1993.) M.B. 43, Pg. 124 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) "Character of the Area: The area (81.8 acres) for the golf course expansion is presently undeveloped. The application plan being reviewed with SP-92-58 proposes 32 lots adjacent to the new golf holes (Attachment E-on file)o The golf pavilion (clubhouse) located at the entrance to the development is occupied. Eighteen holes of golf exist primarily on Parcels 8Z and 8 (east)° The golf maintenance facility located on Parcels 60A and 62 is nearly complete° Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to expand the golf course from 18 to 27 holes.' The golf membership will consist of 450 members residing within a 75 mile radius of Charlottesville and Keswick and 250 'Country Golf'Members' who live outside of this 75 mile radius. (Refer to Attachment C-on file for a descrip- tion of the operation.) Planninq and Zoninq History: Since at least the mid-1940's, that portion of the Keswick property, not occupied by private resi- dences or lots, has been operated as a golf course with accessory recreational facilities. Other recent golf course requests in the County include: (SP-86-79) Phil and Mary Sheridan - Request to allow a nine hole golf course on a 129 acre parcel, zoned RA, was approved by the Board of Supervisors in July, 1987 but it has yet to be constructed. (ZMA-90-19) Frank Kessler - Included in this request to rezone approximately 1200 acres to PRD was a proposal to construct the Glenmore Country Club with an 18 hole golf course on 155 acres. The request was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December, 1990 and construction on the golf course is complete. Comprehensive Plan: This area is not located in a designated growth area. This site is located in Rural Area II. STAFF COMMENT: There are no crossings of perennial streams by the golf course except Hole #3 which traverses Carroll Creek from west to east. This flood plain crossing was previously approved by SP-86-03 for Tom Curtis. Any encroachment in the Water Resource Protection Area will require approval of a water quality impact assessment. It is anticipated that if the master plan is approved, an overall water quality impact assessment will be pre- pared for the entire development. Consistent with the approvals of the golf courses previously mentioned, staff recommends a condition requiring Engineering Department approval of a phased grading plan to reduce concerns for potential erosion hazards resulting from a large-scale grading project° The applicant is agreeable to this condition. The applicant has proposed maintenance of a 25-foot wide buffer adjacent to lots not a part of the Keswick Estate and is of the opinion the proposed improvements (golf course expansion and residential lots) will not change the character of the area and will, in fact, enhance the character and value of the neighborhood (Attachment D-on file). In addition, the golf course can provide some public benefit in that it allows for the preservation of sensitive environmental areas in open space. Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with Section 31.2.3.1 and: 1) in consideration of the proposed wooded buffer and phased grading plan, staff opinion is this use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent.property; and, 2) because the existing golf course has operated in this area for approximately 50 years, the character of the district should not be changed by the expansion. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-92-59 for Keswick Corporation subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood plain of Carroll Creek in accordance with section 30°3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordi- nance (compliance with SP-86-03); Water Resource Manager approval of a water quality impact assessment; 3° Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan to include a phased grading plan. The amount of January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) M.B. 43, Pg. 125 e grading to occur on-site shall be limited to three (3) holes at any one time. Al1 grading shalI be stabilized during the winter months. Further grading will not be permitted until constructed holes are.stabilized t° the satisfaction of the County Engineer; Maintenance of a 25-foot wide wooded buffer adjacent to residential lots not a part of the Keswick EState; Development of golf course shall be in general accor- dance with the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated August 25~ 1992 and revised October 26~ 1992. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15~ 1992, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of SP-92-59 subject to the conditions recommended by staff, but deleting condition #4. Mr. Bain felt the condition recommended by staff that: "Maintenance of a 25 foot wide buffer adjacent to residential lots not a part of the Keswick Estate" should be included if the Board chooses to approve this request. The Chairman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. John Clarkson, President of Ashley House, owner of Keswick Corpora- tion, said their plan is to put together a development that ensures a success- ful future for Keswicko He thinks this is a good plan which makes the best use of relatively poor land zoned for agricultural/forestal use° The land has limited residential development. This plan attempts to conserve and protect the rural environment. Mr. Clarkson described the condition of