1991-12-18247
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was hRld on December 18, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bower~mn, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. peter T.Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1~. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2, Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Not Docketed. Mr. Bowie recognized Ms. Ella Carey, Deputy Clerk to the
Board. Ms. Carey recently received her Certification as a Municipal Clerk
(CMC). This certification requires five years experience, as a deputy clerk,
being an active member of the International Institute of Municipal Clerks
(IIMC) for three years, attending the IIMC Institute for three years which
includes 100 hours of school, and additional educational requirements. Mr.
Bowie congratulated Ms. Carey and presented her CMC pin. He also thanked her
for her work and service to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Item 5.1 on the consent agenda, and to
accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was
not further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and.Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for
the Month of November, 1991, from the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common-
wealth's Attorney and the Regional Jail, were approved by the above recorded
vote.
Item 5.2. Letter dated December' 5, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that Pepsi Place
in Branchlands was accepted into the Secondary System effective December 1,
1991, was received for information as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated December 5, 1990, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby
approved, effective December 1, 1991.
ADDITION LENGTH
BRANCI~S
Route 1340 (Pepsi Place).
mile Southwest Route 866
From Route 866 to 0.14
0.14 Mi"
Commissions Minutes for December 3 and
Item 5.3. Copy of the Planning '
December 10, 1991, were received for information.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
248
Item 5.4. Copy of Letter dated December 12, 1991, from Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Zoning Administrator, re: Attachment of Centel Cellular antennas
to WCYK Tower on Little Yellow Mountain, was received for information as
follows:
"This is to confirm, in writing, my opinion that this proposal is in
compliance with the existing special permit, SP-81-34, McClenahan
Broadcasting Corporation. A separate or amended special permit is not
necessary. Therefore, the site plan may be approved and construction
commenced according to standard procedure.
This proposed use on an existing tower is consistent with the County's
policy of encouraging co-location or multi-user towers. I understand
that this approval will closely provide the cellular coverage proposed
with SP-90-102. This was withdrawn by the applicants and accepted by
the Board of Supervisors on August 21, 1991. .
Your proposal is shown on the site plan by Roudabush, Gale &: Associ-
ates, revised December 5, 1991. According to the Department of
Planning and Community Development, this plan has been reviewed by the
Site Review Committee and is ready for approval signature pending this
approval letter. The Director of that department, Mr. Wayne Cilim-
berg, is in agreement with my determination of compliance.
The proposal includes construction of a 12 foot by 24 foot pre-
fabricated fiberglass shelter for the Centel radio equipment. In
addition, four cellular antennas will be located on the side arms of
the existing tower. These antennas are straight, or whip-like and not
rounded dishes. These antennas will not extend beyond the. top of the
existing tower. Minimal grading will occur. The existing tree .line
will be maintained and no trees willbe removed.
I have reviewed the conditions of the special permit in effect for the
existing WCYK radio tower. In addition, I visited the site with the
surveyor from the design company. Each of the five conditions of this
permit will be met by this proposal. Any further construction will
require additional review.
We applaud your company's efforts to follow the County policy to
consolidate tower uses and to avoid sporadic proliferation. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Barring
unforeseen obstacles, this department can sign your site plan on
December 19, 1991."
Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated December 11, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M.
Patterson, Zoning Administrator, entitled "Official Determination of Number of
Parcels- Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 33, Parcel 51 (Westvaco Corporation)," was
received for information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated December 10, 1991, from Mr. James Christian Hill,
National Register Assistant, Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
stating that Malvern has been determined to meet the criteria for listing on
the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places,
was received for information. Mr. Hill notes that the work program of the
Department is fully scheduled for the remainder of the year which limits the
prepa=ation of nominations for properties for which the Department is accept-
ing an easement, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-64. Lois Stewart-Wiebe. Public Hearing on a
request for a bridge in the flood plain of Doyles River to serve private
residenCe on 16.51 ac zoned RA. Property on E side of Rt 810 approx 1 mi N of
Rt 668. TM15,P16. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 3 and December 10, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
249
"Character of the Area: There is an existing stream crossing at this
location. The Engineering Department conducted a field study of this
bridge in March, 1991. Their co~nents and findings are included as
Attachment C (on file). A mobile home is currently on the property.
This bridge was constructed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and
shows signs of deterioration. The Doyles River runs parallel and
adjacent to Route 810 in this area.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to completely remove the
existing crossing and install a proper crossing. The existing
crossing has started to deteriorate with tunnelling under the pipes in
the stream and slumping of the roadway being the most obvious signs of
deterioration. The.bridge will serve a single parcel only.
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.' The Comprehen-
sive Plan states as a strategy to preserve water quality: 'Restrict
all clearing, grading and construction activities to the minimum
required for the proposed development.'
Staff Comment: Ail of Parcel 16 lies on the opposite side of the
river from Route 810. Therefore, no area exists on the parcel which
would allow for development without the use of a stream crossing.
Access to this site is over an unrecorded easeme~nt. The County
Attorney has stated that evidence submitted by the applicant indicates
that color of title to the access exists which is sufficient to allow
the applicant to file this application. No other access to the site
exists. The~ property to the south (Tax Map 14, Parcel 34) is served
by a stream crossing located approximately 1400 feet downstream from
this bridge. Staff offers the. following general comments:
No building site exists on the property which would not require a
stream~crossing;
No alternative access is available which does not require a
stream crossing to be installed;
No adjacent properties will be benefited directly by this stream
crossing; and
e
The Engineering Department has revieweda hydrolog.ic study and
has stated that the request satisfies the engineering criteria of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Summary: Staff generally discourages stream crossings where they can
be avoided. However, as stated above, no use of this parcel can be
made without the construction of a stream crossing and no alternatives
exist which would alleviate the need for a stream crossing. No other
parcels could benefit from this crossing. Staff opinion is that with
the appropriate conditions this use will be consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and Section 31.2.4.1 in particular. Therefore, staff
recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements
pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream;
Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to ensure
compliance with Section 30.3; and
Approval by the Water Resource Manager of a water quality impact
assessment under the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance."
25O
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Novem-
ber 19, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-64 subject to the four
conditions recommended by the staff, and the following condition #5: "Removal
of existing structure within 60 days of approval of special use permit."
Mrs. Humphris asked if a contractor installed the original stream
crossing. Mr. Cilimberg did not know. Mr. Bowie asked when the crossing was
installed. Mr. Cilimberg said the violation was discovered in May, 1989, but
he did not know when it was installed.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to be able to make contractors
responsible for their actions as well as the owner of the property. Mr. St.
