1991-09-18 235
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 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. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:08 p.m.) 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 7:04 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. No one from the public came forward.
Agenda ItemNo. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Item 5.1, and to accept Items 5.2 and
5.5 through 5.8 on the consent agenda as information (5.3 and 5.4 will go on
the October 9, 1991, agenda for discussion.) (Conversation which occurredon
each item Will be shown with that item.) There being no further discussion,
roll was called and the motion carried by thefollowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs~ Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1.-Memo dated September 12, 1991, from V.. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, requesting the Board's concur-
rence for changes to conditions of approval for ZMA-90-09, Cathcart-Turner,
was received as follows, and approved by the vote shown above:
"The above referenced ZMA resulted in the rezoning of some 24 acres~
from R-1 to PRD on. Avon Street south of 1-64. In developing more
detailed site development plans and working withthe Architectura!~
Review Board, the applicant has found that an alteration in the-plan.
is~desirable to reduce environmental and aesthetic impact~. The-
applicant proposes to substitute a plan dated June 3, 1991, titled
'Exhibit C2 Lakeside Apartments'. The. revised plan necessitates~
changes to the internal road system, including relocation of the
entrances to the site. The internal through road has been relocated
to the southern entrance. To reflect this change, the applicant
proposes new. wordingfor condition #2. Furthermore, with the changes
proposed by the applicant, condition #7 would no~longer~benecessary~
Changes in access and the internalroad system have been discussed
with the Virginia Department of Transportation. Entrance locations
are acceptable,~ Ultimate approval of the internal through
acceptance into the statesystem willbe based on its ultimate~con-
nection into-adjacent properties and the resulting .traffic volumes.
The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the proposed plan~and on
June 24, 1991, made comments regarding the plan. In general, the
Architectural Review Board was receptive to the plan.
Staff opinion is that the-proposed alterations are consistent with the
intent of the original..approval and will result in a development equal
to or. superior to the original plan. Staff recommends~the following
substitutions for Conditions #1 and.#2 of ZMA-90-09. are appropriate:
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
236
1. Development shall be in accord with plan dated June 3, 1991, and
titled 'Exhibit C2 Lakeside Apartments'
2. The applicant agrees to reserve for dedication, upon demand of
the County, a 50 foot right-of-way from Route 742 to Tax Map 91,
Parcel 2. The applicant agrees to construct a 40 foot curb-to-
curb cross-section running approximately 600 feet perpendicular
to Route 742 and then approximately 200 feet parallel to Route
742. Costs incurred in having the road accepted into the state
system shall not be borne by the applicant unless the need for
· dedication is generated by this development.
Conditions 3 - 6are unaffected. Condition 7 which reads: 'The
southern road entrance to the future connector road to be closed off
at such time as the connector road is accepted into the State Secon-
dary HighWay System~' is~nolonger necessary. -" -
Staff recommends that the Board accept these changes as meeting the
intent of the original approval. With this acceptance~ staff.~will
include these modifications in the Cathcart-Turner file as part of-the
approved conditions."
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she had tried to follow the description
relating to the change in the plan, and she found that it was hard to do. She
asked Mr. Cilimberg to clarify this change. She mentioned that the alteration
of the plan "is desirable to reduce environmental and aesthetic impact," but
she doesn't understand how this will be done.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the change in the plan relates to howthe
roads and the units are laid out as opposed to the original approach. He
noted that~there is no increase in the units, and it is simply a rearrangement
of the unit and road locations to be more sensitive to the topography which
drops off.from Avon'Street rather dramatically. He said that.the'ARB was
interested in making sure that there was avegetated buffer that would step
down from Avon~;treetadjacentto parking areas that would~heassociated~with
these buildings. He went on to say that this arrangement allows the step down
from Avon Street, and it will be possible to retain some undisturbed vegetated
areas that exist now on the site.
(Mr. Perkins 'arrived at 7:08 p.m..) ~
Mr. Cilimberg then displayed a'map of the original plan, and he proceeded
to describethe original proposal. He said that the discussion regarding the
road system in the original plan pertained to,a right .turn whichwould result
in aroad going down into the adjacent property to be made available for
public use, if necessary. He pointed out a cut-through road on the map as
related to:establishing a certain isle for-parking. He said that the firs~
ptanprovided for a cu%~off .for this access to eliminate that particular'
cut-through. He-thendiscussed the current plan and said.that~the entrance
that will be located at the northern end. of the property will be;aminor
entrance-that enters into some parking areas. Since the road goes, thronghr'
parking .areas, it does not lend itself to a cut-throughmovement based0n
normal-circulation, He pointed out where the major road, which will ultimate-
ly be the public access, would enter, and he said that a right turn would go,
south and take the traffic into the adjacent property. ~e noted that this is
where the applicanthas specified that the necessary right-of-way will still
be reserved for a public road. He said the current plan has moved the major
entrance from furthernorth on the site to a more southern location, and at
the same ,time it has eliminated a direct cut-through movement, through a
parking area.
Mr.~Way wondered:ifone of the~original entranceshad been~'eliminated'~
Mr., Citimberg pointed out the entrance that was eliminated.
,~ Mr. Cilimberg stated that' the building and parking configurations,have'
changed, and this, is in response tocomments from the ARB.about reserving~
trees, and. providing a buffer in stepping down with the-development concept.
He noted that after discussion with the Zoning. Administrator, the staff felt
thatthe full intent of the original approval was still being offered and that
this plan was simply a response to the ARB comments in trying to be,more._-
237
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
sensitive to the site and the layout of the development. He said that the
staff wanted to make sure the Board was aware of the change and endorsed it
so that the plan could be filed as an acceptance of those modifications.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there has been a change in the total number of
buildings. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "no." He said that the plan continues to
be under the original requirements with a maximum of 360 units.
Mr. Bain asked if the "through" road is the Avon Street connector road to
Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "no." He said that proposed connector road
from Route 20 to Avon Street is to be located further south. He pointed out
that the road to which Mr. Bain referred provides a subdivision street connec-
tio~into propertY when the property develops. He said that it is only to
reserve the opportunity, if it is ever needed, and it will not be a high
volume road.
Mrs~ Humphris called attention to the last sentence in the second condi-
tion which states that, "Costs incurred inhaving the road accepted into the
State system shall not be borne by the applicant unless the need for dedica-
tion ~is generated by this development." She asked how this will be deter-
mined. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the applicant would be responsible for the
costs of taking the road into the State system only ifthe~applicant changed
his concept of development. He went on to say that the applicant could also
pursue building of a public road, but he would have to bear the costs~of'
building that road to.public standards.
Item 5.2. Memorandum dated September 5, 1991, from ¥. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, .addressedto Local. Surveyors,
Land-Planners and Engineers, entitled "Subdivision Plat/Site Plan Exten-
· s,t
slons/Reapprovat ~, was received as information as set out below:
7The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting of
August 27, 1991, endorsed the following clarification in procedur~as
zegards requests, for subdivision plats and site plan extensions/
reapprovals. This proceduralclarification is intended to assure~
consistent consideration of such requests as allowed for under the
Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. It will also
allow staff and the Commission to maintain review of plats/plans under
ordinance provisions in effect at the time of extension/reapproval,
Subdivision Plats
The Director of Planning and Community Development, as agent for the~
Board of Supervisors, may grant extension of preliminary ptatsunder
-Section 18-50 ofthe Subdivision Ordinance. The Director. will review
preliminary plat extension requests administratively and base deci-
sions on circumstances related to unusual delay beyond the control-of~
the. applicant rather than other factors such aseconomic hardshipand-
the. like. Appeals of the Director's decisions-are' available'through
the~Board of Supervisors. ' ~
Extension requests for final plats are not provided undercurrent
ordinance-regulations. In.the. future when the allocated time for a
final plat expires, it can be reactivated'.by resubmitting the final
plat on (or before) a submittal deadline with the appropriate applica-
tion, fee, and number of copies of the plat. The plat will be con-
sidered as new business with complete review by the Site Review
Committee under ordinance regulations in effect at the time of re-
submittals Once revisions are received in accordance with the Site
Review Committee recommendations, the plat will be placed on the
Gommission'sagenda for action.
Site Plans
The Directoc of Planning is empowered under Section 32.3.3 to 'estab-
lish from time to time such reasonable administrative procedures'
necessary to properly administer the site plan provisions. The-
Director will. review preliminary plan extension requests in a manner
similar to the~above stated policy for preliminary plats; thatis,
238
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
based on circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. Approved
final plans will not be granted extensions. As with final plats,
expired final plans can be reactivated by resubmitting on a submittal
date with an appropriate application, fee, and number of copies. The
plan will go through the normal site review process and be placed on
the Commission's agenda for action.
Item 5.3. Memorandum dated September 4, 1991, from ¥. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, entitled "Fire Hydrants along
Existing Water Lines outside of Jurisdictional (Services) Areas."
Mr.. Bowie asked for this-matter to be brought back to the Board at the
day meeting in October with information pertaining to who will be responsible
for paying for these fire hydrants, how it should be done and what has to be
done to~g.et~ the~jo~ accomplished. ~"'
Item 5.4. Memorandum dated September 9, 1991, f=om Robert W..Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, entitled !'Proposed Adult Day Care Center", was received
as follows:
"County staff has been approached by representatives of the Jefferson
Area Board for Aging regarding the potential of using a county-owned
parcel of land on Berkmar Drive adjacent to the rescue squad building
as a new adult day care center. Apparently plans to use a site owned
by the Catholic Diocese of Richmond at Branchlands has run into
difficulties and alternatives are being explored.
Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of JABA, has requested to meet
with the appropriate county representatives and staff recommends that
the-Board's Building Committee be instructed to meet with Mr. Walker
and bring a recommendation back to the Board for its consideration.!!
Mr~Bowie said that this is not a firm proposal, and he sees no'value.in<
sending it to the Building Committee. He noted, though, that everyone sees a
need for an adult day care center. He told Board members that there is a ten
page report available if anyone would like to refresh his or her memory..~He
mentioned that a similar-arrangement has been worked outin $cottsville. He
asked for the staff's recommendations to be broughtback to the October day
meeting.
Item 5.5. Copy of a certified copy of United States Internal Revenue
Service FOrm 8038 filed by the Albemarle County Industrial Development. Author-
ity for the $12,595,000 Residential Facility FirstMortgage Revenue'Bonds(Our
Lady of. Peace Project) series 1991, was received for information-.
Item 5.6. Copy of~letter dated September 6,--1991, from James Christian'~
Hill, National Register. Assistant, State HistoricPreservationOffice, stating
their interest in having Solitude placed-on the ¥irginia Landmarks. Register~
wasreceived for information. '
Item 5.7. Copy of Bond Program Report and Monthly Reportfor Arbor Crest
Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) for the Month of August, 1991, was received
for information.
Item 5.8. Copiesof Minutes of. thePlanning Commission for--Augustr27, ~
September-3 and September 10, 1991, were received forinformation.
The following two items were heard concurrently.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-9t~04. Schuyler Enterprises. Public Hearing.~on
an amendment to Section 3.0 of the Zoning Ordinance to change the definition
of public garage. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 3 and
September 10, 1991.)
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
239
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the the following staff report:
"Origin: Request by Schuyler Enterprises.
Public Purpose to be Served: The proposed amendment would provide
clarification of the activities permitted as part of a public garage.
History of ZTA-91-04: The applicant originally submitted a request to
add contractor's office and equipment storage yard in the Rural Areas
and to amend the definitions and add supplementary regulations for the
use. Staff was unable to recommend approval of that request and on
July 16 the Planning Commission deferred action on ZTA-91-04 until
~ugust~ 6. ~Staff prepared a revised ZTA after discussions with the
applicant and the County Attorney. The revised report was prepared on
the addition of truck terminal to the Rural Areas District and to
provide for Supplemental regulations. Staff was unable to recommend
approval of that proposal. The applicant then requested deferral of
ZTA, 91~04 on-~August 6. -Subsequent to that request the applicant has
now changed the requested ZTA-91-04 to amend public garage and has
submitted a revised definition.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend Section
3.07 Definitions, as follows:
Public Garage: A building or portion thereof, other than a
private garage, which together with the adjacent land area is
designed or used for servicing or repairing and temporary stor-
age (not to'exceed. 48 ~hours) of motor driven vehicles.
Staff~ Comment :.
History of Public .Garages: The following is ~a brief history of the
County's approach to the issue of public garages:
'In a special use,permit review in 1978, staff stated that (SP-78-55,
Walter Johnson): 'the definition of public garage has been problem-
atic in the past. This use appears only in the A-1 zone, and.~staff
II °n
opinion is that rentl g, selling, or storing motor vehicles" are uses
inappropriate' to that ~zone. Therefore, staff recommends repealer of
said wording thus restricting such use to the "repairing, servicing,
and equipping" of motor vehicles.'
In a November, 1.986 Comprehensive Plan work session report, staff
stated that: 'Some uses included in the RA district bear little or no
relationship to the statement of intent and need not be permitted
(based on other zoning provisions) in the RA district.. These are
basically uses permitted by special use permit, such as motels,
restaurants, and -public garages. '
In 1989 the Board of Supervisors amended the definition of public
garage, to delete the 'equipping., renting, selling or. storing of motor
vehicles.'
Staff, has identified nine applications for a publi=c garage since the
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Of these nine, one was dismissed,
~four were denied, three were approved, and one was withdrawn. No
applications for a public garage have been approved since the amend-
ment of the definition of public garage in 1989. Ail public garages
approved by the Board .and ail recommended, for approval by the Planning
Commission (an additional two requests), had conditions limiting to
four ~the number of Vehicles awaiting~repair, or a condition stating no
storage of vehicles.
It is clear from past approval of public garages that the intent of
the Board was to limit the amount of activity~and the .visual impact
that garages ~have.on the Rural Areas. In 1989, reference to storage
of vehicles was deleted from the definition of public garage. Under
the prior definition, storage could occur independent of any repair
activities. Under the current proposed language, storage.can occur
only as an accessory use to the repair activities.
240
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Purpose and Intent of the Rural Areas Zoning District: In general,
the purpose and intent of the Rural Areas zoning district reflects the
Comprehensive Plan and is to encourage and preserve agricultural and
forestal activities and to discourage development not related to bona
fide agricultural and forestal uses. This intent is reflected by the
uses permitted in the district. The provisions for commercial,
non-residential, non-agricultural/forestal uses are primarily for uses
supportive of agriculture/forestry (Farm Winery, Sawmill) or support-
ive of a rural population (Country Store, Public Garage).
Public Garage would remain supportive of a rural population under the
applicant's proposal. Staff has discussed this amendment with the
ZoningAdmi~nistrator who'has statedthat temporary storage of vehicles
is currently permitted as accessory to a public garage. This inter-
pretation is based in part on the possible need to store a vehicle for
a limited'time while awaiting parts necessary_to complete~the repair.
Therefore, staff does not object to the addition of 'temporary stor-
age' to the definition of public.garage. Staff is concernedabout
setting a time limit to define temporary storage. This would remove
any-discretion, on the part of the Zoning Administrator-~ In the past,
storage of vehicles at'public garages has been addressedbylimiting
to four the number of vehicles awaiting repairor restricting storage~
This'allows for a reasonable storage time and grants theZoningl
Administrator and garage operator flexibility.
Summary: The applicant's proposal would clarify the.uses permitted~at
a public garage. Defining a time period for temporarystorage may
Create an enforcement~problem for the Zoning Administrator and does
not. provide for any discretion to allow for unforeseen delays in
repair of vehicles which may result in storage for over 48 hours.
Staff recommends that the following language, be added to the end of
the applicant's definition 'whether or not for compensationS.~ This
additional language further clarifies a public garage in, the event
that a facilityis operated as not for profit by a club or individual
or is used by only a single user.
Staff recommends approval of ZTA-91-04with the following language'
Public Garage: A~building orportion thereof, other than a
private garage, which together with the adjacent land area is
· designed or. used for servicing or repairing and temporary, stor~
age of motor driven~ vehicleS, whether, or not.for~compensation~
Mr. Cilimberg said, thePlanning Commission, at itsmeeting on Septem-
ber 10, 1991, unanimously recommended denial of. ZTA-91-04, because they felt
it was.neither necessary nordesired.
Agenda ItemNo. 7-. SP-91r21, Schuyler Enterprises. Public~ Hearing~on a
request ~to locate a public garage on 25.0 ac zoned RA (use proposed under
ZTA-§I-04 above). Property on S side at inters of Rts 800/602. TM126,P31A
(part). Scottsville Dist~ (This property does not lie in a designated growth
area.) (Advertised in the ~aily Progress on September 3 and September 10,
Mr.'Cilimberg summarizedthe staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This site is developed with a recently con-
structed garage and a-graveled storage/parking area. ~ The areas
surrounding the site arc.wooded and no dwellings are visible from the
site. The garage is visible from the state road.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to use the existing
site~to store and repair equipment used hy ~Schuyler Trucking only~
The applicant currentlyhas similar facilities in Schuyler (Nelson
County). ' Maintenance would include, butis not limitedto, repairing
orreplacingtires:, brakes, lights and routine truck maintenances'
Hours of operation would be 8 a.m. to5 p,m., Monday through Saturday.
No freight will be handled or stored on site. A description of this
request as well as a justification has been provided by the applicant.
241
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
(Staff notes that the previous use of this site has been in violation
of the Zoning Ordinance and as of the preparation of this report the
Zoning Administrator is pursuing action pursuant to the violations.)