the property when the applicants first came to look at it and the potential they saw. The applicants are pleased with the progress that has been made~ the community support and what has been accomplished so far. He believes it is vital to the applicants and the community to be able to continue the development. The applicants looked at what was already approved for the property, looked at what was there on the site and considered the best way to match that with their plans. A lot of effort has been put into the golf course to preserve the wetlands. The applicants tried to blend the home sites into the natural environment with low density and high quality homes. Mr. Clarkson said the applicants felt a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be controversial and totally unnecessary. They felt a special permit would be a more sensible approach to achieving everyone's objectives. This project is a massive commitment for Ashley House and a long term investment; it is not a quick development. The applicants tried to get the best all around results by making the best use of the land, the area, producing an economic benefit and providing a public benefit. As a newcomer to the area, good relationships are fundamental and important to them. Mro Clarkson said the Board's approval for private roads in Keswick Estates, a couple of months ago, set the stage for this development. These requests before the Board tonight are the next natural steps. Denial would put the whole momentum of the development at serious risk but approval would enable the applicants to move forward and hopefully provide to the community with a major public benefit° Mro Pete Bradshaw, Development Planner for Keswick Corporation~ said the Comprehensive Plan is a general blue print for the development of this County. The Zoning Ordinance and other County ordinances are implementation tools of the Plan. As Mr. Clarkson said, the applicants did consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment but did not go that route for various reasons. To maintain community support, the applicants decided to request an amendment to the existing special use permits which would also allow the Board to use the flexibility that is in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bradshaw said the issue concerning the sewage treatment plant is unusual in that the plant is already in place. He could understand the Board's hesitancy if the applicants requested this system on a parcel of land that had no history. There are obvious public benefits to this system. The applicants never tried to prove septic locations. The applicants did consult with soil scientists to see if septic locations could be found and after about 150 holes, they considered the efforts were fruitless and decided not to continuer The applicants feel they hav~ met all the criteria that for issuance of a special use permit. This is not a true agricultural/forestal area; the soils are poor. This is a unique situation. This property is located on an interstate highway; it is close to an interchange; the transpor- tation system is good; and utilities are in place. There is no danger of setting a precedent° Mr. Bradshaw said based on a conservative estimate of an appraised value of $600,000 for each residential unit at build out~ this project would bring additional tax revenue in the amount of $1.2 million to the County. It is important to consider the public benefit. The Chairman then asked for public comments. M.B. 43, Pg. 126 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Gordon Wheeler, a resident of Keswick, said he represents the people who live within the Keswick Country Club property. He has seen the ups and downs of this property and he supports these requests. The developer has worked with the property owners within the area. The development will - increase the value of property in the Keswick area. He can foresee nothing but increased revenue to the County from this development. This development will not only serve the Keswick area, but the club and golf course will serve the entire County. He urged the Board to approve the special permits. Mr. Archibald Craig, a resident of Keswick, said he supports the special use permits. Everything Keswick Corporation has done so far has been first class. The roads, the underground utilities, the sewage facility, the golf course are all top notch° It is quite dramatic to see the transformation from the former rundown~ bankrupt development to what is now being created in their midst. This development is good for Keswick~ the public and the County. He urged the Board to support the requests. Mr. William Framptom, a resident of Keswick, and President of the Southwest Mountain Coalition, said the Coalition's purpose for the past four years has been to protect open space areas. They have been absolutely adverse to development in this part of the County; however after reviewing the proposed development by Keswick Corporation, the Coalition is completely supportive. The Coalition thinks this project will benefit the Keswick community and to the entire County. Ms. Ginny Decker, President of the League of Women Voters, presented a statement (on file) relating to the expansion of service area for the sewage treatment plant and central well system located at Keswick. The League is concerned that the County is in a situation where it has a waste-water treatment plant in an area not planned for growth and not built to the Albemarle