1990-12-19December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 19, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman,
F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney;
and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
There were no members of the public present to speak to this item.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie recognized the County Executive for 14 years of
service to the County noted that this is Mr. Agnor's last Board meeting as
County Executive. He said the credit for the fine things accomplished in this
County in the past 14 years goes to the steady leadership of Mr. Agnor. Mr.
Agnor received a standing ovation from the audience and expressed his thanks
to Mr. Bowie for his kind remarks.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Mrs. Humphris requested that Item 5.8 be discussed under "Other Matters"
at the end of the agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve
Items 5.1 through 5.3b and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda
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. Request from Mr. Richard P. Bell, IV, dated December 6, 1990,
to accept Mill Ridge Road in Mill Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways was approved by the vote shown above as set out in the fol-
lowing resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the
Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to
accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road in Mill Ridge Subdivision:
Mill Ridge Road:
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the centerline
of Mill Ridge Road, and the edge of State Route 614, thence
in a southwesterly direction 725 feet to Station 7+50, the
end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a forty (40) foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition as
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2.1)
206
o~
SrA. 24,50.00
$~ + 00 00
C~
0
Z
STA. 41.1Z 60
o~
oq~
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 207
(Page 3)
Item 5.3a. Request from Mr. Ralph L. Feil, attorney for James W. and
Nancy P. Calhoun, to accept Cinnamon Ridge Road and Shady Spring Drive in
Harmony Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways was approved
by the vote shown above and set out in the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following roads in Harmony Subdivision:
Cinnamon Ridge Road
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the
centerline of Cinnamon Ridge Road and the edge of
pavement of Spring Brook Drive, thence in a south-
westerly direction 523.92 feet to Station 5+48.92,
the end of the cul-de-sac.
Shady Spring Drive
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the
centerline of Shady Spring Drive and the edge of
pavement of Spring Brook Drive, thence in a westerly
direction 1037.19 feet to Station 10+62.19, the end
of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easements along these requested additions as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1114, pages 359 through 365.
Item 5.3b. Request from Mr. Robert T. Smith, dated August 15, 1990, to
accept Woodbrook Drive Extended in the Rio Hills Shopping Center into the
State Secondary System of Highways was approved by the vote shown above and
set in the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following road in Rio Hills Shopping Center:
Woodbrook Drive Extended
Beginning at Station 10+25, a point in common to
the centerline of Woodbrook Drive Extended and the
edge of the southbound lane of U. S. Route 29,
thence in a northwesterly direction 1325 feet to
the edge of Berkmar Drive (Station 23+50).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 75-foot unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easements along the requested addition as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 985, pages 698 - 704, pages 709 -715, pages 731
-737; Deed Book 996, pages 138 139; Deed Book 1038, pages 92 93;
and Deed Book 1132, page 155.
Item 5.4. A memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
dated December 11, 1900, entitled "Preliminary 1991Reassessment Values"
received as information as follows:
"As you know, the biennial real estate reassessment cycle is nearing
completion, with the notices to property owners scheduled to be mailed
by December 31. For your information, estimates of the fair market
value of taxable real estate (buildings and land) will be $4.238
billion, which is a $1.067 billion increase over the last reassessment
or 33.6 percent in a two year period. Of this two year increase,
$307.0 million is due to new construction, additions, and property
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
208
divisions, while $760.0 million is from increases in market values
since the last reassessment. The market value increase is therefore
23.97 percent over the two year period, approximately 12 percent on an
annualized basis. Staff has compared this percentage increase to
surrounding localities, and found the annualized increases similar.
Please note these numbers are estimates, and are averages. The
estimates may change slightly when the reassessment and equalization
process is completed. The word 'average' means that some property
notices will reflect an increase in market value greater than the
average, and others will reflect less than the average.
As noted above, these values are the fair market values of taxable
real estate only, which means they do not include adjustments for land
use or tax relief for the elderly or handicapped. The increased
values will, therefore, not approximate estimated tax collections
without adjusting for land use, tax relief, or percentages of collec-
tions. Tax collection estimates will be completed as a part of the
FY91-92 budget preparation process.
The two year assessment cycle begins in August of the odd calendar
year, and is completed sixteen months later in December in time for
notices to be mailed for a January 1 reassessment date. Therefore,
the January 1, 1991, reassessment began with sales transaction data
through August, 1989. For uniformity of assessments, this sales data
base is used for all reassessments throughout the County for the
entire sixteen month (August 89 - December 90) reassessment cycle.
The recent changes in the real estate market are therefore not re-
flected with a data base that ended in August, 1989. These market
changes will not be evident until the next reassessment cycle begin-
ning in August, 1991 and ending December, 1992."
Item 5.5. Letter dated December 5, 1990, addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor,
Jr., County Executive, from Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, concerning sale o~
the Fourth Street property was received as information. The letter stated
that the contract purchaser has backed out, but that a local real estate agent
has a client who is very much interested in the property.
Item 5.6. Memorandum from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development, dated December 11, 1990, entitled "Status Report
Blue Ridge Area B Neighborhood Study" as follows:
"The Blue Ridge Area 'B' Neighborhood Study (draft) is expected to be
completed in early January. The only issue that has not been resolved
is the appropriate land use designation of the Blue Ridge Hospital
tract. The University has recently submitted its revised plan for
utilization of the tract and the Blue Ridge Area Task Force/Advisory
Committee will review this plan at its January meeting and make final
recommendations.
A public meeting to receive comments on the Neighborhood Study is
scheduled to be held later in January. After public comments are
received, the Neighborhood Study will be revised, if necessary, and
recommended forward by the Blue Ridge Area Task Force to the Planning
and Coordination Council (PACC) Technical Cox~ittee. It is expected
that it will be ready for possible adoption as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan in the spring of 1991."
Item 5.7. Letter dated December 10, 1990, addressed to Mr. F. R. Bowie,
Chairman, from Ms. Mary ¥. Mikalson, member of the Jefferson-Madison Regional
Library Board, giving a brief report on the operations of the Jefferson-Madi-
son Regional Library was received as information.
Item 5.8. Letter dated December 12, 1990, addressed to Mr. F. R. Bowie,
Chairman, from Mr. J~hn G. Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, enclosing a
copy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's resolution of November 15,
7
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
000
0
OOOOO
000
0
ooo~
000
0 0 0 C
0 00 i ~
4' 000
L.~ 00 I C
o
0 S 0 ! !
0 0 0
0 I 0 I
0 ,0 CD ~
0 00 i ~
000
000
000
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
212
AS
,~,~ ~,,q
0
0
SS
SAASS SSS?
0
0
0
O0
AASAA ASA~
~q
~ o g
IlOlO ~lO
0 O~ 000~
0 ~ 00~ ~OC
~ 0 O~ 000~
0 ~ ~ 00~ ~00
0 ~ O~ ~~
· m r~ ,--I ~ 0 0 ~ (D
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
~ cq
213
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 04 0 0 0 0 0 0
,
& & o &&&
& & & & &°
o & & &&&
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u~ c-~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
r'- 04 O0 0 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u') O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ,~ 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r~ r~ O0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ,--I 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ m- O0 0 0 0 0 ~
December 19,
(Page 10)
1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
Ol I II 0 II II00 Ol
A 6A?
o ~,o o ~ A oA °AAA AA o
0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0000 O~ 0
0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0000 O~ 0
0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0000 O~ 0
0 ~
0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0000 O~ 0
0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0000 O~ 0
0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0000 O~ 0
214
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
215
II
II
II
II
II
II
tl
ti
I
II
!
II
il
I1
II
Il
II
II
II
II
II
"II
II
II
I1
II
O0 II O~ I01 ~
O0 O0 O0 000 ~
O0 II ~ I0! ~
~l II OI I01 /
~o ?? oo ?~?o,?
HO II II I01 I
O0 O0 O~ ~00 ~
O0 O~ O0 ~0 ~
O~ O~ ~ 0~0 ~
o, do oo ooo
O0 0 O~
~1 Im O~ 0~0
O0 O0 O~ ~00 ~
O0 O~ O~ ~00 ~
~ O~ ~ 0~0 ~
0 0 0 0 0 ,-I ~ 0 0 04
0 0 0 u~ 0 O0 ~. 0 0 CO
,,0 LC; 0 ~'~ ~'~ U~ 0 CO 0 CO
,". ~ ,-~ ~ 0
0 q}
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
216
0
0
~o~
o
ooooo? ?
00~ O0
0
0
December 19,
(Page 13)
1990
(Regular Night Meeting)
0
4..1
[-.-t
217
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 218
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA -90-11 and SP-90-68. Caleb Stowe (applicant);
EdnamHouse Limited Partnership (owner). (Deferred from November 28, 1990.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to defer this item
at the applicant's request to February 6, 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. 8. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Code of Albemarle, in Sections 8-23,
8-26(d)(e) and 8-27, Real Estate Tax Exemption for certain elderly and handi-
capped persons, to align it with the revised Code and economic changes to
increase the income allowance, increase the net worth allowance, and to allow
certain exclusions for the permanently disabled. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 4 and December 11, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said this ordinance is for the purpose of reflecting revisions
in State legislation and to increase the eligibility limits of the current
ordinance. The income allowance is proposed to increase from $12,000 to
$15,000 per year. The net worth allowance is increased from $55,000 to
$65,000. The amount of exemption from real estate taxes is set on a graduated
scale. Currently, no tax is paid wherean annual income is less than $8000.
The rate is graduated up to $12,000, at which point a 15 percent exemption is
given. This ordinance would change that scale so that the minimum income at
which no tax is paid is $10,000 instead of $8000, and the 85 percentile level
is $15,000 instead of $12,000. The proposed revisions to the ordinance would
provide an addition to the current ordinance that the first $7500 of income
can be excluded in the calculation of eligibility for the permanently dis-
abled. Albemarle County currently exempts $4000 for any relative living in
the dwelling, other than the spouse, for someone who qualifies for tax relief.
Mr. Agnor said there is a request from the Jefferson Area Board on Aging that
this amount be increased from $4000 to $6500, which is allowed in the State
Code. Mr. Agnor said that amendment can be made tonight without readvertisin
if the Board so chooses. The last addition to the current ordinance allows
for a total exemption of a relative's income who moves into the household to
care for the elderly or disabled owner after the owner has qualified for tax
exemption. Staff recommends that the Board consider the JABA request and
recox~ends adoption of the ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris asked what amount of tax loss would result from changing
the income level from $4000 to $6500. Mr. Agnor said staff was unable to
calculate the amount without knowing the number of people involved. Staff's
best guess is that the effect is minimal.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
There being no members of the public present to speak, the public
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Code
Albemarle, changing the amount in Sec. 8-23(a) from $4000 to $6500. 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 ordinance is set out in full below:)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article VII, Chapter 8, of the Code of Albemarle, is
hereby amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows:
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
219
Sec. 8-23. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this article shall,
for the purpose of this article, have the following respective mean-
ings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Net combined financial worth. All assets of the owners of the
dwelling who reside therein, and the owners relatives living in the
dwelling, including equitable interests, but excluding the value of
the dwelling and the land, not exceeding one acre, upon which it is
situated. The value of furniture, household appliances and other
items typically used in a home shall be excluded.
Permanently and totally disabled. A person is permanently and
totally disabled if he is so certified as prescribed by this article
and state law and is found by the director of finance to be unable to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity which can be
expected to result in death, or can be expected to last for the
duration of such person's life.
Taxable year. The calendar year for which the exemption is
claimed.