John said the County has the legal authority to hold any person who partici-
pates in this kind of violation responsible. Even if the owner did not
participate in the violation he/she is still responsible. Any person who
actively participates in violating the zoning laws is criminally and civilly
responsible. When the staff became aware of this violation, the person who
installed these culverts had moved out of the area. There is an outstanding
criminal warrant for the person but it cannot be served until he is found.
The present owner purchased this property after the pipes had been installed
with no knowledge that they were illegal. There is pending a civil proceeding
against the property owner to abate this violation. If the Board approves
this special use permit, it would not relieve the original violator from the
criminal warrant, but it could allow the dismissal of the suit against the
present owner.
Mr; Bowie opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments.
MS. Lois Stewart-Wiebe, the applicant, said she would respond to any
questions from Board members. There were no questions for Ms. Wiebe.
There was no one. else present to speak to this petition, so the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins asked the engineer, Mr. Tom Muncaster, what type of structure
wouldreplace the old crossing. Mr. Muncaster said they plan to install a
multiple pipe culvert crossing. Mr. Perkins asked what size pipes. Mr.
Muncaster said they plan to install eight 36-inch pipes., designed for the one
hundred year storm to go over top the road.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve SP~89-64 subject to the following five conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission:
1. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements
pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream;
-Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to ensure
compliance with Section 30.3;
Approvalby the Water Resource Manager of a water quality impact
assessment under the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance;
and
Removal of existing structure within 60 days of approval of
special use permit.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mt. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-91~57. First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land
Company. Public Hearing on a request for outdoor display & storage of autos
on 15 ac zoned HC and EC. Property on E side of Rt 29 approx 0.2 mi S of
inters of Rt 29/Carrsbrook Dr. TM45,Plll,lllA & lllB. Charlottesville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 3 and December 10, 1991.)
251
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is largely open with several small
buildings and a vacant mobile home on the site. A large amount of
brush and debris is also located on the site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to develop an auto
dealer on the site. A plan for development has been submitted and
reviewed by the Site Review Committee and the Architectural Review
Board (ARB). A copy of the plan is included as Attachment C (on
file).
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Neighborhood 2 and is
recommended for Community Service designation. The crossover just
south of the site will be closed as part of the Route 29 expansion.
Carrsbrook Drive is to be relocated approximately 165 feet to the
north.
Staff Comment: This. use is subject to special use permit only
because of its location within the Entrance Corridor Overlay Dis-
trict. The review is limited to matters of aesthetic consideration
and whether the use can be aesthetically accommodated in the proposed
location. The application has been reviewed by the ARB. The minutes
of their meeting are included as Attachment D (on file) and the
action letter is included as Attachment E (on file). The ARB made no
specific recommendation regarding the appropriateness of this use.
However, the ARB did provide comments on several items including
landscaping, building design and delineation of display areas. These
items can be addressed at the time of site plan review. The amount
of area devoted to display is a concern of the ARB's. Staff recom-
mends that if the special use permit is approved, the extent of the
display area should be addressed by the ARB and the Planning Commis-
sion during site plan review and that approval of this special use
permit shall not be deemed to guarantee any maximum display area or
other feature.
The comments of the ARB indicate that the issues of aesthetics may ~be
overcome through site design. Staff will refer the site plan to ~the
ARB prior to review by-the Planning Commission.
Staff opinion is that with the appropriate site design this use will
be in accord with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Sufficient
regulations are in place to ensure that~ the site plan is reviewed for
compliance width the Entrance Corridor regulations. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of this request subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. Approval is for automobile storage and display;
There shall be no flags, pennants, spinners, tinsel, banners,
or other attention grabbing devices other than signage approved
specifi.cally by,the Albemarle County Zoning Department and the
Architectural ReView Board will be displayed;
Vehicles shall only be displayed in areas designated in the
approved site plan;
4. No elevated vehicles; and
Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval of
the site plan."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Decem-
ber 10, 1991, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of SP-91-57 subject to
the first four conditions recommended by the staff and amended condition #5 as
follows:
"5.
Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval of
the site plan, with emphasis on items 1-8 of the Architectural
-!
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
252
Review Board minutes of November 12, 1991 (copy on file) and
paragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Cilimberg then suggested the following rewording to condition #5 to
ensure that the health, safety and welfare aspects of the site are addressed
by the ARB:
"5.
Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval of
the site plan, with emphasis on items 1-8 of the Architectural
Review Board minutes of November 12, 1991 (copy on file) and
paragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that nothing
in this condition shall be deemed to impair or otherwise
restrict the Planning Commission's authority under Section
32.0, Site Development Plan, to ensure appropriate screening of
the site from the adjacent residential areas."
Mr. Bain asked if the issues concerning elevation and VDoT right-of-way
could pose a problem for screening the front of the property. Mr. Cilimberg
did not know.
. Ths Chairman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for
comments.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Dave Walsh and Mr. Tom Muncaster of
Muncaster Engineering were present to answer any questions.
Mr. Frank Rice of 135 Indian Springs'Road, President of the Carrsbrook
Homeowner's Association, said the Homeowner's Association opposes SP-91-57 and
provided a list of their concerns to the Planning Commission. Although the
property is zoned HC and they recognize that the owner has the legal and moral
right to develop the property, the homeowners strongly believe that it is not
in the best interest of all concerned to put a used car lot in this location.
The proposed site is surrounded on three sides byestablished residential
communities. Carrsbrook has been in existence for 30 years and Woodbrook for
a shorter period of time. The proposed development would drastically alter
the site and aesthetics would, be completely "shot". The homeowners are
concerned about erosion, sewer, lighting, noise pollution, the outdoor display
area and all the other activities associated with the sale of cars. He
believes that this proposal is incongruent with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which calls for the creation of an attractive and harmonious
con~nunity. Allowing a used car lot in the midst of two communities is
certainlynot promoting an attractive or harmonious community.
Mr.. Rice said if the Board does not wish to deny this petition, then it
should be deferreduntil the impact of proposed construction, to Route 29 is
known. During discussions of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor Overlay District,
the Board expressed concerns about allowing a used car lot in this area. A
used car. lot would greatly diminish the monetary value of those properties
that abut the development. This plan would diminish the aesthetics of the
area, the attractiveness of the properties and the quality of life of the
residents. This plan should be denied because it violates the spirit of the
Zoning Ordinance and the EC Overlay District for a harmonious and attractive
development. He asked the persons present who were in agreement with his
comments to stand (13 people stood).
Mr. Ian Robertson of 2931Brookmere Road, in Woodbrook Subdivision, spoke
about the problems he and his neighbors have been experiencing with the
stormwater and wetland situation near his house. He does not think develop-
ment of commercial properties in the area will improve the alreadyvulnerable
wetlands. If this request is approved, stormwaterspecifications, erosion
control measures and screening are exceptionally in~portant.
