1991-02-06~FebMUar~'~6, ! 991_ ~(R~g6!ar' Night' Me'ting)
~'(.Pa~e 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 6, 1991, at 7:00 p.m., 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. P~rkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John (arrived at 7:18 p.m.); and County Planner, V.
Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Non-Agenda Item. Mr. Bowie presented the following proclamation to the
Board for adoption:
PROCLAMATION
AT.RI~q~Y~UNTY
WHEREAS, the United States of-America is engaged in a war in the
Persian Gulf occasioned by the invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990, by
the armed forces of Iraq; and
WHEREAS, the United Nations has adopted eleven separate resolu-
tions condemning this aggression, finally authorizing the use of force
to expel the invader; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States of America, with the
support of the United States Congress, has led the country in a
leadership roll in enforcing the United Nations resolutions to free
Kuwait. In his State of the Union Message, the President stat~ "For
two centuries we've done the hard work of freedom, and tonight, we
lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and huananity"; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the above actions more than one-half
million of America's men and women were suddenly removed from their
jobs, families and communities to serve this Nation in a foreign and
desolate land as part of Operation Desert Storm;
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, do strongly support the efforts of these Americans engaged
in defending freedom and do hereby call upon all of the citizens of
Albemarle County to do likewise. While our support will be on-going
and continuous, we do hereby designate the week of February 10 16,
1991, for special attention to the sacrifices of the men and women of
the Armed Forces of the United States engaged in Operation Desert
Storm, and request that all of our citizens show their support by
flying the United States flag, wearing or displaying yellow ribbons,
participating in patriotic activities and by sending copies of this
resolution to members of the Armed Forces serving in Operation Desert
Storm.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the
foregoing proclamation. Mrs. Htunphris said for the past several week she was
out of this country and was amazed by the support expressed by Canadians for
the United States in taking the lead in this war. There being no other
discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
2
Mr. Bowie announced that any resident of Albemarle County who wants a
copy of the proclamation to send to someone in the Persian Gulf can obtain a
copy from the Clerk's office. Additionally, anyone who has a relative serving
in the Persian Gulf and would like a letter from this Board to that individual
with a copy of the proclamation, if the person will provide the Clerk with a
copy of the name, rank and appropriate mailing address, a letter will be
transmitted. Mr. Bowie said he personally would like to thank the Board for
its support in the proclamation.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Tom Powell, representing a group of local businessmen, said they have
organized a parade in support of the troops in the Persian Gulf. The parade
will be held on February 16, 1991, at 10:00 a.m., in Rio Hill Shopping Center.
He is present asking the Board's support and participation in the parade. The
parade is volunteer and no costs have been incurred. He handed to the Board a
flyer outlining more information on the parade.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to support the
parade in honor of the troops in the Persian Gulf. 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.
Mrs. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters, said they are
a member of the SHARE Coalition. The Coalition was formed to bring together
organizations and individuals concerned with promoting a decent quality of
life for all citizens of Albemarle County. She invited Board members to
attend a citizen's meeting on Monday, February 25, 1991, 7:30 P.M., in the
Auditorium. Members of the Coalition hope to meet individually with Board
members over the next few weeks and share their views on the needs of the
County. The Coalition encourages the Board to maintain a tax base which is as
strong as possible.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 on the Consent
Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. BMP Manual Advisory Committee.
Mr. Perkins asked if the BMP Manual could be developed using existing
manuals. Mr. Tucker said an existing State manual will be used, but there are
provisions in the proposed manual that could affect the farming community and
others which will need to be reviewed more extensively.
Mrs. Humphris asked what kind of consulting firm representative will be
on the Committee. Mr. Tucker said the representative is to be someone from
the development community, a consultant engineer or someone who deals with
plans and development of plans. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the person
should be a qualified consultant in water resource protection. Mr. Tucker
said that area can be addressed. Although no list has been developed, several
persons have already expressed interest in serving on the Committee.
Mrs. Humphris asked the difference between the Soil Conservation Service
and the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District. Mr. Tucker said
SCS is a federal agency and acts as the staff for the District. The District
is composed of elected representatives who review farm plans, ponds, etc. The
SCS does soil analyses and soil surveys.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
3
Mr. Perkins requested that a representative from the Virginia Department
of Forestry be added to the Committee. Other Board members concurred with the
addition.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following list of
organizations and interest groups as representatives on a committee to discuss
the BMP Manual to be used in the implementation of a Water Resource Protection
Areas Ordinance: Albemarle County Farm Bureau, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service, Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, Albemarle County
VPA-SU Extension Service, League of Women Voters, Piedmont Environmental
Council, Sierra Club, Citizens for Albemarle, a consulting firm representa-
tive, a developer and the Virginia Department of Forestry.
Item 5.2. Early Retirement Requests. By the above recorded vote, the
Board approved requests from Mr. Ray B. Jones and Mr. Malcolm W. Sandridge,
Jr. to use the County's voluntary early retirement incentive program, effec-
tive July 1, 1991.
Item 5.3. Request for Street Signs in Candlewyck Subdivision. By the
above recorded vote, the Board approved a request from the Candlewyck Homeown-
er's Association, dated January 14, 1991, for street name signs for Candlewyck
Subdivision. The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS a request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following roads in Candlewyck Subdivision:
Old Ballard Road (State Route 677) and Candlewyck Drive (State
Route 1650) at its intersection;
Candlewyck Drive (State Route 1650) and Carriage Lane (State
Route 1651) at its intersection;
Old Ballard Road (State Route 677) and Cobblestone Lane (State
Route 1652) at its intersection;
Cobblestone Lane (State Route 1652) and Chippendale Court (State
Route 1653) at its intersection;
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street signs.
Item 5.4. Letter dated January 11, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, stating that Wyngate Road had been
accepted into the Secondary System of Highways. The following letter was
received:
"As requested in your resolution dated November 1, 1989, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby ap-
proved, effective January 11, 1991.
ADDITION LENGTH
WYNGATE
Route 1549 (Wyngate Road)
mile South Route 676
From Route 676 to 0.24
0.24 Mi"
Item 5.5. Letter dated January 11, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, stating that Graemont Drive had
been accepted into the Secondary System of Highways. The following letter was
received:
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
4
"As requested in your resolution dated November 14, 1990, the follow-
ing addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby
approved, effective January 11, 1991.
ADDITioN LENGTH
GRAEMONT
Route 1554 (Graemont Drive) - From Route 660 to 0.86
mile South Route 660
0.86 Mi"
Item 5.6. Memorandum from Ms. Barbara Everitt Bryant, Director, Bureau
of the Census, enclosing copy of~r1990 Bicentennial Census population counts
for Virginia, was received as information. Albemarle County is shown with a
population of 68,040.
Item 5.7. Copy of Audit (on file) for the year ended June 30, 1990, for
the County of Albemarle General District Court from the Auditor of Public
Accounts, was received as information.
Item 5.8a. Copy of letter dated January 16, 1991, from Mr. Hugh C.
Miller, State Historic Officer, to Mrs. Cynthia Tremblay, stating that CASA
MARIA was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on December 28,
1990, was received as information.
Item 5.8b. Copy of letter dated January 16, 1991, from Mr. Hugh C.
Miller, State Historic Officer, to Mr. and Mrs. Joseph C. Cornwall, stating
that THE CEDARS was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on
December 27, 1990, was received as information.
Item 5.8c. Copy of letter dated January 16, 1991, from Mr. Hugh C.
Miller, State Historic Officer, to Mr. and Mrs. Dimitri Nicholas, stating that
GALLISON HALL was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on
December 28, 1990, was received as information.
Item 5.8d. Copy of letter dated January 16, 1991, from Mr. Hugh C.
Miller, State Historic Officer, to Mr. and Mrs. Dudley Marstellar, stating
that WALKER HOUSE was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on
December 28, 1990, was received as information.
Item 5.8e. Copy of letter dated January 16, 1991, from Mr. Hugh C.
Miller, State Historic Officer, to Mr. and Mrs. Phil Sheridan, stating that
MOUNT FAIR was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on
December 28, 1990, was received as information.
Item 5.9. Letter dated January 25, 1991, from Senator Thomas J. Michie,
Jr., re: resolution from the Board of Supervisors requesting a study before
implementing the consolidation of local social services departments, was
received as information. (In his letter, Senator Michie states that he agrees
that a change of such major significance requires a thorough analysis of
possible effects on delivery of services and efficiency of administration as
well as economic benefits. Several measures recommending such a study have
been introduced in this session of the General Assembly, and he will give the
Board's resolution serious consideration as these proposals are evaluated.)
Item 5.10. Memorandum dated January 25, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: Mid-Year Revenue Review, FY 90-91, was received as
information. The following memorandum was received:
"Staff analysis of the general fund revenues for FY 90-91 through
December 1990 indicates the 'possible' shortfall reported in October,
1990, by Mr. Agnor, has grown from $735,000 (1.2 percent) to an esti-
mated $917,500 (1.5 percent) for the year. Local revenues from
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
5
permits, fees and new business licenses are beginning to reflect some
slowdown due to current economic conditions. Further reductions in
State revenues from ABC profits, Police 599 funds and mobile home
titling tax have contributed to this shortfall.
Indications are that departments and agencies have reduced their
expenditures adequately to off-set the additional loss of revenue. I
will therefore be requesting that departments and agencies continue
the 1.2 percent reduction in their appropriation as imposed by the
County Executive in October, 1990. Staff will also build next year's
budget from this lower base, which is 98.8 percent of the original
appropriation."
Item 5.11. Fourth Quarter 1990 Building Report from the Department of
Planning and Community Development was received as information. (The report
indicates that during the fourth quarter of 1990, 122 permits were issued for
127 dwelling units. In addition, four permits were issued for mobile homes in
existing parks at an average exchange value of $2500 for a total of $10,000.)
Mr. Bowie commented that until the fourth quarter, the Rivanna District
was the largest growing magisterial district which now has been taken over by
the Scottsvilie District. In his opinion that shows that where the County
provides places to build homes, they will be built instead of in the rural
there
areas.
Item 5.12. 1990 Year End Building Report from the Department of Planning
and Community Development was received as information. (The report indicates
that during the year 1990, 665 permits were issued for 804 dwelling units. In
addition, 29 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an
average exchange value of $2500 for a total of $72,500.)
Item 5.13. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 1991, was
received as information.
Item 5.14. Letter dated January 30, 1991, from Mr. John G. Milliken,
Secretary of Transportation, to Mr. F. R. Bowie, re: rehearing presentation to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board on the Route 29 North project was
received as information. The following letter was received:
"January 30, 1991
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Thank you for your recent letter indicating that Albemarle County will
make a presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its
February 21 meeting.
The Attorney General's office issued the Department of Transportation
a verbal opinion that Section 33.1-18 of the Code of Virginia mandates
that the Board hear the application for a rehearing. Then it is the
Board's decision whether a rehearing is warranted.
Your interest in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
John G. Milliken"
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Item 5.15. Letter dated January 30, 1991, from Mr. S. Mason Carbaugh,
Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, re:
federal disaster designation as a result of crop losses from drought last
summer. The following letter was received:
"This is to advise you that Governor Wilder's request for federal
disaster designation for the counties of Amelia, Buckingham, Cumber-
land, Powhatan and Prince Edward has been granted by the Secretary of
Agriculture. These five counties suffered damages and losses to crops
caused by drought last summer.
In giving primary designation to these five counties, Secretary
Yeutter also designated the counties of Appomattox, Albemarle, Char-
lotte, Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, Fluvanna, Goochland, Lunenburg, Nelson
and Nottoway as contiguous counties, making the farmers in these
localities also eligible for consideration for Farmers Home Admini-
stration emergency loan assistance.
I would appreciate very much your advising the members of your Board
of Supervisors of USDA's favorable response to the Governor's request
and the benefits this action may provide to eligible farmers in your
county.
Questions concerning the FmHA emergency loan assistance program should
be addressed to the local FmHA office serving your community."
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
the Code of Albemarle by the Addition of Sections 8-48 through 8-52 to Chapter
8, Article XI, entitled "Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax, Levy and
Rate. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 15 and January 22, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker said in 1987 the Board of Supervisors and City Council author-
ized City and County staff to proceed with the development of an Enhanced 911
Program (E-911). The Program is an automated locator system which determines
the location of a caller requesting emergency services without that caller
having to provide any information concerning his location. The 1987 approval
was based upon a telephone surcharge being imposed for the capital and operat-
ing costs. These surcharges on telephone subscribers are authorized by the
State Code for E-911 programs. The monthly surcharge would commence once
Centel has been notified of the adoption of the ordinance authorizing the
surcharge. The staff recommends April 1, 1991, as the effective date of the
ordinance. The surcharge would continue for approximately 36 months to cover
start-up costs, and after that, the rate would be reduced substantially to
cover just maintenance costs. The recommended rate to cover start-up costs is
$1.39 per month. The staff estimates that after the 36-month period, the rate
would be about $.40. The 36-month time period is an approximation so the time
required could be more or less. The staff recommends approval of the resolu-
tion establishing the E-911 service, adoption of the ordinance advertised for
public hearing tonight and that the Chairman be authorized to sign the agree-
ment with Centel to furnish the service. Mr. Wayne Campagna, Director of the
Emergency Operations Center, and a representative from Centel are present to
answer any questions.
Mr. Tucker said at the January 9 meeting, several Board members had
questions concerning the monthly maintenance costs for the E-911 System.
Director of the Emergency Operations Center and representatives of Centel
compiled the following description of maintenance cost items:
The
ITEM MONTHLY COST
EXPLANATION OF MONTHLY MAINTENANCE
1. 12,025.00
Delivery of Automatic Number Identifica-
tion (ANI) and Automatic Location
Identification (ALI) and Selective
Routing. The monthly cost is based on
the amount of telephone lines.
(65,000 lines x 18.5~ = $12,025)
2. 2,050.00
Database updating on a daily basis. The
update will include any changes in
telephone number or address change or
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
any new customers or removals. Centel
completes an average of 12,600 service
orders per month.
3. 770.00
Monthly rate for circuits to support the
Egll Systems.
4. 1,415.00
Monthly maintenance of all Egll equip-
ment at the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) includes ten operator positions at
the (EOC) and two positions at the Fire
Department, operational printers and
power supplies.