Total combined income. Gross income from all sources of the
owners of the dwelling residing therein and of the owner's relatives
living in the dwelling. The following amounts shall be excluded from
the calculation of gross income:
(a) The first sixty-five hundred dollars of income from each
relative, other than the owner's spouse, residing in the dwelling.
(b) The first seventy-five hundred dollars of income for an
owner who is permanently disabled.
(c) If a person has already qualified for exemption, and if the
person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person's
physical or mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only
alternative to permanently residing in a hospital, nursing home,
convalescent home or other facility for physical or mental care is to
have a relative move in and provide care for the person, and if a
relative does then move in for that purpose, none of the relative's
income shall be counted towards the income limit.
Sec. 8-24. Administration of article.
The exemption from real estate taxes for certain elderly and
handicapped persons shall be administered by the director of finance
according to the provisions of this article. The director of finance
is hereby authorized and empowered to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and
enforce such rules and regulations in conformance with the provisions
of this article, including the right to require answers under oath, as
may be reasonably necessary to determine eligibility for exemption.
The director of finance may also require the production of certified
tax returns and appraisal reports to establish total combined income
and net combined financial worth.
Sec. 8-25. Exemption--Generally.
There is hereby provided for owners and occupiers of real estate
in the county an exemption from taxation of such real estate or any
portion thereof, which is owned by, or occupied as a sole dwelling of
a person or persons not less than sixty-five years of age or deter-
mined to be permanently and totally disabled, subject to the restric-
tions and conditions prescribed by this article and state law.
Sec. 8-26. Same--Eligibility~ restrictions.
Exemption from real estate taxes permitted hereunder shall be
granted subject to the following restrictions and conditions:
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
220
(a) The head of the household occupying the dwelling and owning
title or partial title thereto shall have reached the age of sixty-
five years prior to the taxable year for which the exemption is
claimed, unless the head of the household is determined to be per-
manently and totally disabled as provided in subsection (b) of this
section. Whenever the spouse of the head of the household is also
joint owner and less than sixty-five years of age, eligibility shall
be determined as if the head of the household were the sole owner.
(b) The head of the household occupying the dwelling and owning
title or partial title thereto is determined to be permanently and
totally disabled. Such determination must be certified as required by
section 8-28(a). Further, the director of finance must find that such
person is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment or
deformity, which can be expected to result in death or can be expected
for the duration of such person's life.
(c) Title or partial title to the real estate for which the
exemption is claimed shall be owned on January 1 of the taxable year
by the person claiming such exemption.
(d) The total combined income shall not exceed fifteen thousand
dollars for the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year.
(e) The net combined financial worth shall not exceed sixty-five
thousand dollars as of December 31 of the calendar year immediately
preceding the taxable year.
(f) The person or persons claiming the exemption shall file the
affidavit required by this article no earlier than February 1, nor
later than May 1 of each taxable year.
Sec. 8-26.1. Same--Mobile homes; eligibility; restrictions.
For purposes of this article, mobile homes shall be real estate
if the owner's intention that it be permanently affixed is shown by
the facts that (a) it is located on land belonging in whole or in part
to the owner of the mobile home, his spouse, parent or child, and is
connected to permanent water and sewage lines or facilities; or (b)
whether or not it is located on land belonging to persons described in
subsection (a) of this section, it rests on a permanent foundation and
consists of two or more mobile units which are connected in such a
manner that they cannot be towed together on a highway, or consists of
a mobile unit and other connected rooms or additions which must be
removed before the mobile unit can be towed on a highway.
Sec. 8-27. Same--Calculation of amount; limitation.
For eligible claimants, the amount of exemption from real estate
tax for any taxable year shall be as follows:
Amount of Income
Percentage of real
estate tax to be paid
$0 but less than $10,000
At least $10,000 but less than $11,000
At least $11,000 but less than S12,000
At least $12,000 but less than $12,500
At least $12,500 but less than $13,000
At least $13,000 but less than $13,500
At least $13,500 but less than $14,000
At least $14,000 but less than $14,500
At least $14,500 but less than $15,000
0%
15%
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
75%
85%
Sec. 8-28. Procedure for filing claims.
(a) Annually and between February 1 and May 1 of each taxable
year for which the exemption is claimed, the person claiming the
exemption shall file with the director of finance, in such manner as
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
221
he shall prescribe, and on the forms to be supplied by the county, an
affidavit setting forth the names of the related persons occupying the
real estate for which the exemption is claimed, their total combined
income and their net combined financial worth. If such person is
under sixty-five years of age, such form shall have attached thereto a
certification by the Veteran's Administration or the Railroad Retire-
ment Board, or if such person is not eligible for certification by any
of these agencies, a sworn affidavit by two medical doctors licensed
to practice medicine in the state, to the effect that such person is
permanently and totally disabled, such that the person is unable to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity, which can be
expected to result in death or can be expected to last for the dura-
tion of such person's life. The affidavit of at least one of the
doctors shall be based upon a physical examination of the person by
such doctor. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon
medical information contained in the records of the Civil Service
Commission which is relevant to the standards for determining perm-
anent and total disability as defined in section 8-23. If, after
audit and investigation, the director of finance determines the
claimant to be eligible for the exemption from real estate taxes, he
shall certify the claimant's eligibility to the county tax assessor,
who shall exonerate the amount of the exemption from the real estate
tax liability of those persons entitled to the exemption.
(b) Persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes for
the first time may file after May 1, but before November 1 of the
taxable year in the manner set forth in subsection (a) of this sec-
tion. Further, in hardship cases, persons claiming the exemption from
real estate taxes may file after May 1, but before November 1 of the
taxable year in the same manner as set forth in subsection (a) of this
section. For purposes of this section, a hardship case shall include
only those cases in which the person claiming the exemption was
hospitalized or in a nursing home between February 1 and May 1 of the
taxable year, or similar situation which in the judgment of the
director of finance constitutes a hardship case justifying the exten-
sion of the filing period set forth in subsection (a) of this section
beyond May 1 of the taxable year.
Such exemption, if granted, shall be effective only for the
current year and shall not be retroactive in effect.
Sec. 8-29. Change in status.
Changes in respect to income, financial worth, ownership of
property or other factors occurring during the taxable year for which
the affidavit is filed, and having the effect of exceeding or vio-
lating the limitations and conditions provided herein, shall nullify
any exemption for the then current taxable year and the taxable year
immediately following; except, that a change in status due to the
death of a qualified spouse will result in a prorated exemption for
the eligible year.
Sec. 8-30. Violations.
Any person falsely claiming an exemption hereunder shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as provided in section 1-6.
FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective with the
1991 tax year.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Real Estate Tax Exemption for Moore
House Church of the Incarnation. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Decem-
ber 4 and December 11, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said that Moore House has requested tax exemption by designa-
tion which is a process that requires action by the General Assembly. The
General Assembly requires that the locality take action to support or refuse
to support such a request. The resolution requires a public hearing at which
the following questions are considered:
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 222
(Page 18)
1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to 501(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954;
Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving
alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board to such organization, for use on such property;
Whether any director or officer of the organization is paid compen-
sation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other
compensation for personal services which such director or officer
actually renders;
Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to
the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion
of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds
received from donations, contributions or local, state or federal
grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the
providing of personal services or the contribution of in-kind or
other material services;
Whether the organization provides services for the common good of
the public;
Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization
involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influ-
ence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or
intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate fo~
public office;
o
No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of the organization dis-
criminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex
national origin; and
Any other criteria, facts and circumstances which the governing
deems pertinent to the adoption of such resolution.
currently five organizations in the County are exempt by designation.
They are the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Posts of the American
Legion, Posts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Nature Conservancy and the
Senior Center. Mr. Agnor said that State Code requires that the resolution
contain the designation by which the property is to be considered tax exempt.
The proposed resolution shows the designation of benevolent organization for
tax exemption purposes.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Dick Gibson, representative of
Moore House, Bishop Sullivan and the Catholic Diocese of Virginia, came
forward to speak. Mr. Gibson said he recognizes that these are bleak
times. However, he is representing elderly people on fixed incomes. Mr.
Gibson pointed out that the Moore House project clearly meets the requirements
of the Code sections referred to by Mr. Agnor. He referred to a letter dated
September 12, 1990, from Ms. Ruth DePiro, President of Moore House, who
addressed each of the seven points cited by Mr. Agnor. He said the Moore
House continues to meet those requirements. He feels that Moore House is
truly a non-profit organization. None of its Board members receive any
compensation whatsoever. He pointed out that if this request is not granted
by the Board of Supervisors, the potential residents of Moore House will be
the ones who suffer and it is those people on whose behalf Mr. Gibson appears
He said other localities have supported identical projects sponsored by
Sullivan in Roanoke, Richmond and Virginia Beach. Mr. Gibson feels that
public sentiment favors this action because 85 percent of the voters wanted
tax relief for the elderly. With that background, he feels that this project
is worthy of the Board's support and those to be served in particular by
House are worthy of the Board's support.
Mr. Gibson said the average age of residents will be 83 years. He said
these residents will be frail and unable to live independently. They will
receive basic services consisting of room, one main meal per day, housekeep-
ing, laundry of bath and bed linen, transportation, security, emergency nurse
call and planned activities. Advance services include these in addition to
nursing and assistance with daily living. These residents are moderate and
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 223
(Page 19)
middle income older residents. Based on statistical information available
from other projects, 10 to 15 of the residents will be indigent. Forty to 50
percent of the nursing home beds will be occupied by residents having less
than $2000 in assets. Mr. Gibson said that 95 percent of the residents and
their families live within a ten-mile radius of the project. This is also
based on information from other projects in Virginia.
Mr. Gibson feels that approval of this request would not create a prece-
dent, a concern previously expressed by Board members. Moore House is not
just renting to elderly people on fixed or low incomes. Rather it provides
services as well as a place to live. Also, Moore House is a 501(c)(3) organ-
ization, a criteria which must be met before tax relief can be requested.
Therefore, every organization in the County which rents to elderly people is
not qualified under this federal exemption. As a 501(c)(3) organization,
Moore House is obligated to care for a resident once the resident is taken in,
regardless of the resident's future ability to pay. Mr. Gibson said that is
not the case in the private sector. He feels that Moore House resembles a tax
exempt hospital far more than it does an apartment building. Therefore, he
feels that the distinctions are such that a precedent is not set for tax
exemption by granting approval to Moore House. There is no other facility
currently in Albemarle County that is like Moore House.
Mr. Gibson said that Moore House will not be a burden on the County.
There will be no school children added to the school facilities. In addition,
Moore House expects to pay for its share of services provided by the County.
Mr. Gibson pointed out that Moore House is different from other applicants
having the same request. Moore House is seeking exemption prior to construc-
tion of the project because the exemption is needed to provide affordable
housing for the elderly. It is significant that Moore House does not require
an up-front fee. That is important because it allows residents to sign up for
as little as one month or as long as the rest of their lives, and residents
all pay on a monthly basis. There is no pre-paid life care plan required.
Neither does Moore House have a big endowment to rely upon. Therefore,
granting approval of this request does not set a precedent for other organiza-
tions renting to elderly people, nor for other organizations currently seeking
exemption.
Mr. Gibson said that Moore House has the support of the public. He
asked, with the Board's permission, that those present in support of the
application stand and be recognized. Mr. Gibson estimated there were about 50
people who stood. He asked that the Board make the holiday season special for
those supporting Moore House and for the potential residents by supporting the
application for real estate tax exemption.