Mr, Jim Mooney, a resident of Woodbrook Subdivision, said he is not
opposed to development of this property because he has always known that the
property is commercial. He is opposed to this special permit request and
thinks the following issues need to be dealt with: the wetlands, the ponds in
Carrsbrook, the longstanding inadequacies of the adjacent sewer pump lines,
and the Albemarle County Service Authority's ability to determine what method
of sewer expansion is appropriate to serve the site. There is no sewer
service available to serve this commercial site% Two years ago he was told by
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
253
the Service Authority that the pumping station in Woodbrook was at capacity
and nothing could be added to it; ih order for commercial development to
occur, the property owner would have to build a new gravity feed sewer line to
the interceptor. He then related some of the problems the neighbors have been
experiencing with the pumping station and suggested that the issue be studied
in more detail before proceeding with the special permit.
Mr. Mooney said another concern is the great depth with which this
property protrudes into the residential area. Despite the elevation drawings,
the property in Woodbrook and most of the property in Carrsbrook along the
diagonal property line, are elevated significantly and this would be like
looking down into Scott Stadium filled with used cars. He urged the Board not
to make a final~ deCision-until it has a Site plan it can review. He also
suggests that the Board get an aerial analysis to show whether the wetlands
protection issue needs to be considered and to request the Service Authority
to review all of its maintenance logs to determineif a pumping station is a
wiable long term alternative for. solvin§ the sewage problem.
Mr. Jim Batten, a resident of 110 Indian Spring Road, said he lives in an
area of Carrsbrook downstream from the proposed development. The lowest point
shown on the elevation m~p is a pond in Carrsbrook~. He lives on the next lake
below that. The entire community of CarrSbrook is built around the lakes. At
one time there were five lakes. At the present time there are three in a row
where he lives and then one located in another area. His appeal to the Board
is to restrict the types of problems that allow massive amounts of earth to
flow downstream into the lakes. He presented some pictures which showed how
development has caused the lakes to fill. Each time major development occurs
a little more of the lakes disappear. He asked the Board to help them
preserve the integrity of their community.
Mr.. ~on Swofford, a resident of 321 Dover Road, Carrsbrook, asked the
BOard to deny the request because o~ the aesthetic affect of the site, light
pollution, the a~fect on the topography, drainage runoff and the landscaping
that will occurs.
Mr. John Kirk, 3509 West Monacan Drive, said his property is north of the
pro.posed development, adjacent to Automart and the nursery. Two years ago he
came before theBoard and was told that the property would be ~screened and
erosion control measures implemented. To this date, there is no fence, his
trees are falling down due to the slope of the hill and vegetation is dying
because of erQsion problems. Nothing is being done to correctthese problems.
He does not see where this proposal is any different.
There being~ no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman said, in respons~ to Mr. Kirk, his statements are correct.
Because those conditions were not required as part o£ the approval, they were
not done. Fifteen years ago Carrsbrook had five lakes, today one has been
washed out totally and the one downstream from this site is completely filled
with sediment because o~ development on Route 29, but this property is zoned
for commercial and nobody is going to put a house on it.. He thinks the Board
should defer this ~request and review it with a site plan. The development on
this site needs to be harmonious with the neighborhood. Ail of the issues
raised tonight, such as the adequacy of the pump station, screening and
buffering, need to be considered when the Board acts on the request.
Mr. Bowie said he woUld support deferral of the request because he thinks
the concerns raised about sewer need to be addressed.
Mr. Bain asked the legal stance of the Board if the applicant decided to
proceed because the Board deferred action. Mr. St. John said the Board has a
year from the time the application is filed to act. Mr. Bain asked if the
Board is within its parameters to deny the application. Mr. Bowerman said he
is concerned that aby-right application could be filed which only requires
site plan review and the Board would not have the opportunity to review it and
place certain conditions.. Mr. St. John said the Board has the same latitude
with this application as it has with any other special permit. Mr. Bain asked
if it could be argued that the~ Board is taking away a by-right use. Mr. St.
John said that is not the situation here.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
254
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks there are a lot of issues that need to be
considered and that it should move forward with the application. She, also,
thinks that the Board needs to find out what went wrong with the Automart site
to the north.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that to deny this request takes away the
Board's opportunity to deal with the issues, i.e., the outdoor storage,
potential wetlands, stormwater runoff control management during and after
development, the type of sewage disposal provided, pumping vs. gravity, etc.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
SP-91-57 until the third meeting in March, 1992. Roll was called and the
motion~carried by the. following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
P.M.
The Chairman called a recess at 8:33 P.M.
The Board reconvened at 8:44
~genda Item No. 8. SP-91-59. Mark R. Wilson. Public Hearing on a
requestfor outdoor display & storage of modular bldgs on 0.4752 ac zoned PD-
SC & ED. Property on W side of Riverbend Dr approx 250 ft S of Rt 250.
TM78,P17D2. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 3
and'December 10, 1991~)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This site and Taco Bell share an entrance
onto Riverbend Drive. There is an on-site access road connecting this
site, the bank and Taco Bell to the shopping center ring road. This
parcel is flat with four Bradford Pears along Riverbend Drive.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted two descriptions of
this request (Attachment B~on file). There will be approximately
eight sheds.
Planning and Zoning History: This site has extensive history. The
following list is a summary:
ZMA-83-02 - Riverbend Limited Partnership - On June 15, 1983, the
Board-of Supervisors approved a proposal to rezone 28.735 acres from
C-l, Commercial, to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center, on Tax
Map 78, Parcels 17D, 17(D)2, 17F, 17G and parts of Parcels 15(C)1 and
17A.
SP-83-029 ~ Riverbend Shopping Centez Site Plan Phases I~II and III
On June 7, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a site plan to
locate a 183,600 square foot shopping center.
SDP-83-054 Riverbend Shopping Center Phase I Entrance Clarificmtion -
On November 15, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a proposal to
relocate an access road on Parcel 17(D)2.
Summary and Recommendations: The Architectural Review Board (ARB)
recommends approval of SP-91~59 on a temporary basis and subject to
conditions (Attachment C-on file). Given the applicant's written and
verbal statements, staff recommends an 18-month limit.
The applicant intends staffing this site and has demonstrated that
businesses within the shopping center agree to his employees using
their restroom facilities (Attachment D-on file). In a memo dated
October 21, 1991, the Inspections Department outlined their position
regarding occupancy.of the sheds (Attachment E-on file). The appli-
cant has verbally indicated that he does not intend to occupy any
shed.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
255
Section 25A.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states: 'Outdoor storage,
sales or display shall be permitted only when enclosed by appropriate
visual screening.'