5. 3,185.00
Monthly maintenance of all Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) hardware and
software. There are ten positions at
the (EOC), two positions at the Fire
Department, and one each at the three
police departments, City Police, Albe-
marle County Police and the University
Police.
6. 715.00
Recording equipment monthly maintenance.
This unit will be located in the (EOC).
This is a 24 hour, 60 channel tape
logger call check, with instant play
back from each attendant position.
7. 115.00
Remote printer monthly maintenance.
There are 12 printers located at the
Rescue Squads and Volunteer Fire Depart-
ments.
8. 1,930.00
Mapping System monthly maintenance of
all hardware and software. This equip-
ment is located at each operator posi-
tion in the (EOC).
9. 342.00
Monthly cost from C&P Telephone Company
per 1000 lines. This cost covers the
delivery of ANI and any changes in
service such as moves, new telephone
numbers, etc.
10. 2,000.00
Monthly maintenance for Radio Equipment
located at the (EOC). The equipment
covered is six dispatch console posi-
tions, three call taker consoles and one
administration console.
Subtotal 24,547.00
3% Coll. 736.00
Total 25,283.00
Divided by:
Monthly Access Lines
63,000 = 0.40
(Mr. St. John arrived at 7:18 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned
about the above outlined expenditures. It seems to her that full-time people
Could be hired to stand at the consoles for what the County will be paying in
these costs. She does not understand how the 12,600 service orders processed
by Centel are relevant to this system since the only concern should be with
changes in telephone numbers, addresses and adding new customers. She also
would like to know where the capital will come from to replace outdated
equipment.
Mr. Tucker said he agrees that the maintenance of the system is an
extremely expensive item. There are provisions in the contract with Centel to
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
8
replace these items over a period of time when replacement is needed. It is
hard for him to explain all of the costs, but this is sophisticated equipment,
and the maintenance is difficult and expensive. He and Mr. Campagna have
thoroughly reviewed the costs with Centel representatives and feel comfortable
that this is the best they can do. Four contractors bid on this contract and
Centel was by far the least expensive of the bidders.
Mrs. Humphris asked on what experience Centel based these costs and
whether the County can be given an audited account at the end of the first
year of experience of the actual costs. Mr. Tucker said an audit can be
required and the rate amended, if necessary, to reflect the actual costs. As
he mentioned earlier, it may be possible to recover the start-up costs in less
than 36 months.
Mrs. Humphris said she is not opposed to proceeding with the system, but
she thinks that the Board needs to be careful when giving its approval.
Mr. Bowie asked the Centel representative if the County will get an
audited account of actual expenses at the end of the first year and upon what
the estimates are based.
Representing Centel, Mr. Ken Barrel said an audit has not been requested
before and he will get a response to that question. The maintenance costs
include replacement of the equipment. The equipment is replaced at the sole
cost of Centel. The maintenance cost is based on average costs of this type
of technical equipment, replacement, and maintaining the equipment.
Mrs. Humphris reemphasized that she wants to receive an audited account
of actual costs.
Mr. Tucker commented that anytime the equipment breaks down, it must be
replaced quickly or the system would not be effective. Mr. Barrel said Centel
maintains spare parts for the equipment is also an expensive item. which
Mr. Bowerman asked how long the rates will be effective. Mr. Bartel said
the rates are guaranteed to not increase for ten years. After ten years and
for the following five years, the contract is renewable on a yearly basis, and
the contract provides that Centel will not raise the monthly rate above the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). At the end of the fifth year, the County will
need to decide if the equipment is still adequate. The equipment recommended
by Centel is the best available on today's market.
Mrs. Humphris made the following corrections to the proposed resolution:
In the first Whereas, third sentence, change "EMS" to "emergency medical
services"; in the second Whereas, first sentence, "start" should be "starts";
in the third Whereas, third sentence, "incapacitation" should be "incapacity";
and in the seventh Whereas, third sentence, "resolution" should be "reduc-
tion''. She then made the following correction to the proposed resolution: In
the Definitions section, Public Safety Answering Point, second sentence,
"received" should be "receives".
The public hearing was then opened.
Mr. Edward Strauss, a resident of the western part of the County, said in
1987 he came before the Board and stated that this system would not work where
he lives and today it still will not work. When he dials "911" his call goes
to Lovingston. The County has given no consideration to residents who do not
have Centel service. He does not want to participate in E-911 and he thinks
that provisions should be made to exempt him. In his opinion, this is not the
best system on the market. There are alternatives and he thinks Centel has
bamboozled the County. This type of technology changes every month. He does
not think the charges for software maintenance are fair. This "state of the
art" digital equipment has actually been on the market for five years and is
just improved by Centel every other month. The Board should make Centel show
it why this equipment is the best. Again, he does not think he should be
charged for a service that does not benefit him. The charge for the software
maintenance is ludicrous and is too much money. Computers are more care-free
and maintenance-free than they have ever been. There have been some good
questions asked and he hopes that the Board will follow up on them.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
9
Mrs. Humphris asked if C&P feeds into the E-911 system. Mr. Strauss said
when he dials "911" his call go to Lovingston. Mrs. Humphris asked if that
will still happen with the new locator system. Mr. Tucker replied "yes". Mr.
Strauss said he told C&P that he did not want to participate in the system and
they told him that they had no problem with that. He still thinks the County
is spending a lot of money on a slick marketing job. He thinks the Board
should wait two or three years before doing anything.
Mr. Ray Williamson, a resident of Colesville, said he is not opposed to
E-911, but he thinks that the Board needs to consider that a large segment of
the County's population is retired and lives on limited income. For one
reason or another telephone bills are constantly increasing. He urges the
Board to consider an alternative means of funding installation of the system.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he thought that the entire County would be covered with
the E-911 system. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Strauss is correct in
some of his comments because there are technologies that are always changing,
but if the County continues to wait for another three years, it will always be
trying to catch up. Computer and high tech equipment is moving rapidly and
this system will have to be reviewed in a couple of years to see if it still
provides the necessary service. C&P will be included in this when it is in
place.
Mrs. Humphris said she is uncomfortable with proceeding with this ordi-
nance.
Mr. Bain said he has no problem with moving forward.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the system would be worth it if an emergency
occurs and a life saved because it.
Mr. Bain said it pays to have the maintenance in place. This type of
equipment is expensive and will be expensive to maintain.
Mr. Tucker said he views the proposed surcharge as a way that people can
see what they are getting for their money.
Mr. Bain asked if the contract has been reviewed by the County Attorney.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. St. John and Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, have
reviewed the contract. Mr. Gouldman found some items in the contract that he
wants to review further with Mr. St. John. Mr. Tucker said he still recom-
mends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the contract. There are
also some other areas in the contract that need to be discussed before the
actual signing.
Mrs. Humphris said the proposed ordinance does not state the amount of
the levy when it is reduced. Mr. Tucker said another ordinance setting the
new levy will have to be adopted after the capital and start-up costs have
been received. At this time, the $.40 is an estimate.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following resolution establishing an Enhanced 911 telephone system and to
authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement with Centel to furnish Enhanced
911 emergency reporting telephone service:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Albemarle
County to receive efficient, prompt and professional emergency police,
fire and emergency medical services twenty-four hours a day; and
WHEREAS, the delivery of these services starts with the telephone
communications between the caller and the dispatcher; and
WHEREAS, these communications between the caller and dispatcher
are often the weakest link in the delivery of services due to panic or
incapacity of the caller; and
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
lO
WHEREAS, 911 is the universally accepted telephone number in the
event of an emergency; and
WHEREAS, an Enhanced 911 telephone system (E-911) has tremendous
benefits in that it provides for a permanent contact between the
caller and dispatcher in an emergency situation; and
WHEREAS, an Enhanced 911 system provides a visual display as to
the location of the caller, thereby providing important information as
to the location of the emergency; and
WHEREAS, studies have shown that an Enhanced 911 system can
reduce the amount of time it takes to receive information and dispatch
the appropriate services, thereby achieving a reduction in the overall
response time of emergency services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Virginia Code Section
58.1-3813, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does this
6th day of February, 1991 hereby adopt the following ordinance enti-
tled Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax E-911; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of Supervi-
sors be, and is hereby, authorized to sign an agreement with Centel
Telephone Company of Virginia for the provision of an Enhanced 911
system for Albemarle County.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of the tax initially
imposed hereunder shall be $1.39 per month for each access line. Said
tax to be levied on all telephone bills rendered on or after April 1,
1991.
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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
following Ordinance to amend and reenact the Code of Albemarle by the addition
of Sections 8-48 through 8-52 to Chapter 8, Article XI, entitled "Enhanced
Emergency Telephone Service Tax, Levy and Rate:
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle will establish an enhanced E-911
Emergency Telephone System, herein referred to as E-911, and the
telephone company has central office equipment which will permit such
system to be established; now, therefore, the following ordinance is
adopted pursuant to Section 58.1-3813, Code of Virginia:
CHAPTER 8.
FINANCE AND TAXATION.
ARTICLE XII. Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax E-911
Sec. 8-59. Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax - levy and rate;
effective date; exemptions.
Pursuant to Section 58.1-3813, Code of Virginia, there is hereby
imposed a special tax on consumers of telephone service in the amount
of one dollar and thirty-nine cents per month for each access line.
The tax imposed herein shall be first utilized solely for the
initial capital, installation, and maintenance cost of the E-911
Emergency Telephone System. This levy shall be reduced when the
capital and installation costs have been fully recovered to the level
necessary to offset recurring maintenance cost only.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
This levy shall not apply to federal, state or local government
agencies.
The levy shall apply to all bills rendered on and after April 1,
1991.
Sec. 8-60. Definitions.
E-911 System. A telephone service which utilizes a computerized
system to automatically route emergency telephone calls placed by
dialing the digits "911" to the proper public safety answering point
serving the County of Albemarle. The E-911 system includes selective
routing of telephone calls, automatic telephone identification and
automatic location identification performed by computers and other
ancillary control center communications equipment.
Public safety answering point. A communications facility opera-
ted on a twenty-four hour basis which first receives E-911 calls from
the persons in an E-911 service area and which may, as appropriate,
directly dispatch public safety services or extend, transfer, or relay
B-911 calls to the appropriate public safety agencies.
Public safety aRency. A functional division of a public agency
which provides firefighting, police, medical or other emergency
services or a private entity which provides such services on a volun-
teer basis.
Access line. Access by customer to total telephone network. The
levy shall apply to each access line separately.
Sec. 8-61. Collection and payment.
It shall be the duty of every seller or provider of telephone
services to purchasers or consumers of telephone service within the
County of Albemarle to bill and collect this levy on each telephone
line rendered by it. The seller shall report and pay over all tax
collected in any calendar month to the Finance Director of Albemarle
County on or before the last day of the second calendar month there-
after. Seller shall upon payment 0f the tax collected hereunder
report to the Albemarle County Finance Director the name and address
of all purchasers or consumers of telephone services who have failed
to pay the tax imposed by this ordinance.
Seller shall keep complete records showing all purchases of
telephone service to consumers in the County, which records shall show
the date of service, the date of billing, the date of payment thereof,
and the amount of tax imposed hereunder. Such records shall be
available for inspection by the duly authorized agents of the County
at reasonable times.
Sec. 8-62. Receipt and disbursement by finance director.
The tax collected is appropriated solely for the initial capital,
installation and maintenance costs of the E-911 system and the Finance
Director shall deposit all levies collected and remitted from provi-
ders of the telephone service into the general fund with a separate
accounting of such funds to be used solely for the purposes authorized
by this article.
Sec. 8-63. Violations~ penalties.
Any purchaser failing, refusing, or neglecting to pay the tax
herein imposed or levied, and any seller violating the provisions of
this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor
more than one hundred dollars. Each failure, refusal, neglect, or
violation and each day's continuance shall constitute a separate
offense.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
12
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
(Set out below is the agreement:)
CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA
AGREEMENT TO FURNISH ENHANCED 911
EMERGENCY REPORTING TELEPHONE SERVICE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 199_,
between CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, a Virginia corporation,
(hereinafter referred to as "Centel"), and Albemarle County, and the
City of Charlottesville, (hereinafter referred to as "Customer").
RECITALS
Centel is a public utility corporation conducting a common
carrier communications business in the Commonwealth of Virginia
and in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Be
Pursuant to its obligation to provide communications services to
its subscribers within its service area, Centel has built a
public utility communications system consisting of poles, wires,
cables, conduits and other facilities in Albemarle County and the
City of Charlottesville.
Customer desires to have Centel provide Enhanced 911 Emergency
Reporting Telephone Service (hereinafter referred to as "Egll")
to the agencies listed on Exhibit A (on file), which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
Centel is willing to furnish, install, and maintain said Egll
Service subject to the terms and conditions set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between the parties as follows:
This Agreement entered into between Centel and the Customer
allows the agencies listed on Exhibit A, as designated by the
Customer, to be connected to, and be part of, Customer's Egll
Service.
Centel shall provide and maintain to the Customer and its agen-
cies E911 Service and its associated facilities and equipment as
described on and subject to the rates, charges, terms and condi-
tions set forth on Exhibit B (on file), which are attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
The provision of E911 Service and facilities by Centel is subject
to and in accordance with: a) Centel's rules and regulations on
file, now or hereafter, with the appropriate regulatory agencies,
b) all governing laws, and c) the availability of manpower,
equipment and facilities.
A copy of the portion of Centel's current General Customer
Services Tariff, as it pertains to Universal Emergency Number 91]
Service, is set forth on Exhibit D (on file), which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
The E911 System shall provide the services and features as
outlined in the "Performance Criteria" shown in Exhibit C (on
file).
Additions, modifications, or removals of service components will
be made by Centel at the Customer's request. Such changes shall
be made at Centel's then prevailing rates at the time such
requests are made.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
lB
The Customer's Egll Coordinator will act as coordinator for
implementation and ongoing administration of all 911 data manage-
ment associated with Egll Service.
The Coordinator's responsibilities include but are not limited
to:
Coordinating and identifying of Public Safety Answering Point
(hereinafter referred to as "PSAP") locations as well as the
unique combinations of police, fire, emergency medical, and any
other appropriate agencies responsible for providing emergency
service in the Egll area.