Mr. Bowie asked if Moore House will keep a resident who signs up for one
month, goes broke and becomes terminally ill. Ms. Mary Ellen McNichols,
Management Agent for the Diocese of Richmond, said that Moore House will keep
such a resident on both legal and moral grounds. She said that a 501(c)(3)
organization must take care of residents who can no longer pay. That has
always been the Bishop's policy at his other facilities. She said such a
situation has happened at least five times, and those people are being cared
for. Ms. McNichols pointed out that although this project is referred to as
the Church of the Incarnation, it is actually sponsored by the three local
Catholic churches and is non-denominational in its admission policy. The
overwhelming number of residents are not Catholic, but are local residents.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there are any income restrictions for residents.
Ms. McNichols said there are no income restrictions whatsoever for admission.
She said no income information is requested and no screening is done. Moore
House does ask that someone who is indigent at the point of admission go
through the Department of Social Services for eligibility under the Optional
Auxiliary Grant Program. She said an average of 15 to 20 percent of the resi-
dents are on that program.
Mrs. Humphris asked what criteria is used to pritoritize admission. Ms.
McNichols said that generally 12 to 14 units out of 100 are reserved for
people eligible for Optional Auxiliary Grants. Ms. McNichols said that Moore
House works with the local Department of Social Services to process people
those units. Generally in 100 units, there are approximately 110 people. ThE
average age is 83 years, and 96 percent of the residents are widows.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
224
Mr. Way asked if staff is aware of a formula by which this type of
organization would pay for fire and police services. Mr. Agnor said that
staff is not familiar with such a formula. Mr. Gibson said there is a per-
centage in the statute which says that up to 20 percent of the tax amount
would be assessed to provide services. Based on experience in Roanoke, Moore
House has determined that five percent of the exempt taxes would be a fair
figure for the services used by the facility. Ms. McNichols said in other
localities as much as 20 percent has been paid.
Ms. Elizabeth Seabrook, Executive Director of the Senior Center serving
nearly 2200 members, said she has witnessed over and over again older people
moving from this community because of a lack of affordable retirement facili-
ties. She said the senior community is overjoyed at the prospect of Moore
House becoming a reality in Albemarle County. She said it gives folks in
their 70's and 80's a hope for a dignified, safe and secure setting and gives
them peace of mind at a cost that is affordable. A major factor is that ther,
is no entrance fee. By the Board approving this request, Moore House can
truly be more affordable. She asked the Board to give the elderly an oppor-
tunity to remain in this community.
Mr. A1 Johnson, also representing the Senior Center, said he appeared
before the Board previously in connection with a tax exemption request for the
Senior Center. Mr. Johnson said he has been working with the Senior Center
for 10 years and is very interested in the welfare of the older people. He
looks forward to the possibility of using this facility himself and changing
the ratio between men and women somewhat. Mr. Johnson said he supports the
points made tonight for Moore House and feels that the project is needed in
this area. He asked the Board to support the request.
There being no other members of the public to speak, the public hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked if staff knows the difference in the room rent amount
with or without a tax exemption. Mr. Agnor said staff does not know the
difference.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that all taxpayers have a responsibility fo]
educating the children. She is also concerned that if the resolution is
enacted, a blanket tax break is given regardless of need. She feels there
many people who try to continue living independently in the County, continuin
to pay taxes, but having no way to get tax relief.
Mr. Bowie asked what happens if there is no motion. Mr. Agnor said the
General Assembly requests a resolution supporting or refusing to support the
request. He feels that action should be taken one way or the other.
Mr. Bain said that Mr. Gibson is right that there will not necessarily
lots of other requests coming from other 501(c)(3) organizations as a result
of this request. However, he does share the concerns expressed by Mrs.
Humphris.
Mr. Way said he feels that this is a difficult question. He said the
General Assembly is asking the locality to decide which facilities serve a
clientele that is not as affluent as others. He feels that the Moore House
somewhat different than other organizations in terms of the kinds of people
who will be assisted. Therefore, he can support the request.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible for the Board to allow credit for
the indigent residents representing 10 percent of the total units. Mr. Bowie
said he is not sure this idea is legal and secondly, it would be hard to
administer.
Mr. St. John advised that the Board not spend time on that possibility
because the choice given by the Code is either tax exemption or total
non-exemption.
Mr. Gibson said the focus should be on the facility rather than the
residents because the facility is like a hospital. He said it is left to the
locality to determine how close a facility comes to a hospital, which does
meet the tax exemption criteria. This facility provides services and a place
to stay for people who need it, just like a hospital.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 225
(Page 21)
Mrs. Humphris said it is awful to feel like Scrooge at this time of year,
but in looking at issues of fairness to all of the elderly and limited and
moderate income people in the community, she cannot support the resolution.
There was no further discussion at this time. Motion was offered by Mr.
Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to deny the request by Moore House for real
estate tax exemption. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris.and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing:
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge.
on December 4 and December 11, 1990.)
Real Estate Tax Exemption for
(Advertised in the Daily Progress
Mr. Agnor said the same seven items for consideration in the previous
resolution must be considered in this request as well.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Rick Richmond, Chairman of the
Board of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, came forward to speak. Mr.
Richmond said he recognizes the hard decisions the Board must make. However,
he feels that the Board has missed the point tonight. The decision on real
estate tax exemption is being made based on the individuals in a specific
facility and whether or not the individuals in the facility are indigent. He
feels that if all the residents of Moore House were indigent, the Board would
have granted the exemption. Mr. Richmond said that is not how the Board
should view these projects. He said that is not what the charitable designa-
tion means. If individuals are considered rather than the facility, then no
hospital in this community would be tax exempt. Charitable refers to the
purpose of the organization and it does not refer to individuals on a one by
one basis. Mr. Richmond pointed out that Martha Jefferson Hospital is a
non-profit, charitable organization whose patients pay for services or not,
depending on whether an individual qualifies as an indigent. The fact that
some patients pay for services does not disqualify Martha Jefferson as a
charitable facility. Mr. Richmond said of the five organizations which have
been granted tax exemptions under the designation category, the closest
comparison is the Senior Center. Using the same argument on the Senior
Center, each member would have to be analyzed and qualify as indigent. Mr.
Richmond said that action would be discrimination in favor of the poor. He
said that is not the purpose of Moore House or of Westminster-Canterbury.
These residents do not own real estate in either facility. What is provided
is a charitable mission which includes residence, food, spiritual care and
health care. He feels that the entire mission of the organization is-what
General Assembly says qualifies it for charitable purposes. The General
Assembly has said that Westminster-Canterbury facilities in Richmond,
Lynchburg and Winchester qualify for real estate tax exemption. He said the
qualification is not based on an individual analysis of the individuals who
receive the care. Westminster-Canterbury hopes to have 20 percent of its
residents on fellowship support. This is the Christian mission behind the
entire project.
There being no other members of the public to speak to this issue, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Richmond added that Westminster-Canterbury has offered to pay approx-
imately $30,000 per year in user fees.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to deny the
request from Westminster-Canterbury for tax exemption. 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. 11. ZMA-89-23. River Heights Associates. Public
hearing on a request to rezone 9.0 acres from R-15 Residential & 5.55 acres
from Commercial Office to Highway Commercial (proffered). Property west &
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 226
(Page 22)
adjacent to Sheraton Hotel north of Hilton Heights Dr. Tax Map 45, Parcels
68D & 68D2. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 4 and December 11, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg handed out proffers submitted by the applicant dated
December 19, 1990, which he said primarily address items of public benefit
which are off-site. He said the Planning Commission has not considered the
new proffers. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that normally when new information is
submitted for an application after the Planning Commission hearing, the
application is returned to the Planning Commission for consideration. He said
the applicant has expressed a reluctance to have this application go back to
the Planning Commission due to time constraints. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out
that the proffers apply to off-site public projects and are not a part of the
application in terms of the development of the site. He said the Board will
need to decide whether this application should be returned to the Planning
Commission or whether it wishes to consider this application tonight.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proffers relating to the greenway areas and to the
Berkmar Drive construction south of theRio Hills Shopping Center were not part
of the Planning Commission discussions.
Mr. Bain said he feels that the Board could make a decision on this
application with or without the proffers because they do not relate to the
development. The developer sees these proffers as beneficial, but they do not
actually relate to the property. Normally, he feels that new information
should go back to the Planning Commission, but because all the proffers relate
to off-site items, he does not have a problem hearing the petition tonight.
There were no objections from other Board members.
Mr. St. John said there are three questions to consider. The first is
whether the request is in compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan. If
the Board decides that the request is not in compliance, then the Board must
decide whether to amend the Plan so that the request is in compliance. If the
Board amends 'the Comprehensive Plan, the rezoning request can be considered.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The site is mostly wooded. Areas of critical
slopes are present on the property. The area to be rezoned borders
Hilton Heights Road to the south and the Sheraton Hotel to the east.
Other properties in the immediate area are undeveloped. The water
treatment plant is located to the northwest of the site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone approxi-
mately 14.5 acres to allow for a 109,398 square foot retail building
served by 869 parking spaces. A 30,000 square foot building expansion
is shown on the plan. The applicant has submitted proffers.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff opinion is that this request is
inconsistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan for
this area and does not recommend amending the plan. Should the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors find this request con-
sistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and amend the plan,
staff recommends denial of the rezoning.
ISSUES ANALYSIS: The following issues have been identified by staff
as important to consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan and as particular considerations for this rezoning.
Traffic Impact: The applicant has prepared three traffic analy-
ses. The initial report was rejected. The second report was
reviewed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The
Department of Transportation rejected the second traffic analysis
and requested additional information. A subsequent study was
prepared which was reviewed by VDOT. Their comment is included
as Attachment B (on file).
This property has existing proffers which limit traffic volumes.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
227
This rezoning request encompasses all of Parcel A and a portion
of Parcel B. Based on the applicant's traffic study a total
generation of 14,538 vehicle trips per day could be generated
from parcels A & B. The Virginia Department of Transportation
has determined that substantial improvements are needed on
Berkmar Drive, Hilton Heights and Route 29 to accommodate this
development. The applicant has proffered to construct/install
the needed improvements.
The requested rezoning will result in an increase in total
traffic above the levels previously proffered. The previous
proffer on this and adjacent properties restricted traffic
volumes to 16,762 vehicle trips per day. According to the
applicant's traffic study, the traffic generated from these
parcels will be 19,223 vehicle trips per day or 2461 vehicle
trips per day higher than the proffered volumes.
The portion of traffic which will access Route 29 is 17,050
vehicle trips per day or an increase of 288 vehicle trips per day
over the previous proffer. It has been County policy since 1978
in rezonings on the Route 29 Corridor south of the South Fork
Rivanna River to not increase traffic volumes over that permitted
under the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal will result in a
slight increase in traffic on Route 29 when compared to existing
zoning. However, the total traffic volume from the site will
increase by 13 percent.
Visual Impact: The proposed development will be in an area which
is currently wooded. The site is elevated from Route 29 by
approximately 45 feet. The building type is a single story
structure of 109,398 square feet served by a large parking area
of 869 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated on the plan a
possible 30,000 square foot expansion. Due to the large bulk of
the building and its attendant parking its visibility will be
greater than a development of similar size constructed in several
smaller buildings or stair stepped into the natural slope of the
site. In addition the amount of parking provided exceeds the
amount required by 34% (This figure drops to 17 percent if the
30,000 square foot expansion is constructed). Therefore, visi-
bility of the site could be reduced by alternative methods of
development. Residential development may have a greater degree
of flexibility which may result in development which results in
less visual impact.