Sl~mmary and Recommendations: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and recommends
denial. This report will be based on the assumption that ZTA-91-04
has been approved and that the general policy issue of permitting
storage in conjunction with a public garage has been addressed.
Therefore, the remainder of this report will be site and use specific.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan states on Page 203: 'All
..:--decisions concerning-~Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the
four major elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The four major ele-
ments are: 1) preservation of agriculture and forestal activities; 2)
water supply protection; 3).limited service delivery to the Rural
,
Area;-and4) conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
Based on information provided by the applicant, this use will have at
best only an_indirect relationship with local, agricultural/forestal
activities as the. products trucked will typically have origin and
destination outside of the County. (This relationship wouldbe a.
direct one if the applicant's primary service was the trucking of
agricultural commodities produced by or used in Albemarle County
agricultural activities.)
This site is not located within a water supply.watershed. This site
is..ext.remelyremoteto the developed~.portions of the County and the:.
provisions of services, primarily police and fire protection, may be
limited due to the. distances involved. Other issues listed by the
Comprehensive-Plan will be discussed, later in this:report:.
It is the opinion of staff that this request is inconsistent with the
intent of the ComprehensivePlan regarding the Rural kreaand that
this use would be. more appropriate in a designatedgrowtharea, -
Staff. Comment:: In the past, staff has. recommended that publicgarage
uses· are more appropriate to designated growth areas of the Compre-
hensive Plan than to random location-in the Rural Areas.- In past
reports for public garages, staff has stated that commercial use of
the property should be evaluated in terms of appropriateness to the
RuralAreas. That is to say, a determination should be made.as to
whether or not. this garage would provide service to the area otherwise
not conveniently available.
It is clear that.this use will not provide the limited support ser-
vices for the Rural Areas that a typical public garage wouldprovide.
This.is due to the applicant'-s proposal which would limit use~of the
garage to the repair and.maintenance of Schuyler Enterprise equipment
only. If the proposal were for a public garage open to the general
public it is the opinion of staff that the use would then duplicate
garage services which are,available'l.8 miles from the site at the .-
-intersection ~of Route 6 and~ Route 630 (DennisBrown, a.non-con.forming
garage). -
The remainder, of this report addresses the following issues:
1,- Safety of Routes 800 and 602 in Albemarle and Nelson County..,
2. Suitability ofthe site for development.
3. Consistency with items contained in Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Ordinance.
Safety of Route..800:and 602 in Albemarleand Nelson County': The
applicant notes that this location will removetraffichazards.on
Route 800,inboth Albemarle and Nelson counties. The applicant- ~
currently performs the activities proposed on this site inNelson
County, but requires additional area'to support the business. The
applicant, states that by-moving this operation to Albemarle-County it
will reduce truck traffic coming from Route 6 on the section of Route
800,between this siteand Nelson County. Staff has obtained accident
242
September 18, !991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
information from the ¥irginia Department of Transportation for Routes
800 and 602. This information indicates that in the past three years
there has been one fatal accident and that this occurred on Route 800.
This accident occurred between the site currently under review and
Nelson County. Based on the applicant's information, staff agrees
that this request may reduce the number of trucks using Route 800
between this site and Nelson County. However, this site will not
remove the risk of accidents as some trucks may still go to the
Schuyler operation. This site will also involve the use of a portion
of Route 602 previously unused for daily truck traffic. Staff does
not support uses which will increase truck traffic on secondary roads
in the Rural Areas whiah are not designed for such regular use. Staff
also notes other traffic associated with the operation may increase on
Route 800 due to the geographic separation of the applicant's two
locations.
Suitability of the Site for Development: Staff-n0testhat a portion
off-this site is currently developed and that no site plan has been
approved. A variety of soils are located on this site, most of which
are not suited to agriculture. However, the~potential of tree produc-
tion on-site is moderate to high except where restricted by slope.
Therefore, this usewitl not substantially'restrict future useof the
sitefor agricultUre, due to the presence ofunsuitable agricultural
soils, The potential use of a portion of the site for forestal
activities.will belost due to this.development. It should be noted
that available soils information is general in nature. Large deposits
of soapstone are located in this area~and they may reduce tree produc-
ti~ity~ For construction purposes, the soils on the developed portion
of the site do not have severe limits. Other soils on site have
severe to.moderate limits and seasonally high water tables.
Provisions,of Section 31.2.4.1:
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.of
substantial detriment to adjacent proper~ty, -
Ail property adjacent~to this site is wooded, and parcel 3lA is re~
stricted by the conditions of SP-90-11 which allowsdivision~into_lots
of 21_acres or .greater only. This use. will result in an industrial
use which may result in thestorage of~ unsightly material and noise
from the repairoperation as well as increased traffic volumes on
Route 602. This may result in a detriment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The establishment,.of this Public Garage which is unrelated to local
and/or forestry
agriculture isinconsistent with the character of'the
district due to the scale and characteristics of:the activitY.
Approval of this permit may encourage additional~requests for com-
mercial activities in this area.
and, that such use will be in harmony with.~the purpose and intent~of
this ordinance,
This use will result in traffic volumes higher than whatwould be
normally expected from a single-family ~dwelting. Staff isunable to
determine what the.average traffic count to the site:will, be, but
based on the applicant's information it would be a minimum of 24
vehicle trips per day with a majority, being truck traffic. This
increase may be considered inconsistent with the intent of the ordi-
nanceas stated by Section 1~4.2 'To reduce or prevent, congestionin
the public streets.' Thisuse would-'not appear to be consistent with
the intent or-.the Ordinance as stated by Section 1.6 as this'area is
recommended as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan.
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
243
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
As stated in the intent of the Rural Areas District section: 'It is
intended that permitted development be restricted to land which is of
marginal utility for agricultural/forestal purposes, provided that
such development be carried out in a manner which is compatible with
other purposes of this district.'
As has been stated earlier, this land is of marginal utility for
agriculture. The by-right uses of the Rural Areas District are
limited. It does not appear that this use would directly interfere
with existing agricultural/forestal operations in the area. However,
due~to~the~scale-of this use and its industrial character, this use is
not in harmony with the intended by-right uses of the district.
with additional-regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance,
Section 5.0 contains*no regulations governingpublic garages.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare~
Due to the existing development on site, it is unknown if storage
areas can be adequately screened. The Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors should be aware that the site was developed without
site plan approval and staff is unable to verify that all provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. This site is served by.private
septic system and has. obtained. HealthDepartment approval. Water
service to,the site is by the'Nelson-County public water system.
Safety issues regarding public roads have been previously addressed.
Waste materials such as parts will be placed in dumpsters and removed
from t~he site. Waste oil-will.be collected, and_used to heat the ~ -:~'
structure.''Other Waste fluids will be stored in barrels and then
removed from the site. During Site Review, staff will take measures
to ensure adequate containment and disposal methods for all waste.
Additional Information and Recommendations:
Staff notes that a number of letters-have.been received both in-
support of and opposing this request.
In general, this use represents the introduction~of a usewhich is
inconsistent'with the general character of the area andis not sup-
portive of local agriculture/forestry or the existing rural popu-
lation.
Staff..has~identified the~foltowing factors which are favorable to this
request:
1'. The land isof marginal utility for. agriculture.
2~ Use mayreduce~truck traffic on a portion of Route 800 which is
narrow and winding.
Staff has identified the following factors'which are unfavorable to
this request:
1. Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to incompatibility
with theRuralAreas.
2. Lack of support of the Rural Area population or relationship with
local agriculture/forestry.
3. Possibility for ~an increase in total trafficvolumes of Route 800
due to the geographical separation oftheoperations for Schuyler
Enterprises.
4. A use of, this nature (industrial characteristics) is a potential
detriment to adjacent properties,.
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
244
5. A use of this nature (industrial characteristics) will change the
existing rural character of the area.
6. Use appears to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance due to increased traffic and inconsistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Due to existing site conditions, ensuring compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance may be difficult.
It is the opinion of staff that there are significant negative factors
that make this use inappropriate in this location. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of SP~91-12~
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff
recommends the following conditions of approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan. Use shall not commence
until finalsite plan approval has been obtained;
Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through ·Saturday;
No outside storage of parts including junk parts. Refuse~awaiting
disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
4. No freight shall be handled or stored on-site;
5. All work shall be conducted within thegarage;
Repair work.and storage shall be limited to equipment owned or
operated by Schuyler Enterprises."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission had wondered if the Zoning Text Amend-
ment was necessary. The County. Attorney's Office felt there was'not~a.~public
need for the amendment, and that the definition was adequate as it currently
existed and also expressed a concern that even the amended definition would
not fit the activitiesof Schuyler Enterprises. It wasthe Planning Commis-
sion's decision not~ to recommend the Zoning Text Amendment to this Board for
approval, and on September 10, 1991, the Commission denied the request unani-
mously. He said that the basis forthe Commission's decision was that the
was neither necessary nor desirable.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that with this.background, the Planning Commission
still considered the request for a special use permit for a public garage,
assuming that the zoning text amendment would be approved or that the public
garage definition would be considered as adequate for this request.
Mr-. Cilimberg then discussed~the staffreport. ·He noted that~there~will
be no freight handled or stored on,site. He said. that theapplicant stipulat-
ed before-the Commission that currently repairs occur·off site. Hepointed
out that a-number of letters have been received in support·of the request,as
well as inopposition, and· they arc.included in theBoard members' packets-.
He then circulatedamong the Board members an additional letter in support of
the request which had just been received. He went over the favorable and
unfavorable factors relative to the request.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that in the discussion of the item, the Plan-
ning Commission devoted some time to a concern that the.Comprehensive Plan-was
not in accord with this project, and the Commission expressed concerns about
the precedent and effect of this approval on the Comprehensive Plan goals
objectives and strategies. He noted that the Planning Commissionrecommended
denial of the SP-91-21, with a majority of the Commission members stating that
their view was that a request such as this should be reviewed in'the context:~
245
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, first, before it would be consid-
He said that the County Attorney's office
mred for a rezoning application.
had also voiced the same opinion.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the staff recommended that the ZTA be ap-
proved. He wondered if it was the staff's understanding that with the approv-
al of the ZTA by the Planning Commission, the definition would meet the
requirements of this particular applicant and the use that is on that site.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that this was the staff's opinion after consultation
~ith the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands that Mr~ Bowling had disagreed with that
interpretation' when the matter was'before the Planning Commission, and the
Planning Commission accepted Mr. Bowling's opinion that even if the ZTA was
approved, this use would not be covered on this particular site. Mr.
Zilimberg agreed thatMr~ Bowerman!s comments were correct~
Mr. Bowerman asked. Mr. St. John if he concurs with Mr. Bowling's opinion.
Mr. St. John answered, "yes." He went on to say, however, that there will be
a rational .argument from .the applicant that this Board should~ consider.
Mrs. Bowerman asked, ifthere wasareasonable difference of .opinion
between the staff and County Attorney over the.interpretation of what this
Zoning Text Amendment would allow. Mr. St. John agreed that this is true. He
said that theproblemlies in the term, "public garage." He noted that the
garage in question is strictly for the use of the applicant and is not public,
and this is the totatbasis for the disagreement. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
One' Commission member.,expressed concern.that~the particular definition of
public garage might notbe appropriate.
Mr.~ Bowie said if there were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, he
would open the public hearing. Barring objections from the other Board
members, thepublic input on this hearing would be limited to oneh0ur, with
38 minutes of the time being allowed for the people, to speakin favor of this
request', and30 minutes allowed for the people, to speak ~against therequest.
He asked that the speakers .address their comments to the Board and not to each
other He reminded the group that the issue before the'Board~is land use.
TheBoar~,accepts the applicant'.s integrity, audit is fine for.thespeakers
to~addressthe applicant's integrity, but the Board does not want to hear it~
repeatedly.~He suggested that when the speakers are making~ their comments.,
they ask the,people in the audience who are in agreementwiththeir statements
to hotd up. their hands, and this would save a lot of people from saying the
same thing. The ~publichearing wasopenedat 7:~30 p.m. Mr. Bowie noted that
the.first3Ominutes of the. hearing w~uld be devoted.to the people who arein
favor of the project, and he asked-the applicant to speak first.
Mr. Fred Landess spoke on behalf of the, applicant, Schuyler Enterprises.
.He Said that he would make a brief comment abouttheZTA,~and then Mr. J-iml,
Clark~would speak regarding the~speciat use p~rmit~Inregard to-the ZTA-,~,the
applicant~is in complete agreementwith the language propose~by the staff.
The applicant further feels thatthislanguage supportsSchuyler Enterprises~
position, and the applicant will endorse the language~ He asked if he~could.
speak afterthose speaking against the request iftheir whole 3Ominutes is
not-used~ Mr. Bowie replied t.hat he never promises anything in' advance,
~ Mr. Jim Clark, Schuyler Enterprises, commented that it has been a long:
process trying to get permits',:etc.', and he believes that'his._understanding of
the. Zoning Ordinance was. incorrect. Re noted, that at. no tim6 was-~.he:~trying,to
mislead ore, deceive.the County in-any'way. He said. that Schuyler Enterprises
bought this land approximately a ,year ago, and there'were some junk cars and
trashon the area where the barn-like building now stands. He said that this
area was cleaned'~:.mnd someone.from the County's:'.Engineering Depar'tment~came'by
· andtotd~him thatan-erosion permitwould have robe acquired. He added~hat
asurveyor was then contacted and. survey information was.presented::to the
County. Re went on to saythat :Schuyler Enterp~is:es posted, the bond, and the
drainage, etc., was. accepted by Bobby Shaw of theCounty. .
Mr~ Clark remarked that the next'step was to get an entrance approved'by
theHighway-Department,.and.the Assistant Engineer. suggested t'hat Schuyler
Enterprises apply for a commercial entrancel He said that he had not previ-
ously applied for~ a commerciat~entrancebecause he did. not~ think that one was
246
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
needed. The Highway Department's Assistant Engineer stated, however, that it
was no more of a problem to get a commercial entrance than a private entrance.
He noted that there was a bond requirement of $2500, and Schuyler Enterprises
posted it and proceeded to follow the procedure of grading the road and
putting inProper drain pipes, etc. The entrance was accepted and the $2500
was refunded.
Next, Mr. Clark said that his brother acquired the permit to build the
barn, but the brother was faced with signing a lot of paperwork. Mr. Clark
said his brother paid the fee and signed the papers because he felt as though
the County employees knew what they needed. He said that the barn was built
in the middle of the summer of 1990, and Mr. Clark thought that everything was
all right. He then recalled that in February of 1991, Schuyler Enterprises
received a certified letter from Mr. Hurt of the County Inspections Depart-
ment, stating that Schuyler Enterprises was in violation of the State ordi-
nance on electrical and plumbing, etc., and permits had to be acquired within
ten days. He then went to see David Cooke because Mr. Cooke was the only
County employee he knew. Mr. Clark saidMr. Cooke informed,him that he would
have.to go to the Inspections Department and get permits. He applied for the
building, electrical and, plumbing permits, but he was informed that he had to
go tothe Health Department for the sewage permits, and he did so. In a
couple of days, according to Mr. Clark, an inspector came by the site, checked
the junction box, and verified that the work was acceptable.
· After Mr. Clark had waited close to a month and nothing happened wi.th the
other, permits, he said that he contacted Mr. Cooke again. He went on ~o say
that Mr. Cooke spoke toMrs. Patterson, the Zoning Administrator, and 'she
spoke with Mr. Bill Fritz. Mr. Clark was informed that Mrs..Patterson and Mr.
Fritz wanted to have a meeting with him. Mr. Clark informed Mr. Fritz and
I/Mrs. Patterson that all Schuyler Enterprises wanted to' do in' the building was
ito work onequipment. He remindedthem that nobusinesswouldbe con~ucted~n
Ithe lot., and he saidthat-freight would not be handled there. He said-that he
does not like the "tr.uck terminal" reference to the building because this , .~
sounds to him as though freight will be brought in and distributed from.the
building.. He went on to say that Mr. Fritz and Mrs. Patterson suggested that
he apply for a Zoning Text Amendment and call the building a "contraCtor's
office and storage area," because they thought that_thiswas how Mr. Clark!:s
buildi-ng would 'De used. Mr. Clark noted that his company is a contracted
carrier, and nothing is done on a listed rate. He said that contracts are
negotiated on all of the hauling. Mr.,Clark said.that he agreed-to Mrs,"
Patterson!s and Mr. Fritz's suggestion because he,hadno knowledge relatingito
this type of situation.
Mr. Clark then noted that when his request was presented to the Planning
Commission, Mr. St. John did not think that Schuyler Enterprises was the'.type
of contractor to.which the ZTA:referred, so it was decided that Schuyler
Enterprises should apply for a permitfor a truck{erminal. Mr~-,Clark said
that, at this point, he decided,to hire Mr. Landess, a lawyer, because~he was
not sure what was happening. He added that neither he nor Mr.~ Landess'believe
that his building isbeing used. as a truck terminal, because a truck terminal
usually has. freight going in-and out of it.