After establishment of the E911 Service, coordinating the accura-
cy of the routing information, and to advise Centel of any
changes in street names, establishment of new streets, changes in
address numbers used on existing streets, closing and abandonment
of streets, changes in police, fire, ambulance or other appropri-
ate agencies' jurisdiction over any address, annexation and other
changes in local jurisdictional boundaries, incorporation of new
cities or any other matter that will affect the routing of Egll
to the proper PSAP for all agencies that are part of the system,
including those with separate contracts, if any.
The initial Automatic Location Identification and the Automatic
Number Identification record (hereinafter referred to as "ALI"
and "ANI") will be loaded from Centel's customer records. These
records will be provided to the Customer's Egll Coordinator for
verification and comparison of correct addresses. It shall be
the responsibility of the Customer's Egll Coordinator to provide
to Centel changes necessary for the verification process.
Changes, deletions and additions which Customer desires to have
made in the ALI should be submitted to Centel on an "as occurred"
basis. Changes are to be forwarded to Centel's Egll Coordinator
at the following address:
CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA E911 Coordinator
P. 0. Box 6788
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
Costs incurred by Centel for services requested by Customer over
and above those specified on this Agreement shall be charged, as
incurred, to Customer on a time and materials basis.
Customer agrees to limit the use of utility-provided information
regarding its telephone subscriber, including names, addresses,
and telephone numbers, to the strict performance of the Custo-
mer's assigned responsibilities as a public agency under the
terms of this Agreement.
If, prior to the date on which this service is available and
accepted for use by the Customer, the Customer cancels all or any
part of the service, the Customer shall pay to Centel for any and
all costs expended or committed for the installation and removal
of said service, including but not limited to, labor costs,
engineering and supply expenses, and costs for equipment and
facilities less salvage value.
Customer shall not be responsible for an item of equipment or
service as specified in this Section 9 to the extent such item
does not conform to the requirements of this Agreement.
10.
System acceptance is required when the equipment is cutover and
operating in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications
and Exhibit C; should the equipment not operate in accordance
with such specifications. When acceptance is required, Customer
agrees to sign an acceptance certificate that: (1) the equipment
has been installed in good condition, (2) the equipment is
accepted as installed, and (3) payment is due without setoff or
abatement.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Should Centel not be able to install the equipment as a result of
Centel's direct control and responsibility, the customer will not
be financially responsible for the affected hardware and/or ser-
vice.
Unless sooner terminated, this Agreement shall continue for an
initial period of 120 months from the date the Egll Service is
placed in service for the ANI/ALI PSAP equipment as shown in
Exhibit B.
At the end of 120 months, upon mutual agreement of Centel and the
Customer, maintenance service under this contract may be renewed
each year thereafter for a period of five years, at one year
increments. After the five years, this maintenance contract will
not be renewed. Upon renewal, Centel reserves the right to
change the Monthly Equipment Maintenance Rate in Exhibit B
according to the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer
Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the
previous year.
The Customer shall pay Centel as shown in Exhibit B; provided the
necessary funds are collected by a special Egll surcharge ena=ted
by the customer under Section 58.1-3813 of the Code of Virginia.
If the Customer shall default in the payment of any amounts due
hereunder or violate any other provision in this Agreement, and
if such default or violation shall continue for thirty days after
written notice thereof from Centel, Centel may terminate this
Agreement forthwith by written notice to the Customer. In any
event, all amounts due under Paragraphs 2, 5, and 12 shall be
immediately due and payable to Centel.
This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred by this
Customer or Centel without the prior written consent of the
non-assigning party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Centel may
assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement to an affiliate
of Centel without the prior written consent of the Customer.
Ail equipment furnished by Centel is leased and hereunder shall
remain the property of Centel. The Customer shall be responsible
for loss or damage to the equipment furnished under this Agree-
ment unless such loss or damage is due to causes beyond its
control.
Centel warrants the equipment will be free from defects in
material and workmanship, and Centel will provide at no
additional expense to the Customer, except as outlined in
Exhibit B, maintenance service to keep the equipment in good
working condition and repair. If warranty work is neces-
sary, Centel will, at its option, repair the equipment in
place or accept the return of equipment, at Centel's ex-
pense, for repair or replacement.
Bo
Maintenance and repairs of the Egll network facilities and
equipment under this Agreement are subject to conditions as
stated in Centel's General Customer Services Tariff.
If new hardware and/or software becomes available in the
life of this contract Centel will offer this upgrade at the
then prevailing rate.
Maintenance will include the furnishing of all necessary
labor and materials for the network facilities and equip-
ment. Centel will respond to requests to perform service
for any significant malfunction of the equipment within one
hour of receipt of notice from Customer requesting such
service. Significant malfunction is defined as any service
interruption that renders the following:
1. Any E911 trunk out of service;
2. Any E911 system ringdown circuit out of service;
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
3. Any E911 system data circuit out of service;
4. ALI and/or ANI screen functions inoperative at any
console;
5. Failure of ANI and/or ALI at any PSAP;
6. Failure of PSAP and PSAP transfer of ANI;
7. Failure of PSAP to secondary answering position transfer
of ANI and/or ALI;
8. Inability to receive incoming calls;
9. Inability to make outgoing calls;
10. Failure of selective routing system.
Centel warrants that the Egll System will be administered
under its "Priority Restoral" Service Program which quali-
fies the service for priority treatment for service affect-
ing situations requiring repair.
THE ABOVE WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF AND EXCLUDES ALL OTHER
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. NO
OTHER WARRANTY EXISTS IN THIS AGREEMENT.
EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
CAUSED WILLFULLY OR WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE BY CENTEL, ITS
OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR CONTRACTORS, CENTEL WILL NOT
BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES OR FOR LOSS, DAMAGE OR EXPENSE DIRECTLY OR INDIREC-
TLY ARISING FROM CUSTOMER'S USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE
EQUIPMENT EITHER SEPARATELY OR IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER
EQUIPMENT, OR FOR COMMERCIAL LOSS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER OR
NOT CENTEL HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE OR LOSS.
17.
Except for damages due to Centel's gross negligence or willful
misconduct, Centel's liability for any loss or damage arising
from any errors, interruptions, defects, failure or equipment or
service or malfunctions in this service and any part thereof
whether caused by the negligence of Centel or otherwise shall be
(a) totally disclaimed and excluded with respect to incidental,
special, consequential, and commercial damages, and (b) not in
excess of the lesser of $500.00 or the actual damages incurred by
Customer with respect to all other damages.
18.
Customer shall indemnify and hold harmless Centel from any
damages, losses or other injuries which may be asserted by any
person, business, government agency or other entity against
Centel as a result of any act or omission of Centel, or any of
its employees directors or officers, or agents, except for
willful wanton misconduct in connection with developing, adopt-
ing, implementing, maintaining, or operating the Egll system.
19.
Centel and its duly authorized agents and employees shall have
the right of ingress and egress where said facilities are in-
stalled for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining, and repairing
said facilities and for all other purposes necessary to the
performance of this Agreement.
20.
The failure of either party to enforce any of the provisions of
this Agreement, or a waiver thereof, of any instance, shall not
be construed as a general waiver of relinquishment on its part of
any such provision, but the same shall, nevertheless, be and
remain in full force and effect.
21.
Customer agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws, regulations, and codes in the performance of this
agreement. Centel agrees to perform all services hereunder in
accordance with generally accepted standards applicable thereto,
and to observe and comply with all federal, state, and local
laws, ordinances, and regulations applicable to this Agreement
and its performance hereunder.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
16
22.
Ail notices or other communications hereunder shall be deemed to
have been duly given when made in writing and delivered in person
or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and
addressed as follows:
To Customer
E911 Coordinator
Emergency Operations Center
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
To Centel
Central Telephone
Company of Virginia
P.O. Box 6788
Charlottesville, VA, 22901
The address to which notices of communications may be given or
made by either party may be changed by written notice given by
one party to the other pursuant to this paragraph.
23.
The parties hereto further agree that the in-service date for the
service covered by this Agreement shall be August 1, 1992 as long
as Centel receives a signed Agreement from the Customer no later
than December 21, 1990.
24.
The terms of this Agreement, and each of them, cannot be waived,
altered, or amended by any representatives or promises of any
persons unless the same be consented to in writing by Centel and
Customer.
25.
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with
respect to the services described herein, and no other agreement,
statement, or promises made by any party, or to any employee,
officer, or agency of any party, which is not contained in this
Agreement shall be binding or valid.
26.
Centel may terminate this Agreement for any of the following
reasons: a) If the Customer is in arrears in the payment of any
undisputed amount which is due hereunder for more than sixty
days, b) if the Customer breaches any of its obligations pursuant
to this Agreement, or c) if the Customer, without cause, prohi-
bits normal working hours for installation, inspection or repairs
related to the E911 Service. In addition, Centel may terminate
this Agreement without cause, upon 120 days written notice to the
Customer.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-90-11 & SP-90-68. Caleb Stowe (applicant); Ednam
House Limited Partnership (owner). Public Hearing on a request to amend
ZMA-84-12 to allow uses permitted under Sec 17.2.2.11 on 1.89 ac zoned R-10
with Proffers. Property on S side of Worthington Dr in Ednam. TM60, P28A1.
Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 22 and
January 29, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This request is for the existing Ednam House
which is located in the EdnamDevelopment. Residential properties are
located adjacent to this site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the previ-
ous proffers for the site which restricted the office use of the
existing building. The applicant is seeking unrestricted use of the
structure for office space. In order to make this request, a rezoning
to amend the previous proffer is required as well as a special use
permit to allow the office use.
Planning and Zoning History: Ednam Planned Residential Development
was approved under both rezoning and special use permit petitions in
1980 (ZMA-80-19 and SP-80-62). While the majority of land was zoned
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
17
under a planned development designation, the main Ednam house and
grounds were designated high-density residential with proffers and
special use permit in order to allow use of the house as a clubhouse
and professional offices for Ednam residents.
In 1984 revisions to the previous approval were made to: a) add Caleb
Stowe Associates office use to the approved uses, and b) in the alter-
native, permit sale of the main Ednam house as a single-family dwell-
ing (ZMA-84-12 and SP-84-25).
Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for low density resi-
dential use in Neighborhood 6.
Summary and Recommendation: Staff will review both the rezoning
request as well as the special use permit in this report.
While office uses are not viewed as incompatible to residential areas,
staff views the proposed use at Ednam in a manner similar to the
proposed inn at Wavertree Hall. In ZMA-83-7, John and Elizabeth W.
Wildermuth, staff stated that the Planned Residential Development
'does not contemplate the location of primarily unrelated commercial
uses centrally within the residential community.'
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zoning Ordinance and offers the following comments:
The use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties.
The original intent of allowing limited office space in the manor
house was to provide office facilities for the residents of
Ednam. The uses were limited to businesses which would qualify
as Home Occupations, Class B. This limit on use restricts the
number of employees. In addition, Class B Home Occupations are
not intended to generate more traffic than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood. The applicant's proposal
would lift these regulations and may allow for more employees and
traffic.
Staff opinion is that professional offices within the R-10
district should meet regulations similar to those for CO, Commer-
cial Office. In this case, the building does not meet the 50
foot setback because an associated pool is located closer than 50
feet; however, it is screened by a privacy fence. Existing
parking is located approximately six feet from a residential lot
line. Required setback in the CO district is 20 feet. If this
is a concern of the Planning Commission and the Board of Super-
visors, it should be addressed first in the rezoning decision
and, if the rezoning is approved, it should be determined whether
other screening measures (stockade fencing, landscaping) would be
necessary. Staff opinion is that due to the scale of the exist-
ing building it would be difficult to provide screening measures
to offset the reduction in setback for the building and parking
areas. Additionally, staff is unsure whether the existing
parking will be adequate for the proposed use. It may not be
possible to provide additional parking which meets a 20 foot
setback. In addition, provision of additional parking may be
inconsistent with the character of the area.
b. The character of the district would not be changed.
The site is currently used for office space by Caleb Stowe &
Associates and is available for use by the residents of the Ednam
Community. The requested change represents a broadening of the
currently allowed uses. In past reviews of this site, staff has
attempted to limit the extent of commercial activity unrelated to
the Ednam Community. Previous proffers limited use of the office
area to uses which would qualify as HomeOccupation-Class B.
This limitation restricted the business in the number of employ-
ees and is designed to limit traffic to no greater volumes than
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
18
would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. (Refe-
rence Section 5.2.2.d). The current request would have no
restrictions on the number of employees and is not designed to
limit traffic. Additional employees and increased traffic could
change the character of the district.
Use would be consistent with the public health, safety and the
public health~ safety and general welfare.
Staff has identified no conflicts between this proposal and the
general welfare.
Summary: Staff is unable to identify any change in circumstance which
warrants amendment of the previous proffers. Approval of this request
may result in additional traffic, the possible need for additional
parking, and additional employees which could change the character of
the district. Setbacks from residential lots are not in keeping with
the setbacks required in the CO, Commercial Office, district and
screening would be difficult due to the size of the existing struc-
tures. Available parking is limited and limited areas exist for the
provision of additional parking area which would meet setback require-
ments and allow for screening.
For the above stated reasons, staff recommends denial of ZMA-90-11 and
SP-90-68 for Caleb Stowe. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to
approve these requests, staff recommends acceptance of the applicants
proffers for the rezoning.
The clubhouse use of the existing manor house shall be limited in
membership to the members of the Ednam Homeowners Association,
and in use to its membership and their guests.
II. Uses permitted under Section 17.2.2(11) shall be allowed by
special use permit only.
III. The service use of the existing manor house shall be limited to
services for the residents of the Ednam Development and their
guests.
IV.
The user of the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres of R-10
District shall be limited to the above uses in I, II and III,
excluding all other permitted uses or special permitted uses in
the R-10 District other than off-street parking, and any addition
or new construction without amendment in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance of the County of Albemarle.
Vo
As an alternative use to the uses permitted in I, II, III and IV,
the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres may be utilized as a
single-family residence.
Staff recommends the following conditions for the special use permit:
1. Compliance with ZMA-90-11.
2. Office use shall be limited to existing manor house."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 16,
1990, by a vote of 6/1 recommended approval of ZMA-90-11 with proffer as set
out above; and unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-68 subject to the two
conditions recommended by the staff, with an added Condition #3: "Parking
shall be limited to the area indicated on Attachment C (on file)."