Staff opinion is the concern that aesthetic resources be adequately
addressed by the ARB.
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states: 'The board of
supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special
use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as
provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board
of supervisors that such use will not be substantial detriment to
adjacent property,~that the character of the district will not be
changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the
district, with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance, andwith the public health, safety and general welfare..'
Given the ARB's issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, staff
opinion is this request will neither be detrimental to adjacent
properties nor change the character of the district. Given potential
development under the present zoning, staff opinion is this use should
be harmonious with the purpose of intent of the Zoning OrdinanCe.
Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. This permit shall be valid for eighteen (18) months only;
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness;
No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance on
Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive); and
4. There shall be no occupancy of any shed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Novem-
ber 19, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-59 subject to the
following conditions:
1. This permit shall be valid for eighteen (18) months only;
2. Architecturat~Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness;
3. Fire Official shall be permitted to periodically inspect use of
sheds. There shall be no occupancy of any shed;
4. No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance on
Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive); and
5. There shall be no more than eight sheds at any one time on this
site.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for
comments.
Mr. Mark Wilson, the applicant, said he has no additional comments and
would answer any questions Board members may have.
Mr. Bowie asked what' type of materials the buildings are made of. Mr.
Wilson said these are wooden buildings that are set up for display purposes.
These buildings are flat-packed in Pennsylvania and shipped directly to the
customers where framers assembly them.
There being no other'comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
2'56
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-91-59, subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. This permit shall be valid for eighteen (18) months only;
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness;
Fire Official shall be permitted to periodically inspect use of
sheds. There shall be no occupancy of any shed;
,.
No items shall be located as to interfere with sight distance on
Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive); and
There shall be no more than eight sheds at any one time on this
site.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-89-09. Rio Hill West. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone 9.198 ac from R-6 to R-15 (Proffered). Property on W side
of Berkmar Drive at inters with Woodbrook Dr. TM45,P's28B(part), 91,92(part),
93Al&109C, Charlottesville District. Site located in Neighborhood 1 is
recommended for High Density Residential (11-34 du/ac). (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 3 and December 11, 1991.)
Mr.. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area.: The site is currently wooded. The new
Agnor-HurtElementary school is underconstruction on the property
immediately'to the south. Rio Hill Shopping Center is located to the
southeast of the site. Ail adjacent property on the west side of
Berkmar Drive is currently zoned R-6. Property on the west side of
Woodburn Road is zoned RA.
Applicant's Proposals: This proposal was previously presented to the
Planning Commission with no proffers.
Currently, the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to R~15,
Residential, with the proffers contained in Attachment B (set out
below). These proffers limit the impact on Woodburn Road, specify
entrance location ,and grant an easement allowing a parcel which
currently has access only to Woodburn Road to have access to Berkmar
Drive. The applicant has provided a letter (Attachment C~on file) to
addresS the concerns of staff (Attachment D-on file). These comments
are. provided for information only and do not represent proffers.
Plannin~ and Zonin~ History:. May 4, 1988 - The Board of Supervisors
rezoned a portion of the land currently under review from HC, Highway
Commercial, to R-6, Residential, as agreed to by the developer of the
RioHill Shopping Center. during the approval of the Rio Hill Shopping
Center.
October 23, 1990 - Staff.administratively approved a subdivision plat
creating the school property. The area currently under review
includes residue acreage from that subdivision.
November 7, 1991 - The Planning Commission recommended denial of an
unproffered request to rezone this property to R~:15.
Development Impact to Public Facilities: At the request of the Board
of Supervisors, the Planning staff reviews rezoning requests for their
fiscal impact on public and transportation facilities. This analysis
is limited tothose rezonings that have some effect on facilities that
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
257
are identified in our Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or Six Year
Secondary Road Plan and have a cost associated with them.
The analysis is based on a fair share determination of a particular
development's impact to affected facilities. It must be pointed out
that this analysis is cursory due to the lack of information on
revenues and the amount attributable to this development. The costs
outlined by staff only indicates the proportionate share of construc-
tion costs from the additional development generated by the rezoning
over by-right development.
The following are those facilities which will be affected by the
rezoning request.:
Schools: Schools affected by this proposal are the proposed new
~middl~, Burley Middle and Albemarle High School. Ail three are
projects in-the CIP: new middle school- $9,268,000; Burley
Middle School - $366,000; and Albemarle High School - $6,059,540.
Based on the additional students estimated by multipliers
curremtly used by the CoUnty, a total of ten additional elemen-
tary students, five middle school students and five high school
students, are anticipated..
The cost attributable to this development based on this propor-
tion of students is $212,833 or $1553.53 per dwelling unit.
Parks and Recreation: Three projects are identified in the CIP
that will serve this site: Rivanna Five Senses - $50,000;
Albemarle High School Tennis - $75,000; and Rivanna Park ~
$1,80.7,370.
Based on service areas and capacities of these facilities, the
cost attributable to this development is $6730 or $49.12 per
dwelling uniti
Libraries-: This proposal is considered to be in the service area
of the Northside Library ($300,000). Based on proportionate
impact to library capacity, the proportionate share cost of this
project is $3765 or $27.48 per dwelling unit.
Roads: This project will impact Berkmar Drive ($822,962). Based
on the traffic generated by this development that will impact
Berkmar, the share for this project is $10,616 or $77.49 per
dwelling unit.
Summary of Fiscal Impact:
Proportionate Cost/DU
Projects Total Costs Share 137 DU
New Middle School $ 9,268,000 $9,634,000 $ 34,682
$ 253.16
Burley Middle 366,000
(Ph. II)
AHSRenovations 6,059,540 178,150 1,300.37
Rivanna Five Sense 50,000 1,255 9.16
AHS Tennis 75,000 1,882 13.74
Rivanna Park 14.3,144 3,593 26.22
Northside Library 300,000 3,765 27.48
Berkmar Drive 822,962 10,616 77.49
TOTALS $17,084646 $233,943 $1,707.62
Consideration of the fiscal impact of the development needs to be
balanced against considerations of the County's growth management
policy. Excessive development exactions could have the affect of
discouraging utilization of the holding capacity of area, and
thus, lead to accelerated development in the Rural Areas.
Staff Con~nent: Staff has identified four main issues regarding this
request: 1) compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) traffic impact
and 3) impact on Agnor-Hurt Elementary School.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
258
Comprehensive Plan: Page 154 of the Comprehensive Plan states:
'Woodburn Road is currently inadequate to support extensive residen-
tial development, thus making the Berkmar Drive Extension now under
development important to opening up the higher density residential
area north of Rio Road. Route 29 is a congested route along the
eastern side of the neighborhood, with limited direct access allowed
to parcels north of Rio Road.