Mr. Clark went on to say that he asked-for an.extension of time, and then
applied for the public garage permit. -He pointed out that Mr. Landess is
knowledgeable in this area, and Mr. Landess thought thatMr. Clark's operation
matched~the public, garage definition. Mr. Clark added that-.he thoughtthings
were progressing fine, until Mr. Rittenhouse spoke against the request at the
Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Clark said that a couple of mistakes were
made, and.he thinks that one.mistake was made by,Mr. St.-John!s assistant, who
di. dn't understand exactly whatSchuyler Enterprises, was:' doing... Hepointedout
~that Mr.~Bowling had indicated that there would be 36 .tractors, and approxi-.
mately 60 trailers in the building, which is not true; He st~ated that there
would probably only be two to six trailers in thebuilding at one.t, ime,:and.
never mors~than eight. He noted that. the trailersare only brought,-in..wh~n
repairs areneeded.,Hesaid that ordinarilyfreight is hauled between.ven~,
dots, and the trailers and tractors never come into the area. He indicated
that it would be too expensive for his company to allow 36 tractors and 60
trailers just to .set in any one area.
247
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Clark said he was not sure if any of the Supervisors have gone to
look at the location. He explained that there are 25 acres of land, and he
wants to use approximately one and one-half acres of it. He stated that the
building that is located on this property' is a metal building which has six by
six pressure-treated posts, and 27 guage steel on the outside of it. He added
that it is a'nice looking building, shrubbery has been planted around it and a
rail fence has been installed. He said that the building is completely
surrounded by timber, and it is approximately a mile from any other building.
He noted that representatives of Schuyler Enterprises have personally gone to
see all of the neighbors, and they have been in favor of the building being
located there. He pointed out that the land is no good for anything else
because there is soapstone under the soil, and as far as agriculture is
'concerned, nothing could'be raised on it. He said, too, that three wells have
been--drilled, approximately 500 feet deep, and there is no water on the
property. He added that scrub-type timber grows on it, but nothing grows very
well on top of the soapstone.. He remarked that-~it is:actually ahe~vy.~indus-
t.ry area, because therearesoapstone, quarries all the way arOund.the proper-
ty. He said that there-arc.three soapstone quarries on the back mideof the
property, two on the right side and one on the left side.· He pointed out that
the land-only has three sides because it lays between Routes 602 and 800
Mr, Clark said he feels a lot of mistakes have been made throughout this
process, and he probably should have contacted a lawyer at the beginning. He
said he didn't becausehe was listening to the~people in the County Zoning and
Planning Departments, and he.believes that theselpeople were reallytryin~:.to
~-Mr., Bowie t~ld Mr. Clark~that theBoard would bedelighted·to li-sten to
him for thefull thirtY, minutes, but he had alreadyusedup~abouthalf of that
time.' Mr. Bowies.suggested that, perhaps, someoneelse would liketo~speaR on
Mr'. Ctark'-s ,behalf. _.
At this time, Mr.. Clark thanked the Board for~listening to him~~ He
reiterated that, he was=not trying to deceive.the County in any way.~ He .... ·
thought truly that itwonld be possible to'work on farm;equipment as well as
'the truck.s in that building. He informed the Board that there were posthole
diggers and-different pieces of farm equipment, as well as~ferti, lizer, in the
building when~Mr. Hurt. inspected.the property. He pointed o~t that the'
building i~s environmentally clean,-and there is an EPA approved furnace ~"
locatedthere~. Motor oil will_be~burned inthe furnace, whichwillbe the oil
out. of the vehicles when the oil is changed. He said that. Schuyler Enterpris-
es also permits people in the community to bring their.~oil and put it in the
tank for the purpose of burning it in the furnace. He. stated :out that most~.
people i~ that community-change their own oil.
Next, Mr. Landess spoke about the technical points involved with~the
request. He noted that he was not contacted until after, the Planning Commis-
sion had deferred the hearing in, regard tothe contractor's~office and~stor'age
yard, Hesaid that~ after Mr. Clark.met with the staff, the term'"t~nc~termi-
nal"was'suggested. HoweVer~ Mr,-Clark is not comfortable.with-that term.:
Mrs. Landess.~betieves that "public garage", as it .is defined in the Ordinance,
fit.sfthesituation:. ~Headded:that it is the AlbemarleCounty Zoning Ordinance
that is being discussedand~not~ a~dictionarY~ and'~he pointedout that .the
Ordinance·has defini%ions in it. He .said that.the Ordinance defines~a private
garage as.ann"acCessory building for:. the storage of alt vehicles owned and
used. by. the occupants of the building to which it: is accessory,[' He"added
that this_definition fits anormal household, type'garage. Hesaid the Ordi-
nance also'defines apublic garage as, '!A building or portion thereof, other
than~a pr.iv'ate garage, designed or:used for servicing orrepairing motor
driven vehicles." Re went on to say that the publicgarage definition fits
Schuyler Enterprises.because this isexactly what' is-hapP.ening.inthat, build-
ing .He added that the garage is not an accessory use.'to, aresidence,-and he
reiteratedthat-motor drivenvehicles are being s~ored,~'serviceR:and repaired-
there, He:pointed out that under the definition used in the County's Ordi-
nance, the use.for Schuyler Enterprises is already covered.
Mr. Landess then.notedthat'some of the members of the Planning .Commis-
sion had .difficulty with the application for this use. an-d.how it.relates to
the Comprehensive. Plan.' He said that under, the enabling legislation in the:~
State Code..for Comprehensive Plans, it provides, thatthe Plan shall, be general
248
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
in nature. There is a section that deals with the legal status of the plan,
but it deals with public facilities such as streets, parks and utilities. He
quoted from the section on the land use plan and the introduction to it in the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. He said that there is a provision that
says, "The Land Use Plan is cognizant of the County's existence in a regional
setting and attempts to integrate the County's physical development with that
of neighboring jurisdictions." He noted that under Development Standards, it
provides that, "Development standards are intended to provide a guide to
accommodating land uses in a manner harmonious with natural and the manmade
environment. He said the applicant's proposed use and the land for which it
is proposed is located in Albemarle County. In every way, other than geogra-
phy, it is a part of the Schuyler community, and it always has been. The
Schuyler community is.~basically anindustrial community, and its only reason
lOt'-being is because of the soapstone. Mining, preparation, cutting and
shipping of soapstone is what created the community of Schuyler, and it is
what_the community has always been about. He said this land is surrounded' by
Potential~quarry property owned byAlberene Stone. Henoted thatwhen~/~
klbereneStone sold this property to Schuyler.Enterprises, surfa~ce rights,were
sold-, but Atberene. Stone still retains-the.mineral rights.. He also pointed-
out~that.,agriculture is~.not a viable use in thisarea because the soapstone, is
~too, prevalent, and the soils are too thin, T~rees cannotbe grown commercially
forthe same reason, and only scrub growth is possible.~ ~The applicant'~s_
proposed use~for~this property is far more in keeping with both the natural
and~manmade environment than any agricultural or forestal or. residential use
that~mightbe suggested~ Residential uses would not be good because of. the
difficulty in finding water, and putting in a septic system. He pointed~out
that this property is really a part of the Schuyler community and since the
~PPticant_~could not find wate~ on the property,.,the property is~connected to
t~he Nelson County public water system coming from Schuyler.
Mr._ Landess stated that .these reasonsdemonstrate that the granting_of a
special use permit ~o~ld be in accord, with both the letter and spirit~.of the
Zoning Ordinance.- He said thez'oning Ordinance provides~for,.speciat~uses
within the-ruralareas. He, believes that thespecial~se that is~al~eady'in
the Ordinancefits~this request. He further belieyes that.this use is in
-accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and it is the right thing to do for thei~
benefit of the residents or.this area. He exptainedthat~many of them are at
this-meeting, and can verify this. He.added that the applicant has no~objec-
tionto t~he proposed conditions, and he and Mr. Clark will,be happyto~answer
questions.
Mr~ Bowie announced that nine minutes were left for favorable comments.
He asked the peoplewho wished to speak to.come forward and form~a line~..
Mr. Kevin Cox spoke first. He said he supports the Zoning Text Amendment
because, he.feels there~is a need. fo~-it. He said that he also supports.the~
Ctarks, as~well, in the~special use permit request:. He-noted that~there are
Currently facilities in the County which match',the definition as set forth in
the proposed ZTA.~ Me~said-thatgarages can.be.called public-or private,~-or~
the word,,.'!public" could-be struckaltogether, bu~.they would still meet that
definition. ~He went on-to say that the Mundy Brothers had to let an~employee
go.in order to meet the Home Occupation guidelines, and if this'Usewere
allowed, they would at ~east have hada Chance of retaining their employee~by
applying for a special use permit~under this definition. He said~that some-
rural economic development has advantages, such as jobs and reducedcommutes,
inparticular. He added that stopping all rural economic development to
preserve the rural character is~not in,the best interest of all. of the rural
people,.especiatly lowand~moderate income peoplewho would like to live and
work near where they live. He quoted from the draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Annual Report, "There is a continuing decline in the percentage ofhouseholds
earning lesslthan $15,000, This may indicatethat individuals and families
with lower incomes~are leaving because.theycan~no longer afford thecost of
~ nt "
living in the~ou y. He noted that Mr. Clark.has had to lay off.~some, peopte
_ becaUsehe~can't use this bui,lding Mr. Cox .thinks that/some jobs.might h~lp
some_poorpeople Stayin the. County and also increase'their'income~~ He:also
~noted~that a practical decisionin~ this matter .would req~ire'~some flexibility
in this Board!s interpretation-of-the Comprehensive Plan. He~hopeSton~ght
thatthis Board can demonstrate' that the Comprehensive Plan is-not written in
stone and'~does not put rural, preservation aheadof the best interests of~_rural
peopte~ '-
249
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Courtenay Powell spoke next. He said that he lives in Faber which is
in Nelson County, and he owns and operates Powell Machinery, Inc. He also
owns considerable land in Albemarle County, which has been in the family since
the early 1700's. He added that for this reason, he is concerned about the
workings in Albemarle County as well as Nelson County. He mentioned that for
some time he was on the Nelson County Industrial Commission, and at that time,
the Commission helped Mr. Yance Wilkins purchase Alberene Stone and the
adjacent property with the hopes that Schuyler could be rebuilt to what it had
been in the past. He assumes that everyone is aware that Schuyler used to be
the largest soapstone producer in the world, and at one time 2500 people were
employed there. He noted that the Industrial Commission was very concerned
and interested in seeing Schuyler built up to the way it was 100 years ago.
He said that Mr. Wilkins was unable, to do this, so Alberene Stone was sold to
some people from Finland, and they are trying to build up the business. He
pointed out that to do so requires transportation, and it must be dependable,
local and available. In his own business, he sells machinery all over the
eastern seaboard, Canada and through the middle west, and he also exports
machinery. He said that his company is solely dependenton its operation as
far as how the products can be moved. He added that his machinery is large
and there have to be tractor trailers to haul it, and they have to be availr
able. He pointed~out that common carriers such as Wilson and Smith'scannot.
provide that service. He noted that Mr. Clark has been in business not quite
as long as Mr. Powell, but Mr. Powell was one of Mr. Clark's first customers,
He said that Mr. Clark has done a good job for Mr.. Powell's company ever.
since. He notedthat Mr. Clark is a-good Christian man who has affected many
lives in the Schuyler area as~is indicated by the number of people at to-
night's meeting. He added that the County needs~people who are interested in
the County and have love and concern for one another. He urged the Board to
grantwhatever is needed so thatMr. Clark can continue his business., because
Mr, Clark is needed in that area of the County.
Mr. Powell pointed out that he has a farmin Nelson County, and he knows
that Schuyler is not farming country. He went on to say that Mr. Clark hauls
a lot of products which deal with agriculture, such as fruits and vegetables,
throughout-the whole country. He noted that one of Mr. Clark's trucks took a
load of machinery to New York, and the driver told Mr. Powell that he was also
picking up. a load~of apples to'haul, to Texas. Mr~ Powell said that this is
indicative that Mr. Clark is distributing food for people~ He stated thatMr.
Clark's business is earnestly needed, and Mr. Ctark,~himself, and his family
are also needed in the County. ~ '
Mr..Bowie remarked~that he would allow two more people to speak in-favor
of the Schuyler Enterprises' request, but then time would have to be given to
anyone who.might want to speak against the request.
Sheriff Bill Harris from Nelson County spoke on behalf of Schuyler Enter-
prises. He said thathe wanted to comment about the law enforcement and
safety aspect of the roads. Me thinks that~everyone is familiar with the .: ~
condition ofthe roads going into Schuyler, He no'ted that the. soapstone-plant
~s a lot of ~'eighteen wheelers" going in and, out hauling their product, ~He
that because of where the Schuyler Enterprises' building is located, it'~
will reduce half of thetraffic going,-directly to Schuyler. He pointed out
thatthis will reduce the possibility of wrecks~ injuries, etc. He thinks ·
~that moving some of the trucking' to the outskirtsof Schuyler i~s one~ of~the
best~things ~thatcould happen there. He supports Schuyler Enterprisesl00
percent, because the location of its building has helped his patrolmen in many
ways.
Mr. Dwight Mays., Pastor of Schuyler Baptist Church,. stated that he has
known Mr. Clark for the two and one-half years that Mr. Mays has been a
resident of the Village of Schuyler. Mr. Mays explained, that. for 17 years he-
has been a consultant and chaplain toindustry on environment'al and conserva-
tion issues, and healsD is the coordinator of the group of volunteers who
have adopted both sections of Routes 800 and 602.which are shown,on t-he plan
for the adopted highway cleanup program. He said that part of whatis.needed
in'the community of Schuyler is the diversity of the land, natural resources
and-the ~people. He added that a rich bayou and ecological systemdepend on
this kind' of diversity and the same can be. applied, to the Schuyler:~ commumity~
250
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
He said that Mr. Clark probably provides the dominant role now in terms of
Itjobs and livelihood for the people of the Schuyler community. He pointed out
I~that Schuyler has undergone changes in recent years. Schuyler lost its school
]~this year, and the soapstone plant does not employ nearly the level of people
_ that it once did. He added that the Schuyler community's livelihood depends
in part on maintaining this balance between land and people and its enterpris-
es. He said, as far as the road cleanup campaign is concerned, some of the
people have walked the ditches, and they know what has been pulled out and
removed from the roadside. He added that the roadside leading into Schuyler
on Route 800 has been more difficult than the portion of Route 602. He indi-
cated that Mr. Clark has personally helped in this regard in maintaining his
area. He said that Mr. Clark's section of road is well maintained, and it is
his feeling-that it Will continue ~to be. He stated that Mr. Clark and his
business'enterprise are needed'as well as the connections that the business
makes in the lives of the Schuyler people. He hopes that the Board will take
this into consideration in its deliberations tonight.
At this time, Mr. Bowie recognized the number~ of people who were ak the~
meeting .in support of the application-.by asking for a show of hands.
opened the hearing for-those people opposed to the. application.
Ms. Pam Lancaster, a~concerned citizen and member of the League of Women
Voters,~ spoke next. She said that she does not live in the area~ but she~was
traveling in that area_one day, and two semi-tra.iler trucks pulled out in~
~front of her. She added ~that the trucks proceeded to go to Route'29 where
theyputted onto Route 29 South. She pointed out that to do this, the trucks
had to go across a four-lane section without a traffic light. She thinks that
this is a dangerous situation, and.she feels thatthose roads are not built to
accommodate semi-trailer trucks. She understands that there has already been
one accident in the area.
Next, Mr. John Hermsmeier spoke on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle, as
its Secretary. He noted that the County staff'report examines the criteriaby
whicha special use permit.might be justified, and concludes that thisi~equest
should be~denied. He said~ that Citizens for Albemarleagree. He read a
· prepared statement which was included with the Board members' information.
Ms. Page Massie stated~that she grew up in Southern Atbemarle~County, and
her familyhas been there for five:generation's. She cannot understand-why an
exception could not be made when there are so many people in favor of the
application..She pointed out that there is only 15 percent of the County
zoned for commercial and business.use, and 85 percent of the County i's in
rural use. She said that if the business was close to a residential'~a~ea, and
thepeoplein that residential area opposed it, she could understand why~the
Board might-deny the request. She thinks that Schuyler Enterprises is great,
and she reminded the Board members that they are supposed to be looking out
for the welfare of the people as well as their safety, and health. She'be-
lieves that~this business is very~important'to .the welfare of that area~s-.~
.Next,.Mr. Bowieasked ifthere.was anyone else~.who~ished tol. s~peak.
Since no one else came forward, Mr. Bowie closed the public heari.ng.
Mr. Way stated that during his years as a Board member, the last time he
remembers this many people coming to.a Board. meeting it was in reference to. a
garage in Scottsville, and the request was-denied. Hethinksthe problemis
the~fact that it is hard to describe what is really going on, because there
are no definitions that fitit. It appears to have taken approximately five
months to go through the process to this point. At the presenttime, the
Planning~ Commission's final conclusion was that.the property should be rezoned
rather than tring to find a definition, that fits the request. He feels ~it
would.take-another year to rezone .the property.