Mr. Cilimberg said that since the meeting of the Planning Commission, the
applicant has requested that the third condition be amended as outlined in the
following letter dated November 6, 1990:
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
3_9
"Mr. William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: SP-90-68 and ZMA-90-11
Caleb Stowe/Ednam House Limited Partnership
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Caleb Stowe has asked me to prepare and submit to you for considera-
tion language for condition 3 of SP-90-68 regarding parking for the
EdnamManor House property.
It is the intention and the desire of the owner of Ednam Manor House
(Ednam House Limited Partnership) and my client, Ednam Community
Association, Inc., that parking for the professional office use of
Ednam Manor House be provided on the existing paved surfaces on Parcel
B-1 (TMP 60-28A1) and within the existing parking area located on
adjoining TMP 59D(2)-06-01. TMP 59D(2)06-01 is a part of the Common
Area of Ednam. Ednam House Limited Partnership has an easement of use
and enjoyment of the Common Area, along with other owners in Ednam.
The existing parking area was constructed for use by EdnamManor House
and has historically been used by EdnamManor House for its parking
requirements along with the on-site parking areas. I have marked this
existing parking area (24 spaces) on the enclosed copy of Attachment C
(on file).
Caleb Stowe understands that no new parking area is to be created on
TMP 60-28A1 (beyond the existing paved areas used for parking), but
wants the Board of Supervisors to make clear in its action that the
existing parking area (24 spaces) on adjoining TMP 59D(2)-06-01 can be
used for parking in conjunction with the professional office use of
EdnamManor House, as well as the existing on-site parking.
I suggest the following language for condition 3 of SP-90-68:
Off-street parking shall be limited to the existing parking
areas on TMP 60-28A1 and adjoining TMP 59D(2)-06-01 indi-
cated on Attachment C. No new parking area shall be created
on TMP 60-28A1.
Caleb Stowe and my client would appreciate your addressing the ambi-
guity regarding parking and appropriate language related to parking in
your presentation to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday evening,
November 7, 1990. If you have any questions, concerns or alternative
language, please call Caleb Stowe or me.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
(SIGNED)
George B. McCallum, III"
Mr. Bain asked the total of square footage of the building. Mr. Cilim-
berg said the applicant could best respond to that question. The original
plan was for this to be a limited office area which would not generate a lot
of traffic and would be in harmony with the residential nature of Ednam. Mr.
Bain said he is concerned about the amount of office space. A Home Occupa-
tion, Class B, is not considered commercial. Mr. Cilimberg said professional
office use would be permitted. The limitation would be based on what is
allowable in parking spaces. Parking area limits the intensity of office
space utilization.
Mrs. Humphris asked why there has been a change in the request since this
petition was first filed. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant wanted it speci-
fied in the conditions that they would be allowed to use two areas of parking;
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
2O
one area was on-site and the other area on the adjoining parcel. Mrs. Humphri~
said the Commission was concerned with the intensity of the use of the build-
ing and was comforted by the fact that parking was limited to spaces on-site.
She asked if the additional parking means that the building will be used more
intensely. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant did inform the Commission at the
meeting that there were actually two areas of parking being used. At the
Commission meeting, staff said that the Zoning Administrator would make the
determination about whether the adjoining parking area was allowed with this
~lse,
Mr. Bowie asked if the "Attachment C" before the Board tonightis the
same as that presented to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg replied "no"; the
original "Attachment C" presented to the Commission did not show the adjoining
parking area. Mr. Bowie commented that the Commission's condition #3 does not
refer to the additional parking area. Again, Mr. Cilimberg said the Commis-
sion was made aware of the adjoining parking area.
Mrs. Humphris said she remembers that the Commission was very concerned
about the amount of parking allowed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting do not
reflect all of the discussion, but the Commission was aware of the additional
parking.
The public hearing was opened. First to address the Board was Mr. George
McCallum, an attorney representing Bdnam Community Assoc., Inc., the property
owners' association which controls through restrictive covenants the property
within Ednam and Ednam Manor House. He does not represent the applicant. He
helped draft a strict set of conditions and restrictions on the subject
property that regulate and control the type of professional office use. The
property owners association consists of a Board of Directors of seven members,
each of whom is a property owner within Ednam. The association has a full-
time business office, full-time manager, maintains the grounds, the common
areas and the private roads within Ednam. Several of the members of the Board
of Directors are present tonight. Ednam is composed of approximately 35
acres. It is part of the estate from which Ednam Forest, the Boars Head Inn
and Ednam Village were created. This 35 acre tract had the Manor House on it.
The Manor House was built in 1906. He presented a set of floor plans of the
house which showed the interior layout of the structure. There are 140
authorized dwelling units in Ednam. Of those dwelling units, 80 have been
built or are under construction. Of those 80, 70 dwelling units are occupied
by homeowners. EdnamHouse has four full floors. There are approximately
12,000 gross square feet in the three levels above-ground. The insurance on
the house is $700 a month. In the winter it costs $1200 to $1300 a month to
heat the house. The initial plan for Ednam Manor envisioned the house as
being a community center for the residents of Ednam with the ability to
provide office space for home occupation-type activities on the second and
third floors. In 1984, the owner came and asked that Caleb Stowe Assoc., be
allowed to occupy the building for its real estate brokerage business. This
was allowed because none of the residents showed an interest in using the
second or third floor for office space. In the ten years this has been
allowed only one resident has rented space for a home occupation. In order to
provide an economic base for the building so that it could be maintained, in
1984 Caleb Stowe was allowed the use. Today Caleb Stowe is no longer the
brokerage firm it formally was and there is not the money to maintain the
building. Last Spring, Caleb Stowe came before the Board of Directors,
explained the problem and asked that they approve under the restrictive
covenants an expansion of the use. Mr. McCallum then explained in some detail
the restrictions and conditions imposed by the EdnamBoard of Directors. Mr.
McCallum explained that the private restrictions are binding upon the property
and will be enforced by the Board of Directors. It is the opinion of the
Board of Directors that a controlled, quiet, professional office use of the
building is more desirable than a single-family residential use. The use
occurs during weekdays and has been successfully conducted in the past without
any adverse impact on the community and immediate neighbors. This use pro-
vides the legal basis for an economically feasible use of the property, i.e.,
renting to professional users. He was frustrated at the Planning Commission
meeting regarding the parking issue. It was explained at that meeting that
there was additional parking on the adjoining lot which is a lot created to
provide the parking space for the uses at Ednam Manor House. The Board of
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
21
Directors wants to see the exterior of the ManorHouse maintained, including
the grounds and the building. There needs to be money generated from the
property to do that.
Mr. Bowie asked who is responsible for maintenance of the Manor House.
Mr. McCallum said the applicant is responsible for maintenance of the house.
The community association maintains the grounds.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Caleb Stowe, the applicant, said he has
been involved in developing the Ednam community since 1981. Even though Ednam
House is a beautiful building, it is a problem for the community, the owner
and a problem to manage. There is a lot of history involved with the house
and it is an integral part of the community. From the beginning they envi-
sioned that the building would be preserved. The building is a historic
landmark. The house consists of 28 rooms. He always thought the community
could support the building and use it for community services, but the people
were not interested in renting office space. He explained the history of
trying to maintain the property and the process they went through to retain
its' use and in making the decision to move forward with this request. The
plan proposed is an attempt to maintain that stability with community control.
Presently the economics on the building is tough. The use the building was
built for no longer works. The additional parking area was designed for this
building and has always been Used. There is approximately one and three-
quarter acres of land around this house which they have gone to great lengths
to preserve. There is plenty of space to expand the parking, but that is not
in the interest of the community. The small additional parking is necessary
to the building. Approximately 60 percent of the available space in the
building is usable for office space. In the agreement they have with the
community association, they will be careful about who leases the space. The
people who lease the space will have a low noise level and will be carefully
chosen to not be offensive. He believes it is in the best interest of the
community that they do something like this rather than make the decision that
it only be a residential property. He would appreciate the Board's support of
the request.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris asked if anyone is presently leasing space in the building.
Mr. Stowe said they had a person who wanted to use the second floor and they
agreed to allow the use subject to Board approval of this request. The person
is currently using the space but knows that if this rezoning is not allowed he
will be asked to leave and will do so immediately. The difficulty they will
continue to have with this property is determining a good tenant that will be
acceptable to the community. They have advised the Zoning Administrator
totally of what has been going on. Mrs. Humphris asked when the Zoning
Administrator was advised of the situation. Mr. Stowe said the discussions on
this began in the summer. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Stowe is saying that the
Zoning Administrator knew that someone was using the space. Mr. Stowe said it
was discussed with the Zoning Administrator that they had a tenant and if they
did not get the rezoning they would be in violation of the ordinance. Mrs.
Humphris said she was alerted to this situation and was surprised to receive a
letter from a tenant soliciting her business using the address of Two Ednam
House. She has spoken to the Zoning Administrator about this situation.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many offices would be in the building. Mr. Stowe
replied there are approximately 18 rooms which would be occupied by four or
five professional tenants. Mrs. Humphris asked how many parking spaces these
tenants would require. Mr. Stowe replied approximately 25 parking spaces.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many parking spaces are in the area approved by the
Commission. Mr. Stowe replied that there are approximately 14 but the limited
number of parking spaces is not practical for that size building. Mrs.
Humphris said it was her impression that the whole thrust of the Commission
was to restrict the usage of the building by the amount of parking allowed.
Mr. Stowe said if that were the case then they would only be able to use about
40 to 60 percent of the building and in that case, it would not be practical
to change the zoning.
Mr. Bain asked how much space Mr. Stowe was using for his business. Mr.
Stowe responded he used most of the building. Mr. Bain asked how many agents
and staff people were in the use. Mr. Stowe replied approximately 25 persons.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
22
Mr. Cilimberg said he just reviewed the minutes of the Commission meeting
and tried to remember the discussion, and he recalls that there were two
points of interest raised; one the historical use of the adjacent parking area
and, secondly, that the parking area on site not be expanded because of the
effect to the site. He recalls that the condition was directed in that
perspective because the Commission did not want to see the parking area
expanded under a. future site plan that would disturb the site. There was not
so much a concern about the adjacent area being used for parking, but what was
on site and how it would affect the historical property and the setting. Mr.
Bowie said if that is the case, the condition should be clarified to indicate
that the on-site parking not be modified. Mr. Bain asked if that means the
site plan would have to be amended. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". In order to
create additional parking area, the applicant would have to have the special
use permit amended. They would be allowed to use the adjoining parcel parking
area.
Mr. Bain said he does not see the additional parking as being a substan-
tive change and the fact that the community supports the request makes a
difference to him. It makes a difference to him that all of the traffic will
be internal on the private roads which will be handled by the community. He
will support the application. Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, to approve ZMA-90-11 as proffered and approved by the Planning
Commission.
Mrs. Humphris said one of the main reasons this could be done without
setting a precedent is because of the historic value of the house and the need
to preserve it for the benefit of the community. She thinks it is important
to note that this is a unique situation. She will support the request for
rezoning.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
The clubhouse use of the existing manor house shall be limited in
membership to the members of the Ednam Homeowners Association,
and in use to its membership and their guests.
II. Uses permitted under Section 17.2.2(11) shall be allowed by
special use permit only.
III. The service use of the existing manor house shall be limited to
services for the residents of the EdnamDevelopment and their
guests.
IV.
The user of the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres of R-10
District shall be limited to the above uses in I, II and III,
excluding all other permitted uses or special permitted uses in
the R-10 District other than off-street parking, and any addition
or new construction without amendment in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance of the County of Albemarle.
As an alternative use to the uses permitted in I, II, III and IV,
the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres may be utilized as a
single-family residence.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-90-68 subject to the first two conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and the third condition amended to read as follows: "3. Off-
street parking shall be limited to the existing parking areas on TaP 60-28A1
and adjoining TaP 59D(2)-06-01 indicated on Attachment C (Attached to letter
dated November 6, 1990, as set out above, from George B. McCallum, III). No
new parking area shall be created on TaP 60-28A1."
Mrs. Humphris said she was disappointed to learn that this property was
being used as if the rezoning and special permit were already approved. She
23
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
thinks that sets a bad example for other citizens in the community. However,
she will vote for the special permit.
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 below:)
1. Compliance with ZMA-90-11.
2. Office use shall be limited to existing manor house.
3. Off-street parking shall be limited to the existing parking areas
on TMP 60-28A1 and adjoining TMP 59D(2)-06-01 indicated on Attach-
ment C (Attached to letter dated November 6, 1990, as set out
above, from George B. McCallum, III). No new parking area shall
be created on TMP 60-28A1.
(At 8:37 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
8:52 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-90-03. David & Mary Spradlin. Public Hearing on
a request to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, to allow "Rural Salvage
yard for Automobiles" & to amend the definitions. (Deferred from January 2,
1991.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-25. David Lee & Mary Jean Spradlin. Public
hearing on a request for a rural salvage yard for automobiles, incidental to
public garage. Property located on E side of Rt 620 approx 3/4 mile N of Rt
728 contains 7.5 ac zoned RA. TM104,P14F1. Scottsville Dist. (Deferred from
January 2, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg sum~narized the following additional staff report:
"The Board of Supervisors has requested that staff prepare language
that could be included in the Zoning Ordinance to define a salvage
yard, provide for it as a special use in the Rural Area district, and
have associated supplementary regulations. After consultation with
the County Engineer, Zoning Administrator and other state and local
officials, staff can offer the following:
Add under Section 3.0, Definitions:
Salvage Yard Any land or building used for the abandonment,
storage, keeping, collecting, bailing, demolition, dismantling,
or salvaging of more than two inoperable vehicles, machinery or
parts thereof.
(Mr. Cilimberg said the staff recommends that the word "abandonment" be
deleted from the proposed definition. "Abandonment" does not necessarily
apply in terms of the intended use of a salvage yard. The County Attorney is
in agreement with the recommendation. This definition is derived from the
definition of "junkyard" in the Zoning Ordinance.)
Add under Section 10.2.2:
10.2.2(44.) Salvage yard (reference 5.1.33).