Impact of the proposed development to access and developability -
of the remaining residential area: This rezoning request would
reduce the available R-15 land by nine acres leaving approxi-
mately 20 acres of land zoned R-15. Of the land remaining for
residential use, a significant area of critical slopes exists on
the northern portion of the site which would preclude development
unless a waiver was granted. Other areas of critical slopes
exist on the residential land. Staff is unable to determine the
acreage which would be available to development. The applicant
has submitted a sketch showing a possible road alignment which
would provide access to the remaining residential land. Cur-
rently, CO zoning exists adjacent to the residential land.
Commercial Office zoning is intended as a buffer between
residential development and intense commercial development.
Approval of this request will remove the buffer between residen-
tial land and commercial land.
Site Suitability: Staff review of the proffered plan indicates
that a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is
required in order to allow for activities to occur on slopes of
25 percent or greater. The applicant has submitted a waiver
request which has been reviewed by the Engineering Department.
The applicant has stated that a significant portion of the
critical slopes are manmade.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
228
Staff does not agree with this statement as the majority of the
site is wooded with trees of substantial size. Development of
the site for either commercial or residential use may result in a
waiver request. Staff opinion is that a different method of
development may be possible which would result in development
that does not involve extensive grading and clearing of the site
(i.e., stair stepping development into the slope). The Engineer-
ing Department has reviewed this waiver request and does not
recommend approval of allowing activity on slopes of 25 percent
or greater. Therefore, staff does not recommend a waiver of
Section 4.2.3.2.
The proposed development will remove parking which is currently
used by the hotel. Staff review of the history files for the
hotel indicates that the parking spaces are required for the
hotel. The proposed development will have surplus parking which
may provide parking for the hotel. However, no direct pedestrian
access is proposed. In staff opinion, it is unlikely that
patrons of the hotel will use the Sam's Club parking area without
convenient access to the hotel.
In order to obtain an entrance to the residential residue,
approximately 20 feet of cut will be required. Without a rezon-
lng it may be possible to realign the entrance to a point where
excessive grading would not occur. Grading will also occur on
the residential property to allow for the proposed commercial
development. This will further reduce the area available for
residential use. This development proposes grading and develop-
ment within the required 20 foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to
residential property (reference Section 21.7.3). Disturbance of
the buffer requires a waiver by the Planning Commission.
Based on the analysis of the information available, the remaining
residential property will be encumbered by significant areas of
critical slopes as well as a steep and possibly costly entrance
road.
Comprehensive Plan: The applicant submitted a request to deter-
mine the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of this rezoning
request which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April
10, 1990, and deferred to May 15, 1990. Staff analysis is
included as Attachment G (on file). The primary purpose of that
review was a request for determination of the boundaries of
Residential and Commercial land uses. The applicant's position
was that the area proposed for rezoning was within the area
indicated for commercial use. The Commission rejected this
position and stated support for staff's analysis that the Compre-
hensive Plan reflected the existing zoning. The Commission
adopted a Resolution of Intent to study the Comprehensive Plan
amendment during review of this rezoning request.
Approval of this request would reduce the available High Density
Residential area by nine acres. This translates to a loss of 90
to 180 dwelling units. Past rezoning requests have resulted in a
loss of approximately 26.7 acres of residential land. During the
review of the Comprehensive Plan, a primary concern of the
Commission was to maintain the residential holding capacity of
the growth area. Particular effort was given to replacing
undevelopable areas of residential land (due to steep slopes and
flood plain) with developable areas in the urban area. Continued
incremental loss of residential areas, or under utilization of
recon~nended densities, will potentially create a need to expand
the growth areas to provide for such areas.
As presented earlier, the full impact of this proposal on the
developability of the remaining residential property is difficult
to assess. The entrance road to this residential residue pro-
posed by the applicant will provide a very steep entrance in a
large cut. A more reasonable entrance road for the residential
property may be feasible without this rezoning. The extent and
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
229
character of this development may discourage use of the remaining
residential areas due to traffic, noise, lighting and the general
commercial activities on the site. The development's proposed
grades are such that screening this site from any future residen-
tial development may be difficult, if not impossible.
The Comprehensive Plan, under Neighborhood One recommendations
states: "Further development plans along Route 29 North are to
be sensitive to its status as an entry corridor to the Urban
Area." Visibility from Route 29 will be largely unobstructed
due to topography. This property would be among the first
developed sites viewed by motorists reaching the urban areas from
the north. Screening measures may be possible, however, the
elevation differences between this site and Route 29 limit the
effectiveness of screening. The applicant has proffered compli-
ance with the entrance corridor district and limited the facade
of the building to split faced block.
Based on the above evaluation of loss of residential holding capacity,
impact on adjacent residential land and visual impacts, staff is
unable to recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to increase
the Regional Service Area and incorporate the proposed rezoning. If
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agree with the
staff's recommendation not to amend the Comprehensive Plan, then the
rezoning request would not be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan and should not be approved. However, should the Commission and
Board decide to amend the Comprehensive Plan to increase the Regional
Service Area, staff provides the following as regards the rezoning
request.
REZONING REQUEST: The applicant has submitted substantial proffers
regarding this development. Some of the proffers contain language
which may be ambiguous and staff will work with the applicant to
clarify the language. The substance of the proffers is acceptable and
in staff opinion only clarification is needed.
The applicant's proffers are intended to address needs of the trans-
portation network to insure adequate functioning of the transportation
network. With these improvements, the level of service should remain
acceptable. Additional proffers require compliance with the recently
adopted Entrance Corridor District. This proffer is intended to
soften the visual impact of the development. Regardless of the
appearance of the site, the adjacent residential land will be impact-
ed, which may reduce the desirability and/or density of development.
Proffers have also been submitted which will reduce the environmental
impact of the commercial site after development.
Staff has stated concerns in this report that the proposed development
involves extensive grading and clearing. Other methods of development
may reduce the amount of grading by working with the grade instead of
creating a large flat area for the building and parking. The proposed
commercial development will result in total clearing on the site.
Review of the proffered plan indicates that areas of cut of up to 23
feet are proposed. Fill areas of up to 55 feet are also proposed.
The Engineering Department has stated that velocity of stormwater will
be excessive and energy dissipaters will be necessary. Grading will
be necessary on the adjacent residential land in order to accommodate
the proposed development which will reduce the desirability of resi-
dential activity. Waivers are required for development on critical
slopes as well as disturbance of the 20 foot buffer. Staff opinion is
that this proposal represents overdevelopment of the site.
Review of the General Standards in the Comprehensive Plan encourage
sensitive development and compatibility of land uses. Those general
standards for Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources (page 74) which
apply are as follows:
Avoid road construction on slopes of 15 percent or more. Roads
should follow the natural topography in a manner to minimize
grading, cutting, and filling.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
230
In areas of 15 percent or more slope, maintain natural drainage
channels in their natural state and/or stabilize such channels to
protect the natural drainage systems from impact of development
activity.
Design public utility corridors to fit the topography. 'Straight
line' and 'up and over' alignment in areas sensitive to such
routing should not be permitted.
Adapt development to the topography and natural setting of the
County rather than modifying the topography and natural setting
to accommodate development. Excessive grading, cutting, and
filling should be discouraged while imaginative and sensitive
design should be encouraged.
The General Standard for Scenic Resources (page 84) which apply is:
When development occurs, retain trees on hillsides and ridge
lines for screening so as not to alter the visual character of
the ridges.
As a general standard for commercial land use the Comprehensive Plan
states:
Employ commercial office uses as transitional areas between
residential areas and heavier commercial or industrial
areas.
While the applicant's proffers seem to adequately address traffic
impact and, to some extent, visual and environmental impact, signifi-
cant concern remains regarding other issues. The residue residential
area will be difficult to access and more limited in its development
potential. Development of the commercial site will require extensive
grading and clearing due to the large building and parking area. The
development proposal is inconsistent with certain standards in the
Comprehensive Plan. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of
ZMA-89-23.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this request, staff recommends the acceptance of the appli-
cant's proffers with modifications."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the property on the map and said that the
applicant feels that everything on the east side of the extension of Berkmar
Drive to the South Fork Rivanna River is shown as Regional Service. Staff's
opinion based on the adopted Comprehensive Plan work sessions and on Table 47
on Page 164, is that all of the existing zoned area is intended to be included
in high density residential zoning. Therefore, a proposal for commercial use
would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Comprehensive Plan map is general in nature and may be considered inconclu-
sive. The Planning Commission supported staff's contention that the request
is not in compliance and recommended denial by a vote of three to two.
Mr. Cilimberg said the next point to be addressed is whether or not the
Board will amend the Comprehensive Plan Regional Service designation to
include the area requested in the rezoning. The Planning Commission voted
three to two against such an amendment and cited the loss of holding capacity
in the residential area, impact on adjacent property and the potential visual
impact of the development on the Route 29 corridor.
Mr. Cilimberg said the rezoning proposal is to allow 5.5 acres of commer-
cial and nine acres of residential to be zoned as highway commercial with
proffers. There are extensive proffers, including proffers handed out to-
night. The recommendation by the Planning Commission was denial of the
rezoning request by a vote of three to two.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the proffers include substantial transportation
improvements, and staff feels that the proffers address all the transportation
concerns related to the development. To some extent, the visual impact is
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 231
(Page 27)
addressed by the proffers in that certain styles and colors are proffered.
The apPlicant is proffering to submit his application to the Architectural
Review Board for compliance with the entrance corridor ordinance. Also,
landscaping on the fill slopes and other environmental concerns have been
addressed through proffers.
Staff's recommendation for denial is based on the scale of development on
15 acres. The building is in excess of 100,000 square feet with over 800
parking spaces. Staff is also concerned that rezoning would have a negative
impact on the residential area to the west. For these reasons, staff recom-
mended denial and the Planning Commission supported that recommendation by a
three to two vote.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that approval by the Board of the application would
require waivers of the Zoning Ordinance as discussed under "Site Suitability"
in the staff report.
Mr. St. John said he wants to clarify a matter for the record. He said
he is looking at a document on the wall labeled "Map 20, Urban Area Land Use
Neighborhoods 1 7", which is a page from the Comprehensive Plan. The color
code says that pink is Regional Service. Mr. St. John asked if it is staff's
position that the pink area is erroneously drawn on the map and is at odds
with the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said it is staff's
contention that the pink area is drawn in a general form to represent the area
of Regional Service along Route 29 North, with residential area to the west.
He said the pink area is not scaled to the actual zoning.
Mr. St. John said the pink area follows a dotted line which appears to be
an extension of the straight line of Berkmar Drive all the way to the Rivanna
River. Mr. St. John said if the Berkmar Drive line is extended to the River,
is it staff's contention that everything east of that extension is supposed to
be Regional Service. Mr. Cilimberg said the general depiction is that every-
thing to the east would be Regional Service and to the west would be high
density residential. The map is correct in a general sense and is supple-
mented by the text and Table 47 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. St. John asked if all the zoning in the proposed application is east
of the imaginary extension line of Berkmar Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said staff
feels that the property in question currently zoned CO is within the Regional
Service area. That imaginary line goes directly to the northeast. On the
west side, the residential corresponds with the R-15 zoning that is in place.
That is also what Table 47 represents.
Mr. Cilimberg said this was the point of much discussion at the Planning
Commission hearing. He said if the area between Route 29 and Route 659 on the
zoning map is scaled off and compared to this property, then staff's conten-
tion is clear. Mr. St. John said when looking at the map it appears that
everything east of the dotted line is regional service. Mr. Cilimberg said
the maps in the Comprehensive Plan are not intended to depict the scale of the
zoning. The are intended to depict the general intent of the zoning. He said
if there is a discrepancy in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not with the map.