~ ~- M~-~ Way said he believes in the Comprehensive Plan, he voted for the
Comprehensive Plan, and he served as Chairman of this Board during all of the
work sessions on..:~the last revisions..In terms of. thetraffic conditions on
Route 29 South, he agrees that it is a very serious problem,~ but he does not
think this.application would in any way affe'ct this situation since whether
· this application is approved:or not, trucks will st~ill~be going-and comin out
of Schuyler.. He. pointed~out that the Comprehensive Planis not-the~Bible~ it
is not written in stone. -He'-feels the whole~ purpose of a~speciat use permit
is~to.~allow the Board members to look at each application individually and
determine~whether or not that~particular application, in the~requeSted loca~
tion, is ~something that is reasonable~.~ It~ seems to him that~ this~request is
reasonable~ - -
251
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Way said the property in question is zoned agricultural because he
does think anyone ever bothered, when the Comprehensive Plan first came into
existence, to decide what was going on there. He added that the agricultural
use there was grandfathered. He pointed out that the surrounding area is all
industrial, and industry is on three sides of the property, which is shaped in
a triangular fashion. When these maps were originally d'rawn, he believes this
should have been colored purple because a quarry is considered an indus-
try. He added that if the quarry were anywhere else in the County, it would
show on the map as an industrial section, and that is exactly what it would
be. From that point of view, Mr. Way thinks that it is already industrial
property, and just because it is not colored that way on the map, does not
keep it from being an industrial property.
- -Mr. Way then pointed out the safety aspects of this application. He said
that the portion of the road that is shown in yellow on the map is relatively
straight, and,the portion of the~road,colored in~r. edis dangerous~.He'does
not think there isany quesnion that from asafety point of-view, there will
be fewer trucks going, into Schuyler than there Were before. Heag~rees~wi~th
the Sheriff's analysis of-the situation. He said that~it is~ obvious-that none
of the adjoining landowners object to this application, and he thinks it i~s
important to provide jobs.for County citizens. He understands this is not
something to be considered in a land use situat~ion~, bu~he thinks, ithas tQ-,be
remembered that the Comprehensive Plan is nott00:percent'~correct~, In his
Opinion, the errorstha't sometimes comeupare particularly obvious inthe
most outlying areas where some things are appropriate and~some things are not
appropriate. He addedthat therequest clearly has, the community's support.
As he .looks at the pros~ and cons of the situation, he sees it heavily balanced
that-many people~are going to benefit from Schuyler Enterprises being located
in the area, and very few people will be disturbed by it. He went-on to say ~
that hebe,lieves there will probably be. something better located there than
what was there in the first place. He said that a lot of ~it 'is a~question, of
semantics and whether the building is going to becalled 'a public garage. Mr.
Way said he does notbelieve that~the other Supervisors would~want~his-
operation moving intoa majo~ subdivision or somewhere else in. their dis- -~ ~?
tricts. He added-that %here'has to be something about this appl~ication that
itdi.fferent. He believes that it is di£ferent ~because he cannot, think
of any other piece of property in~ all.of Albemar~te County.th'at~is surrounded~.
on three sides by. a quarry. He thinks that this makesthe~property ver¥~.~
unique, and. he does not believe that thereis anydanger Of setting a'prece-
dent. He i~s~ in favor of,.theapplication. -
~-,Mr~,;Bain. stated that he.would like to handle the amendment relating.to -
the publicgarage~definition first~ -
Mr. Bowie replied that the-items would be ~oted on separately'.
.,~ Mr.'Bain remarked that he thinks that the publicgarage definitiondoes
not need to be changed.~ He said that the staff-and.the County Attorney's
office have both said that the definition is mil.right.
Mr, Bowie stated.that he did not care when the mot. ion.was madeon,this-
petition. He said ,that he. personally accepts. Mr.; Landess' 'definition of.a ~
public garage~ He pointed ou%..that Mr. Landess'read. the Board the County's
own definition, and Mr. Bowie is unsure where the p=oblemlies;
Mr. Bain explained that this is .a situation that is ~different from,the
definition. ~Mr.-~Bowie agreed. Mr. St~ John commented ~hat:when'~the defini-
is discussed, the Board mustlremember that this is a question, in the
final analysis, for the Zoning Administrator. He added that the Zoning
~has not been asked~yetto make a rulings', but theZoning Adminis-
trator has already said thatshe agrees with Mr. Landess' position. He
pointed out. that-the~Zoning Administrator isth~,.authority on this matter.~.It
isMr. St.-.John's opinion', however, that the_definition carries no weight
whatsoever, at this point, as far as this issue-is concerned.
Mr. Bowerman askedwhythe matter is before theBoard, if there isno-
problem, with the definition~, . M~, Cilimberg remarked:that the Zoning Adminis-
%rator agreed that the clarifications which.were included-in'Mr..~Landess'
submittal, and the staff's suggested alterations, were a better description in
clarifying the public garage definition. He said that this was the Zoning
252
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Administrator's opinion when the staff discussed the matter, so she was
supporting the Zoning Ordinance's public garage definition.
Mr. Bain asked the problem. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he just wanted
the Board to know the Zoning Administrator's position during staff discus-
sions.
Mr. Bain commented that he sees this situation as one that takes the
public garage definition which has been used and tries to tie it into some-
thing that is specific. He added that it does not make sense to do this. He
thinks that it will make it worse if the definition is changed. It seems to
him that, with the staff's recommendation, the County Attorney's position, and
Mr~ LandesS! comments, the current'd'efinition will work for this situation,
a%so-~ He added that the Board or the applicant can put conditions on a
special use permit, but he reiterated that the definition should be left as it
At this time, Mr. Bain moved that ZTA-91-04, which is an amendment to
change the definition of public garage, be-demied.on4the basis thatthis -
specific situation :is covered-by the existing definiti°nof'a public~g'arage-
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
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 clarified the Board's motion and vote by explaining that the
Board turned-down ZTA~91-04. He said that this has nothingto' do with/the
garage, and the garage will be discussed next. He went on to say,tha~ it has
been established that the Zoning Ordinance description as it is now written is
good enough, and it will.not~becchangedi --~ ~
Mr. Way stated that, under the conditions'for the spe¢ia~use permit-for
the gar,age~ he thinks that it would be appropriate to put a limit on the
number of vehicles that could be stored there. He suggested that storage of
vehicles be limited to s~x or eight vehicles.
:'Mr. Bowerman remarked..that the. County Attorney believes the current
definition'in the Ordinance lot"public garage" cover this situation. He went
on to say that the Zoning Administrator has'said thaf this particular applica-
tion is:covered by ~hat definition, so he has no problem dealing with the
special permit. He did wonder why there has to be a special permit. Mr-. St.
Oohn.askedMr~ Bowerman to clarify his question. Mr. Bowerman.replied that he
understands the current definition covers this request., and.the'.Zoning Admini-
strator thinks the applicationfits the definition, so why does there'have,-to':
be a 'special permit. Mr.~St.>~ohn~:~nswer~d~;~hat a public garage can be in
this district only by a special use permit.
Mr~'~.Perkinscommented that what is being done now probably should have
been done 12 to 18 months ago. ~He thinks that Mr~ Clarkshould have'come to
this Board for a.special~use.permit at the'beginning of-the process. He said
this Board has to face the fact that there are a lot of County citizens who
don't knoW,about all of :the special use permitS'.that'are necessary and all of
the special conditions,that have to' be met~ He said that it is as though a~'~
person has to be educated alt over again when learning all of the County's
rules and regulations. He does not know everything that is.in the County's
zoning laws, andhe has read' theComprehensive Plan several times, and he does
not.know-everything that is in that. He would liketo~thankthe-County~staff,,
for beingvery vigilant .in finding violations. He. sai~ that this is'the
staff,s job, and'he is glad to see that it is.being done~ He,thinks that~a
decision has to be made~asto~whether~or not the applicant can,continue his
operation~ He willsupport the application%
Mr. Bain-remarkedthat the Planning staff and the Planning Commission
have spent, a lot of .time on-the ZTA and~ the',special~ use-~permit~ and~he~t~hinks
that onerevolvesaround the other. He agreed with Mr~ Way thatthe Compre,
hensive plan is general in nature, and it is to be a guide as to what is~being
done~ in the~Zoning Ordinance, He added that'the.Eoning Ordinance~retates to
253
tember 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting')
(Page 19)
the particulars and how each individual piece of property is handled. He
understands Mr. Landess' comments relating to the Comprehensive Plan and
making changes to allow for the reality of the nature of this property. He
said that he has been to the site, but he has not walked all of the adjoining
properties. He added that although the property is in Albemarle County, the
community is mostly in Nelson County. He said he does not know how Nelson
County's Zoning Ordinance operates in terms of the Community of Schuyler.
Mr. Bain thinks this may be an inter-jurisdictional matter. The matter
mentioned when the Comprehensive Plan was being studied, relative to
working with different counties with areas in close proximity where there may
be development and business going on. He said that he would like to know what
the,~zon~ing :is for.the:~usine.ss that.-_is~j:ust across the Nelson County line from
thi,s~property. He pointed out that the Board has not been told this informa-
tion from the staff or the applicant. He mentioned that the business may have
pre-'existed'the Ne,lsonCounty Zoning Ordinance, but he would like to ha~e more
of this. type.of information before he votes,. Re said thatif he-~had ~o vote
on the matter-tonight, without having this information andwithout knowing-
whether there.,wassupport among the Board members for a change in the'Compre-
hensive ,Plan 'for thewhole area and not just'for this property, then he would
~e.voting in ignorance, and he would not want to.support the,change.
Mrs. Humphris stated that this is a tremendously difficult situation, and
she ~oul~inot help but wonder what the Board would be discussing right~ cow, if
the buildimg;was notalready,i.n, existence; if the Special use permit was
coming~to~this Board bef,ore the fact instead of after the fact. She said she
is Still uncertain a,s to how this situation happened, but she would,be very.
uncomfor~abt,e doing~What has beencalled "legitimizing" a zoning violation
after the fact. -She, said that most particularly she-thinks it is critical-
that attention bepaid to the Comprehensive Plan eventhough she agrees..it-is-
not written in stone; She feels that, considerationsshouldbemade'relative'
to the Comprehensive Plan before, considerations,dealing with changing the use
of this':piece of property. She agreed with Mr. Bain that this,situation
should ~e dealt with regionally instead of,'just county-wide; She also agrees
that it Would-be very difficult to'~make a decision based on the situation ~s~-
it~exists now:withoutfu~therinformation. Shewould feel uncomfortable
making a decision now, but she recognizes the feeling of the people in the
area. Yet, she stated that she is uncomfortable departing a great deal from
the procedures that are the-glue that holds the County together intermsof~
planning. '
Mr. Waystated that if this building was not there, and the-Boardhmd
been.involved from~the~ beginnings, he still thinks the same argument would
hold,
,.Mr. St. John asked'Mrs'-~HumPhris and Mr,,-Bain if theywere suggesting-
that someoneon staff~'eontact.Nelson County. He said that this~could be done.
Mr.. Bowie replied' that at' this point, that does not need to bediscussed
at this hearing.
Mr. Way,moved' that'SP-91-21, which is a request from Schuyler Enterprises
fo,r~a public garage,,.beapprovedwith the conditions that are recommended'by~
s~aff, with an additional condition that no more'than fourtractor-trailer
~rucks be parked in the outside.area at one time. Mr. Way would also like for
the applicant to plant a few pine trees between the building and the road.
. :Mr-.. Bain told Mr~ Way that~the~suggestion concerning .landscapingwould be
· discussed during site plan review. Mr. Bowie felt as though Mr. Way could
include.in his motion that screening be done on the site. Mr. Bain agreed
tha~ if Mr. Way hadspecificthoughts in mind, maybehe shOuld specifythem in
his motion.
Mr. Way said hewouTd.be satisfied if the staff would cOnsider ~the '~
~andsc~ping'issue during site plan review. Mr. Bowie repeated Mr. W.ay's
condition as to the number of trucks that could be parked outside of the
building,'an~.he~alsb~me~i~he~ilandscaping as a' condition..
Mr-. Waysaidhe did n~t~knowwhether toincludethe.-landscaping~in his
motion,, but,~he wouldbe happy if,.the staffwould consider having theapplicant
plant, pine trees .for screening.. Mr. Cilimberg s~atedthatthe screening did
not have to be another~condition as part of. the motion~
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
254
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he wouid support the motion. He believes that Mr. Clark
tried to do everything that was required, and Mr. Bowie pointed out that no
one from the County found the building for ten months. He believes that Mr.
Clark got every permit that he needed to get. He thinks this area is diffe-
rent from other areas in the County because it is completely surrounded by a
quarry. He also believes that Mr. Way is right, and the property probably
should have been zoned for industrial use originally. He agrees with the
County's own reports and the Nelson County Sheriff's statement that this
situation will improve public safety on that section of the road. He would
like for the Planning District Commission to work with all surrounding terri-
~to~ies. on jurisdictional zoning, but he does not think this is an issue here.
He will say that with all of the information that has been provided, if the
building was not already on the property, and if the Board was reviewing the
request at the begin~ing~iof the process, for the reasons that makes this
particular piece of land different from other areas in the County as described
on the'mapj he would vote for approval of~the application. ' ~
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by thefollowing, recorded
vote':
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman~ Bowie, Perkins and Way.
Mr. Bain and Mrs~ Humphris.
(The conditions ofapproval are set out below:)
~ _t.~ Planning.-Commissionapproval of site plan. Use shall not commenem~
untiT final site plan approval has. been obtained;
Hours of.~:operation shall be limited to.-8 a~m. to 5p.m,, Monday
through Saturday; · ' ·
No outside storage of parts including junk parts. Refuse awaiting
disposal shall be stored in-appropriate containers; ~ ~
4. No freight shall be handled or stored on-site;
5. All work shall be conducted within the garage;
6~ Repair work and' storage shall be limited to equipment owned or.
operated by Schuyler Enterprises; and'
7. :No'more than four-tzactor tr-ailer.s can be parked in the outside~
area at any one time.
The Board recessed at 8:30.p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Mr. Bowerman stated-that Mr; Bain had talked ,to him-:~after the last. vote
about not making his thoughts known. He believes that Mr. Bain is right. Mr.
Bowerman said that~regarding the last vote, he would like to say that he
served on the Planning Commission for' ten years and has been a member of this
Board for almost~ two years. During that time, he does not think anyone has
upheld the Comprehensive Plan or looked at it more critically. He said that
this is especially true in light of setting·precedents and where., an-~ interpre-
tation today could mean something detrimental tomorrow, especially as it
affects the watersheds and detention basins. He. thinks that in this case he
was convin-ced, by what he read in the staff report and_the Planning~ Commission
minutes that the nature of what is going on outside of Schuyler is not going
to change by the approval of this application. He said the existence~ of the
quarry is not going to change, and it is a .fact that the land is not going to
be used for-agricultural purposes. He does disagree:with Mr~ Bowie. If this
application had been presented to the Board as a new application, and nothing
had been done on.the,property, it would be much more difficult for him' to~put
this use in place in that' location. He added that this use developed~ over a
period of time. .It started out as a trucking operation for a grocery store
with one truck and one trailer, and it grew over time to the current operar
tion. He said that this operation will remain there whether it is in this
location or in Nelson County~ He went on to say that it seemed to him~that a
255
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
common sense application of this use in that place is that it is not going to
set any bad precedent for the Comprehensive Plan, and common sense tells him
it was the proper thing to do in this particular situation. He said that thi~
is basically the reason he supported the special permit. He added that he
also agreed with the other positive comments, but he understands, too, Mr.
Bain's and Mrs. Humphris' statements.
Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-91-02. Public Hearing on an amendment to the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include the recommendations of the
Ridge Neighborhood-Area B Study: Change land use designation of the Blue
Ridge Hospital tract N of Rt 53 from RA to Public/Semi-Public; Change approx
30 ac in N portion of Hillcrest tract from low density residential to
Public/Semi-Public to accommodate the possible location of Forestry
Department; Replace residential holding capacity lost as a result of pub-
lic/semipublic designation bychanging approx 10 ac of'low density residential
to medium density residential on Hillcrest tract W of unnamed~tributar)
to Moores Creek. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 3 and-September
10, 1991.) '-
'Mr. Cilimberg gave-the following staff report:
'' "Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include
the recommendations ofthe Blue RidgeNeighborhood.'AreaB'.~.Study as~
- stipulated in the Three Party Agreement-betweenthe~County, city of~,
Charlottesville and the,University .of. ¥irginia; Proposed amendments
include both text and table changes and a change to a~landuse desigr:~
nation on the Land-Use Map. ' - -
Text Changes:
The expansion Of the Growth Area to include that portion Of the Blue .:~-~
Ridge HosPital tract south:, of,-Interstate 64 and. north of 'Route 53 is,~
based on the condition that the area be designated for public/semi-
public use. and development in this area be consistent,with the Master
Land Utilization, Plan for the Blue Ridge Hospital tract dated May of
1991 (see Blue Ridge Neighborhood 'Area B' Study). The Albemarle
County Service Authority service area shall remain on this tract.
Expanded water and sewer services will only be provided for develop-
ment of this tract consistent with. the Master Land Utitization--Plan,~
If',the FOrestry Department-undertakes its prop,osed office development
on~ approximately 30 acres in the northeast portion of the Hillcrest
tract adjacent to Piedmont Virginia Community College, change the
Comprehenp. iye Plan land use designation of that area from low density
residential to public/semi:public. Concurrently, increase the medium
density land use designation by. apprOximately t0 acres on~the'.same'~,~
tract in ~an area west of an unnamed tributary stream of~Moores Creek
to, replace'the residential holding caPacity lost due.to?the construc-
tion' of the Forestry ~Department. This Land Use Map amendment would,,~
not be effective until the Forestry Department undertakes its expan+'
sion in this',loeation.