Continue current land use trends (commercial and industrial develop-
ment along Route 29 North and residential development to the west)
with primarily medium density residential development along Rio Road
and medium and high density along Woodburn Road in areas presently
undeveloped~ It is intended that no commercial development occur west
of the proposed extension of Berkmar Drive.'
Access to Woodburn Road is anticipated~ by the traffic study, to
generate 110 vehicle trips per day. No plan has been submitted which
shows how access to Woodburn would be accomplished. However, the
applicant has submitted a proffer limiting the number of vehicle trips
which will access Woodburn to 110 vehicle trips per day. Staff will
be able to ensure this impact is not exceeded during site review.
With limited access to Woodburn Road, this request can be considered
consistent with the statements of the Comprehensive Plan. This area
is proposed for High Density Residential on the Land Use Map and,
therefore, this development is considered consistent with the Land Use
Map in the Comprehensive Plan.
This map also states, 'Note: Densities shown on this map may not be
realizable with existing facilities.' Staff believes that this
statement is important due to the potential impact of the proposal to
Woodburn Road. and the, yet to be developed, Berkmar Drive connection
to Rio Road. (Construction of this Berkmar connection to Rio Road is
currently scheduled for the spring of 1992.) Should this rezoning be
approved, it is unlikely that the applicant Would submit and have
approved a site plan prior to the start of construction on Berkmar.
Therefore, as regards impact to Berkmar Drive, this rezoning request
is not premature.
Traffic Impact: Under the proposed zoning, 137 dwelling units are
mathematically possible. Under the current zoning, 55 units may be
constructed. Staff is unable to~ provide detailed information about
the proposed development as no development plan has been submitted. A
traffic study has been submitted and reviewed by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation. This study indicates that R-15 zoning would
generate 1100 vehicle trips per day. The. study indicates that ten
percent of the traffic (110 vehicle trips per day) would enter onto
Woodburn Road. The remaining traffic would travel onto Berkmar Drive
(15 percent or 165 vehicle trips per day) and Woodbrook Road (75
percent or 825 vehicle trips per day). VDoT has reviewed the traffic
study and has provided comments (Attachment E-on file). After
submittal of proffers by the applicant VDoT provided additional
comments (Attachment F.-on file).
Parcel 91, consisting of 5.391 acres currently has access only to
Woodburn Road. Under the Current R-6 zoning, this could result in 32
dwelling units and 224 vehicle trips per day accessing Woodburn Road.
The applicants' proffers grant access to Berkmar Drive for Parcel 9
and limit impact on Woodburn Road to 110 vehicle trips per day or
approximately 50 percent of the level currently permitted. This
reduction in traffic on Woodburn is consistent with statements of the
Comprehensive Plan and comments made. by the VDoT in Attachment F.
The property lies in the path of the Alternative I0 Bypass (Attachment
G-on file). ~VDoT does not recommend approval of this request due to a
lack of information and conflict with the Alternative 10 Bypass. The
Alternative 10 Bypass is not shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The
County has gone on record as stating that the bypass should not be
considered until all other CATS projects have been constructed. It is
the County's belief that with ~these projects, Alternative 10 will not
be necessary. However, the County has agreed (by letter dated
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
259
November 22, 1991, to Secretary of Transportation John G. Milliken)
with the sequencing of Alternative 10 as a long-range project in the
Route 29 corridor and agreed to make developers aware of the bypass
right-of-way in any proposed land use changes (See Attachments H and
I-on file).
Impact on Agnor-Hurt Elementary School and Suitability of the Site for
Development: Staff is not able to provide an exhaustive review due to
the lack of any development plan. The County has attempted in past
rezoning requests to obtain a conceptual plan for development in order
to determine the relationship of the development to adjacent areas.
The applicant has proffered measures to alleviate traffic impacts.
Staff: notes that~,~ during site~plan review, staff can ensure that the
development satisfies the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Without a plan for development, staff is otherwise unable to determine
whatimpact, if any, development of this site would have on.the
adjacent school or visual appearance of the site from public roads.
The site is tree covered and the tree line is visible from adjacent
areas. No retention of tree cover is proposed by the applicant to
provide buffer from the school or natural screening of the site's
development.
The property is moderately rolling and does not appear to have any
severe restraints to construction. Available fire. flow is. approxi-
mately.2107 g.p,m, at 20 p.s.i. Information from the Albemarle County
SerVice Authority indicates that adequate sewer capacity is available,
however, downstream improvements may be required.
Summary: Staff has identified the following factors which are
favorable to this request:
The request is forR-15 zoning which is consistent with the
property's designation for high density residential land use in
the Comprehensive Plan; and
The applicant's proffers reduce potential traffic volume on
Woodburn Road.
Staff has identified the following factor which is potentially
unfavorable to this request:
This development is within the alignment of the Alternative 10
Bypass.
Staff has also expressed concern as to lack of a conceptual develop-
ment plan for the site, but believes most concerns can be addressed
during site plan review. While extent of tree clearing is not
addressed in this application, tree canopy provisions in the Zoning
Ordinance provide opportunity for retaining important natural areas.
Recommendation: The applicant's proffers have addressed the deve-
lopment's potential impact on Woodburn Road. While this proposal is
within the Alternative 10 Bypass alignment and approval of this
request may increase right-of-way acquisition costs, the County's
position is that Alternative 10 is not required and it is not included
in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the area end staff recommends
approval of ZMA-89-09 subject to the acceptance of the applicant's
proffers."
"November 12, 1991
Mr; WilliamD. Fritz
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Fritz,:
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
260
We proffer the following regarding ZMA-89-09, Rio Hill West:
The development of this project shall not produce more than 110
vehicle trips per day onto Woodburn Road (Route 659) as projected
by the traffic study dated May 31, 1991, and revised Septem-
ber 13, 1991.
Parcel 91 consisting of 5391 acres shall have an easement onto
Berkmar Drive.
The main entrance for the development shall be located at the
intersection of Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive. In the event
a traffic signal is installed at the intersection, this develop-
ment will accept responsibility for one (1) face of the signal,
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
Stephen M. Melton
Agent"
"September 12, 1991
Mr. William D. Fritz
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401McIntire Road
CharlottesVille, VA 22901-4596
Dear Bill:
In order to proceed to public hearing, I would like to address the
items in your letter of January 17, 1991 as follows:
We are aware of the tree canopy and how important it is to try
and utilize as many existing mature trees as possible in the
development plan. At this time, we are requesting rezoning and
can only impress upon the future developer the importance of
maintaining the trees.