County Service Authority~s design standards. Ms. Decker said the decision the Board makes tonight could have far reaching implications on this historic and scenic rural area. Ms. Decker then summarized reasons the League feels the request should be approved and reasons for denial of the request° The League thinks that the Board should make sure that growth is limited to the Keswick Club property. Ms. Pat Schuler, owner of Foxcroft Farm which originally was part of Keswick Country Club, asked what the plans are for a buffer along her property line. Mr. Bradshaw said Keswick Corporation proposed a 25-foot buffer of woodlands to run along the property boundary° The area between Ms. Schuler's property and the golf course will remain wooded and access will be through an internal transportation system. Mr. Jim Ballheim, speaking on beha%f of Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC)~ said PEC recommends the Board approve these requests and take whatever actions as necessary to see that this project goes forward° The applicants have addressed all the concerns that PEC had. Mr. Reuben, Hitchcock~ resident of Keswick, said Keswick Corporation has taken an absolute wreck and transformed it into a high quality development with low density. The applicants have worked with the property owners to address their concerns. The residents do not want this area made into a village° This is a "grandfathered" development and it will add money to the County's tax base. Mr° Peter Hallock, a resident of Keswick, said the applicants have worked closely with the community. The residents feel this is a workable plan and is good for the neighborhood. Ms. Jerri Lee Chaffin, a resident of Keswick, said she originally had many concerns about this project moving forward. Keswick Corporation has worked with the community and done everything it can to move forward with the project. She recommended the Board approve the requests. Ms. Pat Napoleon, a resident of Keswick and member of Keswick Country Club, said she an her husband are in awe of the splendor of this development° The buildings, grounds and other offerings are spectacular. The Keswick Club has been resurrected from ruin and its evolving success is due to the hard work and dedicated leadership of the club staff and management. She has been involved with preservation issues in her neighborhood for many years and has always been committed to the protection.of the rural character and historical resources of the Keswick community. Keswick Corporation has demonstrated its support and concern for the community by joining with the neighborhood in a - spirit of cooperation. Because of Keswick Corporation's good judgement and planning, she urged the Board to approve the proposals. Ms. Sarah Lee Barnes~ a resident of Keswick, said she hopes the Board will support these proposals. Keswick Corporation have demonstrated to the residents that they are willing to retain Keswick's rural character and setting° There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. M.B, 43, Pg. 127 January 13, i993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) Mr. Martin said he thinks Keswick Corporation has done an extremely good job with what it has accomplished at the country club and in getting community support. Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve SP-92-58 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with an amendment to condition #6 as follows: "The service area for Keswick Utility Company to include all those parcels of land which .are contiguous to the lands currently owned by Keswick Corporation which are bounded within the larger area of State Route 616, State Route 731, State Route 744, Interstate Route 64 and the CSX Railroad right-of-way.°. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Marshall said he has always felt the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, not a document etched in stone. He strongly supports these applications. This development will be a tremendous'asset to the County and will bring in some much needed tax dollars. Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board can ensure that the public utility does not become a financial burden to the ACSA users in the event of something happening. Mr. St. John said there cannot be absolute assurance that any private utility will not become a burden. Although this facility was not built under the direction of the ACSA, it does not mean the plant is inferior. There is no physical evidence that the plant will fail. If the system is poorly managed, the SCC will take it over. Mr. Bain said he thinks Mr. Hitchcock use of the word "grandfathered" is apt. He thinks this project will be a success due to the applicants depth of commitment. The project has been in the making for 40 to 50 years and it looks like it will finally be completed. He will support the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. None. The conditions of approval are set out in full below: Development of the subdivision shall be in general accordance with the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated August 25~ 1992 and revised October 26, 1992 (copy on file); So Approval of SP-92-59 for flood plain crossings to allow private road construction; 3e Water Resource Manager approval of a water quality impact assessment; Compliance with State Corporation Commission requirements for water and sewer utility services; In the review of future plats and plans, provision shall