Evaluation of the~feasibitity.of reconfiguring the Interstate-64,and
Route 20' Interchange to ,improve traffic circulation~in the area and
determine the impact such a reconfiguration would have on a future
Interstate 64, Avon Street Interchange.
The Neighborhood presently contains Piedmont Virginia Community
College, a private school, two churches, the Regional Joint Security
Complex, the National GUard Armory, the Thomas Jefferson-Visitors!
Center and the Blue Ridge Hospital~ ....
Consider recommendations ,of the City/County/University Planning~ and~
Coordination Council's-Blue Ridge Neighborhood, "Area B", Study as ~a
guide for, future development of that portion of ~Neighborhood Four
within the study area.
256
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Map ChanEes:
Change the land use designation from Rural Area to public/semi-public
for approximately 148.2 acres of the Blue Ridge Hospital tract south
of Interstate 64, east of Route 20, west of Route 1102, and north of
Route 53.
Table Changes:
Revise Table 50 to read as follows (Revisions indicated in bold).
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD FOUR
~.~Resideqtial-Low
Residential-Medium
.-~.Residenhial-High-~ .
~RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTAL
,Neighborhood
Industrial Service
Public
Developable
~creage
85O
36
936
6
149
164
Dwelling
Units
850-3400
144-360
:..501~t000~.-~ ;~,
:~1495~4760 : -'
.NON~RESIDENTIAL:SIIBTOTAL 319
Undeveloped Land Total 1255
Attached (on file) are the pages of theComprehensive~Plan which
include the proposed text and table3~emendments forNeighborhood Four
and a mapdisplaying the proposed land use designation-change.
Attached also are the recommended land use changes~thatwould occur
with~theldevelopment~of the Forestryi:Department. This is~'.not a.~.
propoSed mapamendment at this time~(Attachment C 6~'~{i'~).
Mr. Cilimberg said'the-Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 27,
1991, unanimoUSly recommended approval of~i~CPA-91-02, as presented in the
staff's report.
Mr. Cilimberg announced that CPA-91-02 relating to the Blue Ridge Neigh-
borhood "Area B'! Study;.has been presented~everal times to this Board. He
said that this amendment relates to the area that is outlined in blue on the
map. He discussed'~the staff report.,, and he. noted that~in:the Board!~s work
session, comments were made that have been~incorpo=ated in the study. He said
that one idea that~ame out of the. Board's.work sesSionwas that commercial
service within a cer.tain,propertyshould.,nOt be a pa=tof ~the,~;Comprehensive
Plan amendment,'soit has not.been included.~He pointed .this;area out on the
map. He-went onto-,say-that the Board'had also asked'that~.'the~staff discuss
the configuration of the Route 20 interchange with 1-64. ~He said that there
was a question of why a connection may not .be made from Route 20 to Avon
Street throughly,the PVCG property;,as part:,o~-PVCC's master:plan.development,,
which i.s~-~part 'of~..the_study itsel~,lHe added~that ~in talking with
=ep~esenta%ives from PVCC, their primary interest is that there be no through
traffic, and that is why it has not been iShown.
.. -. . ~ ; : .~' ~ .~ -
Mr. Bowie~commented that~bhe Board,~a~ ~discUssedthe. PVCC?situation;~at
the.last session~'and,~.decided that it-wouldaccept PVCC~-s:position.',.. Mr,~
Citimberg-stated,%hat-.he was responding ~toaquestion from'tha~.meeting, ,He
believes that P¥CC'.s situation is understood.~- ....
.Next, Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Dan Jordan fromMonticello.-was'present
at the meeting.,-He added thatMr. Jordan..hadserved on-the Advisory,Committee
and had:been instrumental in helping to develop the~overall plan; He noted,~
that his work is appreciated, -
~ Mrs,. :Humph~is asked Mr.:,Cilimberg to tell'her .again about,the-areg~,that
hadbeendesignated for commercial servi.ce~ She said.~hat, in,her notes she
had areference about not encouraging commercial servi~e, and,-there-was :a::
c~ange on .the~map.~ Shedid not notice, however, whether there had been a
257
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
change in the text of "E" on Page 34 or on the map on Page 35. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that in other cases, the Board accepted the studies which had been
through the PACC process. He said that this time the Board is adopting
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that reflect the study from this Board's
standpoint. The amendments will make general reference to the study as a
guideline, but the amendments will actually reflect slight variations of the
recommendations in the report. He added that if there is concern regarding
reference to commercial service in that study, clarification could be added
under the item, "Consider Recommendations of the City, County, University
Planning Coordination Council's Blue Ridge Neighborhood "Area B" Study as a
guide for future development of that portion of Neighborhood Four within the
study area." He said that a comma could be placed after the word, "area," and
th~n.~the sentence' continue, "except' for ~reference to commercial service in
this,.~area." He added that commercial service in that area can also be
defined.
· Mrs;. Humphris mentioned, that,'this was a'_very important, pa~t of the
discussion, and atl:,six. Board members agreed that they,;wanted-to .detete this
ldo.a,,; ~Mr.~ Cilimberg then, suggested that-this,matter..be handled, in--thei'manner
in,,which,-he has,;-just described.~ He said-,that this way it will bet clear in
Plan :that this is-one part of the study ':that , the Board, is not accepting~ at:
this.~time.- He does. not think it 'is a big .'item; ,-. ~-
Mr~,Bowerman' agreed with, Mrs. Humphris, and said.that-he, too., recalled
rte.'discussion .... ' ' '
' . ~Mrs.'Humphris then mentioned that there was ,discussion about buffers with
reference-to the-~possibility of widening and changing Route.53. , She said,that
a~ problem was mentioned about buffers disappearing ',during-'the .~planning
process, and the Board wanted to make sure it was clear that the buffer
distance, should ,.be maintained no matter what changes were .made in~.road
configurations.surrounding the: property. She~. asked.~,where this~-recommendation
~ ~ ~?i Mr,. Cilimberg responded ..that. the intent~ for,~ the .Route 53 -bUffers ~is~ ,t
co~ered in,_the study~.. The study and-the University's plan~specify~.that no
matter ~what happens with .the .right~of-way-of,,Route 53, there is maintenance of
the 150 foot buffer in a certain place on Route 53 and a buffer up to 200 feet
in another ,place~ on. Route 53~,, ~He pointed'these areas out.,,on, the .map~. '. He,said
that ~there :would be a physical separation between whatever configuration-may
ultimately be there and the property. He went on to, say that the buffer zones
are actually identified as part.' of'.the notes to the plan. ~He-said ~it~ is part,
of the-document itself, and it'is~:directlY :referenced.. Re added that there~is
a, statement included ,which -says that ,no. development 'ofl this property ~can occur
that.,is not in, accord with. this-plan. He said that the UniverSity,:~has-,-agreed
to,,this?'plan. -~He .thinks that the message, is clear,-and ever. ything'-:has been
done'inthe planning-documents as ,to the maintaining or,this buffer~,~.~'.H~; ,.
recatled~,that the:discussion .included some interest~ in possible zoning text
amendments that would be more definitive in. maintaining buffers because~.of, the
Board' s -- conce~n.about,~utitity?'lines that .have affeCted'.,buffers ~ ~ iHe~ said~ this
woutd<.require zoning text. changes, .and this-,was ,not addressed~ He added:,.that
the-intent is to~.have these buffers,-defined, in place.and undisturbed:~.so~notes
referencing what, is being addressed here' will be included .... :,
'Mr, Way asked if the buffer would still be~' t50.-,feet regardless'~of the~
size ,of the road~ · Mr ~ Cilimberg,-responded,. that~ the: buffer,,will go~' from. the~,
property: line, into- the property, and ~the, property~tine is. the-.right~ofrway~.on
. ' Mr. Way asked-,~what,.will happen,'if Route 53-is enlarged...~, Mr.' Cilimberg
answered that the. information that,~he has indicates that,,the buffer~would ,'~
. , Mr~ Way agreed that he thought this was ,the case ..... - , -
,.., :~ ,Mr. ~Bowie,~,asked if.the-buf~er~would, remain t50 feet~:,~-even if:.,some- of:~the
buffer' had to be planted,-on, the~inside of ~the-property.
cared that.:this~was cor~ect., , He said, that:if' the,.deVelopment happens first,
and Route,.53 is widened later, then it is out of his control, He read from.a
258
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
in the plan that "existing trees in buffer areas shall remain unless
replaced for reasons of disease or vegetative safety hazard or replaced to
enhance the effect of the buffer."
Mr. Bowerman said he planned to bring up the question of an undisturbed
buffer where a utility easement co-exists in the same location. He said this
Board has not looked at ordinance provisions in terms of how to handle this
issue when it happens. He added that often times when there is a 20 or 30
foot undisturbed vegetated buffer, it also coincides with utility easements
which could be 15 feet wide. He added that the end result is sometimes 10
feet of undisturbed buffer and 20 feet of cleared space, and it will stay that
way under current regulations until this Board can clarify its own thinking
and language in the ordinance which deals with this matter. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that staff is attempting, with several proposed zoning text changes,
to address a variety of issues, and this is one of them.
At: this time, Mr. Bowie openedthe public hearing on CPA-91-02, relating
tothe Blue Ridge Neighborhood-Area B Study.
Mr. Dan Jordan, Director of Monticello, stated that he was pleased to-~:
havea part in the group that worked to prepare the study, He said this group
included~representatives of the, City of Charlottesville, the Universityand
the' County. He commended Mr. Cilimberg and his staff for their leadership in
the study.-~ Hethinks that it is a fine, thoughtful and comprehensive~
document. He stated that the people at Monticello are pleased-to-endorse'the
study~ He thankedthe supervisors, also, forthe vote.-to designate Route 53
as the Thomas Jefferson Parkway,~ which is~completely conSistent with~one of
the main.recommendations,of the~study. · '~ :.-
Mrs. Humphris commented that.the Board had been approached by Ms. Carolyn
Holmes, on behalf, of Ash Lawn, suggesting, that it would.be beneficial to
everybodyto include President Monroe in the naming of that roadway. ~She, said
that, Ms, Holmeshad indicated that she would not mind if Mr. Jefferson's name
was first. Mrs. Humphris suggested that since Mr. Jordan was at this meeting,
it might be, appropriate to seehow .he feels about.the.name~'Jefferson-Mon~oe
Parkway.'! Mr. Jordanreplied that~therepresentatiye from the district,~on-the
Citizens-' committee, Mr. Howard, had an excellent, idea. He explained that~:.the
,!
idea was to have the~name Thomas Jefferson Parkway"to Simeon~and,-then,~the
namer"James Monroe Parkway"from that point'to Ash Lawn and. beyond,-~>He said
that.this suggestion couldbe considered as an alternative, ~
Mr. Bowie said Ms. Holmes was very upset.~ Re' is~ not sure if~90.percent
of thepeople who live on Route 53-have to be in agreement with the name, but
he feels that it is most important to have the people involved with the two
President's homes happy~ ~He will.ask the staff to-work out the details.-~Mr,.~
Jordan reiterated that he likes,Mr.~Howard'sidea.
~ At this time, since there were no other comments, Mr.~Bowie closed the
public hearing on CPA-91-02.
Motion was offered by. Mrs. Humphris, secondedby Mr~ ~Way~ to-approve..
CPA,91-02 relating to_the Blue Ridge Neighborhood Area B study inctuding~.~the
wording that Mr. Citimberg suggested for the~fifth Section under~text-changes
to include: "except_for the reference to E on page 34 to. commercial ~
development!and the same on themap on Page 35,~commerciat development."
Mr~ Bowie statedthat he,wanted to ensure thatthe:buffer~remained a~ 150
feet-no matter where the road was constructed. He does not.know if this can
be done, even though it is implied and shownas such on the map. He asked. Mr.
Cilimberg if the Board needed to do-anything further.
Mr. Bain commented that Mr. Bowie is trying to address a site plan issue
with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He said that he did not.think this could
bedone... Mr. Cilimberg replied that the buffer had been addressed as
definitively as it can be addressed at this time.
:;',.-;~Mr.,!Bowie remarked.that this'is an area of concern for him.
Mr.' Bain agreed, but. said he-does not think,the buffer'should~behandled
now, as-part of this issue. He said that the comprehensive Plan has already
259
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
been tied in with this situation, and that is unusual. He thinks that the
matter is general enough and large enough that it still fits within the
context of the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which are to include changes to
the text and the Land Use Map are set out in full below:
1~ L~Add: page 170 under EXISTING LAND USE, last paragraph, add "...and the
Blue Ridge Hospital;"
2. Add: ~page 170 underRecommendations before the lastbullet "Evaluation
of thefeasibitity~of ~eConfiguring the Interstate 64 and Route 20
Interchange to improve traffic circulation in the area and determine the
impact such a reconfiguration~-would have on a f~ture Interstate64.?and
Avon Street Interchange."
Page 171 after Industrial service and neighborhood service designation on
Avon Street across from Lake Reynovia limited to existing zoned land
only, add:
The expansionof the Growth Area to include that portion of the Blue
Ridge. Hospital tract' south~~of Interstate 64 and north of Route 53 is
based on the~conditiOn,,that the area be designate~for public/semi-
public use anddevelopment in this area be consistent with the Master
Land Utilization Plan for, the-Blue Ridge Hospital tract dated May of
1991 (,Blue RidgeNeighborhood "Area. B~'?Study on file.') The Albemarle~-
County Service Authority jurisdictional area shall remain, but only
provide additional water and sewer servicesfor developmentconsistent~'~-
with the Master Lan~ UtiliZation Plan.~ ? ~
If the Virginia Forestry Department undertakes its proposed office
development on approximatelythirty acres-in the,northeast portion of the
Hillcrest Tract adjacent to Piedmont. Virginia Community College, change
the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of that area from low density
residential to public/semi-public. Concurrently.,-increase medium density
land use designation byapproximately ten acres on the same tract in an
area west ofanunnamed tributary stream of Moores Creek to replace the
residen~tial~holding'capaCity lost due to~theconstruction ofthe. Fo~estry
Department. This~Land Use Map amendment wouldnotbe effective unt-it the
ForestryDepartment undertakes its relocation in this location,
Consider recommendation°f the;City/County~University~Ptanning and
Coordination Council'sBlue'Ridge Neighborhood~"AreaB"Studyas a~guide
forfuturedevelopment of:'that portion of~Neighborhood Four withinthe
study area except for reference to commercial service in this area.
Delete next paragraph which reads: Consider recommendations;of.-the'
City/County/University: Planning and Coordination Council for theBlue,~
Ridge Route 20 South Study Area. Incorporate adopted recommendations-
into the Comprehensive Plan 'for the County-.
In Table 50under DevelopableAcreage~Publicthe number shouldbe t64;~.
non-residential subtotals.should be 319; and Undeveloped Land Totalshould
be 1255.. :- ~'
On Map 20, Urban AreaLand Use,~Neighborhoods 1 through 7, make change on
Attachment~B~(onfile). ~
Agenda Item No.~9. SP-91~25.. WCYK AM~FM~ Public Hearing on a request
to locate 2 satellite dishes atop the Jefferson Savings Bank on. 1.186 acs
zoned CO & EC. Property located in~NE corner of inters~of, Rt 29 &Rio Rd.
TM61, P123A~'. Charlottesville Dist..~ (Advertised in theDaily Progress;on~
September~3 .and~September. t0, 1991~)
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
26O
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Ail properties in the area have been
developed and are occupied by commercial establishments. This tract
is an out-parcel of Albemarle Square Shopping Center.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to locate the two
satellite receiving dishes as shown in Attachment C & D (copies on
file). The applicant has provided a description and justification for
this request (Attachment E, copy on file)."
Addendum to SP-91-25, ECYK AM-FM
"On July 2, 1991, the Planning Commission deferred action on SP-91-25
indefinitely in order to allow for Architectural Review Board (ARB)
comment. The ARB reviewedthe request on August 12 and made the
following comment:
?~he'BOard'wassupportive ofthe proposal of locating two,
eight-foot or less.dishes-on the roof of Jefferson Savings and
Loan Bank located on the northeast corner of the southeast wing
as indicated on the'CharlottesvilleSavings and Loan-
Association' site plan dated August. 6, 1975, by Max Evans~ .The
dishes shall be painted the same color as the structure soto
compose Well with the building.'
It is the opinion of staff that this action by the ARB addressed the
concerns stated by the Planning Commission at its July 2 meeting. The
recommended conditions of approval reflect the comments of the ARB.
The ARB did not require-screening of the dishes as they believedthat
any screening measures would increase the visibility of the.dishes.
Staff recommends approval of SP-91-25 subject to the following amended
conditions of approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Limited. to two, eight-foot or lesS dishes.to be~located as shown
on the attachedsketch dated 8/21/91 and~initialedWDF~
2. The dishes shall'be-painted the same color as the structure."
Mr. Citimberg said, the Planning Commission, at. its meetingon Septem~
bet 3, 1991., by a vote' of 5-0~1 recommended approval.of SP-91-25., subject to
three conditions which-were not exactly.thesame as~thoseset~out'in ~the-~
staff's report,~but"'were-worded as~follows:
Approval is~limited to two, eight-foot or less diameter dishes;
2. Dishes shall_be painted same color as building;
~ishes to.be located as shown on Attachment datedAugust 21, 1991,
initialed W~D.F.
There~were no questions~.fromthe Board for~Mr. Citimberg, so-Mr. Bowie
opened the.public hearing.