2. Please see the Wilbur Smith report dated May 31, 1991.
To develop this site would have very little impact on the school
site. A natural buffer in the form of a drainage swale exists
near the intersection of Berkmar and Woodbrook Drives. This
swale, along with a greenway of existing trees, filled in with
evergreen, should provide a very adequate screen~ Since there
will most likely be children who live in this future development
attending the adjacent school, perhaps a walkway to the school
could be established on the site allowing more safety and
eliminating busing.
As shown on the closing statement dated October 10, 1990, the
County of Albemarle (Grantee) provided for a commercial entrance
or site distance for an entrance from Woodburn (Route 659) to
Parcel 91. While for convenience, the Overall area is the
subject of one application. These are separately owned parcels
here. The owner of the Route 659 parcel does not have direct
access to another entrance. Although, it is hoped to develop the
area as one entity ultimately. This would have to be addressed
at the future date.
It is understood that when a traffic signal is installed at
Woodbrook and Berkmar Drives that we may be responsible for. the
cost of one face.
.We respect your concern regarding a conceptual plan not being
submitted, but at this time we are only asking for a rezoning of
this property. It is not'our intention to develop this site.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
261
The fiscal impact is still of concern. Once you have established
a revised analysis, it is something we could discuss further. At
this time, we are keeping an open mind on this item. This
application was made prior to this requirement.
We concur with your concern that before any grading or const~ac-
tion be conducted, the appropriate individuals be contacted
regarding artifacts from the Battle of Rio Hills. This item
could be controlled at the time of sale or perhaps you may have
some suggestions.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
Stephen M. Melton"
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its'meeting on Decem-'
bet 10, 1991, by a vote of 5/2 recommended approval of ZMAr89-09, subject to
the applicant's proffers as outlined in the above-letter dated November 12,
1991, to Mr. William D. Fritz, signed by Mr. stephen M. Melton.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the applicant made any proffers based on a fiscal
impact analysis. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no".
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for
comments.
Mr. Steve Melton and Mr. William Stevenson, representing Rio Hill West,
came forward. Mr. Melton said they have worked extensively with the Planning
staff and have tried to address all the concerns that were raised. He thinks
this plan is an opportunity to replace some of the R-15 property that has been
taken away. He will be happy to answer anyquestions. Also, he is aware that
this property lies withinthe path of Alternate 10.
There being no one else from the public who wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris asked if other Board members had any comments concerning
weighing the fiscal impact of this rezoning request vs. encouraging higher
densities in the urban areas.
Mr. Bain thought the numbers used for the fiscal impact seemed minuscule
and asked what basis was used as a determination. Mr. Cilimberg said staff
used a factor that was published by the Census Bureau several years ago. The
factor bases students per unit on the region of the United States (the County
is in the southern region), the type of area (the County is considered a small
metropolitan area) and the type of dwelling unit. There is a low student per
unit ratio in high density residential development. Mr. Bain asked if the
County's past history was used. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no".
Mr. Bowerman said he feels this proposal carries out one of the purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to having R-15 designation in the urban
area. It is less expensive to support higher density in the urban area than
it is to support it in the rural area.
Mrs. Humphris said she mirrors the same hesitancy expressed by Mr. Keith
Rittenhouse at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the
issue was whether or not the proffers were adequate to alleviate theunknowns
since there is still no development plan offered. He has confidence in
staff's ability to address site development issues, but he is still uncomfort-
able with the unknowns, for example, impact on the adjacent school and the
visual impact of the site from public roads. The three proffers addressed
transportation issues only.
Mr. Bain asked if this rezoning is approved, could the Highway Department
argue that the County did not do everything it could "to preserve the right~of-
way required for the construction of the Base Case, the three interchanges and
Alternative 10 approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board". Mr. St,.
John responded "yes"~ This Board has constantly stated that it cannot prevent
by-right development along the Alternative 10 route, but that it could refrain
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
262
from "up-zoning" property. It is a well-known fact that once property is
rezoned from R-6 to R-15 the land immensely increases in value. He thinks
there could be a ripple effect if this is done. VDoT could decide to acquire
all the property along the route.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that if the rezoning was accompanied by a
specific plan, it would put a different light on the request. He thinks that
since there is no plan, the request should not be approved. Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it would be in the best interest of the
County to have the property zoned R-15 and developed, but to keep the faith
with the Commonwealth Transportation Board, this Board needs to honor its
statements. She does not think the request should be approved.
Mr. St. John commented that the Board is "caught between a rock and a
hard place" because it does not want to give the impression that it has
entered into a binding agreement with VDoT and willnot exercise its legis-
lative judgement in rezonings.
Mr. Bowerman then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny
ZMA-89-09. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amemd the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer
service to include all remaining properties as shown in the Comprehensive Plan
as~the Rivanna Village, which is a designated growth area. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 3 and December 10, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg said last month the Board had before it a request to amend
the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area boundaries for water and
sewerservice to the Glenmore property in the Village of Rivanna. At that
time, staff asked the Board to consider amending the service area boundaries
for water and sewer service to the entire Rivanna Village which would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He presented a map which covered the
Village. area.
Mr. Bowie asked if this amendment would make it mandatory for a subdivi-
sion .to connect to water and sewer service~ Mr. St. John responded "no", but
a future Board could require the connection following a public hearing. Mr.
Cilimberg said this amendment does not mean that the properties within the
service areas will automatically have water and sewer available.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dan Bieker, a property owner, said he hopes the Board approves this
designation. He does not think water and sewer service should just be
available to Glenmore.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to amend the
service.area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water
and sewer service to include all r~maining properties as shown in the Compre-
hensive Plan as the Rivanna Village, which is a designated growth area, and
set out as follows: Tax Map 79, Parcels 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 26, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 35A; Tax Map 79D, Parcels 1., 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; Tax Map 80, Parcels 46, 4§A, 46B, 46C, 46D, 4§E,
47, 48, 49, 49A, 50., 51, 52, 53, 54, 54A, 55, 55A, 55B, 55C, 56, 56A, 57, 57A,
58, 58A; Tax Map 93, Parcels 61, 6lA, §lB, 62; and Tax Map 94, Parcels 1, lA,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, SA, 8C, 8D, SE, 8F, 9, 10, 47, 47A, 48, 49B, 49C,
50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, §5, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74. Roll was ealled and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
263
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Crozet Recycling Project.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memo dated December 13, 1991:
"The following information is provided as background for your discus-
sion on the Crozet drop-off recycling program.
Background: The Crozet Recycling Program is a local initiative
sponsored by the County and a group of community volunteers called the
Crozet Recyclers. They started their program around February, 1991,
and as the program grew, they requested financial assistance from the
County to offset collection and transportation costs. This program is
run once amonth from 8:30 a~m. to, 11:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning.