Add under Section 5.1:
5.1.33. SALVAGE YARD
Salvage yards are intended to satisfy a public need for
salvage operations over and above the public purpose as
stated by the intent of the particular zoning district.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
24
Salvage yards have a high nuisance potential and, therefore,
are intended only in locations where the public need out-
weighs the nuisance potential. The Board and/or the Plan-
ning Commission in approval of such shall be mindful of this
intent.
(After review of this language in "a", Mr. Bowie suggested that the last
sentence read: "The Board or Planning Commission shall make this finding."
Mr. Cilimberg agreed with the proposed wording.)
b. All vehicles shall be accepted regardless of value.
No activity shall commence until site plan approval has been
obtained.
Neither the automobile storage area nor any part of the
operation shall be located within:
1)
100 horizontal feet of the edge of any stream, pond or
other surface water body; nor
2)
within 500 horizontal feet of any well, spring, or
other groundwater source or drinking water; nor
3)
within 100 feet of any adjacent property or dwelling
whichever is greater; nor
4)
within 200 horizontal feet of the one hundred year
flood plain of any public drinking water impoundment.
Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas dis-
tricts: No construction activity including grading or
clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than thirty (30)
feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening
shall be provided as required in section 3-2.8.
Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a
particular case where it has been demonstrated that grading
or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site
design, provided that:
a. minimum screening requirements are met; and
existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements
is substantially restored.
The applicant shall provide groundwater monitoring systems
which shall be capable of yielding groundwater samples for
analysis. The monitoring systems shall:
Consist of not less than one monitoring well installed
hydraulically upgradient from the vehicle, storage
area. The number, locations and depths shall be
sufficient to yield groundwater samples that are:
(i) Representative of background groundwater quality
in the uppermost acquifer near the facility, and;
(ii) Not affected by the facility.
Consist of at least three monitoring wells installed
hydraulically downgradient from the vehicle storage
area. Their number, locations, and depths shall ensure
the early detection of any statistically significant
amounts of pollutants that migrate from the vehicle
storage area to the uppermost acquifer below the
facility;
Include the preparation of a monitoring plan prepared
by an appropriately qualified registered professional
and certified by same. The plan must be approved by
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
25
the County Engineer and must include, but is not
limited to the following:
(i)
An analysis of existing groundwater conditions to
include the depth to the top of the uppermost
acquifer at each testing location, direction of
groundwater flow and, appropriate background data
on groundwater quality at each sampling location;
(ii) An analysis of the proposed operation on site to
determine the potential for groundwater pollution
by the on-site operations. Based on this analy-
sis, the design of the groundwater monitoring
system will reconm]end a testing program for both
initial and later analysis that will be sufficient
to provide detection of statistically significant
quantities of pollutants entering the groundwater
from the proposed operation. This testing program
may employ the use of testing that will provide
data relative to either specific pollutants or
specific indicators of pollution. Testing pro-
grams may also be phased if appropriate.
Be tested on a quarterly basis and the results of each
test shall be submitted to the Department of Engineer-
ing for their approval;
Department of Engineering approval of a certified engineer's
report in accordance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning
Ordinance to include provisions for the removal of hazardous
materials including, but not limited to oil, gas, anti-
freeze and batteries;
Ail facilities shall be protected from trespass and shall be
surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an
equivalent means of controlling public access through the
use of securable gates equipped with locks;
Salvage yards and all access road surfaces shall be main-
tained in a dust-free condition;
j o
Open burning shall be prohibited, except pursuant to a
permit issued by the State Air Pollution Control Board;
Tires shall not be buried on-site or stockpiled for a period
of time exceeding three (3) months or in quantities exceed-
ing twenty-five (25) tires;
Stripped vehicles shall be salvaged through the licensing
process of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
These amendments will require extensive County monitoring of a salvage
yard. After consultation with the Zoning Administrator, staff can
advise that enforcement will be both difficult and time consuming.
The proposed supplementary regulations are patterned after the condi-
tions of approval for a special use permit application for the Sprad-
lins which was denied by the Board of Supervisors on September 20,
1989 (SP-89-32). It appears to staff that the level of regulation
needed to minimize the impact of a salvage yard is itself evidence
that such a use is not in keeping with the intent of the RA district
and Comprehensive Plan.
For these reasons, as well as reasons cited previously, staff does not
recommend this Zoning Text Amendment nor the Special Use Permit
request. Should the Board choose to amend the Zoning Ordinance and
grant this Special Use Permit, staff recommends the following condi-
tions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
26
1. All vehicles shall be accepted regardless of value;
No activity shall commence until site plan approval has been
obtained;
o
Neither the automobile storage area nor any part of the operation
shall be located within:
a)
100 horizontal feet of the edge of any stream, pond or other
surface water body; nor
b)
within 500 horizontal feet of any well, spring, or other
groundwater source or drinking water; nor
c)
within 100 feet of any adjacent property or dwelling which-
ever is greater;
Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts:
No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegeta-
tion shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential
or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required
in section 32.8.
Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a particular
case where it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is
necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided
that:
a. minimum screening requirements are met; and
existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is
substantially restored.
The applicant shall provide groundwater monitoring systems which
shall be capable of yielding groundwater samples for analysis.
The monitoring systems shall:
Consist of not less than one monitoring well installed
hydraulically upgradient from the vehicle storage area. The
number, locations and depths shall be sufficient to yield
groundwater samples that are:
(i) Representative of background groundwater quality in the
uppermost acquifer near the facility, and;
(ii) Not affected by the facility.
Consist of at least three monitoring wells installed hydrau-
lically downgradient from the vehicle storage area. Their
number, locations and depths shall ensure the early detec-
tion of any statistically significant amounts of pollutants
that migrate from the vehicle storage area to the uppermost
acquifer below the facility;
Include the preparation of a monitoring plan prepared by an
appropriately qualified, registered professional and certi-
fied by same. The plan must be approved by the County
Engineer and must include, but is not limited to the follow-
ing:
(i)
An analysis of existing groundwater conditions to
include the depth to the top of the uppermost acquifer
at each testing location, direction of groundwater flow
and, appropriate background data on groundwater quality
at each sampling location.
(ii) An analysis of the proposed operation on site to
determine the potential for groundwater pollution by
the on-site operations. Based on this analysis, the
design of the groundwater monitoring system will
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
27
recommend a testing program for both initial and later
analysis that will be sufficient to provide detection
of statistically significant quantities of pollutants
entering the groundwater from the proposed operation.
This testing program may employ the use of testing that
will provide data relative to either specific pollu-
tants or specific indicators of pollution. Testing
programs may also be phased if appropriate.
Be tested on a quarterly basis and the results of each test
shall be submitted to the Department of Engineering for
their approval;
Department of Engineering approval of a certified engineer's
report in accordance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance to
include provisions for the removal of hazardous materials includ-
ing, but not limited to oil, gas, anti-freeze and batteries;
Ail facilities shall be protected from trespass and shall be
surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an
equivalent means of controlling public access through the use of
securable gates equipped with locks;
Salvage yards and all access road surfaces shall be maintained in
a dust-free condition;
Open burning shall be prohibited, except pursuant to a permit
issued by the State Air Pollution Control Board;
10.
Tires shall not be buried on-site or stockpiled for a period of
time exceeding three (3) months or in quantities exceeding
twenty-five (25) tires;
11. Stripped vehicles shall be salvaged through the licensing process
of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
12.
Department of Engineering approval of a runoff control plan
designed so that erosion is well controlled and environmental
damage is prevented;
13. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance;
14. Paving of the existing gravel entrance as recommended by the
Virginia Department of Transportation."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Supplementary Regulations reflect input from the
County Engineer, Zoning Administrator and Division of Motor Vehicles. They
also reflect, in general terms, what the conditions of a special use permit
application for the Spradlins last year would have included if it had been
approved by the Board. These are not new conditions but they are fairly
extensive in order to cover potential environmental and use effects of a
salvage yard.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 8,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of ZTA-90-03 and SP-90-25. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that the Commission did not hear the newly proposed language and that
the denial was based on the staff report presented to the Board on December 5,
1990.
Before reopening the public hearing, Mr. Bowie said there are two items
before the Board. The request before the Board is not Mr. Spradlin or his
operation. It has been noted that Mr. Spradlin does provide a valuable
service and is supported by the majority of the people in the community. This
request is not about Mr. Spradlin's operation, but about an amendment to allow
salvage yards by special use permit anywhere in the rural areas. He asked
that the comments be directed to that issue. The public hearing was then
opened.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
28
Mr. Ben Dick, representing the applicant, said he has read the staff
report and believes that the community would be serviced well by allowing this
use by special permit. There is a need for this use in the community. In the
rural district there is a need for this type service and the fact that it does
not go with the general intent of the rural agricultural district is not the
issue. The Zoning Administrator would have standards from this Board in which
to monitor and to make certain that any operation in the County would not
environmentally harm anyone. The environmental standards outlined by the
staff are reasonable and set out specific regulations to protect the water
supply, neighbors and other adjoining lands. As far as this being difficult
for administration by the Zoning Administrator, this will be no more difficult
than any other duties. At least these standards are specific. Mr. Spradlin
has monitored his wells and found no pollution. He would suggest that Mr.
Spradlin submit an annual report to the Zoning Administrator that the wells
have been tested and these environmental concerns are being addressed. If it
becomes a problem, the Zoning Administrator can bring it to the Board to see
if it is necessary to revoke the permit. He thinks that the regulations
present a resolution that is reasonable under the Zoning Ordinance. A salvage
yard cannot operate without a license from the Commonwealth of Virginia. In
order to crush these vehicles and carry them off the premises, the State
standards must be met. Also, inspectors must inspect the area before the
operation can commence. In Mr. Spradlin's operation, his crusher has a
machine with a catch basin to hold all pollutants which are stored and hauled
off to a waste site. He thinks that for the community this is a valuable
service. This is a system in which old cars can be collected and shipped out
of the community to a central point. He thinks the regulations recommended
are reasonable and acceptable. He thinks this use, although not entirely
consistent with the rural agricultural district, is important and with these
regulations and requirements can exist harmoniously in the community. He asks
that the zoning text amendment be approved.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said they do not
dispute the need for a place to put junk cars, but they cannot support a text
amendment that would allow a salvage yard in the rural areas. A rural salvage
yard would provide a scenic resting place for inoperable vehicles, but that is
not what scenic resources are provided for. Citizens for Albemarle appreciate
the fact that "dead" cars have to go somewhere but consider that the regula-
tions under junkyards are adequate to cover the need for disposing of "expired"
vehicles. Citizens for Albemarle realize that junkyards cannot operate
without a special use permit, but are allowed with a special use permit in the
HI district. The notion of rural junkyards conflicts with the whole picture
of rural. Citizens for Albemarle appreciate the fact that the Planning staff
has done a tremendous job in coming up with a set of regulations to try to
control the operation, but they would prefer that the operation be controlled
under regulations already available.
Next to address the Board was Mr. Fred Gerke of the Proffitt Neighborhood
Association. Proffitt is on the opposite end of the county from the
Spradlins property. As a community in the RA zone, they are concerned about
the prospect of salvage yards in the RA zone. They feel this is an inappro-
priate use for this zone. This is a commercial use with environmental and
aesthetic problems. This usage is not in keeping with present zoning and
planning standards. The Association opposes allowing salvage yards in the RA
zone. They realize the need for such an operation and that there is a history
for such operations in rural areas. If the Board should feel it is necessary
and appropriate to have this use, it is absolutely necessary and imperative
that it be carefully controlled and regulated with special consideration given
to shielding, setbacks, air and ground water contamination, noise pollution
and its impact on the immediate area. Also each salvage yard should be
discussed on an individual basis.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris said she is unalterably opposed to salvage yards in the
rural areas. She feels that this flies in the face of everything that this
county has done for the last 20 years which is to preserve the rural areas and
the quality of life in the County. The idea of having wells to monitor for
groundwater pollution is ridiculous. Once the pollution has occurred it is
done and is virtually impossible to repair. To allow a use in the rural areas
that is not allowed in the public landfill is ridiculous. If the County
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
29
cannot handle this use professionally itself shedoes not see how it can
expect anybody else to do it in an appropriate manner, most particularly in a
rural area. She thinks it is inappropriate and environmentally unsound and
she will oppose ZTA-90-03.
Mr. Way said he thinks a rural salvage yard would provide a place for
these vehicles that could be monitored. The alternative is what we have now
and what we will have more of which is a vehicle at the end of every road and
in every ravine throughout the county, in the watershed, next to creeks, and
everywhere else. With this use most of these vehicles would be out-of-sight
and we do not have to look at them. This would allow it to be done and
monitored in a sensible way, screened so that nobody would see it and it would
address an existing problem in the County.
Mrs. Humphris said there is a place for salvage yards and that is where
they belong. She cannot say it any better than stated by the staff which
needs to be reiterated: "These amendments will require extensive County
monitoring of a salvage yard. After consultation with the Zoning Administra-
tor, staff can advise that enforcement will be both difficult and time-consum-
ing .... It appears to staff that the level of regulation needed to minimize
the impact of a salvage yard is itself evidence that such a use is not in
keeping with the intent of the RA district and Comprehensive Plan." She also
added that enforcement would be expensive. Mrs. H~mphris them offered motion
to deny ZTA-90-03.
Mr. Way said people who have these vehicles can call a salvage yard, have
the vehicles picked up and be paid money for them. He thinks it will be a lot
more expensive for the County to have these vehicles collected and to monitor
these areas. He thinks the Board is putting its head in the sand and saying
this is a difficult problem and we do not want to deal with it.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion. He said he is concerned about what is the
true public need and how to quantify that need. If it is a true need, should
it not be in an area that has access and in an industrialized zone rather than
in a rural area. Environmental concerns are a significant issue. Maybe the
public needs to look at this problem, maybe an individual cannot do it alone.
The whole rural areas Zoning Ordinance transcends the salvage yard concept.
He is not satisfied that this 'use cannot be in a different zone.
Mr. Bowerman said it is obvious that there is a need for a salvage yard
in the County. He then asked of Mr. Dick what role distance plays in the
mechanics of the actual salvage operation for someone having a car towed. He
asked the overriding reason that a salvage yard should be located in the rural
areas as opposed to an HI district. Mr. Dick responded that Americans want
convenience. It costs $80 for a person to take a car from Woodridge to
Cosner's whereas that person can go to the Spradlins and he will pay them $25
for the car, he will strip the car and salvage it. People are looking for an
easy way to get the car where it has to go and be done with it. He does not
think people want to worry about junk cars. In a rural community there are a
lot of people who park cars on the side of a road or put them in a ravine.