Mr. Kevin Dalton, Station Manager of WCYK, mentioned that WCYK is fully
in support of the two conditions recommended by the ARB and approved by the
Planning Commission~ He said~that~he is looking forward toimplementing them.
Mr. Perkins asked if WCYK'sexisting towers will beneeded once.the
studies are move~. Mr.-Da%tonreplied that it is his understanding that the
tower on Little Yellow Mountain will remain as a transmitter. He noted that
all other dishes onthe. Crozet site will come down~
Mr. Perkins asked-if the tower at the end of, Hilltop Road. would remain.
Mr. Dalton answered that-the Hilltop Road facilitywill be removed.
Mr. Perkins then clarified,that~,the'FM tower is. onLittle Yellow Moun~
tain, and the AM tower is at Hilltop Roadl He asked if Mr. Dalton is verify-
261
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
ing that this 200-foot tower on Hilltop Road will be removed. Mr. Dalton
responded that he believes this is true, but he is not from the Engineering
Division.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Dalton if he would talk with Centel. Mr. Dalton
answered that the owners and President of WCYK have been in touch with Centel.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hear-
ing.
Mrs. Humphris moved approval of SP-91-25, with the three conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
~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~ - · ~ -' ~
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Approval is, limited to,two, eight-foot or less diameter dishes;
2. Dishes shall be painted same color as building;
3. Dishes to-be located as shown on Attachment dated August 21, 1991~
initialed W.D.F. (copy on file).
Agenda Item, No. lO. SP.-91~38. General Machinery~,Gorp~!~?dPublic, Hearing
on a request fora HOmeOccupationi-Ctass B for a telephone business with 2
employees in an accessory structure on 92.5'acs zoned RA. Property in NW
quadrant of inters of Rts 636 & 691. TM84,P39. White Hall Dist. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress~on~September 3 and,SePtemher 10, t991~)
Mr~ Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with a dwel-
ling and an ,accessory,,structure in which_,the applicant proposes to
conduct the home occupation. The accessorystructure is located at
the intersection of Route 636 and 691. The ,property, is~mostly~clear~
and adjacent,properties are mostly in pasture.
Applicant's proposal: .--The~applicant has submitted a description of
the use. The'applicant does not,.anticipate~anytraffic~-from customers
to,the site and, the~employees will. walk towork as they-live on, the
property.
Comprehensive Plan: This ,site is located in Rural Area 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Summary and Recommendations: This application has not received any
Objection and is scheduled for review due,,to the fact that the struC-
ture to be used'd°es not meet the 75',foot setback required,~in'the
Rural Areas. ,Section 5.2~2.1 of the Ordinance states in part 'Any
accessorystructure which does'not conformto thesetback~and-yard
regulations formain structures in the district in which it is located
shall not be used for any home occupation' The accessory structure
is an old country~store~· ~he porch of which appears to.be within the
prescriptive~easement of Route 636. ~--~
Staff~,will address each-provision of Section 31,2 4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance. That section 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 usewill not be of substantial detriment to adjacent proper-
The applicant's occupation is c0nducted~entirely'over the telephone.
Noeustomers~or material, will,~come tothe~site~and no.~traffic will be
generated by this, use as all employees will walk to work. Based, on~
the low level, of activity on the site, and the existence,of the struc-
ture,',this use will',not be'of substantial detrimentto adjacent pro-~
petty,,
262
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
As stated previously, this use will have no impact due to the low
level of activity. Therefore, this use will not change the character
of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this ordinance~
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated
in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 and is of the opinion that this use is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Thip use wi!! not interfere with any byTright~uses~in the district-
This opinion is based on the fact that the structure is already
present andthat'~'the applicant will not generate~any~traffic, or''
outward appearance of the activity.
with additional resulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
As 's~ted p'reviously this use will not comply with Section 5.2.2.1(b)
of the ordinance. The site will comply with all other provisions of
Section 5.2~2 which governs home occupations. Underthe provisionsof
Section 5.1 'the commission and board~of supervisors may vary-or waive
anyprovision of this section as deemed appropriate~in a particular
case.' Staff opinion is that approval of this request with a reduc-
tion in setback~would not be inconsistent with the purpose of this
section. This opinion is based on the fact that the structure is
existing and the. conduct~of the.business will not interfere with
adjacent uses and.will not be apparent from the road.
and with thepublichealth, safety and general~welfare.
The location of the structure at the intersection of Route 636. and69~
does not provide an entrance !ocationat which adequate sight distance
Could.~be obtained. However, the applicant's situation isunique in
that~no entrance is required for the conduct of the .business. i This is
due. to the fact~,thatthe employees live on site:,and walk to, work,and '
that no customers~or~,deliveries are made to the site. With a condi~
tion,prohibiting the establishment of'an-:entrance to the state;road to
serve this:use, thepubtic:'safe~y will be preserved,.- The,reduction in
setback for a building used for a home occupation will~no~ change.the
existing situation and the conduct of thebusiness will'not'be appar-
ent from the state road., Therefore, this use will be in.harmony with
the public health,~safety and.general welfare.
Summary:- The general intentof,,the~home occupation regulations is to
limit the activity to a point that it is not apparent that the use is
occurring.~:,~The applicant's proposed usewill not result:in'any
outward appearance ofthe, activity. Permitting the:use to occur lessI~
than!75 feet-f~om theright of,way will not be inconsistent,~with the
provisions of Section 5.-2.2.,1 of the ordinance~ Based on the above
comments, staff is able to.recommend approvat,'of the applicants~'
request subject to'.the following conditions: - ~
Recommended Conditions~fApproval:
Use shatl~'be limited to,two employees;
2.
.No entrance tothe state road or parking area shall be estab-
lished to serve this use.
Mr~ Cilimberg .said, the ~Planning Commission, at its meeting on Septem-
ber 3,-1991, by a'vote of 5~1, recommended approval of,.SR-9t-38 with'the
following four conditions:
1. ~se shall~be~limited,'to three persons, whether~or not same are
.employees;
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
263
No entrance to the state road or parking area shall be allowed to
serve this use;
Except as otherwise provided herein, compliance with Section 5.2.2
of the Zoning Ordinance;
Permit is limited to applicant only.
Mr. Cilimberg discussed the staff report and said that this request is
from the General Machinery Corporation for a home occupation class B to permit
a telephone business in an existing accessory structure with two employees.
He said the Commission asked that the Board be informed as to who the
applicant is. He added that the Board may want to include the applicant by
reference in the approval because it is a corporation. He went on to say that
the. principals of thin, corporation are. Gary Epsenhart and Richard Rike. He
sai~ these two people would be considered the applicants for the purpose of
this special permit.
Mr. Bowie mentioned the condition relating to the number of employees.
He said that there is a limit of two employees for a home oecupation.operar
tion. He pointed out that therecannot be two employees and four family
members employed in the business. He said that there can only be a total of
three people employed, no matter who they are. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He said
that this condition was placed on the special permit to-cover'the fact that
the actual owners of the operation might not technically be considered
employees, but they are part of the number of people.to be working with the
home.occupation.
Mr,~.Bain asked how many people a HomeOccupation-Class Ballows. Mr.
Cilimberg responded~'that it .atlows~for two persons other than members of ~the
family .residing on the premises.
Mr. Bain said the Planning Commission had made the conditionthat there
wouldonly,be a~total of three persons involved with the. operation, whether or
not they are family members. Mr. Bowie agreed, but he:went-onto'say.,that-.the
condition relating tothe total number of people involvedwith aHome~
Occupation-Class B.operation may have something to do with the corporate
structure.- Mr. Cilimberg repliedthat the reason a iimit~was placed one.the~
number, of employees was to.make clear what family and two employees mean in
this situation. He went onto say that more than three people are-not needed
to work withthis business, and those three persons might include, two people
who are principals in the Corporation. He said that the applicants may be
able to explain how they expect to handle this situation in terms of them-
selves' ascorporate people~and the employees who will-be involved.
Mr,.Bowie stated that~hewould accept the condition. He just wondered
why the condition was placed on this special permit.
Mrs, Humphris asked Mr~ Cilimberg toexplain the~significance~of.the~fact
that the employees live-~on the property.-Mr.~Cilimberg answeredthat the~'
physical ~orientation of. this structure, whichseems~to be in the prescriptive
rightrof-way of .the State.road, does'not .lend itself-to the establishment of
any kind,~of parking area with'a~ safe sight distance. He addedthat~it:was
important that employees live~onthe site, and be able to walk. to work.~with no
vehicles coming tO.and from the business, because there is.no place to park~
Mrs.~Humphris asked~what will happen~if the employees who live on the
property are no longer:available to work there, Mr. Cilimberg responded~that
this would require another special use permit. He saidthat the condition
placed on this special permit is related to the~physical orientation and
safety concerns~ He added that there is no setback otherwise, it'probably
wouldmake no difference whatsoever. He said that in this case this condition
does make a difference to the people in that area, as well as the employees.
Mr. Bowie wondered what wouldhappen if an employee lived quite aways
from the business. Mr. Perkins and Mr. Cilimberg,replied that~an employee
could park~at the.house that is located onthe property. ~Mr.~Citimberg~went
on.to.say that the.sight distance at the house is marginal,~but it is better
than the~--sight distanceat.the building. Mr. Cilimberg then read,Condition
TwOwhich.~stated. that, "No entranceto thestate road~or parking area. shall, be
allowed to serve this use."
264
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Rike, the applicant and part owner, stated that the third
employee is the President's mother.
Mr. Bowie asked who the other corporate partner is. Mr. Rike replied
that Gary Epsenhart is the other corporate partner.
There were no questions from the Board for Mr. Epsenhart, and no one else
wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins stated that he sees no problem with this application.
Mr~ Bain commented that the Highway Department, along with staff, had
addressed the real issues involved with this business. He also thinks that
these issues have been addressed in the staff report and in the Planning
Commission's action. He said that with these conditions, he will support the
application. He agreed with Mrs. Cilimberg that ~the two partners names, Mr.
Rike and Mr. Epsenhart, should be spelled out, because they are the applicants
and not the corporation. He said that then if something changes, there will
be some control~ ·' ' - ' -'
Mr. Perkins said that this business makes use of a nice, old store
building that sets close' to-the road.. He-then moved approval of SP-91~38 with
the four conditions recommended'by-the Planning Commission, and with the two
names, Richard Rike and Gary Epsenhart, added at the end of Condition Number
Four.
Mr~ Bain seconded the motion.
~.Rolliwas catled,.~,and the motion~aarried by:the following recorded~vote:
AYES:..~Messrs. Bain, Bowerman~ Bowie, Mrs.~ Humphris,.Mr. Perkins and.Mr~'~Way.
NAYS: None.
(The.conditions of approval are set out in full below:
t~ iUse shall be limited to three persons, whether or-d.not same are
employees; ,~:~:i ~.,~:.~a.~ :~ ~ ~ ~
2,. No. entrance to:the state road or parking area shall be allowed to,
serve'-this~use; ~- '
3. Except as otherwise provided herein, compliance with Section 5.2.2
of the Zoning Ordinance;
Permi~cisfl~mitedto applicants only, Richard E. Rike and Gary
Espenhart.
,Agenda, Item.No. tl. Adoption of ResolUtion Providing for theIssuanae of
$16~070~0~0 School Bo~'ds, 1991 Series B, of Albemarle County, Virginia,
Heretofore Authorized to be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority, and
Setting Forth the Form and:DetailsThereof.
Mr. Tucker~explained that the resolution:before'the Board~has<been:
prepared and recommended by bond counsel for approval .o£~-.the'$16,OT0~0O0.
school bond~ Hesaid that the County has,still not heard from VPSA. as to:the
amount that~will be allowed through ~the fall issue of bOnds. He said that ~the
remainder~ will be handled through, a stand~alone issue.
Mr. Bowie asked:~if the resolution wilt stilt be valid if VPSA issues a
lesser amount, of~ money. Mr. Tucker replied that the bond counsel recommended
that the figure.of $t6,070,000 be used in the resolution because there will be
a tight timetable once the information is received from VPSA.
~Mr...BOwie asked if the amount'of the bond.could be reduced:in the'resolu-
tion~ but not increased. Mr~ Tucker answered that Mr. Bowie is correct. -~
Mr. Bowie next wondered if this matter required a public hearing. Mr.
" " " id ~-at
Tucker answered,~¥no.,~,ne~sa '~n ~the public,hearing hasalready.been held.
265
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Bowerman asked {f repayment of interest and principal will begin
during the 1991-92 budget year. Mr. Tucker replied that $3.0 million of the
bonds have already been issued. He said the County will start paying the
interest on that amount of money in this fiscal year. He noted that payment
on this Fall's issue, whatever amount it may be, will not start until 1992-93.
He went on to say that VPSA will carry either all of the $16,070,000 or a
portion of it through the Fall issue of the bonds. He said that VPSA may
choose not to carry it in the Fall, and the County will have a stand-alone
issue. He noted that he had already mentioned to the Board that the County
might possibly have to go to a separate stand-alone issue for the remaining
amount that may not be approved by VPSA.
Mrs.-Bain pointed out that therewill~be a semi-annual interest payment,
and there will be an interest payment due in June of this fiscal year. Mr.
Tucker agreed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any of .these payments are included in the-five.year
capital program. He said that he realizes that debt servicecomes out of the
operations category.. Mr. Tucker responded that none of~thesepayments~show in
the five year capital program~
Mr.~ Bowerman stated that provisions will have to.be made' in the 1992-93
operating budget to deal with the interest and principalpaymentsof~the
bonds. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said that this was discussed during the budget
sessions. He added that there were some reserve funds, but part of these
funds were used to reduce thereal property tax rate. Mr. Bowerman then asked
if part of the reserve fund was for bond purposes. Mr. Tucker answered that
Mr. Bowerman was correct.
Mr. Bowie inquired if this matter would be presented to the School Board
after it is adoptedby the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker answered,-"yes."
He said that normally.the School Board wouldhave-approved~.theresOlution
first. He said that thetime.schedule was tight,~ and hewanted to bring' this
matter tothe Supervisors atthis meeting. He'added that.theSchoot'Board'
will~adoptthe resolution at-its meeting next Monday. He pointed, out that it
is no problem for the resolution to be approved first by the Supervisors.
Mr~ Bowie wondered what~.would-.happeniftheSchool Board~did notrapprove
the~resolution~ Mr. Tucker assured Mrs, BoWie that~therewas no problem with.
the. School Board~approving~the resolution.
.At this time~ motion was offered byMr.~Bain, seeonded byMr.
toadoptthe resolution, as presented to the Board, providing for the issuance
of $16,070,000 school bonds, 1991 Series B~ of Albemarle County, Virginia,
heretoforeauthOrized, to be sold to the Virginia Public-School Authority,~and
setting forth the form and details thereof. ·
Roll was called, and the motion carried bythe following recorded vote: ~
AYES: ~Messrs. Bain, Bowerman,-Bowie, Mrs.' Humphris, Mr.~ Perkins andMr~-,Way.
NAYS: None.. · --
(:Thelfollowing resolution-was adopted bythe'vote shownabove.:)
RESOLUTION, PROVIDING FOR THEISSUANCE OF $16,070,000
SCHOOL BONDS, 1991 SERIES B, OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
¥IRGtNIA~nHERETOF~RB.~AUTHORtZED~i~0 BE,::S~A~-iTO~:THE~
~-~-, ~:>~>~:'ti'~ ¥tR~INIA~,PUBLIC-SCHOOLAUTHORITY,~AND SETTING FORTH THE
FOPS4 AND,DETAILS THEREOF'
WHEREAS, by resolution adoptedApril 3, 1991, the Board,of
Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County,'Virginia (the"Coun-
ty"), authorized the issuance of its~general obligationbonds in the~
maximum amount of $19,070,000 to finance capital projects for school
purposes, of~,which $3,000,000 bonds have been issued and,sold; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority, a state agency
prescribedby~the General-Assembly of Virginia.~pursuant toArticle
VII, Section-10(b) of the Constitution of Virginia (the "VPSA"), has
offered to,purchase the County's $16,070,000 school bonds pursuant to
a Bond Sale Agreement .(the '!Bond Sale Agreement!'); and
266
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. Issuance of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby
provided for the issuance and sale of the remaining $16,070,000 bonds
(the "Bonds") of the $19,070,000 school bonds described above in the
form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of Bond~. It is determined to be in the best interest
of the County to accept the offer of the VPSA to purchase the Bonds,
and to sell the Bonds to the VPSA at par upon the terms established
pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman of the Board and the County
Executive,~or either?of.them,~are hereby authorized and directed to
-execute the Bond Sale Agreement in substantially the form submitted to
the Board at this meeting, which is hereby approved, and deliver it to
the YPSA. ~
3. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in registered
form in denominations of $5,000 and who!e-multiPles thereof; shall be
dated the dateof their issuance and detivery;~shall be~designated~
PScho01 BondS, 1991 Series B;" shall bear interest payable semi-
annually on June 15 and December 15 (each an ,'Interest~Payment' Date"),
beginning June 15, 1992, at the rate or rates, and shall mature on
December 15 in the'years (each a "Principal Payment Date!')~and in the
amounts, established in accordance with Section 4. -
Interest:on each'Bond shall be payable (a) fromits~date, ifit
is authenticated'prior to..June 15, 1992, or (b) otherwise from the
June 15 or December 15 that is, or immediately preceded, the.date on~
which it is authenticated (unless payment of. interestthe~eon is in
default, inwhich case such Bond shall bear interest from the date to
which interest has' been paid). Principal and premium, if any, shall
be payable, subject to the provisions of Section 6, to'the registered.
owners upon surr'ender of the Bonds astheybecome~due~at.~the principal
corporate trust Office of Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia~ the
Registrar..~Subject to'the pr°visionsof Section 6,_interest~shall be
payable by,.check or draft, mailed to the =egistered owners at their._
addresses as'they appear on registration books kePtby the Registrar
on the first day of the month of the interest payment.~date. Prin-~
cipal, premium,.if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money
of the United States of America.