There is no statement included in the text saying that the residential area as
depicted represents all current zoning. He said that statement was included
in other areas of the text. He feels that this issue is a matter of judgment
and is a difficult decision.
The public hearing was opened, and the applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, came
forward to speak. He said he knows he is right in this particular case and
that staff has made a mistake with regard to the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr.
Wood referred to a map on the wall prepared for the County by Roudabush, Gale
and Associates showing the new Berkmar Drive Extended as approved by the
County. He said he has superimposed his development plan on this approved map
of Berkmar Drive Extended and it shows that his proposed development is east
of Berkmar Extended. He pointed out that the existing Lowe's building, within
the Regional Service category, actually extends further back than the develop-
ment he is proposing.
Mr. Wood said the property was originally zoned R-3, which allowed for a
capacity of 2200 units. Today, the property is zoned for 450 units. He said
his rezoning request will be reducing the residential capacity by 90 units.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 232
(Page 28)
The County reduced the capacity through downzoning by 1750 units. He feels
that his request represents an insignificant loss of holding capacity compared
to past actions.
Mr. Wood said he feels that the property is clearly in the commercial
category. The map speaks for itself and the property in the highway commer-
cial area based on frontage off of Route 29. The text of the Comprehensive
Plan does not address an exception in this area and there is nothing to
support staff's contention. Mr. Wood pointed out that the Planning Commission
had a tie vote on the question of whether this is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The last time the Planning Commission considered this
matter, the vote was for denial by three to two. Mr. Wood feels that the
close vote in itself indicates some confusion, although he feels that the map
shows clearly that his proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding traffic impact, Mr. Wood said he did a traffic study that takes
in the area from Rio Road to the Sheraton Hotel. The study indicates that a
traffic light should be installed at the intersection of Route 29 and Hilton
Heights Road, He and Wal-Mart have agreed to install that light. By the year
2010, a second light will probably be needed and that cost is to be borne by
the developer. At the intersection of Route 29, a deceleration lane is
required and will be built and paid for at the expense of the developer. The
intersection at the back of the site requires a traffic light, and the devel-
oper has agreed to install that one. The total cost for the three traffic
lights is $300,000 and is being paid by the developer and not the taxpayers.
The traffic study at a cost of $16,000 was paid for by the developer in order
to get it done in a timely fashion. The results show a potential of an
additional 288 cars by the year 2010. He said staff agrees that the proffers
adequately address the traffic concerns.
Regarding visual impact, Mr. Wood said the developer has agreed to be
subject to recommendations of the Architectural Review Board, even though it
is not required because the project will be further than 500 feet from Route
29. He pointed out that the Sheraton Hotel is not visible travelling south on
Route 29 and this project is further back than the Sheraton. He said the
landscape plan is similar in density to that along Fashion Square Mall.
Regarding the impact on residential land, he does not believe there is an
impact. He owns the residential land and he will have to be the one to live
with any impact there may be. Mr. Wood said the Sheraton Hotel supports the
proposed plan and he is the only adjoining neighbor.
Regarding site suitability, Mr. Wood handed out photographs depicting the
slope that will be on this property. He said the engineer will address cut
and fill on the slopes. The Comprehensive Plan states that the west side of
Route 29 is the only area designated for regional development. Regional
development is classified as having a building greater than 60,000 square
feet. Mr. Wood said his development cannot be put on the east side of Route
29.
Mr. Wood said this development does not take parking from the Sheraton
Hotel. The Sheraton and the proposed project will share parking facilities.
The Hotel has asked that the parking lot in the rear of the Sheraton be
screened and fenced to prevent entrance through the rear of the building for
security reasons.
Mr. Wood said the property is virtually surrounded by highway commercial.
Therefore, the request is a natural continuation of the existing highway
commercial. He pointed out how the property can be developed by-right with a
six-story, 120,000 square feet office building. He feels that the visual
impact of by-right development would be greater tha,m what he is proposing.
Mr. Wood pointed out that the plans for the road require a 22-foot cut to meet
State Highway Department standards. He said the other cuts on this site are
no greater than 22 feet. He said the engineer would also address this matter.
Mr. Wood then addressed the additional proffers submitted tonight. He
said he is proffering two parcels totalling over a mile of road frontage for a
greenway. He is proffering $25,000 toward the cost of building trails along
the greenway. He has agreed to provide whatever additional fill may be
required by YDoT to build Berkmar Drive Extended. He said these proffers
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 233
(Page 29)
total over $1.6 million in off-site costs with which Albemarle County will not
be burdened.
Mr. St. John asked where the public access is to the greenway. Mr. Wood
said that he will give it anywhere the County wants it. Mr. Cilimberg said
the County will work with Mr. Wood to obtain the most feasible access.
Mr. Tom Muncaster, local engineer, said he wants to address the impact on
the residential area. As stated by staff, in order to obtain an entrance to
the residential residue, approximately 20 feet of cut will be required. That
is almost the same amount of cut required for Berkmar Drive without a rezon-
ing. Staff feels that there might be a way to access the residential area
without this cut if there is no rezoning request. Mr. Muncaster said that is
true, but the alternative to a large cut is a large fill on 25 percent slopes.
He said access to the residential area is dictated by Berkmar Drive and its
connection to Route 29, and not by this rezoning request. Regarding site
suitability, Mr. Muncaster feels that a significant portion of the slopes are
man-made, and staff disagrees with that. However, staff agrees that approxi-
mately 25 percent of the slopes are man-made. He feels that the intent of
Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is that by limiting construction on 25
percent slopes, the potential deleterious effects may be circumvented. The
concerns expressed in the ordinance relate to this project as follows:
1. The increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. Slopes of up
to 50 percent are standard in construction of this sort and are the
accepted maximum for erosion control measures requiring embankments found
in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as well as cut and
fill slopes for YDoT roadways. The control of soil erosion and sedimen-
tation is a primary concern for this development and the recommended
measures are carefully installed and closely inspected for integrity.
Pursuant to County policies, erosion and. sedimentation controls will be
maintained and bonded until stabilization has been assured as determined
by the Albemarle County Department of Engineering.
2. Water pollution. Because of the urban location and characteristics of
this site, the increased potential for water pollution associated with
steep slopes will not be affected by construction on 25 percent slopes.
Regarding water pollution in general, the applicant has proffered to
vacuum sweep the parking lots both for this site and the Wal-Mart site.
Septic disposal problems. As public sewer will be utilized, this is not
applicable for this site.
Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock. The extent and
location of grading indicates that final stabilization of the 2:1 slope
with retaining walls should pose no problem in regard to large scale soil
and rock movement.
Excessive stormwater run-off. The drainage system will be designed to
prevent excessive storm water run-off in accordance with the County's
storm water management policies. The amount of stormwater run-off, if
the site is developed as currently zoned will be virtually the same as
this proposal. Areas in 25 percent slopes will be graded to 2.5 percent
slopes.
Loss of aesthetic resource. There is no way that the areas currently in
25 percent slopes can be considered an aesthetic resource. Most of the
25 percent slopes are on land which is currently zoned R-15. If the land
is developed as currently zoned, grading will be necessary on 25 percent
slopes. Section 4.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provides
for public protection from the adverse effects of construction on 25
percent or greater slopes.
Mr. Muncaster said that construction consisting of sound engineering and
design practices on this site will not create the deleterious effects possible
by construction on steeply sloping land. Waiver requests on critical slopes
have been supported previously, provided that such modification is consistent
with sound engineering and design practice and that the public interest and
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be served to at least an equivalent
degree by such modification. He feels the proposed construction will serve
the public interest by connecting Berkmar Drive to Hilton Heights Road.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 234
(Page 30)
The Engineering Department has stated that the velocity of stormwater
will be excessive as it flows down the pipes. However, the Engineering
Department has agreed that it is possible to slow down the stormwater by
flattening the pipes before they discharge, and then discharging to a riprap
channel. Mr. Muncaster said the applicant is proffering such a method of
discharge with approval by the Engineering Department.
Regarding economic impacts, Mr. Muncaster said a previous study by the
Piedmont Environmental Council states that for every dollar collected from
residential land, $1.16 is spent on County services. For every dollar col-
lected from industrial and commercial land, $0.48 is spent on services.
Therefore, leaving the current zoning in place will eventually cost the County
money. He said that the Wal-Mart project previously approved together with
the project proposed will provide the County with over $120,000 per year in
property taxes and $800,000 per year is the County's projected share of sales
tax revenue. Many of these dollars currently go to other parts of the state.
Add to that 375 jobs, and there is a substantial economic impact fr'om this
development.
Mr. Bain asked how the applicant plans to prevent fill in the flood
plain, or if it can be prevented. Mr. Muncaster said staff is concerned about
the velocity in the pipes going down the 50 percent slopes to the River. He
said the pipe can be flattened at the bottom to slow the velocity of the
water. Mr. Muncaster said he experimented with collecting stormwater from the
site to determine what kind of channel is necessary at discharge. He found
that a 15-foot wide riprap channel slows the velocity down to one to two feet
per second. Normally, four feet per second is considered erosive.
Mr. Bain asked the length of the riprap channel. Mr. Muncaster said he
thinks it will be about 50 to 70 feet in length. He said the Engineering
Department agreed that this design will work, and that is why he proffered it
with Engineering Department approval.
Mr. Mike Davis with Wal-Mart stores in Bentonville, Arkansas, said he
brings greetings from Sam Walton and 300,000 Wal-Mart employees. He explained
that the proposal is for a Sam's Wholesale Club, a retail store operated by
Wal-Mart. Both are the leaders in their field in terms of discount stores and
wholesale clubs. Mr. Davis said the customers for Sam's Wholesale Club are
business owners or operators. He said the product, price and service offered
by his organization makes them different from any other. He said the lowest
price in the community is guaranteed. Business owners may buy a membership in
Sam's Wholesale Club for $25 per year. Mr. Davis said his organization
intends to be a part of the community and is active in community services such
as offering scholarships, donations to charities and through recycling
efforts.
Regarding the size of the parking lot, Mr. Davis said it is necessary to
accommodate the customers. He noted that the lot is not to accommodate large
trucks parking there. He pointed out that the loading docks are screened from
the residential area.
Mr. Davis said it is important that the two stores be together. He said
this location is the first available one on Route 29. In order to be competi-
tive, Wal-Mart feels that the Sam's Wholesale Club will draw business.
Mr. Jim Cannon, resident of Ivy, said he is speaking as a resident
involved in community services. In the past four years he has had the oppor-
tunity to observe Wal-Mart and Sam's Warehouse in other areas. He feels as a
resident of this community who is interested in keeping a civic perspective,
that this organization is worthwhile for this community. This organization
has consistently been the leading supporter of the Children's Miracle Network
telethon raising funds for children's health care. He said the community can
expect the organization to be attuned to the local community through scholar-
ships for youth and providing fund-raising sites for various causes. He has
seen the positive impact in other communities and urged the Board to give
consideration to the unique aspects of this organization trying to locate
here.
There being no other members of the public present to address this issue,
the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
235
At 10:00 P,M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:15 P.M.
Mr. Bowerman said the first question is whether the application is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. As a member of the Planning Commis-
sion for ten years, Mr. Bowerman said it was clear to him that Berkmar Drive
Extended was intended to be the delineation point between the residential and
commercial activities to the point where Berkmar Drive Extended terminated.