You approved financial assistance initially at $40/month and increased
it to $250/month when the private hauler's costs increased to accommo-
date the higher tonnage collected. The program funding expired in
December. Collections and cost data are as follows:
Program
7/6/91 8/3/91 9/7/91 10/5/91 11/2/91 12/7/91 ~Average
Newspaper lbs. -3,920 5,100 4,600 3,800 3,440 6,200
Ail Other lbs. 2,540 3,870
Plastics lbs. 560 400 360 700
Glass/Tin/Alum. lbs
3,470 2,958 2,730 3,020 est.
Total Pounds 6,460 8,970 8,630
Tons 3.23 4.49 4~32
7,150 6,530 10,000 est. 7,956
3.58 3.27 5.0 3.98
Cost Per Event $250 $250 3250 $250 $250 $250 3250
Cost Per Ton $ 77 $ 56 $ 58 $ 70 $ 77 $ 50 $ 63
The average cost per ton of $63 compares favorably to the estimate of
$60to $70 for our voluntacy curbside recYcling program assuming
collection costs for the drop-off program do not increase above the
$250/event.
Discussion: Information from the private haulers providing these
collection services indicate their costs have increased as a result of
higher volumes, as well as, a weakening of the market for recyclables.
Preliminary estimates of $500 to $1000 per event would be required to
continue the Crozet drop-off program in its current form. Based on
the~peak collection of five tons in December, this would equate to
$100 to $200 per ton. This does not compare favorably to the $60 to
$70/ton for the curbside program.
If the Crozet drop-off program does not continue, residents will still
havetwo options for recycling: first, the voluntary curbside program
is being offered to all private haulers in the County starting
January 1, 1992; and second, the McIntire drop-off center is available
fornewsprint, glass and aluminum. Alternatives to curbside collec-
tion may still be necessary to provide services to unique residential
areas. The~need for these will be addressed in our development of a
comprehensive solid waste program that will be presented to you in
February for consideration with the budget for FY 92-93.
Alternatives:
(1)' Continue the Crozet program for January at an estimated cost of
$500. This would be a short-term extension and would probably
require continued extensions or termination.
(2)
Continue the Crozet program through the fiscal year at an
estimated Cost of $!000 per event or $6000 for the rmmminder of
the year. Collection services should be bid anda review of the
program conducted to identify if any changes would provide,a more
cost effective operation, Continuing this program would require
significant commitments to coordinate the volunteer staffing of
.each event. Offering these services in Crozet for six more
months may create demand for similar services in other areas of
the County which have not been studied nor have funds been
identified.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
264
(3) Provide a similar service at the Ivy Landfill. Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority and County staff are looking at this option and
will include it in the comprehensive program evaluation for
February.
(4)
Provide no further funding at this time. Alternative recycling
services are available that are more cost effective. The new
voluntary curbside program has not been in place long enough to
evaluate but conducting duel recycling efforts is considered
counter-productive.
Recommendation: Staff recognizes the tremendous efforts of the Crozet
volunteers andthe significant educational benefit of their program
and if the Board feels it is important to maintain the current
recycling program in Crozet, until volunteers can be better coordi-
nated, then Alternative 1 should be followed. HoWever, staff~recom-
mends that the Board look closely at Alternatives 3 and 4 as they
appear to be the most cost effective.
Mr. Bowie felt that the program should be continued because there is no
alternative, nor is there a County~wide recycling program. Mr. Bain said it
is counter-productive to haulers and paying customers to continue, this program
in Crozet and other free drop-off sites. If people can take their materials
to Crozet or Charlottesville and drop them off free, they are not going to pay
the haulers. Mr. Bain asked if there was something in place at the Ivy
Landfill. Mr. Tucker said there is a roll-off container for the haulers'who
are participating in the curbside recycling program at the Landfill.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the County will lose more than it gains by
closing.drop-off centers such as the one onMcIntire Road. He thinks all
possible avenues should be available for people to recycle.
Mr. Perkins said' his enthusiasm for the Crozet program wanes when he
starts looking at a cost of $500 a month. He thinks the Board needs to keep
the cost per ton in mind at all times.
Mr. Tucker said the staff is lookinginto providing a similar program in
in three other locations around the County on weekends.
Mr. Perkins asked if the $500 is based on using volunteers. Mrl Tucker
responded "yes". It is his understanding that the haulers are attempting to
recovertheir costs.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board should pursue Option #3, which is to
provide a similar service at the Ivy Landfill. He is hesitant about funding
another at a cost of $500. Mr. Bain agreed..
Mr. Bowie asked if there was a motion to extend funding to the Crozet
recycling program.
No motion was made, nor was there any further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 12. Reconsideration: Naming of Jefferson-Monroe
Parkway.
Mr. Daniel P. Jordan, Executive Director, Monticello, and Ms. Carolyn C.
Holmes, Executive Director, Ash Lawn-Highlands, were prssent. Mr. Jordan
handed out a statement prepared ~ointly by the~two parties. Mr. Jordansaid
they appreciate the opportunity to appear together for the first time in the
road naming saga. They feel that Jefferson and Monroe were great Americans
and each deserve the highest possible recognition. Accordingly, they support
the staffJs recommendation to name one roadway for eaCh man; specifically a
roadway in front of and on the immediate access route to each home. In
addition, they support the extension of the Monroe Parkway along Route 627 to
the point where .it intersects with Route 727 (Blenheim Road).. Mrs. Holmes
submitted a petition from a majority of landowners along that stretch in
support of that designation. Mr. Jordan said they also request Board support
for placing signs,reading "To James Monroe Parkway" at the intersection of
265
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Routes 20 and 53, as well as at the intersection of Routes 20 and 627. They
believe this proposal will make clearer the location of any calls coming into
the County's 911 system which was the original goal of the road naming
project. Mr. Jordan said they recognize and commend the herculean efforts of
the E-911 Road Naming Committee to propose names for each of Albemarle
County's nearly 800 roads. Mrs. Holmes said she concurs with all of the com-
ments.
Mr. Bowie recognized Mr. Steve Meeks and Mr. George Howard from the Road
Naming Committee.
Mr. George Howard, a member of the road naming committee from the
Scottsville District, said he-agrees with what has been said except for the
eXtension of James Monroe Parkway onto Route 627. He does not think there is
any place along Route 627 that is convenient to end the name. There is no
stop'sign on Route 627 until it intersects with Route 795. He.has.taken a
telephone poll ofall the property ~owners that he could get in touch with who
live~along Route 627. Of the people he contacted, 14 were against naming this
extension of Route 627 as James Monroe Parkway. There were four persons in
support of the name. The four who support the name live on the section of
Route 627 that is near Route 795. He handed in a petition supporting his
statements.