Mr. Spradlin's operation is not major in the sense that it will be an environ-
mental disaster. The location of the Ivy Landfill and what it is doing is
more of an environmental danger than this operation. The Board has the
control over the operation.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a salvage yard picks up vehicles. Mr. Dick re-
sponded "yes", at least David Spradlin does. Mr. Bowerman asked if all
salvage yards pick up abandoned or junk vehicles and pay for that scrap. Mr.
Dick responded "yes". Mr. Bowerman asked why the location of the salvage yard
makes a difference if the person will be paid for the vehicle anyway. Mr.
Dick said the difference is the money paid for the vehicle. Mr. Way said the
point is that nobody in Albemarle County pays the $25, but instead charges $75
to deposit the car in the Charlottesville. Mr. Dick said the best thing this
operation does for the County is provide a point of collection. He does not
think local government wants to get into the salvage yard business.
Mr. Bowerman asked what happens if groundwater contamination is found and
who cleans it up. Mr. St. John said in private practice he represented
federal salvage yards. The EPA will not come in and clean up any petroleum
spill or break fluid, antifreeze, etc. The Board would immediately close down
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
30
the salvage yard or have the problem corrected. It is also impossible to
remove petroleum from the ground once the ground is contaminated. Petroleum
products spread from a spill in a plume-shaped stream underground. Depending
on the nature of the ground, the spill can travel slowly or fast. If any
- wells were exposed to contamination, you could just stop the contamination
source, but nothing would be done to get it out of the ground. The contamina-
tion would eventually go away. Nature will remove petroleum products which
are not deemed a health hazard.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the program in which C~arlottesville/Albemarle
Clean Community Commission picks up cars. Mr. Tucker said CAC3 arranges for
someone to pick the vehicle up and crush it. Mr. St. John commented that the
person is paid $50 by the State to pick up the vehicle, if the value of the
parts on the car is less than it costs to pick up the car, but that only
applies to abandoned vehicles.
There being no further dismssion, the motion to deny ZTA-90-03 carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny
SP-90-25 because rural salvage yards are not a permitted use under the Zoning
Ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-90-24. South Pantops Land Trust II & Hurt
Investment Company. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 13.67 ac from R-15
to CO. Property on NE side of South Pantops Dr approx 600 ft W of State Farm
Blvd. TM78,P20(part),70(part). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 22 and January 29, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is currently undeveloped with a
rolling terrain and some areas of critical slopes leading down to the
stream on the north side of the site. Adjacent land uses include the
State Farm Insurance Office Building and the Overlook Apartments on
the west side of South Pantops Drive. The remaining properties
surrounding the site are undeveloped.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 13.67
acres to Commercial Office without an application plan for the site's
physical development. The applicant has proffered to limit the
potential traffic generation occasioned by future development on the
property and have the site plan for the development of the property
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
for Office/Regional Service with the stream on the north side of the
site as a physical barrier between this designation and the adjacent
High Density Residential area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff opinion is that the rezoning request to
Commercial Office is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use
Map designation for this property. The commercial land use standards
of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the County 'accomplish
remonings to a commercial designation for sites of three acres of more
under a planned development zoning designation accompanied by a
transportation analysis plan.' While the traffic issues appear to be
addressed, staff is concerned that without an application plan to
analyze, it is difficult to comment or make recommendations regarding
the potential physical impact of future construction on the site under
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
31
the proposed zoning. In an attempt to mitigate this concern, the
applicant has proffered to have the site plan for this property
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and to comply with their
recommendations.
In terms of the impact of the rezoning on traffic in the area, the
applicant has worked with staff and the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation to determine the amount of traffic anticipated from this
property when the road plans for Pantops Drive and State Farm Boule-
vard were approved. As a result, the applicant has proffered to limit
the potential traffic generation occasioned from the property to an
amount (1430 vehicle trips per day) which could be expected as a
result of development under the existing R-15 zoning. The Virginia
Department of Transportation comments are included.
To reiterate, staff opinion is that the rezoning request is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property and other
uses in the area. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Super-
visors determine this request is appropriate without an application
plan, staff recommends approval of the petition with the applicant's
proffer as follows:
1. We proffer 13.670 acres as shown on plat dated October 10,
1990, to 1430 vehicle trips per day.
We proffer the final site plan to be reviewed by the Archi-
tectural Review Board (ARB) and to comply with their recom-
mendations.''
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 22,
1991, by a vote of 5-2, recommended approval of ZMA-90-24, as proffered, and
set out in the staff's report.
Mr. Bain noted that there was considerable discussion by the Commission
about the boundary line and asked if staff has looked at that with regard to
the regional service area. Mr. Cilimberg said after the Planning Commission
meeting, the staff reviewed Board discussions of the Comprehensive Plan and
found that there was a request made for this area to show office service use
down to the stream on the northwest side of the property. That was changed
and included in the Plan by Board action. The staff also looked at the
relationship of this parcel with State Farm Boulevard and compared it to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Mr. Bowie asked when consideration will be given to the critical slopes
since there is no plan available. Mr. Cilimberg replied during site plan
review.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Melton, representing South
Pantops, said they are presently working on a contract with State Farm. They
wish to purchase this piece of property for their future expansion. State
Farm is a good neighbor, has a nice building and is conscience of the surround-
ing area. He will answer any questions Board members may have.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle, presented a
statement (on file) in opposition to the proposal for the following reasons:
1) lack of documentation to support a rezoning request; 2) reasons and justi-
fications for not submitting a site plan or preliminary schematic master
layout of the proposed property use; 3) difficulty in assessing the impact of
the proposal without a plan for site development; and 4) the responsibility
for the site plan should not be that of the Architectural Review Board.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Craig Van de Castle, said he questions the
proffer that the site plan would be reviewed by the ARB and the applicant
would comply with their recommendations. He asked if that review is under the
Entrance Corridor Overlay for Route 250 East? Does it mean a review in
consideration of the visual impact on Monticello? What about appeals from the
decision of the ARB? What if the ARB says they would like a different roof
style put on the building? Is the applicant entitled to an appeal to the
Planning Commission or Board? What are the specific guidelines that would be
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
32
-I
applied here? He thinks that the proffer complies with some of the purposes
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan under Scenic Resources. Monticello is
approximately three-quarters of an aerial mile from this parcel and would have
a clear view of the building. He questions some of the details and standards
that the ARB would use and what remedies the applicant or property owner would
have in the event they did not agree with the ARB's recommendations.
Dr. Charles W. Hurt said he would like to respond to some of the ques-
tions raised by previous speakers. First there is a large sewer line that
travels parallel to the creek and the water supply is in both roads; along
State Farm Boulevard and South Pantops Drive. There is also a large pond to
take care of the runoff. Regarding the ARB, State Farm is in the process of
adding to its current facility which uses up the land they have. They want to
make some provisions for future expansion. They have no immediate use for the
property, but this is the only convenient site available to allow them to
expand. State Farm is presently spending $1 million in landscaping which
gives some indication on their concern about appearance. There is an archi-
tectural review board of the landowners made up of his interest, Worrell's
interest and State Farm. State Farm brought in their architects and went to
visit Monticello in connection with the recent addition and they wanted to use
a lot of care and got Monticello's suggestion and concurrence with the color
of the roof addition, etc. The reason there is no site plan is because there
is no planned building, but they want to hold the property for expansion. He
will answer any questions Board members may have.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie asked what the appeal process is regarding a decision of the
ARB. Mr. Cilimberg said the appeal is made to the Board.
Mr. St. John said under State statute he believes the applicant would
have the right to appeal to the Board regardless of the proffer. Mr. Bain
commented that the County Attorney has always stated that zoning conditions go
with the property. Mr. St. John said he does not believe zoning conditions
can contradict the provisions of a State statute and prevail over that. Mr.
Bain asked if this does not rise to the issue of being against public policy,
why can it not override the statute. Mr. St. John said the applicant would
have to either comply or come before the Board.
Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned that the Board is continually under-
mining the Comprehensive Plan by allowing R-15 property to be taken out of the
growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg said during review of the Plan, the Board decided
that because of its natural boundary and stream that this area should be
Office Service and that it would be appropriate to change the current zoning
to that category. This property was not calculated as residential in the Plan
for that reason. This is one of the areas that the Board decided to discuss
on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Bowie said this property lies within his district. He has no problem
with the application because he does not think R-15 would go very well on the
property. He asked what will happen when a site plan is presented. Mr.
Cilimberg said the areas of critical slope must be shown on the site plan, any
area to be disturbed by the development must be shown on the preliminary site
plan and it is the Commission's decision whether or not development can occur
on the critical slopes. The Commission would have to grant a waiver for
development on critical slopes. Mr. Bowie said he has no objection to the
request and will support a motion for approval.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve
ZMA-90-24, as proffered in letter dated January 14, 1991, from Mr. Stephen M.
Melton, representing Charles William Hurt, addressed to Mr. Richard E.
Tarbell, Planner, and set out below:
1. We proffer 13.670 Acres as shown on plat dated October 10, 1990 to
1430 vehicle trips per day.
2. We proffer the final site plan to be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) and to comply with their recommendations.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
33
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-90-112. Einstein School (applicant) & Thomas S.
Edwards, Jr. (owner). Public hearing on a request to allow a pvt school on
2.50 ac zoned R-10. Property at end of Greenbrier Dr approx 1500 ft E of
inters of Rt 743 & Rt 631. TM61,P10&10A. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on January 22 and January 29, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg s~arized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is predominately flat with trees and
shrubs around the perimeter. The site is surrounded by townhouses of
the Townwood development.
Applicant's Proposal: The Einstein School is proposing to utilize the
two existing houses for a private school consisting of an office,
classroom space and a residence for the headmaster. The current
enrollment of the school is 17 students with four to five faculty
members. The maximum enrollment proposed is 35 students to allow for
future expansion. The applicant has stated an intention to build
three tennis courts and a multi-purpose ball field. Operations would
begin in September, 1991, with class hours from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30
p.m., Monday through Thursday with a 2:00 p.m. dismissal on Friday.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 32.7.5.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance which requires connection to public water and sewer where
reasonably available. The applicant is proposing a connection to
sewer only and the waiver request is discussed in the 'Staff Comment'
section of this report.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
medium density residential in Urban Neighborhood 1. Staff opinion is
that the proposed use is compatible with this land use designation.
Staff Comment: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the
Board of Supervisors to make findings that the proposed use: will not
be of substantial detriment to adjacent property; will not change the
character of the district; and will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
As to zoning, staff views certain uses as beneficial to the social
fabric of the community. The Zoning Ordinance provides for a category
of such uses by special use permit in all residential zoning districts
which includes day care/nursery school facilities, churches and
private schools. Such uses are reviewed by staff in terms of physical
impact on the area.
The primary physical impact will be the construction of the planned
recreational facilities previously mentioned. There appears to be
ample area for these facilities and staff will review the adequacy of
their specific location at the time of site plan submittal. The site
plan shall also show improvements to the existing access onto
Greenbrier Drive to include a paved entrance of sufficient Width to
accommodate two-way traffic.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that the private
school should generate less vehicle trips per day than could be
anticipated if the property were developed under the existing zoning.
Plans for the extension of Greenbrier Drive are currently under review
and the applicant has agreed to reserve an area for future right-of-
way dedication and not to construct any physical facilities in that
area.
The only unresolved issue identified by staff is the recommended
condition requiring the existing buildings to connect to public water.
The property is currently served by a well and septic system. The
school is agreeable to connecting to public sewer, however, the
connection to the water line is expensive (approximately $3100 ACSA
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
34
fee only) and the applicant requests the Planning Commission to allow
the property to be served by the existing well. Both water and sewer
lines are readily accessible from the Townwood development's lines
surrounding this property. Staff has consistently recommended that
new uses and development connect to water and sewer when reasonably
available as outlined in Section 32.7.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff opinion is that the water line is reasonably available in this
case, however, it is the Planning Commission's discretion to allow the
connection to public sewer only.
Summary and Recommendation: It is staff's opinion that this petition
will not significantly alter the general character of the area, that
the request for a special use permit is in general harmony with the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and the public benefit
derived will be of a positive nature. Therefore, staff recommends
approval, subject to the following conditions:
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is not
transferable;
2. Enrollment limited to thirty-five (35) students;
Administrative approval of a site plan sketch to include:
a. Location of recreational facilities;
b. Reservation of area for future right-of-way dedication;
c. Parking and access improvements to include provision for
two-way traffic at the entrance;
Access is restricted to the northern entrance onto Greenbrier
Drive and the southern entrance shall be physically deleted;
5. Recreational facilities shall not be lighted;
The existing buildings shall connect to water and sewer prior to
the opening of the school.
OR (if waiver of Section 32.7.5.1 is granted):
The existing building shall connect to sewer prior to the opening
of the school.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 22,
1991, recommended approval of SP-90-112 subject to the first five conditions
recommended by the staff and the following additional conditions:
The existing buildings shall connect to water and sewer prior to
the opening of the school;
Construction of a gymnasium or other expansion will require
amendment to this special use permit.
Mrs. Humphris asked why the particular wording for condition #7; why not
"Further expansion will require amendment to this special use permit". Mr.
Cilimberg said it was indicated to the staff that existing houses would be
utilized; there would be a basketball court, tennis courts, and then possibly
a gym. Staff would want to review any significant additions. The Board could
amend the condition to read "Construction of any additional structure or
expansion of structures will require amendment to this special use permit."
That would be appropriate and cover any structural change.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Preston Thomas, the founder and
director of Einstein School, said they have been in existence for approximate-
ly ten years. During this time they have operated out of two rooms in the
Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church and they have gradually outgrown the
facilities and the church has also decided that it wants to use the space for
its own programs. Two years ago, the church voted that this would be Ein-
stein's last year at the church. During this time they have been looking for
a possible location as well as raising the money for the school. They have
raised the money and after searching have found a place they feel will be good
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
for a school, and, hopefully, in harmony with the rest of the area. The goal
of this school is to provide education to fit the needs of the student. They
maintain a 1:5 teacher/pupil ratio and provide individual care for every
incoming student. They are especially looking for bright, creative children
- who are not working up to their potential in a large classroom situation.