He said staff is correct that the identification of the existing zoning refers
to R-15. However, his understanding is that everything between the SPCA Road
and Berkmar Drive is residential; everything between Berkmar Drive and Route
29 is commercial. On the question of compliance, he feels that the applica-
tion does not require, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in order for the
Board to review the rezoning request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Way that the River
Heights application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bain said it is a close issue. The Comprehensive Plan is general in
nature and he does not remember specifically discussing the Berkmar Drive
Extension. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion because of the general
nature of the map and because he does not think the application changes the
overall concept of zoning in the urban area.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bain asked if staff has had time to carefully consider the proffers
delivered today. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has looked as carefully as possible
within the two days the proffers were available.
Mr. Bain asked-if the County Attorney feels that any further time should
be taken in considering the language of the proffers. Mr. St. John said there
have been discussions to clarify the proffers as presented. If there are any
changes to be suggested, they should be made tonight.
Mr. Bowerman asked the relationship between the proffers and the re~oning
request since these are off-site proffers. Mr. St. John said if the Board is
asking if the proffers can be legally accepted, the Code requires that the
proffers must reasonably relate to the rezoning request. He said he has
carefully examined the proffers, and in his opinion, the proffers do comply
with that statute, can be legally accepted, and he can give a rationale for
that opinion.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the proffers do not contain a sunset
clause. However, under the existing language, no building permit to implement
any of this zoning can be obtained until the proffers are complied with. The
standard sunset clause says that if the zoning is not implemented and the
owner makes no move to utilize the zoning or give the County the deed to the
greenway, or to stockpile the dirt, or to pay the $25,000, in ten years the
owner waives his vested right. Such a clause is not contained in this
request. He feels that the fact that the developer could not utilize the
zoning without simultaneously performing all of the proffers is an adequate
substitute or the next best thing to a sunset clause. He said the applicant
has not agreed to a sunset clause for that very reason.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Proffer No. C in the letter dated December
19, 1990, have the words, "Upon demand of Albemarle County" added at the
beginning of the sentence. Mr. Wood indicated that he would have no problem
adding that phrase. Secondly, Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Proffer No. G in
the same letter be clarified that the $25,000 contribution is to be made at
the time of building permit issuance.
Mr. WOod said he agrees to the wording of the two changes suggested by
Mr. Cilimberg. He is also willing to insert a ten-year clause that the zoning
will revert back if he does not utilize his zoning. Mr. St. John said if
substantial performance of the proffers does not take place within ten years,
then there would no longer be a vested right by the applicant to the continua-
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
236
tion of the zoning. Mr. Wood said he has no problem putting the ten-year time
frame on this development.
Mr. St. John explained that the reason for the sunset clause is that the
statute says that once a proffer is made and accepted by the County within a
rezoning procedure, then the zoning becomes a vested right in the applicant.
No future Board could change the zoning, even if there were a change in
circumstances. The reason is that the proffers contain something of value to
the County which gives the applicant a vested right. If the applicant does
not deliver the proffers within ten years, the County does not have the
benefit of the proffers and the applicant no longer has the benefit of the
vested zoning.
Mr. Wood said he understands that if he does not build this project for
ten years, then he has no vested right in this zoning, and it may or may not
be taken away. Mr. St. John said that is correct. He said if Mr. Wood agrees
to that on the record, that is as good as putting the proffer in writing. Mr.
Wood said he agrees to that proffer.
Mrs. Humphris said the environmental issues are tremendous and have not
been discussed by the Board. She said there is cutting and filling to allow
the building to be placed on this site. She feels the building is not suit-
able for the site. It is overdevelopment of a site adjoining the River. She
said the cuts are up to 23 feet and fill up to 55 feet. The residential area
will be encumbered with a difficult entry road as well as leaving critical
slopes there. She said there is much construction activity taking place on
slopes of 25 percent or greater for which staff is recommending denial of
waivers. She said there is extensive grading and clearing. If this area were
used for some other type of activity, the building could be set into the slope
and the slope not leveled down to suit the project. She feels there will be a
tremendous visual impact and 13 percent more traffic under this use. Another
thing is that the previous proffers on this land said there would not be above
a certain level of traffic. If this Board accepts these proffers, does that
mean the next Board could accept opposing proffers? She asked if there is a
guarantee that the traffic lights will be built. She feels that this is not
the best use of this particular property because of the amount of critical
slopes and the proximity to the River. She said a building this size and a
parking lot this size together create a huge run-off problem. She is not sure
that the stormwater run-off is handled as it needs to be.
Mr. Bowerman said the proffers were offered on the adjacent parcels a
year ago because VDoT required the applicant to build Hilton Drive to a
certain standard. In order to set the design standard, the full traffic
generation had to be determined. It was determined as the best guess at what
each parcel could potentially generate. The road was then sized to that
standard. Mr. Bowerman said the proffer was not based upon a development plan
at that time. He said he has had a difficult time with this application. He
is concerned about the size of the facility in that location. However, being
a practical person, he feels that there must be some alternative access to
Route 29. The traffic generation from a development like this is not going to
be much greater than other types of commercial or residential development.
The difference is that in this case it is one organization. In this case, the
County has $1.6 million in proffers for improvements to Berkmar Drive, im-
provements to Route 29 and for the construction of the County portion of
Berkmar Drive between the new urban area elementary school and Rio Hills. He
feels there are benefits for the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman
agreed that there are visibility problems connected with this development.
However, he feels that the applicant's willingness to use the architectural
review standards for this site will help make this site as attractive as
possible. He feels there is an intent on the part of the applicant to keep
the site from being as objectionable as possible and that the applicant has
made quite an effort to mitigate that problem. The visual impact would be
great if the site were developed as zoned, and the County would not have as
much control over the visual impact as it will during site plan review on this
development. Finally, Mr. Bowerman said this type of project has many bene-
fits for those living in the urban area, although it will result in additional
traffic 'and less green space. The applicant's proffer for 100 feet along the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir serves to provide the urban area with a recrea-
tional outlet and meets a goal of the Board with regard to the greenway. Mr.
Bowerman noted that this is not an easement, but is to be in the form of a
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
237
deed made out to the County. He feels that this application offers substan-
tial benefits which this Board should not overlook. He said the Planning
Commission had a split decision on this request, without the additional
proffers. To him, the benefits the community will derive from the additional
proffers will outWeigh the detrimental impactof a large development like
this. Therefore, he will support the request.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Perkins to
approve ZMA-89-23 as presented tonight, with the additional profferssubmitted
in a letter dated December 19, 1990, signed by Mr. Wendell W. Wood, with the
two changes read into the record by Mr. Cilimberg dealing with Proffers No. C
and No. G, including the proffer made by the applicant tonight regarding the
sunset clause and including the proffers made in a letter dated December 4,
1990, signed by Mr. W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman. Heis not
as concerned about the traffic problems because staff has agreed that the
proffers adequately address those. He is very concerned about the environ-
mental impact, given the size of the building and of the parking lot and the
steepness of the land. Whatever development goes there, it will involve
cutting and filling. Even if the land is developed under R-15, the roads will
take a great deal of cutting and filling and changing the environment in a big
way. He is concerned about waivers, but feels they will be necessary for any
development on this property. Therefore, he can support the application.
Mr. Bain noted that run-off control is a site plan issue; however, for
the record, he will not support a future request impacting the River itself.
The run-off must be controlled on this site without impacting the River.
Mrs. Humphris said the applicant mentioned creating 375 new jobs as a
positive aspect of this application. However, given the low unemployment rate
in this area, 375 new jobs will bring people into the community who will cost
the County money. She added that she is pleased with the proffers for the
green space, although she intends to vote against the application.
Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney if he is comfortable with the wording
of the proffers. Mr. St. John said he does not think the proffers need to be
scrutinized any further. Mr. Bain noted that Proffer No. F makes a broad
statement, and he again asked the County Attorney for his comments. Mr. St.
John said the proffer has no limit and is not intended to have any limit.
Therefore, whatever VDoT requires, that is what the proffer agrees to supply.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the proffer for traffic lights is handled admin-
istratively with regard to fiscal responsibility. Mr. St. John said there is
an agreement drafted by the Wal-Mart lawyer which will secure this light.
This separate agreement is recorded in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Cilimberg said
the light at Hilton Heights Drive and the entrance to the Sheraton is under
'the agreement referred to by Mr. St. John. The light at Woodbrook and Berkmar
would have to be covered by a bond or an agreement. Mrs. Humphris said she
wants to be sure the bond is an amount that will ensure that the County does
not have to pay an amount in excess of the bond in the event that performance
of the proffer does not take place. Mr. St. John said that is difficult to
absolutely assure forever because the timing of the traffic light is up to the
Department of Highways. He said a time limit is estimated in the agreement.
There was no further discussion of this item. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris.
(The proffers are set out in full below.)
The plan prepared by Freeland-Clinkscales & Associates, Inc.,
dated 3/29/90 is proffered as a conceptual site plan. The
applicant recognizes that revisions will be necessary in order to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Those items which will require revision include, but are not
limited to: slope of entrance, slope of parking areas, landscap-
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
238
lng areas and the re-design of the parking layout to provide
ninety degree parking instead of angled parking.
The following transportation improvements will be completed as
part of the Wal-Mart site plan, but are also proffered with this
rezoning in the event that this site develops prior to Wal-Mart:
-dual left turn lanes eastbound from Hilton Drive to Route 29 northbound.
-traffic light at the intersection of Route 29 and Hilton Drive.-dual left turn lanes northbound on Route 29 into Hilton Drive.-construct Hilton Drive extended and Berkmar Drive to VDoT stan-
dards between points A and B as proffered on ZMA-85-35, May 23,
1986.
-traffic light at the Wal-Mart entrance on Hilton Drive.
A traffic light to be installed by the developer at the inter-
section of Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive when deemed neces-
sary by VDoT is proffered.
In response to concerns regarding visual quality, it is proffered
to use a quality split-faced block exterior instead of sheet
metal, to plant junipers or other suitable materials on the fill
slopes adjacent to roads and to make the design subject to the
entrance corridor district and the architectural review board.
In recognition of environmental concerns the following is prof-
fered:
Discharge stormwater to a rip-rap channel, flat and wide
enough to prevent any scouring or erosion as approved by the
Engineering Department.
Vacuum sweep the parking area twice per week to mitigate
pollutants in the run-off. This proffer also will apply to
the Wal-Mart site.
Upon demand of Albemarle County, River Heights Associates hereby
agrees to deed a 100 foot deep strip or that area necessary to
provide for a pathway, whichever is greater, along its entire
reservoir frontage on Tax Map 45, Parcel 69. River Heights
Associates further agrees to provide public access to the deeded
area of Tax Map 45, Parcel 69.
Upon demand of Albemarle County, Z & S Development Corporation
hereby agrees to deed a 100 foot deep strip or that area neces-
sary to provide for a pathway, whichever is greater, along its
entire reservoir frontage on Tax Map 45, Parcel 30.
Upon demand of Albemarle County, River Heights Associates would
also provide an easement sufficient for a pathway along its
Rivanna River frontage on Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D.
As allowable under the provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances, all development rights and density of
the greenway areas shall inure to the residue parcels.
10. Ail of the above referenced proffered land shall be used by the
County of Albemarle as part of its greenway system.
11.