Mr. Bowie said the Board got into this situation by not following its own
procedures. One of the Board, s rules has been not to name part of a road one
name and the other half of the road a different name. He is prepared to
support the staff's recommendation. Mr. Perkins agreed. Mr. Way also agreed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, to.name Route 53 from its intersec-
tion with Route 20 to its intersection with795 as Thomas Jefferson Parkway;
to name Route 795 from its intersection with Route 53 to its intersection with
Route 627 as James Monroe Parkway; to leave the entire length of Route 627 to
its intersection with Route 20 as Carter's Mountain Road. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion.
Mrs. Humphris asked when it is appropriate to request that the signs be
placed on James Monroe Parkway. Mr. Tucker said as long as the Board supports
that request, staff will see that the signs are provided. Mr. Way then added
in his motion to include the signs'at the two locations, Routes 20 and 53, and
Route 20 and 627. MrS. Humphris agreed as seconder.
Roll .was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain~ BoWerman, BOwie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr, Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appointment: Airport Commission.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint
Mr. Stewart C. Malone to the Joint Airport Commission, with said term to
expire on December 1, 1994, and to appoint Mr. William J. Kehoe as the joint
representative on the Joint Airport Commission with said term to expire on
December 1, 1994. Roll wascalled and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Item No. 13b. Appointment: Alcohol Safety Action Program.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to reappoint
Chief John Miller to the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP)
Board with said term to expire on 3anuary 1, 1995. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr'. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
266
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to reappoint
Mr. Terry W. Hawkins as a member of the Jail Board with said term to expire on
December 31, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: July 3, August 7 and November
20, 1991.
Mr. P~rkins had re~d the minutes of July 3, 1991, and found them to be in
order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of November 20, 1991, pages 1 ~ 14
(end at #1I) and found them to. be in order with two typo errors.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of November 20, 1991, pages 14 (#11) - end
and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said the Route 660 bridge will reopen at 12:00 noon, Friday,
December 20, 1991.
Mr~ Bain summarized the following letter dated December 13, 1991, from
Mr. Kevin P. Murray:
"I thought it prudent to update the Board on the progress of the pond
proposal at Henley Middle School.
Following the proposal letter sent to the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority (RWSA), Mr. Eugene Potter, Director of Operations, contacted
me by phone to inform me that his department was in favor of the
modified closure and is willing to participate financially to accom-
plish the necessary work so long as two requirements are met. The
requirements are as follows:
1)
The modified closure plan must be approved by appropriate
authorities within the County. The RWSA should be released from
liability after the modified closure, is completed.
2)
The modified closure plan should be submitted to the State
Department of Health and the Water Control Board for approval.
I contacted Mr. Ed Bain concerning County approval and he informed me
that after discussion, the Board of Supervisors verbally supported the
pond idea.
Releasing RWSA from liability is not an issue I have addressed. I
assume that release will be granted when the plan is formally ap-
proved, and the pond falls under Board of Supervisor control.
Mr. Potter has agreed to submit a modified closure plan to the proper
State authorities. I personally contacted Mr. Jim Moore of the State
Department of Health and he is operating fully to push the modified
plan through the state bureaucracies.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
267
I contacted Mr. Jim Bowling, of the County Attorney's office, in late
November, and inquired into any liability problems that the County may
have with the pond. I was told that liability should not be an issue
due to the fact that the County presently has jurisdiction over
several ponds as well as larger bodies of water, and that because of
the secluded location, the pond would not be considered an 'attractive
nuisance'.
Presently, I have run into the first tumbling block in what so far has
been a very smooth process. On December 11, I spoke with Mr~ A1
Reaser, and he informed me that he will support a recommendation from
the County Engineering Department that the pond, when finished, be
secured with a'chainlinkfence. If this requirement is followed, it
will destroy the purpose of having a natural pond accessible to
wildlife and students. A fence will also intrude into the extensive
natural area that has been developed~by Henley students and~ members of
the Henley Outdoor Club.
After speaking with Mr. Reaser, I again contacted Jim Bowtingand he
informed me that the pond does not need to be fenced, because it was
not designed as a holding basin for runoff and erosion control. I
then contacted Ms. Jo Higgins, of the Engineering Depar~m~nt, and was
told that their recommendation for fencing is to protect the Depart-
ment from liability. The fence has now become a political issue and. a
waiver must come from the Board of Supervisors. It is felt by me and
Mr. Bowling that the pond will pose no more of a liability than it has
for the last 20 years. If a waiver can be granted, Ms. Higgins will
need a copy for her. file and the matter will not be pursued~further.
She was most cooperative. If a waiver for the fencing cannot be
achieved, then the project will have to be abandoned due to costs,
both financial and aesthetic.
I appreciate your cooperation and hope all issues can be resolved in
favor of this mostworthwhile project.,'
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to waive any
requirement for a fence around the pond. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr, Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr; Bain said he received a call from Mr. Mac Sandridge, a retiring
County employee, who is requesting an exception to "continuous" service as
defined in the County's Retirement Pay Policy. Mr. Bain asked staff to make a
report atthe January day meeting as to the number of employees who would be
affected by deleting the word "continuous" from, or by waiving the policy for,
service that is not continuous.
Mr. Bain said the Board received a copy of the Thomas. Jefferson Planning
District Commission!s 1992 Legislative Program. He asked the Board to support
the following three priorities of the Commission: "1) We oppose any change in
funding formula for secondary and urban roads; 2) The State should provide
more funds for education; and 3) The State should reevaluate Solid Waste
guidelines and regulations, particularly for closure of existing landfills.
If regulations arenecessary, State funding should be available."
Mr. Bain thenofferedmotion that the Board approve the three legislative
priorities of the ThOmas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Mr. Bowerman
seconded'the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Way.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
268
Mr. Perkins offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to give Mr. Bowie
the gavel he had used for the past two years as Chairman. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie thanked the Clerk and Deputy Clerk to the Board for the help
they gave him during his terms on the Board of Supervisors and especially his
two years as Chairman. He expressed his pleasure in working with Mr. Tucker
and the news media. Although this Board has not always agreed, he thinks
these six members are the finest bunch of people he has ever worked with. He
has enjoyed working with them and thanked them for the honor of electing him
twice as Chairman.
Mrs. Humphris announced that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission will meet with State legislators on January 2, 1992, 7:30 p.m., in
the Worrell Building. The meeting is open to the public.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to January 2, 1992, at 4 P.M.
At 10:05 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman,
to adjourn to January 2, 1992, at 4:00 P.M. for the organizational meeting of
the Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.