4.. Award..~.0f Bonds: Interest Rates. The County Administrator is
hereby authorized.and directed to award the~Bonds to the VPSA at a
price of par and-at an.interest-rate or rates established by the YPSA,
provided that. nosuch~interest'rate shall be morethan~ten one-~
hundredths~of one percent'(0.10%) over~the.annualrate to be paid. by
the,VPSA for-the~corresponding maturity of~the.-~bonds~to be issued~-:by~
the. VPSA (the ~¥PSA'Bonds"), a portionof the proceeds~of which will
beused to purchaSe the Bonds, and prOvided, further, that-no<interest
rate-on the Bonds shall exceed nine percent (9%) per year, Principal
of the Bonds-shall be payable~in instatlments'.in.~years and amounts as
set forth on Schedule I attached hereto; provided, however, that the
County Executive ishereby-authorized to.award-the~ Bonds to the VPSA
in accordance with a principat~payment schedule different from that~
set forth on Schedule I attached hereto as the VPSA may propose,
provided that such schedule shall include annual payments in the years
1992 through~20t!,~inclusive.~. The execution and delivery or.the-Bonds
as.desCribed in. Section 8 shall concluSively evidence the same'as
having been approvedand authorized.by thisResolution~ -
5.. Form of-BondsWhen-Owned by VPSA. For~ as long as the'VPSA.?is
the registered owner of'the Bonds,.the Bonds shall be in the form of a
single, temporarytypewritten~ bond substantially.~inthe'~form of
Exhibit A attachedhereto.~Upon20'days~' writtennotiCe~from the~
VPSA, the Coantyshall~deliver, at its~expense,.Bonds in ~marketable
form in denominations of $5,000and wholemultiples.there0f, as
requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the.temporary typewritten Bond.
Such. Bonds inmarketable form shall be insubstantially~the form of
Exhibit A attached hereto~ withsuch changesas shall be~necessaryor
267
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
appropriate for the Bonds to be in marketable form, as are not incon-
sistent with the terms of this Resolution and as may be approved by
the County officials executing such Bonds.
6. Payment to VPSA Paying Agent and Registrar.
a. For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the
Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on
the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at
or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the applicable
Interest Payment Date and Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption, or, if such date is not a business day for
~ ~ ¥irginia banks or for the-Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before
11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the business day next
preceding such Interest Payment Date and Principal Payment Date or
date.fixed for prepayment or redemption; and .-
b. Ail overdue payments of principal, and interest to the
extent permitted by law, shall bear interest at the applicable in-
terest rate or rates on. the Bonds.
c. Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia~ is designated .as Bond
Re'gistrar and Paying Agent for the Bond-(the "Registrar'"). ' '-
7. Prepayment or Redemption. -.The principal installments'Of the
Bonds. held by, the'VPSA coming, due on or,before December 15, 2001,~ and
the definitive Bondsfor which the Bondsheld by the-VPSAmay'be
exchanged-that mature on~or~ before December. 15, 2001~ are not subject
to.prepayment or. redemption prior to theirstated' maturities. The
principal installments of~the Bonds~held by the VPSA.~coming due after
December 15, 2001, and~the, definitive Bonds~for which the Bonds held
by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after December 15, 2001,.are
subject to prepayment or redemption at-theCounty!s' optionprior to
their stated.maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after
December 15,2001, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices
(expressed as percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or
the principal amount of the BOnds to be redeemed) setforth below~ plus
accrued interest to the date set for prepaymentor.redemption:
December. 15, 2001 to December 1~, 2002, .inclusive 103%
December 15, 2002 to December 14,~2003, inclusive 102
December 15,. 2003to December 14, 2004, inclusive I01
--Decemberl5, 2004-and~thereafter
~ Provided, however that.while theVPSA is the registered owner, of
the~Bonds, the Bonds.shall not be subject'to~prepayment~or redemption
prio~ to their stated maturities as described above Without first
obtainingthe prior'written consent of the VPSA. Notice~of~anysuch
prepayment or redemption shall be given by. the-Registrar to the
registered.owner by-registered mail not more~than 90 nor~less than~30~
days"before the date fixed for prepayment .or redemption.
.8, Execution of Bonds~ The Bonds shall'be signed by'the manual
or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board,
shall be countersigned by themanual?.or, facsimile signature of the
Clerk of the Board;~and the Board's seal shall be.affixedthereto or a
facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided, however,~that if both of
such signatures:.are facsimiles, no bond shall be valid until it has
been authenticated by themanual signature of an authorized officer or
employee of~the Registrar and the date.0fauthenticationnoted~there-
on.
-9. Pledge,of Full Faith and Credit.. For .the timelypayment'of
the principal or-'and the interest on'the'Bonds provided for bythis
Resolution. as~the:.isame shall become due, the full faith.and, credit Of
the County are hereby irrevocably pledged. In each year while anyof
the Bonds shall be outstanding,, unless other funds are lawfully
available and.appropriated for'timely, payment of the,Bonds, the Board
shatl~tevy and collect in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax
upon all taxablerproperty in> the County subject to local.taxation
268
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of
and the interest on the Bonds as such principal and interest shall
become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate and
amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in
the County.
10. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the Board is hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution
to be presented to the County School Board. The Bonds authorized
hereby shall not be issued by the County until the County School Board
shall have adopted an appropriate resolution consenting to the
issuance of the Bonds.
_, 11. State Non-Arbitra~e Pro,ram Proceeds A~reement. In accor-
dance with the requirements of the YPSA, the Board hereby determines
that it is in the County!s. best interests to participate'in,the state
Non-krbitrageProgram in connection with the.Bonds, and-~hereby:,.autho-
rizes-and directs the Director of Finance to take such action.~as shall
be.necessary or desirable therefor. The Chairman. of the Board or the
County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and invest-
ment of proceedS of~the Bonds by and, among the County~ the-other
participants in the sale of the ¥PSABonds, the YPSA, Public Financial
Management, Inc., as investment manager, and Central Fidelity Bank, as
depository; provided, however, that such proceeds shall beinvestedin
such manner that none of the Bonds will be '!arbitrage bonds"within
the meaning of section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, including regulations.applicable to the Bonds (the "Code").
The Proceeds Agreement shall be in such form as shaltbe approvedby
the County's bond counsel.
-- ~/12. Maintenance of Tax~Exemption~ The County hereby covenants
tha%..~it shall not take or omit to take. any action thetaking or~
omission of..whichwillcause the BondS'to be"arbitrage bonds" within
themeaning of Code Section 148, or-otherwise, cause interest~onthe
BondS to be inclUdable,in the gross income for federal income tax
purposes of the registered owners thereofunder existing law, Without
limiting~the generality of the foregoing, the County shallcomptywith
any*provision of law that may require'theCounty at any timeto~.rebate
to the United States any part of theearnings derived from the invest?
ment of the gross proceeds of the Bonds. The County shall-pay any
such required rebate from its general funds..
13. Use'of Proceeds Certificate. The County Executive and the
D~rector of Finance arehereby authorized and directed to executea
Use of Proceeds Certificate or Certificates setting forth the expected
use and investmentof the proceeds ofthe Bonds.and containing such"
covenants.as'may, be necessary in.order to show-compliancew~tkthe,
provisions, of~the Internal~Revenue Code of 1986, as amended(the
"Code"), aDdlapplicable_regulations relating,.to the exclusion,from~
gross income.of interest on the BondS~and on the ¥PSA Bonds-J. The
Board, on behalf of the County, covenants that the proceedsfrom the~
issuance and sale,'of the Bonds will be~invested~and expended as set' '
forth~in such~Use of Proceeds Certificate and other Certificatesand~
that~the County.~shall~complywith theother covenants and represent-
ationscontained therein. Furthermore, the Board, on behalf of the
County, covenants that the County shall.comply with the provisions of
the Code so that interest om the Bonds and on the YPSA Bonds will
remain excludablefrom gross income for Federat~incometax purposes.
SuchCertificates mayalso provide for anyelections, such officers
deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the.United States for.
purposes of complying with the provisions of CodeSection 148..
14. Restrictions on Private Use~ The County, covenants that it
wilt not permit the gross, proceeds of'the Bonds~to- be used~in any
manner that would, result in (a) 5% or. more of such proceedsbeing used
in atrade or business carried on byany person other than~a, go~ern~
mental~unit, as provided in Code Section 141(b), (b) 5%~or~more of~~
suckproceeds being uSedwith respect toany "outpUt facility'~-(other
than a~facility for.~the furnishing of water), within~the~meaning of
269
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Code Section 141(b)(4), or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used
directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other
than a governmental unit, as provided in Code Section 141(c); pro-
vided, however, that if the County receives an opinion of bond counsel
to the County with respect to the Bonds, and bond counsel to the YPSA
with respect to the VPSA Bonds, that compliance with any such restric-
tion is not required to prevent interest on the bonds of both issues
from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax
purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the
County need not comply with such restriction.
15. No Sale of Bonds of Same Issue. The County covenants that
.... : ir'will not, w%'.thout~the~¥PSA's consent, sell or deliver any general
obligation bonds which are part of the same common plan of financing
(and paid for from the same source of funds) as the Bonds between the
dates that, are. Bi,days prior.to'thedate of sale of the VPSA-.Bonds and
31.days afterthe Closing Da:te.~ ~ '
16. Election of Prior Public Finance Act. Pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15~1-227.65 of the Code.of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, the County elects that the Bonds will be-issued under the
Public Finance-Act as in effect immediately before July 1, 1991, ~
rather than~under the Public Finance Act of 1991.
..17. Filing of Resolution; Publication of Notice. The appro-
priate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and
directed to-cause a certified copy or,this Resolution to be
filed With the Circuit Courtof_the County and, within~ ten days
thereafter, to cause to be published once in aYnewspaper having
general circulation in the-County a notice setting forth (a) in brief
and. general-terms the purposes for whichthe Bonds~are~to~be issue~
and (b) the amount of the Bonds.
18. Further Actions. The'members of the Board and allofficers,
employees and agents of the_County are hereby authorized~to take such
action, as they-~oranyone of them may consider necessary or desirable
in connection with theissuance and sale of the Bonds, and~any such
action previouslytaken ishereby ratified and confirmed.
19. Repeal .of Resolutions in Conflict. Ail resolutions or parts
thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
20.
di~tely.
Effective Date~ This Resolution shall takeeffectimme-
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
EXHIBIT A
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ....
.... COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA '~:-
ALBEMARLE:COUNTY -
School Bond~ 1991. Series-~B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for Value received,
herebyacknowledges itself indebtedand promises~to pay:to,the ¥IR-
GINIA PUBLIC'SCHOOL AUTHORITYthe prin~ipalamount of SIXTEEN MILLION
SEVENTY THOUSANDDOLLARS ($16,070,000), in annual installments in the
amount,s set fo~th~.on~ SchedUte.~I attached, hereto, payableon --
DeCember 15, 1992, and annually on December 15 thereafter toand
including December 15, 2011 (each a "Principal Payment~Date"),
together with interest on the unpaid~installments fromthe date of
this Bond, payable commencing on June~tS, 1992, and SemiannUally
thereafter on June 15 and December 15 of each year (each an "Interest
Payment Date"; together with any Principal.Payment Date, a "Payment
D te"~ ,
a ~, at the rates per year set forth~on.Schedule I attached hereto
subject to prepayment as hereinafter provided. Both principalof and
interest on this Bond are:payable in. lawful, money .of the-UnitedStates
of America.
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
27O
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, as
Bond Registrar, shall make all payments of principal of, premium, if
any, and interest on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender
hereof, to the Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately
available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on
the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment. 'If a
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment is not a business day for
banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, then the payment of principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at
or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the business day
~mext p~eceding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for pre-
_payment. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said
payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest, written
acknowledgement of thereceipt thereof~shall be given~.promptty~to the
Bdnd.Registrar, and the coUnty shall befully~, discharged of its
obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made,, Upon
final~payment, this~Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond. Registrar~
for cancellation. 7.
The fullfaith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged
forthe payment of principal of and interest on this Bond.~
This Bond is duly authorized~and issued.in compliance with and
pursuant to the-Constitution~-and~ laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
including the'Public Finance Act as in effect immediately before-
July 1~1991, Chapter:Si Title~:15.1, Code of Virginiaof .1950, as
~ amended, and...resolutions duly adopted by the. County'S Board of
Supervisors and~the~County'Schoo1 Board toprovide'-funds,, t~ogether
with otheravailable funds, to finance capital~pro~ectsvforPublic~'~
school, s~
- .This Bond may be exchanged, without cost at: the pr:incipa%cor-'
porate~trust-office of the Bond Registrar for an equal: aggregate
princiPal amount of bonds in definitive form having maturities and
bearing interest at rates corresponding to the maturitiesof and, the
interest rates on the installments of p~incipal of this Bond then
unpaid, issuable in fully registered form in the denomination of
$5,000:and whole, mUltiples thereof.~ .
,This Bond, is registered in the name of Virginia. Public~ School
Authority onbooks of the~County keptbythe Bond Registrar, and the
transfer of~this-Bond may be.effected by the registered owner:of this
Bond only upon due~execution~'of an assignment bysuchregistered
.owner~....~ Upon. receipt of suchassignment and~the surrender--.of.th~s~
Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds
as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on
such registration-booksin., the name of: the assigneeor~assignees?named
in: such:assignment. - -
The principal'~in.statlments-of this Bond.coming dueon0r, before
December 15,..2001,'and:'the.definitive Bondsf.or which:thisBondmay be
exchanged: that.mature ~on or'.before December 15,.: 2001, .are not subject
to prepayment or redempt.ion.':Prior to their stated maturities, The
principal installments-of this Bond coming due after December 15,
2001,_and the~definitive~Bondsfor which this-Bond maybe-exchanged
t-hat.mature.-after December t5', 2001, are subject~to prepayment or
redemptionat the.County!s' opti~mprior totheir statedmaturitiesin
whole~.or in part, on.any date. on or after December 15, 2001,~upon
payment, of ~he-prepayment' or .redemption prices.(expressed as per-
centages of, princiPal.installments to.be prepaid or the~principal-
amount of the-Bonds~to be'redeemed) set, forth below, plus accrued,
interest to. the date, set.for prepayment or redemption:
December 15, 2001.to December 14, 2002, inclusive 103%
December 15~ 2002~t0 December 14,:'~2003-, inclusive~102 :.. ~-~
-December 15, 2003 to December 14, 2004., inclusive 10t
~--.December' 1~., 2004 and thereafter~.~,
271
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Provided, however, that while the Virginia Public School Author-
ity is the registered owner of this Bond or of the definitive Bonds
for which this Bond may be exchanged, the Bonds shall not be subject
to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as
described above without first obtaining the prior written consent of
the Virginia Public School Authority. Notice of any such prepayment
or redemption shall be given by the Registrar to the registered owner
by registered mail not more than 90 and not less than 30 days before
the date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed
- .... prenedent to and,-~in~the~-issu~nce~0f this Bond have happened, exist and
~'i' .... .haVe been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and
this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is
within.every,...deb~.~and~other limit-prescribed~by the'Constitution, and
laws ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia',..- The~resolutionadopted by,the
Board~of Supervisors authorizing the issuance:of'theBonds provides',
and:Section 15..t-2~10 of~the Code, of virginia of..1950~ as. amended,
requires, that there shall be leVied~andcolleCted'an, annuat:tax~upon
ali taxable property'in the Gounty subject to local taxation'
sufficient to provide for the payment of the:principal-of:and interest
on this Bond;as. the~ sameshatl~become due.~which:tax_shall be-without
limitation:as .to.~rateand amount and shall be in addition to all other
taxes authorized to be leVied in the County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF., the Board of Supervisors:.of AlbemarteCounty,
Virginia, has caused this~ Bond~.~o be signed, by.its Chairman, robe
:,.. ~countersigned byits Clerk,.its seal~to.'be.affixed'hereto,,and this
Bond to be dated :-
COUNTERSIGNED:_.~
Clerk~ Board of Supervisors
Of AlbemarteCounty,
Virginia - ''
, 1991.
Chairman., BOard of,. .
Supervisors of Albemarle.
C0unty~ Virginia~-~~,
AgendaItem~No~ 12. Solid_~aste, Discussion onVoluntary Curbside :'
Recycling PilotProgram'.
The following~mem0randum dated September'16,199t~ was received.from
Robert'W. Tucker, Jr~,,CountyExecutive:
"At your work session on Wednesday, Septemberllth, the staff recom-
mended your considerationto expand the proposed Voluntary Curbside
RecyclingPrOgramfroma maximum of 1000 households to a maximum of
3000. The ensuing discussion on'this prog~am raised a concer~ that
the pilot program~as~proposed, may not:~..sUcceed Unless,the County
fUnded~some, or all.of, the~private haulers~'.cotlection costs.~.The
estimated participation of 3000 households was based~on both Rivanna
SolidWaste Authority's (RSWA) and the private handler's-assessment
~th~-15 to 20 percent.of all households wii1 pay a small additional
charge to ha~e curbside~collection of.recycled materials~' .If~the~
private:hauler, passes on_some or all of their collection costs, this
is the level of participation expected.