United Land COrporation and River Heights Associates agree to
deliver all import fill dirt necessary to build Berkmar Drive
Extended from Rio Road to its connection behind Rio Hills Shop-
ping Center. If Virginia Department of Transportation should
make changes which require additional fill, this will also be
provided. In the event the Berkmar Drive site is not ready for
construction during the building phase for Sam's Wholesale Club,
the County may provide a storage area to stockpile the fill
material. This proffer would expire if the County does not
provide a stockpile area within the time frame of the Sam's
construction.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
239
12. Upon issuance of a building permit on Tax Map 45, Parcels 68D and
68D2, Wendell W. Wood agrees to contribute $25,000 for the
construction of the jogging/walking trails on Tax Map 45, parcels
30, 69 and 68D or for construction of like projects in the county
Capital Improvement Program.
13. If there is not substantial performance of the above proffers
within 10 years of the date of approval of this application, the
applicant waives the vested zoning rights under Code Section
15.1-491.2 and 15.1-491.2:1, given by approval of this applica-
tion.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-90-96. Allen Cutright. Public hearing on a
request for a Home Occupation Class B to operate a custom shutter repair &
building shop in an accessory structure on four acres zoned Rural Areas.
Property on west side of Rt 708 approx 6/10 mi west of Rt 29. Tax Map 88,
Parcel 6B. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 4 and December 11, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The site is currently developed with a
single- family .dwelling and accessory structure. The site is wooded.
Other dwellings are located in vicinity to this property. A dwelling
located on the property to the north is approximately 200 feet dis-
tant. Property to the north is in an agricultural/forestal district.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant builds and repairs shutters in
the accessory structure. No employees are proposed. A majority of
the work will occur on the weekends with weekday work occurring in the
evenings and consisting of assembly which does not involve the running
of power tools. Materials will be delivered by a large truck approxi-
mately once a year. The applicant does not propose on-site sales.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The general intent of the Comprehensive Plan is
to discourage development in the Rural Areas which is not directly
related to bona fide agricultural forestal uses.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: One letter of objection has been received
regarding this petition. This letter sites concerns about noise which
may be generated from the site. The objecting landowner's dwellings
are located to the south of this site. The proposed use will occur in
an accessory structure located on the northern end of the applicant's
property. Due to the distance to dwellings and the fact that tools
used are enclosed in a building, noise should not be a detriment to
adjacent properties. In addition, Section 5.2.2.1(e) requires that
home occupations comply with the performance standards set forth in
Section 4.14.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that the exiSting
entrance does not have the minimum required sight distance for a
private entrance, 250 feet. To obtain the required sight distance a
bank must be graded and trees removed. The Virginia Department of
Transportation is unsure as to whether the required improvements can
occur within the right-of-way. If an easement is needed, it would be
across land owned by the individual objecting to this application. It
may be possible for the applicant to relocate his entrance so that the
necessary sight distance can be obtained without a sight easement.
Staff will recommend that the entrance be upgraded in order to obtain
a minimum of 250 of sight distance or that the entrance be relocated
to a point where 250 feet of sight distance can be obtained.
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with Section 5.2 and.
is not contrary to the intent of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Compliance with Section 4.14;
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 240
(Page 36)
2. Upgrading of the existing entrance so that 250 feet of sight
distance is obtained or relocation of the entrance to a point
where 250 feet of sight distance may be obtained;
3. No on-site sales;
4. No employees.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 4,
1990, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions set out
above. He then handed out an addition to the staff report in which a change
to Condition No. 2 is recommended as follows:
"ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant has submitted information from
the Police Department indicating that noise will not be above 45 Db
(County Code violation level is 65 Db). The applicant has obtained an
agreement from an adjacent property owner to use an entrance which has
250 feet of sight distance. This entrance will be used for the
delivery of materials only. The existing residential entrance will
remain. Staff recommends that the existing entrance be allowed to
remain in use and the alternative entrance (with adequate sight
distance) be used for deliveries only. Staff recox~ends modification
of condition 2 to read:
Upgrading or relocation of the existing entrance so that 250 feet
of sight distance is obtained; or, retain existing entrance for
residential purposes only and use existing entrance on adjacent
property, Tax Map 88, Parcel 6A, with 250 feet of sight distance
for home occupation uses only."
Mr. Cilimberg said a letter dated December 3, 1990, from Sara J. and
James G. White, neighboring landowners, offers to give Allen Cutright permis-
sion to use their driveway as needed to correspond with the change in Condi-
tion No'. 2.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is possible to grant a special use permit on a
temporary basis as suggested in the letter from Mr. Ronald Cutright who
opposes the application. Mr. Cilimberg said home occupation permits have been
issued on a temporary basis, although he cannot recall a specific example.
The public hearing was opened, and the applicant had nothing to add to
the staff report. There were no other members of the public present to speak,
and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve
SP-90-96, with the conditions 1, 3 and 4 recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion, and Condition No. 2 as read into the record by Mr. Cilimberg.
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 as follows:)
Compliance with Section 4.14;
Upgrading or relocation of the existing entrance so that 250 feet of
sight distance is obtained; or, retain existing entrance for resi-
dential purposes only and use existing entrance on adjacent proper-
ty, Tax Map 88, Parcel 6A, with 250 feet of sight distance for home
occupation uses only;
3. No on-site sales;
4. No employees.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 241
(Page 37)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-90-98. Charlottesville Cellular Partnership.
Public hearing on a request to construct a tower & equipment bldg for cellular
telephone transmission/reception on part of a 30.519 acres parcel zoned Rural
Areas. Property on southeast side of Rt 600 approx 2 mi southeast of Rt 641
near Rt 29. Tax Map 33, Parcel 12. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 4 and December 11, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The area is a mixture of wooded and cleared
land. The proposed tower is to be located in a cleared portion of the
property. No dwellings are adjacent to the proposed tower location.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 300
foot telephone communications tower and a 12 by 20 foot equipment
building. A more complete description of the project has been sub-
mitted by the applicant. The proposed tower is to be located as shown
on the attached plan (on file). The applicant has stated that it is
likely that the tower will be lighted. This proposal is intended to
provide improved cellular telephone service to the northern portion of
Albemarle County.
BACKGROUND: New modes of radio-wave communication, combined with the
physiography of Albemarle County have resulted in numerous requests
for transmission/reception tower locations. In response, the County
has attempted to confine broadcast towers to clusters or 'tower
farms' In an effort to reduce the total number of new towers, the
County has recently encouraged tower design to accommodate additional
(future) users.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to 'Dis-
courage rural residential development other than dwellings related to
a bona fide agricultural/forestal Use'. While this use is not resi-
dential development, it does represent development, which is generally
discouraged. A stated objective of the Comprehensive Plan is 'main-
tain cooperative planning efforts between the County and other
non-public utilities which provide essential services, such as tele-
phone, electric, and natural gas utilities, to ensure the adequate
provision of these services to support existing and anticipated
development in the County. Private utilities provide essential
services to the County. The most important of these are electric,
telephone, and natural gas services'
The proposed tower would improve cellular telephone service in the
County.
A stated design standard is 'design public utility corridors to fit
the topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities, when pos-
sible. Distribution lines should be placed underground'
While this tower does not represent a corridor, the general intent of
this statement is to consolidate locations required to provide public
utility services.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant has attempted to locate on
other towers that would serve the proposed service area. The existing
microwave tower owned by the NorfOlk and Southern Railway is approxi-
mately 3/4 mile from the site. However, the applicant states that it
is the policy of the Norfolk and Southern Railway not to accommodate
multiple users on their towers. Staff has been unable to indepen-
dently confirm this policy. Exishing towers located in Greene County
are too distant to serve the proposed service area adequately.
The applicant did submit a request for a tower site on Piney Mountain.
However, that request was withdrawn by the applicant due to possible
conflicts with the operations of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Air-
port.
Under SP-88-14, WCYE-TV and SP-90-66, Centel Cellular, towers were
designed to accommodate other users. SP-90-74, Charlottesville Cellu-
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 242
(Page 38)
lar, was approved by the Board of Supervisors without a requirement
that the tower be designed for additional users. However, that tower
was to be located in close proximity to existing towers and was
therefore part of a cluster or 'tower farm' and was relatively short
in height. The proposed tower will not be designed to accommodate
other users and would be on an independent site. The closest existing
tower is the Norfolk and Southern Railway tower which is located 3/4
of a mile from this site.
Staff opinion is that this request poses several policy issues that
need to be revisited by the Planning Commission and Board of Super-
visors:
Under SP-88-14, WCVE-TV, the tower was 'engineered to accommodate
nine, 10 feet micro-wave dishes and two FM antennae (with possi-
ble combinations to include land-mobile and common carrier use
such as paging, two-way radio and cellar telephone uses).' One
additional user has located on that tower. It should be noted
that television broadcast towers are generally and comparatively
more substantial structures. Under SP-90-66, Centel Cellular,
was required as a part of its lease agreement to design its
tower to accommodate a Virginia Tech FM broadcast antennae;
In a similar manner, the County has required that bridges and
other flood plain crossing be made available to additional users;
In the specific case of Charlottesville Cellular, staff does not
know as of this writing if additional users could be accommodated
with slight, or no tower redesign or whether wholesale redesign
would be necessary and additional costs incurred. Should the
Planning Commission and Board determine that the tower be made
available for additional usage, staff recommends the following be
added as Condition 6:
6. Staff approval of additional (future) antennae installation.
The County has received numerous requests for transmission/
reception tower locations. The County has attempted to confine
broadcast towers to clusters or 'tower farms'. This request
represents a stand-alone tower designed for a single user.
Staff is currently reviewing a special use permit for Rappahannock
Electric Cooperative (SP-90-99). The proposed transmission line will
cross this site. Rappahannock Electric has prepared alternative
routes which will avoid this tower.
The entrance to this site will provide access to three parcels.
Therefore, staff recommends that a commercial entrance be installed in
accordance with VDOT comments. Attachment C (on file) is the appli-
cant's submittal entitled 'Summary of Information', which is presented
in the form of a planning staff report.
The issues for policy determination outlined by staff must be ad-
dressed in order to ensure compliance with the criteria for the
issuance of a special use permit found in Section 31.2.4.1.
Staff offers the following comments which are favorable to this
request:
Approval of this request would improve cellular telephone service
in the County. Provision of adequate utilities is supported by
the Comprehensive Plan as discussed earlier in this report.
The applicant has sought other locations which are either on
existing towers or in clusters or 'tower farms', but has been
Unable to locate in those areas.
3. The nearest structure to the proposed tower is 1200 feet distant.
Staff offers the following comments which are unfavorable to this
request:
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
243
1. The tower is an independent tower which is not designed to
accommodate other users. This is inconsistent with the Compre-
hensive Plan as discussed earlier in this report, as well as past
County policy.
2. The height of the tower, 300 feet, will make this tower visible
from surrounding areas. If lighted, visibility will be greater.
Staff opinion is that, based on past efforts, without provisions for
additional users and/or clustering the tower in a 'tower farm', this
request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, staff recommends
denial of SP-90-98.
Should the Planning Commission and Board choose to approve this
petition, staff offers the following conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 300 feet;
Staff approval of site plan;
No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for,
or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae,
etc., even though they may be part of the same network or system
as any antennae administratively approved under this petition;
No lighting except for that required by a federal agency;
Department of Engineering approval of tower design to insure that
in the event of structural failure that the tower falls within
the leased area;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December
11, 1990, recommended denial of this petition by a vote of 5/2.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Richard Carter, representing the
applicant, came forward to speak. He said Mr. Scott Basham, an engineer for
Cellular One, is also present to answer technical questions. Mr. Carter said
this request is the third phase in the need for cellular telephone and commu-
nications by Cellular One in this area. He said the tower on Carter's Moun-
tain and the facility on top of the 500 Court Square Building are the first
two phases. The tower being requested will give transmission and reception
capabilities in northern Albemarle County and Greene County.