Each year the school receives recommendations from various schools in the
area. During this time they have had marvelous success with a great number of
students. They help dsylexic children, children with concentration problems,
attention deficit problems and children who are artistic and unique who need a
more individualized approach to their education. They see themselves as a
community resource and this is a non-profit organization. The area they are
looking at is ideal. It is two and one-half acres with high density housing
all around. The location of the school would mean the area would remain open
space. They have heard no opposition from the residents. Use of the existing
well is not a big issue. His request was made because there is a 300 foot
deep well on the property and it has an extensive filtration system and the
water is excellent. He would appreciate the Board's consideration and support
of the request.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Thomas was aware of the proposed Greenbrier
Drive expansion. Mr. Thomas said he is aware that the road is proposed to
come right through and shave off part of the property. He does not think it
would hurt the school to have a main road running right by it.
Mr. Tom Edwards, owner of the property, said he thinks that this is the
best use for the property and probably a better use than residential. The
school children will go home at 2:30 p.m. every day and so that land will be
basically unoccupied. There would be less use of the roads and facilities.
He thinks this use is an enhancement to the neighborhood. He thanked the
Board for its consideration of the request.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Edwards if his property adjoins Whitewood Road.
Mr. Edwards responded that his property is next to Minor Ridge. Also, they
had already prededicated the property for the road expansion which has been
shown on the plat. There is no question that the road will go through this
property.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this is an appropriate use for the property.
He then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-90-112
subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission:
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is not
transferable;
2. Enrollment limited to thirty-five (35) students;
Administrative approval of a site plan sketch to include:
a. Location of recreational facilities;
b. Reservation of area for future right-of-way dedication;
c. Parking and access improvements to include provision for
two-way traffic at the entrance;
Access is restricted to the northern entrance onto Greenbrier
Drive and the southern entrance shall be physically deleted;
5. Recreational facilities shall not be lighted;
The existing buildings shall connect to water and sewer prior to
the opening of the school;
Construction of a gymnasium or other expansion will require
amendment to this special use permit.
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.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-90-26. University Real Estate Foundation.
Public hearing on a request to rezone 1.28 ac from CO & LI to C-1 (Proffered
to restrict use to medical center). Property on N side of Rt 250W approx 0.5
mi W of inters with Ednam Dr. TM59,P23C (part). Samuel Miller Dist. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on January 22 and January 29, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The portion of the property under review for
this proposal is currently vacant. The western portion of this
property is developed with the old J. W. Seig warehouse. To the west
is the Northridge Office Building. The properties to the east are
developed with the Woodfin Honda buildings and the Charlottesville Oil
Company.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone 1.28 acres
to C-I, Commercial with a proffer restricting the use to medical
center (Section 22.2.1.b.21) for outpatient care only. A letter
describing the facility is included herein. The site plan proposes to
construct a 7650 square foot building to be served by 23 parking
spaces. The applicant has estimated the maximum number of patients
anticipated per day to be 30 with a staff of ten.
Planning and Zoning History:
ZMA-88-10. J. W. Seig Company. A petition to rezone 3.44 acres from
LI, Light Industry, to C-i, Commercial, was withdrawn prior to
Planning Commission review.
ZMA-88-23 and SP-89-106. J.W. Seig Company. Petitions to rezone
0.75 acre from LI, Light Industry, to CO, Commercial Office, to allow
a bank with two drive-through windows, were recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission on January 18, 1989 and subsequently
approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 3, 1989.
SDP-89-054. Westridge Sovran Bank Preliminary Site Plan was approved
by the Planning Commission on August 22, 1989 and the final site plan
was signed on January 11, 1990.
It should be noted that staff did not support these petitions.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in the Rural Area,
outside the boundaries of Urban Area Neighborhood 6, as designated on
the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Staff opinion is that while the rezoning
request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and
prior staff recommendation regarding this property's rezoning, it is
consistent with the past legislative actions on this property. The
proposed use of an outpatient medical center is a more regional use
than the previously approved bank and it is a less intensive use in
terms of traffic generation. The proposal is not intended to provide
more convenient services to the Rural Area which would promote unde-
sirable Rural Area growth. The proposed use is also compatible with
existing uses in the area.
Provided that the reasoning of the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors in their prior rezoning of this property from LI to CO
remains, staff recommends approval of this rezoning petition with the
applicant's proffer as follows:
Proffers:
As part of our request for rezoning, as outlined above, we
would agree to eliminate all uses under zone C-1 except
for 22.2.1.B.21, Medical Center, and to construct the
building and the site development in accordance with the
attached documents.
The site plan has been revised in accordance with the recommendations
of the Site Review Committee. The only issue identified by staff is
relief from the 150 foot building setback from Route 250 West which is
a scenic overlay district.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
37
At its closest point, the proposed building is located 77 feet from
the existing right-of-way and 100 feet from the travelway of Route 250
West. Staff recommends approval in accordance with Section 30.5.6.3
as the building and the landscape plan have been designed to adequate-
ly screen the parking from the highway.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve the rezoning, staff
requests the Planning Commission to grant administrative approval of
site plan with the following conditions:
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final
site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the follow-
ing conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not
be signed until the following conditions are met:
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-
way improvements to include 200' x 200' right turn and taper
lane and closure of existing entrance;
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
f. Planning staff approval of the final landscape plan;
The proposed internal road shall provide the only entrance
into Phase II of the site and that entrance shall be located
at least 85 feet from the existing right-of-way of Route
25O;
Reservation for future right-of-dedication in accordance
with the CATS Study;
A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained from the
Architectural Review Board.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Official final approval."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 22,
1991, by a vote of 5-2, recommended approval of ZMA-90-26 subject to the
applicant's proffer outlined in the letter of January 15, 1991, as follows;
"As part of our request for rezoning, as outlined above, we would
agree to eliminate all uses under zone C-1 except for 22.2.1.B.21,
Medical Center, and to construct the building and the site development
in accordance with the already submitted documents. Additionally, we
would close the existing entrance to the property and have the new
entrance to be constructed serve the entire property."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission also recox~ended approval of
the site plan pending approval of the rezoning by the Board. The site plan is
also being reviewed by the Architectural ReView Board under the Entrance
Corridor district.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this property lies within the service area bounda-
ries of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes".
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be required that the property be hooked to
sewer service. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", if the service were reasonably
available.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mrs. Humphris asked about the problem of widening the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said the building location is just behind the 75 foot setback line
from the existing right-of-way on Route 250 West. The Planning Commission had
to waive the requirement of the 150 foot setback based on parking being behind
the building. During the discussion by the Commission, it was noted that
Route 250 may be widened through this area and additional right-of-way may be
necessary, therefore, the applicant has agreed to reserve an area that would
provide for that right-of-way. The setback determination can only be based on
what is existing right-of-way. One Commission member did think that the
building could be located further back into the site which was discussed, but
not pursued. Setback is determined by existing right-of-way. There are
currently no highway plans available for Route 250 West.
Mr. Perkins asked if the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
owns the property. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes", the Foundation owns all of
the property.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's earlier question, Mr. Tucker said there is
an eight-inch sewer line on the property.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jack Horne of Martin & Home Const.,
the contractors for the applicant, said the building is to be an outpatient
treatment facility. The only place this type of use is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance is in the C-1 district as a medical center. They have
proffered that the property be used for a medical center only. This site is
crowded and there is not really enough room on the site for the building. The
UREF is proposing to use 1.3 acres, about 55,000 sq. ft. for this project.
The building is a little more than 7000 sq. ft. There was some concern at the
Planning Commission meeting about the waiver of the 75 foot setback. If the
building were at 150 feet setback, parking would have to be in front of the
building and would be within 50 feet of the road. They propose that setting
the building back 75 feet, landscaping between the building and the road and
putting the parking entirely behind the building is a much more appropriate
use along a scenic highway and would give a better appearance to the building.
The property is currently zoned for a bank and the staff estimated that the
bank would generate about 650 vehicle trips per day. They are estimating that
at the maximum this proposed facility might generate 65 vehicle trips per day.
The rest of the property is zoned LI. This is not a heavier use for the
property. He then introduced Mr. David Durr, Architect, for the project.
Mr. David Durr, of the firm of Metcalf & Assoc., said the building is to
be a 7000 sq. ft. outpatient cancer treatment facility. It is intended to be
used for those patients who are ambulatory, who can drive themselves or have a
family member drive them to the facility. It is intended to be easily acces-
sible from major highways. This use is seen as being region-wide and is
something needed in the area. This will be top of the line and one of the
best facilities in the State in terms of technology and ability to treat
cancer. They have attempted to respect the intent of the Scenic Overlay
District and have worked with staff to develop an appropriate site plan. They
do have a building design that is before the Architectural Review Board for
review tomorrow. The piece of equipment going into this unit is an entirely
safe unit. A radiation beam is emitted from the machine. There is no radio-
active material associated with the unit. They are working in conjunction
with a licensed radiation physicist who will tell them the amount of concrete
and lead required to completely shield the beam from the outside from both
staff and the users nearby.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Henry Thielbar, representing EdnamForest
Homeowner's Association, said the association takes a dim view of any develop-
ment along Route 250 and have as a matter of record protested the various
developments taking place now. Route 250 is bad enough and they do not want
to see it get worse. For this project all ~the Board needs to do is look at
the map and see what is happening. He thinks they are going to have another
"Northridge" here. This little building is a small portion of the current
property, but the rest of the property is reserved for future development. If
you take the medical school and hospital operation in Northridge, the Boar's
Head, the Rehab Center, there is the making of what he thinks is a major
satellite medical center. The residents are disturbed by this. With a few
exceptions, this has the makings of another Route 29 North. They are strongly
opposed to downgrading any of these properties. He does not think the Board
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
39
will deny this request, but the residents strongly oppose any negative develop-
ment on Route 250 West.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain said although he understands what Mr. Thielbar is saying, this
is a less intensive use than the current zoning allows.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks this is a lot better than what it could be.
That building is better than what it would be as CO or LI.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve ZMA-90-26, as proffered in letter dated January 15, 1991, from Mr.
David K. Westby, University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, addressed to
Mr. Richard E. Tarbell, Planner, and set out below:
As part of our request for rezoning, as outlined above, we would agree
to eliminate all uses under zone C-1 except for 22.2.1.B.21, Medical
Center, and to construct the building and the site development in
accordance with the already submitted documents. Additionally, we
would close the existing entrance to the property and have the new
entrance to be constructed serve the entire property.
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. St. John left the meeting at 10:28 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on Local Community Development and
Housing Needs and Potential Projects in Relation to Community Development
Block Grant Funding for a Project in Albemarle County. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 29, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff analysis of possible Communi-
ty Development Block Grant projects which could be eligible for funding:
"The goal of the Virginia Community Block Grant Program (VCDBG) is to
improve the economic and physical environment in Virginia's Communi-
ties and neighborhoods, benefiting persons of low- and moderate-income,
thus preventing and eliminating slums and blight, and meeting urgent
community development needs posing a serious and immediate threat to
the health, safety and welfare of Virginia citizens. There exists
fourteen broad project types which may be considered for grant appli-
cation in the VCDBG program. Two types of grants will be funded on a
competitive basis:
Community Improvement Grants (construction grants). $17,720,640
in grants is available in two rounds, with a maximum $700,000
grant per project, or maximum $500,000 for housing rehabilitation
project; and
Planning Grants. An amount up to two percent of available CDBG
money ($369,180) is reserved for Planning Grants. Maximum
$25,000 grant per project.
Virtually all CDBG applications must demonstrate that the project
provides primary benefit to low- and moderate-income persons. Low-to
moderate income persons are defined as individuals whose family income
is less than 80 percent of the median family .income for like size
families within the same area. Such VCDBG proposal must demonstrate
that: (1) 51 percent or more of project beneficiaries are low- and
moderate-income residents, or, (2) the project serves an area where 51
percent or more of residents are low- and moderate-income, or, (3) 51
percent or more of the jobs created are available to low- and moderate-
income residents. Documentation of benefit to low- and moderate-income
persons must be provided by one of four methodologies: (1) partici-
pation in the project is limited to low- and moderate-income persons
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
4O
based on eligibility criteria, or (2) the project facility is designed
for use by protected groups, or (3) the project service area eligi-
bility is based on low/moderate income data from the 1980 U.S. Census,
or (4) an income survey for the project service area.
The following is a list of VCDBG eligible projects that have been
identified for Albemarle County by the Planning staff.. The only
request for County sponsorship that has been received to date is from
the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). Staff has had
discussions with private developers interested in providing housing in
the Scottsville area.
Project 1: Housing Rehabilitation-Alb-~rle Housing Improvement
Program (AHIP).
Pro~ect Description: A rehabilitation housing grant would focus on
upgrading substandard owner occupied and/or rental units. AHIP
received a Community Improvement Grant in 1987 for a housing rehabili-
tation program which is now complete. With this previous program,
fifty-seven previously substandard homes were rehabilitated. Securing
another grant would permit AHIP to continue to focus on upgrading
existing substandard housing in the County. The maximum grant amount
for a housing rehabilitation program is $500,000.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: All AHIP project recipients must be low-
and moderate-income persons. AHIP maintains a waiting list of such
families and individuals who desire rehabilitation assistance. The
current waiting list exceeds 100 applicants. Income for all potential
participants is verified.
Relative Priorities: The upgrading of the County's housing stock is a
high priority in Albemarle County as evidenced in the Comprehensive
Plan, past CDBG projects, and the social program review funding
process. Housing Rehabilitation ranks in the highest priority group
for both the region and the state.
Other Pro~ect Funding Sources:
1. The County provides administrative funding for AHIP.
The Charlottesville Housing Foundation provides low interest
loans to families for housing rehabilitation.
Other potential sources include the Farmers Home Administration
Rural Housing Preservation Grant program, the Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services Discre-
tionary Grant Program and the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund.