be made for protection of stream valley areas located on proposed lots by the conveyance of additional open space and/or resource protection easements to the homeowner,s association or other entity agreeable to the developer and the County for the purpose of permanent protection of these areas; and 6e The service area for Keswick Utility Company to include all those parcels of land which a~e contiguous to the lands cur- rently owned by Keswick Corporation which are bounded within the larger area of State Route 616, State Route 731, State Route 744~ Interstate Route 64 and the CSX Railroad right-of- way. Mr. Martin offered motion~ seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-92-57 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mro Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris~ Messrso Marshall~ Martin and Perkins. None. The conditions of approval are set out in full below: Compliance with all local, state and federal permit require- ments pertaining to disturbance if a perennial stream; Se Department of Engineering approval of crossing designs to ensure compliance with Section 30.3; M.B. 43, Pg. 128 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)' Page 23) 3e Water Resource Manager approval of a major water quality impact assessment; and Add to the design limitations that there shall be no rise in the one-hundred year flood elevation at the north property line adjacent to the railroad tracks and the southern property line adjacent to Interstate 64. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve SP-92-59 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and a fifth condition as follows: "Maintenance of a 25 foot wide wooded buffer adjacent to residential lots not a part of the Keswick Estate. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mro Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. None. County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood plain of Carroll Creek in accordance with Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District, of the Zoning Ordi- nance (compliance with SP-86-03); Water Resource Manager approval of a water quality impact assessment; Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan to include a phased grading plano The amount of grading to occur on-site shall be limited to three holes at any one time. All grading shall be stabilized during the winter months. Further grading will not be permitted until constructed holes are stabilized to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; Development of golf course shall be in general accordance with the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated August 25, 1992 and revised October 26, 1992 (copy on file)~ and Maintenance of a 25 foot wide wooded buffer adjacent to residential lots not a part of the Keswick Estate. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following Resolution approving the application of Keswick Utility Company to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. The adopted resolution is set out below: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF KESWICK UTILITY COMPANY TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, Keswick Utility Company (the "Company"), a Virginia public service corporatione is the developer of the Keswick real estate development (the "Development"); and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has approved the Development with the understanding that water and sewer services were to be provided to the Development by the Company; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to the issuance of the N.P.D.E.S. permit to the Company in order to allow the discharge of treated effluent from the Company sewage treatment plant that serves the Development; and WHEREAS, the Company currently provides water and sewer servi- ces to less than fifty customers in the Development; and WHEREAS, the Company projects'that the number of customers to be served in the Development will exceed fifty, which would necessi- tate the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and neces- sity by the State Corporation Commission ("SCC"); and M.B. 43, Pg. 129 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) WHEREAS, the SCC may not hold any hearing for the issuance of a certificate of convenience and necessity to the Company without the prior approval of its application for such certificate by Albemarle County: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby approves the provision by the Company of water and sewer service to the Development and approves the application of the Company to the SCC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide such water and sewer services; and authorizes the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to communicate this approval to the SCC. Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-92-09. University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. Public Hearing to amend agreements of ZMA-78-15 to permit use of private roads. Property of approx 228 acs is on E side of Dickerson Rd (Rt 606) approx 3/4 mi NE of Airport. Site also has frontage on Airport Rd (Rt 649) and is zoned PD-IP & RA. TM32, P6,19(part). Rivanna District. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on December 29~ 1992 and January 5~ 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows: "'Character of the Area: The property is undeveloped and contains open and wooded land which sl0pes towards the streams which traverse the site. Industrial uses exist on both the west and east side of the site. A mobile home park is to the east of the site, residential and commercial uses are to the south. The property to the north is undeveloped. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to amend agreement number 16 of ZMA-78-15 (underlined) to read as follows: 'Virginia Department of Highways approval of road plans for internal roads, internal roads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength. Nothinq contained in this condition will preclude the applicant from requestinq private roads in the future' A complete description and justification of the request has been submitted by the applicant and is included as Attachment C (on file). Planninq and Zoninq History: The property has a lengthy history of rezonings. The last request approved on this site was ZMA-78- 15 which was approved on November '15, 1978 and established the current zoning of the property. Summary and Recommendations: This request allows the applicant to request the use of private roads at the time of site plan review. The use of private roads will require the review and approval of the Engineering Department and the Planning Commission. The use of private roads may be permitted in accordance with Section 18-36(b)(3). Any private roads which are permitted must be built in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The use of private roads may provide greater flexibility in design, thereby reducing the amount of grading necessary. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with previous action on this site and therefore recommends approval of ZMA-92-09 subject to the following agreements which are identical to those of ZMA-78-15 except as noted. 3J 6e 7e Delete Parcel M; Approval is for 216.6 acres and a maximum of 21 individ- ual uses (exclusive of accessory uses such as employee cafeterias and dining facilities); Approval is for Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J~ K, and L with appurtenant open space; Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, K, and L are to be Category Ii Parcels I and J are to be Category II; Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the propose~ taxi-way on Parcels A, I, and J; Setbacks from adjoining properties are to be established by the Planning Commission at the time of final plan approvals consistent with the intensity of specific uses; No final plan approval shall be given until a master street tree plan has been approved by the Planning Commission; Buffer areas on the perimeter of the property shall have a depth of not less than 50 feet and shall remain in natural woodland as indicated on the ~Synthesis of M.B. 43, Pg. 130 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) Environmental Factors Map'. Where, in the opinion of the staff, existing woods do not provide adequate buff- ering, additional plantings shall be required by the staff. Such plantings shall consist of six to eight feet white pines 15 feet on-center; provided the appli- cant may propose an alternative scheme which in staff opinion is equivalent or better; 9. On Parcel F, no more than 25 percent of the land area in slopes of 15 percent or'greater shall be graded (this area is identified as 'sensitive slope areas' on the 'Synthesis of Environmental Factors map)'; public roads are not included in this condition; 10o Ail uses are to be served by public water and public sewer; 11. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 800 feet and no hydrant shall be more than 400 feet from a major struc- ture. No waterline serving a fire hydrant shall be of less than eight inches diameter. A minimum fire flow of 2000 gpm at 20 psi shall be provided. Nothing stated herein shall preclude additional requirements by state or local fire officials; 12. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Water and sewer lines shall be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority; 13. County Engineer approval of storm drainage plans and paving specifications for parking areas; 14. Grading permit approval; 15. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of en- trances to existing roads to include improved sight distance, full channelization for right turn decelera- tion lanes and left turn storage lanes where necessary; 16. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans for internal roads; internal roads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength. Nothinq contained in this condition will preclude the apDlicant from requestinq priVate roads in the future; 17. Full frontage dedication along ROUte 606 to Provide a 60 foot right-of-way and improvement of the existing road to 24 feet of pavement width with adequate shoulders; 18. Building coverage shall be limited to only those areas outside of the sensitive areas as outlined in the Air- port Industrial Park Plan, except for Parcel F; and 19. Uses permitted shall be governed as to type, height and performance standards by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan or Article 20 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive." Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-92-09 to amend agreement #16 of ZMA-78-15 to permit use of private roads and subject to all other agreements as set out in the staff report° The Chairman asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Robert McKee, representing the applicant, said he would answer any questions Board members may have. The Chairman asked for other public comments. There were no other public comments and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve ZMA-92-09 subject to the agreements recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins° None. The agreements are set out in full below: 1. Delete Parcel M; Approval is for 216.6 acres and a maximum of 21 individual uses (exclusive of accessory uses such as employee cafeterias and dining facilities); Approval is for Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H~ I, J, K, and L with appurtenant open space; 4° Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, K, and L are to be Category I; Parcels I and J are to be Category II; M.B. 43, Pg. 131 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting~ (Page 26) 5. Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the proposed taxiway on Parcels A, I, and J; 6. Setbacks from adjoining properties are to be established by the Planning Commission at the time of final plan approvals consis- tent with the intensity of specific uses; 7. No final plan approval shall be given until a master street- tree plan has been approved by the Planning Commission; 8. Buffer areas on the perimeter of the property shall have a depth of not less than 50 feet and shall remain in natural woodland as indicated on the "Synthesis of Environmental Factors map". Where, in the opinion of the staff, existing woods do not provide adequate buffering, additional plantings shall be required by the staff. Such plantings shall consist of six to eight feet white pines 15 feet on-center; provided the applicant may propose an alternative scheme which in staff opinion is equivalent or better; 9. On Parcel F, no more than 25 percent of the land area in Slopes of 15 percent or greater shall be graded (this area is identi- fied as"sensitive slope areas" on the "Synthesis of Environ- mental Factors Map)"; public.rods are not included in this condition; 10. Ail uses are to be served by public water and public sewer; 11. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 800 feet and no hydrant shall be more than 400 feet from a major structure. No water- line serving a fire hydrant shall be of less than eight inch diameter. A minimum fire flow of 2000 gpm at 20 psi shall be provided. Nothing stated herein shall preclude additional requirements by state or local fire officials; 12o Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Water and sewer lines shall be dedicated to the Albe- marle County Service Authority; 13. County Engineer approval of storm drainage plans and paving specifications for parking areas; 14. Grading permit approval; 15. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances to existing roads to include improved sight distance, full chan- nelization for right turn deceleration lanes, and left turn storage lanes where necessary; 16. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans for internal roads; internal ~oads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength. Nothing contained in this condition will preclude the applicant from requesting private roads in the future; 17. Full frontage dedication along Route 606 to provide a 60 foot right-of-way and improvement of the existing road to 24 feet of pavement width with adequate shoulders; 18. Building coverage shall be limited to only those areas outside of the sensitive areas as outlined in the Airport Industrial Park Plan, except for Parcel F; and 19. Uses permitted shall be governed as to type, height, and performance standards by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan or Article 20 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive' Agenda Item No. 13. 1993/94-1997/98 Capital Improvements Program, Adoption of. Mr. Tucker presented the County's proposed five-year Capital Improvements Program for FY 1993/94-1997-98. Three changes were made to the plan after the Board's public hearing on December 16, 1992, although the total cost of projects remain the same. The first change is the addition of $12,000 in FY 1993-94 to fund the installation of two.baseball backstops, outfield fencing and infield work to serve the needs of the Peachtree League at Crozet Park. The second change is a transfer of $25,000 in FY 1993-94 from the high school feasibility study to the Murray High School roof replacement project. Mr. Tucker said funding for the Albemarle High School track resurfacing project was not moved to the current year. Funding remains in FY 1993-94. It M.B. 43, Pg. 132 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) was the consensus of School Division administration that the track is not a safety hazard, that plans have already been made to minimize use of the track this spring and that construction in the current year would interrupt the spring track program. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the adoption of the five year Capital Improvements Program for FY 1993/94-1997/98. Since the actual appropriation of funds for the FY !993/94 CIP budget will take place in April, there is still some flexibility for change should revenue or expendi- ture needs change during the FY 1993/94 operating budget review sessions. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the 1993/94- 1997/98 Capital Improvements Program as recommended by staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following.recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. The 1993/94-1997/98 Capital Improvements Program is set out in full below: January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) o O0 o o0~ o ~ ~o~o~ 0 o ~~ o 0 O0 0 00000 0 000000 0 0 0 O0 0 00000 0 000000 0 0 0 r~. O OO O OOOOO O OOOOOC O ~ O O ~ ~ O 0 O0 0 00000 0 ~O0~ O0 O~ ~O O oo o~ ~o o ~ oo O~oo00~ O0 ~°°°°.. ~ ~ o~ o~0 o~0 o0006 .~. ~ ~0~' O000001i~ o0000 0 ~ 00~ 0 Oo o ~ 0 O0 0 00~ 0 ~ 00~ o oo o o~ o ~~R 0 0 ~~ 0 0~0 0 O0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 o oo o o6o66 0 ~oo~ ~ O0 o 0o~ 0 O0 0 oo~ o ~00 o oo o o6oOo o ~o~oo~ 0 O0 o 0 o ~'t u'l u'~ 0 o O0 0 0 0 r,~ o-, 00 0 M.B. 43, Pg. 133 · .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 cz) o 0 0 t-I P,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 u'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 o o 0 ~ ,-~ ,-i 00 0", .~ ~ o o o 0 o 0 o CZ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- 0 0 0 0 0 M.B. 43, Pg. 134 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 000~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~0 ~ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 000~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 o o o00 oo 6 o o o o oo o °o°o°°~n° o° oO Oo O0 C:O 0 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 000~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O0 ~0 ~ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 ~ 0 0 0  ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~0 ~ o o ooo oo o o o o o Oo o oooo ,o o o ~ 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 O~ ~ 0 0 0 0  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0~ ~ 0 ~ 0 o o ooo oo o o o o o oo o oooo o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 o o ooo oo o 0 o o ~ o6 0 o°oo o o ~ 0 o 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 000~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~0 ~ 0 0 0 0 O0 ~ 000~ ~ 0 0 0 0 M.B. 43, Pg. 135 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) 0 O 0 0 0000 O0 0  ~ 0 0 0000 O0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~000 O0 ~ 0~0~0 ® ~ o ~ ~oo~ g~ ~ ~o~o 0 0 0 0 0000 O0 0 00000 0 0 O O O O O O O 0000 0 O0 0 0 O0 o 0'0'0 o o oo o.r~ 4. o ,-,i ~1 ,-..i o o o o o 0 0 000 ~ ~°° 0 0 0 00 u~ o o'o 0 0 o 0 o o o o 0oo~ 'o'o ~ 0 0 0000 O0 ~ ~ o o ~ o~ ~0 0 o o o oooo o~ 0 0 (o 0 0 0 0 00'00 00 '00Ic'q 0 u-~ 0 0 0000 00 0 oIr~ ~ o o ~ooo oo o~oj,~.~ 0 0 o o oooo '0:0 '~' 0 u~ 0 0 0000 00 O'OI,-'l ~ c~I 0 .0 u~o00 O0  O~ 00000 O~ 0000~ ~ 00~00 ~ ~ o~o~ 0 00000~ O0 0 0 0 0 O0 00000 0 O0 0 O~ 0 O0 0 ~ O~ 00000000 0 00~ 0 -0 ob ooo&~ O0 0000~ ~0 00~0~ o o'0 o o ~q ~;0 o~o'oo O0 00,00~ ~0 00~00 00000 ~o oo o0ooo O0 0000~ ~0 00~00 0~0~ January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) g g g M.B. 43, Pg. 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,-t 0 0 0 0 eO ...1'u'; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 cq O O O ~O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,-~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 00 cq 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 ,'~ 0 0 0 un 0', cO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 ,~ 0 0 0 o o-,~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,-I C) 0 0 0.4 M.B. 43, Pg. 137 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 0 0 ~ou~ O0 0 O~ u~ 0 0 0 ~' ¢~ 0 0 0 0 ~nO 0 0 0 ~0~ O0 0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cD 0 (D 0 O0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~n ~ OO O OO OO (D OO O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O oo o oO oo o ~o o o o o '0 o o o o ~ oo o o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u'~O 0 u-~ ~ u') ¢~ 0 0 I ~ oo o °o oO o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 o o° o o ~ o o o ~ o o o o o 0 0 0 ,-I 0 0 0 ~ 0 c'~ ~-I m.- .4' t-I c,,') W-.i t-~ oo o o° o° o oo o o o o o o o o o 0 o° - 0  0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 UD I..C, 0 0 0 o°~- o o o o o o o o o o oo o o oo o ,,0,n oo o o~ ~ o o o 4- ~ o o o o o o  l ~n~n o ~r-- ~no '~ ,~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ o o ~ r-- oo o oo oo o o~ o o o :o o o o o o o oo 0 0 O0  0 '4) 0 .4' ,'~ oo o ,oo °o o ~o o o o o o o 0 o o o °o o oo o oo oo o o~ o o o o o o o o o o oo o oo o ~ oo o ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ o o o o ~o o o January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 000 O0 0 CO O0 0000 000 O0 OU'~ 0000 ~00 0 000 M.B. 43, Pg. 138 M.B. 43, Pg. 139 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) Agenda Item No. 14a. Appropriation: GE Foundation Grant for Middle School Science. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County schools, in partnership with G.E. Fanuc, Charlottesville City schools and Greene County schools have been awarded $46,500 over a three year period to implement extra-curricular science. The Board is requested to approve the appropriation request which would allow the disbursement of the first installment of $17,500.. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mro Perkins, to adopt the follow- ing resolution of appropriation for $17,500 to reflect a G.Eo Foundation Grant for middle school science. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman~ Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1320661311160300 1320661311210000 1320661311601300 G EFOU~DATION GRANT FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE DESCRIPTION STIPENDS-STAFF/CUR FICA INST/REc SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $ 7,000.00 500.00 $10,000.00 $17,500.00 REVENUE 2320618100186025 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT G E GRANT $17~500o00 TOTAL $17~500.00 Agenda Item No. 14b. Appropriation: Social Services - ESP-Other Services. Mr. Tucker said the Department of Social Services have received its mid- year budget review from the State and the State have allocated an additional $18~000 for ESP-Other Services. These are 100 percent federal dollars and require the County to front the funds for expenditure. He requests Board approval of the appropriation request. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $18,000 to reflect additional funding for ESP-Other Services. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ESP-OTHER SERVICES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100053014571105 DESCRIPTION ESP-OTHER SERVICES TOTAL AMOUNT $18,000.00 $18~000.00 REVENUE 2100024000240102 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT VPA PAYMENTS $18,000.00 TOTAL $18,000.00 Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: February 19, 1992. There were no minutes read. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD° Mr. Tucker announced that the opening of Berkmar Drive is scheduled for 1:30 p.m.~ on January 14, 1993. The stripping along Rio Road is scheduled for completion today. There have been similar problems with stripping and marking along the new section of Commonwealth Drive is scheduled for completion within the next 30 days. Mr. Tucker said the missing stop at the intersection of Avon Street Extended and Route 20 has been replaced. A new road name sign is being fabricated. M.B. 43, Pg. 140 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) Mr. Tucker said the staff is submitting an application for a Small Business Administration Grant in the amount of $15,000 for tree planting as part of the proposed landscaping plan along Route 250° The County must provide a 45 percent match and will be responsible for maintenance° Property owners have shown a lot of interest. Most of the plantings will be permanent ground coverings with low maintenance. The Board suggested staff get as many volunteers involved as possible. Mr. Tucker mentioned an article in the Observer newspaper concerning Mr. Jarphaet Lewis, a resident of Cismont, that the Monticello Area Community Action Agency is attempting to help. The County Social Services staff have been working with Mr. Lewis for several months after discovering his living arrangements. Mr. Tucker informed the Board that staff is beginning to work on the Comprehensive Plan on the section pertaining to the Crozet area. Staff will work with Mr. Perkins to solicit names for members to serve on a planning committee. Mr. Tucker said a group of people in Richmond will be meeting with Ms. Constance Kinchloe, Commissioner on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, next week to discuss the scope of the Route 29 North corridor plan and whether to hire a consultant. He hopes to have an update of the meeting to share with the Board. Mrs. Humphris said there will be a meeting on this same subject in Senator Ed Robb's office on February 19, 1993. Mr. Bowerman requested staff communicate with Senator Robb's office to see if Board members can attend the meeting. Mr. Perkins provided a report on the meeting of January 7, 1993~ of the Blue Ridge Committee for Shenandoah National Park Relations. The next meeting of this Committee will be on April 1, 1993, at Rappahannock High School. Mr. Bain thanked staff for the update on solid waste. He added that he would like to discuss with the County Executive the status of the Request for Proposals for modification of the Ivy Landfill recycling drop-off center. Mr. Bowerman requested staff draft a letter~ for his signature, in response to Mr. and Mrs. Vincent L. Jones' letter regarding road improvements to Route 760 and Route 712 in North Garden° The Board requested that it be informed about any requests for Comprehen- sive Plan amendments from citizens that may be deferred due to staff review of the entire Plano Mrs. Humphris related a letter from an individual who complimented County staff she had to deal with in getting licenses, build permits~ etc., during work on her home. Agenda Item No. 16a. Cancel Board meeting of January 20, 1993. Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to cancel the Board meeting of January 20, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16b. Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into Executive Session for personnel matters (Va Code Section 2.1-344.A.1) and legal matters regarding a potential suit by Mr. George Cason (Va Code section 2.1-344.A.7). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mro Bain~ Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris~ Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. None. M.B. 43, Pg. 141 January 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) Agenda Item No. 16c. Certify Executive Session. At 10:30 p.m., Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following certification of executive session: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative record- ed vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County.Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURINOMEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adjourn to February 3, 1993, at 8:00 a.m., Room 5/6, for a joint meeting with the Albemarle County School Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. None.