,.. ~ · .-~ .. ~...~ - ~,. J! ~ - .
RSWA met with.the private.,~hauters~.who are participating in the program
~and was able to reaffirm that,the pilot program should generate 15.to
20~percent participation withoutunderwriting or subsidizingtheir~
coltection.costs~.~Individuat~hautershave not~notified~their"~
customers of~the~.program and,~-thus, nO.firm~.numbers areyet~available.
The staff recommends pro~eeding withthet000 household voluntary
program as soon~as possibl~'with,.Program~availability to~:allhouse-
holds~(which is expected tobe,~3000 households) on-January 1, 1992.
Delaying expansion to participation by allprivate-haulers at an
estimated 3000,householdswill allow for-an initial assessment of
participations'rates and more~realistic cost estimateS, for theexpanded
programfor'FY 92-93.
272
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
The broader issues raised during the work session will be studied by
the staff and provided at a later date for inclusion in the budget
process for FY 1992-1993."
Mr. Tucker discussed the September 16, 1991, memorandum. He said that
staff is again recommending that the pilot program go forward with 1000
households participating, but that as of January 1, 1992, there be an
extension of the recycling program to 3000 households. He said that there
were other questions from the Chairman and other Supervisors regarding
information on the whole recycling and solid waste effort. The staff has not
been able to compile all of this information, but he hopes to have all of this
data.~eady~at thetime.~of~the budget-:cycte.
Mr. Bain noted that he had asked the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for
its experience of~the, costsand~.~revenues involvedlso:thatthis~B°ard could
get an' idea of how the program is, proceeding.. ~He'~mentioned~that heasked also
for informationon what is:included in the tip fee for capital and operational
costs, etc.
Mr. Bowie pOinted out'that the County~is-mandated to,have a_25 percent
reduction~whether or not thereis~a~cost. He,said that beyond the 25>percent
reduction, it is a,nice~thing to do,.but it~ is expensive. ~His point is that
the~Board has an obligation to the people in,this:County-as to~why~the~,'
extension of the program is being done. He said that-now the program is
fine, but~if the program isincreased by 10, 15~or 20 percent,~there will be
that cost. He wondered~what this.increase'wilt~ do,for the life.of the
tandfill~-and the cost of ctosinga landfill. He also wondered which method
Would allow the County to save more money. He said that this is the type of
informationthathe wants~.and-he expects other.Board members will agree.~He
went on~:to~say that~he thinks~it, is~important~to~show the.exact expenditures,
etc.~ involved with~the program. Mr~Tucker answe~ed~that~ the~-staff~agtees
and understands this.:~ He said.that the information'-is notlavailable~at.-~this~i
time.
Mr. Bowie commented that he is not critizing .the staff, but when';~he>~hears
the~kind~ of information-that is being,' gathered, it does not seem, to. be ~the ',
kind,;of,"infOrmation ~.that~he'requested~ Mr. Tucker reiterated~ that the staff
understands what Mr.~ Bowie has ~requested. ,
Mr.~ Bowie clarified that~ the staff is recommending?that~ the- program~.start
with 1000 households with .an expansion to ~3000 households~-~in January,,~ 1992,
after ~data~ has been~'gompiled. ~Mr~,Tucker stated, that .all that .is ,leftto,~d0
is the logistics~ in~ terms of,'the haulers working ~out with RSWA how the~ pilot
prOgram~will~proceed, ~ He. said ~that',the Board~ authorized,~this a couple;of
months~ago, ~and Work~ has~ proceeded ~with this~ proj oct ·since~ that time ~ .... ~-
-: M~ .... Bowerman~stated that:-~knowing~,the,County is goings, to increase
pilot program to 3000 households allows the haulers to make the necessary
capital investment. Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Bowerman is correct. He
said that:~he~ shares ~ the Board'~s concern about the expansiOh o£' the~ p=og=am~,~
He?nOted that the~haulers do not~ know whether' or not.~to go~:ahead with_
retrofitting, etc~ if only the pitot~ program'~is,~involved, He. thinks that ~the
haulers ,shouid be-given some indication that the County is supportive of the
expansion. He understands what ~Mr~ .Bowie is saying, but, he is unsure if this
program witl~ exceed :the~ 25.~percent- mandate.- . ~ ~'- ~ ~.
Mr~,!'Bowie oommented~'that if. the. County .revolves from 1000 households to
3000~households in,the pilot program., and the'~program' exceeds the, 25'percent
mandate, that is. fine~ ~But, Mr. Bow.ie. feets:that-~beyond that, the-,staff and
Board should~ look~ at.~ the~costs involved ......... ~ ...... ~ ~.'
Mr ~ Bain asked,.if- a formal -motion,-'is heeded on this matter~._tonight,~.-,~ Mr.
Tucker indicated that a motion was necessary..
Mr.., Bowie sa~d, there- are some~ people~'~inlthe~audience..who ,have come~-to
tonight~',s meeting in'~reference to this agenda item.'-,.~ He asked~.if they'wanted
to have-input into. the .discussion, There was .a~'negative~ response.~ ~, · ~ ;~'~
273
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,
to expand the Voluntary Curbside Recycling Program to 3000 households begin-
ning January 1, 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.
Mr. Bain said that he would like to follow up last weeks' discussion and
ask the RSWA to go forward with a RFP on a waste-to-energy study as they did
onthe~MaterialS~Recovery_Fa~itity~(MRF) Which is already out to be
contracted, probably in November~ Mr. Walker has indicated that that study
should be finished by April. He would like for RSWA, by that time or shortly
thereafter~ to deve~op~a~waste~to~energy ~tudy;~Mr~Ba~dded~ithat
Tucker~_has~.indicated~that:there have,been~previous studies that,,might bemused
asa basis,~and perhaps the study could be conducted by staff. Mr. Bain said
that it would be helpful to at least have a resolution of the Board's position
that a,~waste~to~energy,~study>is-worth considering, ~ '~ ·
Mr. Bowie asked Mr~ Bain to explain his ~r. equest further'.: " .... -~
Mr. Bain said he thought this Board should adopt a resolution to be sent
to the RSWA asking them to go forward with a RFP for a waste-to-energy study.
He reiterated that RSWA should do the study. He said that,he has, no,~objection
to~ the ~study being done~ in-house because there was'a lot~of ~data gathered!
ear lier?~ f or~.i the,-~ l~ng~, 'range: committee/report ~
~.~ .... '~Mr.. -Bowerman~-asked,''if thi~ study<would include~ methane production~ ~ ~ ~-
incineration or ~a' t~taL~'took~at~'waste'to-energy~ ~Mr~Ba~n~replied that he was
suggesting a ~totaL waste~to-energy, report, unless there l, Was- some reasons, to?the
contrary, ..... . . '
.... Mr~ ~-¢Bow.ie stated ~that:'if the-tip fee. is going to be increased, facts
should be gathered on incineration. He said that it has been proven that
money will,,,not be~ madeom'wastertoremergy~ but, t~here needs'to be information
on.What".would happen if the County built a state-of-the-art incinerator. He
added, that- he woutd~. support ,Mr ~ '-Bain', s; reqUest~ ..,Mr :..'~ Bowie then -.noted that,,: in
1984,. he: chaired~,a committee:.on incineration and the committee met-for a', ye,ar.
There~was~.no ~money available so.~his~ .committee .contacted industry people :to-,see
if' .they would, like to,.take part in.an, incineration program, with the, idea,.that
industry,:might be~: able;.-to ~ sell .its,:incineration program, -if. it worked.
However, ,at the end of that year,, the committee folded and nothing ever came
of its work.. ~.
:,~ .Mr. ~Bain commented that, the Board. already.: knows-,that .-waste~to?energy. is
an'expensive ~project, but closure costs and new landfill costs are expensive
also. He thinks the, Board should see the comparable costs.
~Mrs.' HumphriS agreed-that a~ meaningful,'decision cannot...be' reached~'~unless
everything ~pertaining to~ the '~subject is made knowu. ~' ~'-: ,~'
Mr. Bowerman.~pointed~out' that, in- 1984;-the requirements for landfills~:,and
closures were different: than they~.~are today,, and the cost savings-for-inciner~-
ation might-haven,,beene-much less .at that time_ than now. " '- :
:_.:' :~ ,,Mr. Bowie stated '.that the committee was studying .how~ to.~ increase recy-
Cling :and~:how to.lower the flow without worrying about which, method was the,
most expensive.
Mr. P~erkins:remarked that~lhe had~'mentioned.' at.?the"last;:.meeting~,that
different State agencies should be. tied in because.there are agencies, that 'are
giving air.and water permits, and there are. people trying.to get zid of waste..
He said it seems .as though there is-no joint effort to do these :things. He
wondered if-the ~taff' could'..look at .the possibility of writing the .State: ~ .
people in.charge,..of permits, landfills and 'the ~mandated recycling programs
just to see'what-types.of replies might be received from these people.~ .He
gave cu..example ?of~:.a~' suggested requirement, that if somebody wants a"permit* for
a ,power~plant, then ~they _would ~have to buy:so ,~many.-tons,- of trash.. ·
274
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the legislature has looked at this issue. Mr.
Tucker stated that he is not aware of the legislature considering this type of
requirement.
Mr. Bowie commented that there has been a motion and a second. He asked
if there was further discussion.
Roll was called, and the following vote recorded:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
, ,~:.~:..~ResolUtionl-as approved by,. vote~showh above is set out in full below.)
RBSOLI~ION OF SUPPORT
' TO" RIVANNA,. SOLID .W~'l']~ AUTHOP, ITY
· .- .~ - :~TO STUDY WASTE-TO-ENERGY~ ALTERNATIVES :~'- ' :' '
W~, the operation, maintenance, expansion and closure of
landgi-tts continues to~become~:~mo=e comple~::'=e§ulatedaamd:--co~tly~
W~, the Commonwealth of Virginia has mandated goals for
reducing household :wastes going:into'..tandfitl.~facilities; and
'.:,... WH]~, there:.are~,alternatives tO~waste.'stream reduction~ other
· than .recycling; and
- ,W~-~ Albemarle-County'has supported, the,initiatives of.the.'-
Charlottesville/Albemarle Solid Waste Task ~orce of 1989 and the
Thomas Jefferson Plannin~SDi~k~t Soli~'W~§te Management Plan of July
W~. the development of a comprehensive assessment of solid
waste~.:M~nagement-.requires the consideration :gl .all 'alternatives;
'N~. ~O~-. B~ ~ MOLMJthat the Board of Supervisors of
Alb~.Iefg6~ty~ Virginim~, hereby requests the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authorit~ to undertake. ~ study..of the feasibility of:waste.to-energy
and incineration of solid waste as alternatives to, or in conjmction
with,t.:5~h~=~:solid waste management' alternatives: ~--
AgendaH. ItBm5No;. t3'. :Approvat~.of,'Minutest-:April 3;-1991. No minutes had
been read: ,- '
· . '. :"- ~L.~. ~-' ~, 2- J: a 'i'U'; .~- ~,. f~ '~ ~';~ '. ' ' ' -
Agenda Item No, ~4:;.:~..:0th~:.Matter~ Nbt'~LiS~d On'i~e Agenda from the
Mr; ~ucker.:' stated;:.-that the' Board~> s requested, zoning, text,-~en~en~' (ZTA)
concerning~.:~he ~'~t,~J~f.ma~iI~ R~O~t~Will: soon be: advertised;~ He :.:wanted to
be sure ,abOnt the cons istency, question: as: far ,.. as whether.~mobite .-home:~ rentals
can: be: allowed by .administ=ati~e' approval-or, special.:use: permit :.and-whether or
not they can be= rented, in the' future. He said that .there have already, been a
couple of .apPlications that. c~e-' before thiS, Board a few..weeks ago+ but.:the
Board deferred action on those applications ~til Jan~ry. He w~ted to be
sure before the funds are spent to advertise this particular ZTA that it was
the Boa~dJs'-~in~e~t..'to act :er re~iew.- th'is ZTA-imediatety
It was the consensus'of: the. Boa=d to hear ..the ZTA as soon as a recomen-
dation is received from 'the Planning Co~ission::-. -
Mr~ BOWe=man.then discussed the .issue that he had menti~ed.earlier
during th~-: Blue Ridge. Neighborhood-Area B.. Study' abou~ undisturbed.'~uffers ,and
the fact: t~at m~ny~'::~ff~rs :are ::'atidwed,,':in utility, eas~ents
Board:needs~:to address this issue..as:.soon as:possible because .~here-are.:s~me
inconsisteneies,:in its-.application~- He noted .that Mr¥ Cilimberg had~men~ioned
that this ~as one_of' the .areas .'that,.the staff,',was:, studying He believes-.there
is. a. fla~ in theiOrdinan~e~.because-',:Often an~.:~disturbed .vegetated
275
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
required on 20 or 30 feet between different zoning classifications or for
other reasons. He said that after the fact, it is found out that there is a
utility line there, and the end result is that there is no buffer.
Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain pointed out that the Colonnades Retirement
Village is a perfect example.
Mr. Bowerman stated that buffers and utilities need to be dealt with in
the future, although he is not suggesting how this should be done.
Mr. Bowie mentioned a function at the Sheraton Hotel on Saturday for the
Sons~,of~the~Ame~ican:-RevolutiOn, whichhewill not be able to attend. He said
that this group had asked that he, or another member of the Board, attend the
function, and if no member can attend, a letter of welcome will be sent.
Mrs,-i. Humphris~referred to~ the. Thomas J~fferson.~Parkway~ :.,'She said that
when she received Ms. Holmes' call, she felt as though something had been
overlooked~,,.Mrs..?Humphris Stated that.'Ms~ Holmes_had pOinted:out~that,~there
are~not many locatitieswhich have the honor of having two local presidents.
Mrs. Humphris feels that something very important may be overlooked if the
road is,named the Thomas Jefferson Parkway and'if~the<existence of~James~ ~
Monroe,.is~totally~,Deglected,~,~ She, does'not,~have the solution, but she noticed
on the map that the Committee had named the road in segments with presidents'
and secretaries8' names scattered here ~and there. She added that Carter's
Mountain Road was,,shown' in between the different segments. She thinks thatit
makes~:a lot ofsense'~o'.h~ve,'both PresidentS' names on.Route, 53~even though~
Ash La~n~.~is not on that road. -- ' -
Mr. Bowie remarked that he believes th,at changing' the name of roads in
the,middle of a road, has been. avoided' whenever possible, He has no problem
with ,naming~ Routers53 ~ the~ !'Jefferson~Monroe parkway. ''~ ~-He wondered, ·though,~ if
Ms..Holmes had any input at the,committee level. ' "
Mr..~ Bowerman commented 'that Ms. Holmes was satisfied with the~originat
name before it was changed-. Mr'. Bowie asked what is the original,~,name. ~,,Mrs.
Humphris said the original,name of the road~was "Thoroughfare Gap·~'' ,~
- Mr.' Bowerman~stated:that because of one letter from the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial-Foundation, the,name-was, changed~ and Ms.~ Holmes did not have any
input~ · :'~:'~' : - ' ~- ~' ' -
· Mr~,~ Bowie said":that, the name was changed by this Board, and it can be
Changed again. Mr. Bain Commented that the entire Board may not want to
chang'~~ th~ name again.-- Mr,. Bowie agreed, but he suggested the issue-be ·~'
re-examined,. ....
Mr., Bain said he has no problem~with changing the name again. Mr. Tucker
suggested that one solution might be to have Route 53 named '!Thomas Jefferson
Parkway" to Simeon,,~ and from Simeon until the-road reaches the Fluvanna~ .... ~
County line, ~the ~road~could be named~the !,!Jeffe~sonvMonroe ,Parkway~,!~' He .,~ '~
realizes,,~howeve~, -that Ash, Lawn is? not located on~ Route 53. ~ He ~,said that at
least this would put, Mr. Monroe!s name on a section of, the road that~ is, close
to Ash Lawn:.~ ' .......... ' .... ' .......... ' -~ :'
· :Mr~ Bowerman remarked that he can see the benefit of calling the road~ the
JeffersonrMonroe Parkway-because tourists will recognize that there are ,two
presidentS<-here when-'~they o~riginalty~turn'~onto the road~, He said~ that~this
~ight-get-,more people .to visit. Ash Lawn. --- ' '
.... Mri:~B0wie said that if the' road is named the Jefferson-Monroe Parkway,,. it
will also avOid splitting the road. He mentioned that it could be confusing
for p'Olice.·officers,-.etc~,~:if ,the~same road has ~different-~names~ Mr'i Tudker~~
stated that,:the~ staff~will, look at,~alternatives,, :-He -thinks Mr'. Bowie. is ~,right
that,,the easiest:-~way,~is to ~have one name fo~ .Route 53. ~ ~' ~
: ~ i Mr~. Bain, felt it-'might, be. helpful~ if -the, Ash Lawn' and '~Monticello ,r~presen-
tativestalked-to each other.
276
September 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
/~z/ ~ z ~ Chairman -