Other Information: AHIP has an ongoing program of housing rehabilita-
tion for qualifying families and units in Albemarle County, and has
utilized CDBG in the past. An application for CDBG funds in 1990 did
not receive an adequate score for funding. Staff has reviewed with
DHCD the basis for last year's score and feels appropriate modifica-
tions can be made to allow this year's request for CDBG to have a good
opportunity for funding.
Project 2: Scottsville Community Improvements.
Project Description: This project could extend water and sewer
facilities north to the Scottsville Shopping Center, undeveloped
property designated for industrial service use, and/or to existing
low/moderate income residential areas. There is a history of water
quantity and quality problems at the shopping center and Stoney Point
Subdivision. The site lacks adequate facilities for support develop-
ment.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:31 p.m.)
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: Such a project would provide utilities
to existing and potential residential, commercial, and industrial
development. Additional expansion of commercial activity and develop-
ment of industrial uses could provide jobs targeted for low/moderate
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
41
income persons. An income survey would need to be performed to
determine qualifying residential target areas.
Relative Priorities: Sewer and water facilities would rank in the
highest priority group in both the state and regional priorities
according to last year's ranking.
Other Information: Commitment from an industry proposing to develop
at the industrial site, businesses wishing to develop at the shopping
center or other commercial sites, or from a developer to construct
low/moderate income housing would be necessary before making grant
application. Such development must target additional employment
opportunities or services for low-moderate income persons to receive
¥CDBG funding.
Staff has had discussion recently with a developer who has shown
interest in providing affordable housing in the Scottsville growth
area. However, due to the types of commitments necessary to provide a
competitive CDBG application and the current time frame for applica-
tions, a request for ¥CDBG at this time may be prohibitive. This
project holds promise for next year's round of CDBG applications
should the developer interest remain. A Planning Grant could be
pursued this year for project analysis and development. This would
improve the opportunity for making application for a construction
grant next year.
Project 3: Crozet Co,-,-~nity Improvmments.
Project Description: The improvement project for the Community of
Crozet could be designed as multi-purpose grant for:
Housing Rehabilitation (51% - 80% of total grant)
Sewer line and lateral extension
Flood and drainage facilities
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: An income survey would need to be
performed to determine qualifying target areas for such a project.
Relative Priorities: Residential improvement projects would rank in
the highest priority group according to last year's state and regional
priorities.
Other Information: Crozet is designated as a growth area in the
County Comprehensive Plan. It is important to not only encourage
growth there, but also maintain the quality of the existing community
for the benefit of its residents. Such improvements could encourage
further investment and growth in the cox~unity. A needs assessment
would have to be conducted to determine specific improvement needs and
benefits to low and moderate income families. The limited time frame
for application submittal at this time may be prohibitive. This
project does hold promise for future requests. A Planning Grant could
be pursued this year for project analysis and development. This would
improve the opportunity for making application for a construction
grant next year.
Project 4: Emergency Medical Service in Scottsville.
Project Description: This would be for land acquisition and develop-
ment for a new rescue squad facility in the Scottsville Area.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: The facility would serve the Town of
Scottsville (including the proposed Scottsville School elderly housing
project) and most of Rural Area 4. The 1980 Census reported a median
family income in 1979 of $16,498 in this area (or 80 percent or the
median family income for the County). A further survey of the income
of the rescue squad service area may be necessary to determine need
and benefit. This would be a difficult undertaking considering the
size of the service area and the likelihood of meeting VCDBG criteria
adequately enough to qualify for funding.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
42
Relative Priorities: Emergency public facilities would rank in the
next to lowest priority group of the state priorities and priority
group of regional priorities based on last year's ranking.
Other Information: Due to low regional and state priority and verify-
ing benefit to low-moderate individuals, this project holds marginal
opportunity for funding at this time.
Project 5: Possible Project: Farmer'sMarket.
Pro~ect Description: Purchase and develop a facility to accommodate
local farmers to market their goods to the public. Other uses of this
facility may include the option of allowing farmers to sell wholesale
to local retail businesses; and/or incorporating a produce packing
area for commercial distribution.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: An income survey would likely need to be
conducted to document a 51 percent benefit to low/moderate income
persons. It is widely known that the cost of land and farm production
expenses are generally not recovered from the sales of agricultural
products. This cost-benefit disparity is especially great for
cropland farmers. The enhancement of a marketplace for local products
may encourage:
A diversification of the agricultural economy and related
industries
New jobs in the sector
Retention of existing jobs and farm operations.
Wages paid in Albemarle County in the agricultural sector (as reported
by the Virginia Employment Commission) are 84.5 percent of the average
for Virginia. However, it may be difficult to verify primary benefit
to low/moderate income persons with this project.
Relative Priorities: 'Other economic activities' would rank in the
lowest priority group of state priorities and next to highest priority
group for regional priorities based on last year's ranking.
Other Information: Due to difficulty in identifying benefit to low
and moderate income individuals and its ranking based on state and
local priorities, this project holds a marginal opportunity for
funding at this time.
Summary: It is not anticipated at this point that any of the projects
listed above will necessitate displacement of County residents. The
County's use of VCDBG funds over the last five years has been dedicat-
ed to housing rehabilitation projects either through the Thomas
Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation or AHIP and, most recently,
to the development of the new affordable housing construction. The
VCDBG citizen participation process requires that the Board of Super-
visors, at this public hearing, receive comments from the public
before making a decision on which project, if any, it wishes to pursue
for funding. Staff is prepared to provide its priorities and recom-
mendations following the close of the public hearing."
The public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Teresa Tapscott, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, said there
are still people in the County in need of housing. AHIP maintains a waiting
list of about 125 names. AHIP does not stay in close contact with all of the
people, but they have taken steps to follow up and make sure all of the people
are still interested. Of the 125 people there are 88 people still interested
and in need of the services. She would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Bain asked if the 88 people are now in existing houses. Mrs. Tap-
scott said they are homeowner occupants in existing substandard housing.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Lynwood Coffman, a resident of Northfields
Road, said he is opposed to public housing or affordable housing. He thinks
that it is unfair to tax a part of the people to fund people who may have more
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
43
assets and more resources than the people paying the taxes for them. He
presented an example and provided a handout using his living situation to
illustrate his opposition to affordable housing. He used as an example the
revenue sharing agreement between the City of Charlottesville and the County.
- For years he worked as the Director of Social Services in Culpeper, Virginia,
and he dealt with low- and moderate-income people and he understands their
ways. In no way does he approve block grants of any kind for this kind of
housing or any public housing in the County.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff recommends that the Board endorse an appli-
cation by AHIP for a community improvement grant application for housing
rehabilitation funds for owner-occupied housing, secondly, a planning grant
for Scottsville community improvements, third, a planning grant for Crozet
community improvements, fourth, Emergency Medical Services in Scottsvilie, and
fifth, the Farmer's Market.
Mr. Bain asked if the County could apply for two planning grant applica-
tions. Mr. Cilimberg replied "no". There is also a question as to whether
the County can apply for a planning grant because of the CDBG the County
currently has for $300,000 which is early in expenditure and must be 50
percent expended. Planning grants are not due until later in the cycle. It
is doubtful the County would be 50 percent expended in time to apply for that
grant. Mr. Bowie said if the County applies for the $500,000, the other
$200,000 would not be available. Mr. Cilimberg said the $200,000 would be
available only if the County were part of a regional grant application. Mr.
Bain asked if anything has been attempted with the various other counties.
Mr. Cilimberg replied "no".
Mr. Bowie suggested that Mr. Bain discuss the possibility of a regional
grant at the next meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commis-
sion. Mr. Bain concurred and said the next meeting is tomorrow.
Mr. Bowie said he supports endorsing an application by AHIP. Mr. Bain
asked if the County currently had any grants with AHIP. Mr. Cilimberg replied
"no". The County's grant with them expired May, 1990. The County made an
application last year for funding, but it was not approved.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
endorse an application for AHIP to apply for $500,000 in CDBG funds for a
rehabilitation housing grant to focus on upgrading of substandard owner
occupied and/or rental units.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the grant application will come before the
Board for public hearing on March 6.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointment: Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee.
Mr. Bowie commented that Mr. Dwight D. Johnson, the at-large member on
the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee, has indicated by letter that he does
not wish to be reappointed. Mr. Bowie said he has spoken with the Chairman of
the Committee and he indicated that due to the limited time and scope he feels
that he does not need nine members, just the one at-large member. Unless a
Board member has a nominee to replace Mr. Johnson, he recommends that no
appointment be made.
Mr. Bain recommended that Mr. A. L. Yancey be reappointed to the Fiscal
Resource Advisory Committee.
Mr. Bowerman recommended that Ms. Shirley A. Munson be reappointed to the
Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee.
Mr. Perkins recommended that Mr. Vernon W. Jones, Jr., be reappointed to
the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) z~z~
(Page 44)
Mrs. Humphris recommended that Mr. John H. Birdsall, III, be reappointed
to the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee.
Mrs. Humphris recommended that Mr. Jason I. Eckford, Jr., be reappointed
as the at-large member on the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to reappoint
the above listed persons to the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee, with said
terms to expire on June 30, 1991. 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. Bowerman offered motion to appoint Mr. Dorsey W. Wilberger, Jr. and
Ms. Virginia M. Greenwood, to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commis-
sion Regional Housing Advisory Panel. Mr. Bain 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to reappoint Mr.
William J. Kehoe as Chairman to the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee, with
said term to expire on June 30, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: November 14, December 12,
December 19(A), December 19(N), 1990; January 2 and January 9, 1991.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of November 14, 1990, page 43, and found
them to be in order with one typographical error.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of December 12, 1990, page 1 - 18 (#17b)
and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of December 12, 1990, page 18 (#17b) -
end and found them to be in order with one typographical error.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of December 19A, 1990, and December 19N,
1990, page 1 - 17 (#9) and found them all to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of December 19N, page 35 (#12) - end
and found them to be in order, and had read the minutes of January 9, 1991,
page 1 - 19 (#10) and found them to be in order with one'typographical error.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recOrded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Minute Book Correction.
Mr. Bowie indicated the following letter dated January 25, 1991, from the
Clerk:
"In September, 1989 the Board heard a request from Virginia Land Trust
(ZMA-89-7) to rezone l~and on Route 29 North (Tom Batchelor for mobile
home repair, etc.). An inquiry about this petition has just been made
which necessitates a clarification of the minutes of September 6,
1989, on page 265. The reason follows:
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
See Page 265 of 9/6/89 - The advertisement sent to this office from
the Planning Office showed the request as a rezoning of 17.3 acres
from R-1 to HI; the request was for Tax Map 32, Parcels 22B and 22B1.
The Planning Staff report showed the acreage as 17.4 acres with only
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B1 being listed.
I listened to the tape of this meeting and before beginning the staff
report, Mr. Cilimberg announced that the original request was for 17.4
acres, but that had been changed to a request for 5.1 acres of HI with
proffers, on Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B1 (this is shown in a letter from
Charles Wm. Hurt, dated July 21, 1989, at the back of the pack).
The Clerk attending the meeting, and the Clerk preparing the minutes
did not pick up on the fact that the request had been changed and did
not put that clarification in the minutes. It is clear that the Board
members knew the request was for only 5.1 acres (see pages 267, 268
and 270.
On Page 306, the request again shows as 17.3 acres of HI, but the five
acres is mentioned again on pages 311 and 313. See pages 311, 313 and
314 for the motion of approval.
Please note copy of our action letter of September 14 addressed to Mr.
Cilimberg. On page 2, the original description of this request is
listed showing the 17.3 acres and two parcels of land. A copy of the
Planning Staff report and the tax map is also enclosed.
It seems that this error was not discovered until another person-
purchased the 5.1 acres and found that the approval letter from
Planning showed the incorrect amount of acreage. As far as the
Board's minutes are concerned, a correction should be made on page 265
to the effect: 'Before beginning presentation of the staff's report,
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant, Dr. Charles Wm. Hurt, in a
letter dated July 21, 1989, addressed to Mr. William D. Fritz,
amended the request for ZM~-89-7 to delete parcel 22B, 12.2 acres, so
as only to seek a zoning change for parcel 22B-1, 5.1 acres.'
Since the Planning Staff report was changed in the 'Location; section
before being sent to the Board, a change should be made in the 'Pro-
posal' section to show the request for only 5.1 acres instead of the
17.4 acres.
On Page 306, the acreage in the title should be changed from '17.3' to
'5.1'
If these changes are made in the Board's minutes, the letter to the
applicant stating the incorrect amount of acreage can be treated as a
typo."
45
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
minute book correction as outlined in the above memorandum dated January 25,
from the Clerk. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Report on Legislation.
Mr. Bowie said he spent five days of the last two weeks in Richmond at
- the General Assembly, but to absolutely no avail. He thinks that the Transfer
Development Rights (TDRs) legislation is the only issue that is not dead.
Albemarle County is included. He also testified before the House and Senate
Committees and the Subcommittee on equal taxing power which is also a dead
issue. From listening to testimony the main objection seemed to be the
inclusion of a cigarette tax. He did fax a letter to the Subco~ittee con-
cerning the equal taxing.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County's school funding cutback was capped at
six percent. Mr. Bain replied it was, but he does not know if the legislation
has passed both houses.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Bowie said the Board has been invited to attend a luncheon in
Scottsville to tour the Scottsville Housing Project. Mr. Bowie suggested the
Board go on April 10. Mr. Tucker commented that April 10 is one of the days
that has been suggested for Youth-in-Government Day. After some discussion,
it was agreed that the Board would go on April 3. Mr. Way suggested that the
Chairman extend invitations to the Mayor of Scottsville and Town Council.
Mr. Bain commented that he received a notice in the mail from the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission with a breakdown on magisterial dis-
trict populations. Mr. Tucker commented that the Census Bureau is sending
redistricting data to the Planning Districts as the central location for
distribution of data.
Mr. St. John requested an executive session on legal matters, regarding
Bargamin vs. Board of Supervisors. At 11:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr.
Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn into executive session under Code
Section 2.1-344.A.7 for legal matters to discuss Bargamin vs. Board of Super-
visors. 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.
At 11:16 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session and the following
certification of executive session was adopted:
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mr. Bowerman
MEETING DATE: February 6, 1991
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.'1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
February 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Bowie commented that if no items are received, the joint meeting with
the School Board for February 13 will be cancelled.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m.
CHAIRMAN