Mr. Carter said the applicant attempted to follow the County's policy of
locating towers in tower farms where appropriate. He said neither staff nor
the applicant could identify a tower farm in this part of Albemarle County.
He said the applicant attempted to lease space at Piney Mountain where similar
facilities are located, but was unable to do so. The applicant also offered
to buy the unused AT&T tower at Piney Mountain and the owner refused to sell.
Mr. Carter said the proposed site has 30.5 acres. While the owner, Mr.
Herring, is not designating this site as a tower farm, he is amenable to the
location of another tower on this site.
Mr. Carter said the County encourages multiple use of towers if a tower
farm isnot possible. He said the applicant redesigned the tower for multiple
use. There are no other towers in the area for which multiple use is avail-
able. Regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, Mr.
Carter said the minutes of that meeting indicate that three of the five
members voting against the petition agonized over their votes. Their concern
was how multiple use can be guaranteed. Mr. Carter pointed out that if the
applicant pays the extra money to build the tower for multiple use, he is
likely to try to recoup the money by allowing multiple use.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 2~14
(Page 40)
Mr. Carter feels the proposed site is the least objectionable in this
~a. Access to the tower site on the 30.5 acres is by an old public road
running along the boundary of the property. The nearest homes are approxi-
mately 1200 feet away. Mr. Carter said the location of the tower on the site
is in the farthest corner of the site from the houses and the state road. He
said that Rivanna Estates with 1100 acres is adjacent to this property and
objects to the application. While the site may be objectionable to the
neighboring landowner, overall it is the least objectionable site available.
He said the tower must be 300 feet tall. The good news is that it is 18 to 24
inches narrow on a side and is triangular in shape. He said there will be a
red light on top required by the Federal Communications Commission. However,
it will not be a strobe light and there will be no light at the base of the
tower. Mr. Carter said the tower is 5000 feet from Route 29 and is not within
the Route 29 entry corridor.
The applicant feels that the technology is available for cellular tele-
phones and this technology should be available to the citizens of Albemarle
County. Approval of this request will allow competition in this area to the
only other company having cellular telephones. He said the applicant wants to
make a business and financial investment in Albemarle County. Mr. Carter said
the staff report is fair, and that the applicant has done everything possible
to conform with the County's policy regarding towers. He asked for the
Board's approval of the request based on these facts.
Mr. Steven Blaine, representing Rivanna Estates, said the owner of
Rivanna Estates objects to the tower because the visibility will destroy the
character of the farm. The owner has assembled tracts totalling 1000
acres over a twenty-year period in order to preserve the scenic character of
the area and to buffer against encroaching development. Mr. Blaine said the
tower is not only visible from Rivanna Estates, but will be visible from Route
29. The Comprehensive Plan policy of clustering these types of towers is
based on the premise that they are ugly. He said he appreciates the dilemma
the applicant faces with regard to a suitable location. However, Mr. Blaine
feels that the issue of multiple users is a "red herring". He feels that it
is not likely that another cellular company would be allowed to use this tower
for obvious competitive reasons. He feels that this tower is an isolated one,
is an eyesore to the community and is contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, he requests that the Board deny the special use permit.
Mr. Joe Flemini, electrical engineer, said the 300 foot tower will
probably be used for the cell site only because of obvious competition. He
feels that it is unlikely that the proposed location will be used for any
other dispatch use because it is not centrally located. Mr. Flemini said a
300 foot cell tower, given the topography of the proposed location, is not
commensurate with the philosophy behind increasingly smaller cell sites. As
the population grows, the cell site should get smaller and the towers shorter
so that the frequency can be reused. In addition, the real expansion of
service will be in Fluvanna, Orange and Greene Counties while the tower will
be located in Albemarle County. Mr. Flemini feels that these are good reasons
for not allowing this tower.
There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he sees no reason to disagree with the recommendation of
staff and the Planning Commission. He said he has had several phone calls
from citizens in his district urging him to vote against this application.
Mr. Bowerman asked the number and location of Centel towers. Mr. Scott
Basham from Cellular One said Centel has two towers. One is located on
Carter's Mountain and one at Fashion Square Mall. The applicant has one tower
on Carter's Mountain. The facility at 500 Court Square is not a cell site
transmission facility. It is a hub to connect the cell sites back to the
telephone network.
Mr. Bowie asked what counties will be served by the proposed tower. Mr.
Basham said the tower will better serve northern Albemarle County and a
portion of Greene County.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 245
(Page 41)
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that this request is not compatible with the
intent of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and that it is not an
essential service. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and
seconded by Mr. Bowerman to deny SP-90-98.
Mr. Way asked if there are any plans for additional tower farms. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff has nothing in the work plan for additional farms in the
northern area of the County~
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-90-100. James F. Scott. Public hearing on a
request to locate a private helipad on 141.15 acres parcel zoned Rural Areas.
Property (Mirador) bounded on north by 1-64 and on east, south & west by Rts
690, 250 & 691. Tax Map 54, Parcel 74E. White Hall District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on December 4 and December 11, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The property is known as Mirador Farm and is
developed with six dwelling units and various farm buildings. The
area is predominately farm land.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a private helipad
for personal use. A single helicopter will be based on site and will
be stored in an existing farm building.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan makes no specific comments
regarding helipads. The general intent of the Comprehensive Plan is
to discourage development in the Rural Areas .which is not directly
related to a bona fide agricultural or forestal use.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant proposes to base a single
helicopter on site for personal use which will consist largely of
trips to West Virginia. The applicant is unable to anticipate average
usage of the helicopter, but states that usage would be irregular.
Information has been submitted to the Virginia Department of Aviation
as well as the FAA. The applicant is seeking a Personal Helipad as
opposed to a Private Helipad. A Personal Helipad will not appear on
aeronautical charts and will not be available for use by others.
The applicant has provided a letter from the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Airport. In the opinion of staff this letter adequately addresses the
comments of Section 5.1.1(a).
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property.
Staff ha~ received a petition from the adjacent property owners
in support of this request. The nearest residence on adjacent
property is over 1200 feet from the proposed helipad. The
approach and take-off zones are over the applicant's property,
1-64 and Route 250. A majority of the flights will be to West
Virginia which will result in flight zones over the applicant's
property, 1-64 and Greenwood Gap. Due to the flight zones,
distance to adjacent residence, and support from adjacent prop-
erty owners, staff opinion is that this use will not be a detri-
ment to adjacent properties.
The character of the district will not be changed.
Property adjacent and to the east is within an agricultural/
forestal district. However, as stated above, staff opinion is
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
246
that this use will not adversely effect adjacent properties. No
new structures are proposed and only minimal activity will be
necessary for the preparation of the landing pad. Based on the
limited impact of activity, staff opinion is that the character
of the district will not be adversely affected.
The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance~ with the uses permitted by risht in the district
and with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 and
with the public health, safety and 8eneral welfare.
Staff opinion is that the above use is not contrary to this
intent. Staff will recommend conditions which will prevent
inconsistency with Section 31.2.4.1.
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with Section 31.2.4.1
and Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval
subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
2.
3.
4.
Special use permit is issued to the applicant only;
Limited to one base aircraft;
No fuel storage on site;
Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties and
public roads;
Department of Engineering approval of dust free landing surface
to include approval of erosion control plan if grading is neces-
sary;
Approval/registration by/with the FAA and the Virginia Department
of Aviation."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 4,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the condi-
tions recommended by staff in addition to the following condition:
7. Compliance with Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The public hearing was opened, and the applicant, Mr. Scott, said he had
nothing to add to the staff report.
There were no other members of the public present to speak. The public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
approve SP-90-100 subject to the seven conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. 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.
(The conditions of approval are as follows:)
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only;
2. Limited to one base aircraft;
3. No fuel storage on-site;
4. Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties and public
roads;
5. Department of Engineering approval of dust free landing surface to
include approval of erosion control plan if grading is necessary;
6. Approval/registration by/with the FAA and the Virginia Department of
Aviation;
7. Compliance with Section 5.1.1 of the.Zoning Ordinance.
cember 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 247
(Page 43)
Agenda Item No. 14a. Authorize County Executive to Sign Contract Desig-
nating Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as Administrator of the Crozet
Housing Project.
Mr. Agnor said one of the requirements of the Crozet Housing Project is
that Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) be designated as Administra-
tor. He said a contract effecting that designation needs to be signed by the
County Executive.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris
to authorize the County Executive to sign the contract as requested. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The agreement is set out in its entirety below:)
This Agreement made and entered into this 19th day of December,
1990, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as the "County", and the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "AHIP".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County has committed funds for the Albemarle County
Housing Site Development project over the next two years; and
WHEREAS, the County is a recipient of Community Improvement
Grant, hereinafter referred to as "CIG", funds for the Albemarle
County Housing Site Development project through the 1990 Virginia
Community Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, AHIP is a corporation pursuant to the laws of the State
of Virginia and qualifies for tax exempt status pursuant to Section
501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the registered agent is
David J. Toscano, whose address is 211 East High Street, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, AHIP has been identified by the County in its CIG
application to administer the Albemarle County Housing Site Develop-
ment project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions as herein set forth, it is provided as follows:
(1)
The Contract Documents shall consist of the following documents,
all of which are part of this Agreement and incorporated by
reference herein as if set out in full:
(a)
Agreement between the Virginia Department of Housing &
Community Development and Albemarle County (Contract
#A199-09).
(b) GIG Program Design.
(c) CIG Financial Draw-Down Procedure.
(d) CIG Program Income Plan.
AHIP agrees to initiate and oversee all aspects of the site
development program, agrees to locate families for said program;
agrees to make approval of applicants for the program; agrees to
verify applicants' financial eligibility; agrees to assist
families in procuring private financing; agrees to assist in
preparation of Request for Proposals (RFP's) and selection of
professional services; agrees to prepare draw-down requests; and,
agrees to issue payment of allocated funds for site develop-
ment/construction work.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
(3)
248
AHIP agrees to perform and carry out the necessary administrative
and technical requirements of the CIG as established by the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. AHIP
agrees to perform such work as expeditiously, efficiently, and
economically as is practical and to do so in accordance with the
guidelines and requirements of the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development.
(4)
AHIP agrees to keep and maintain records of expenses incurred in
the performances of this Agreement, such records and expenses to
be open to the County and the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development for audit purposes.
(5) The County acknowledges that it is solely responsible for the
proper expenditure of CIG funds.
(6) The County agrees to pay a general fund allocation of up to
$331,714 for AHIP operational expenses and site development
activities relating to Albemarle County Housing Site Development
project.
(7) The County agrees to pass-through to AHIP up to $300,000 in CIG
funds for the Albemarle County Housing Site Development project.
(8)
The County agrees to pay its general fund allocation to AHIP as
part of its annual budgeting process based on recommendations of
the annual Program Review process. The County agrees to provide
AHIP with a monthly reimbursement of CIG funds allocated for
eligible costs incurred on the Albemarle County Housing Site
Development project, based on AHIP's submittal of monthly
invoices detailing such costs.
(9)
The term of this Agreement shall be coincident with the term of
the County's CIG contract with the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development, and any subsequent amendments thereto.
(10) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any dispute
concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement which
is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the Director
of Planning & Community Development, who shall reduce his deci-
sion to writing and furnish a copy thereof to the County Execu-
tive and AHIP. The decision of the Director of Planning &
Community Development shall be final and conclusive unless,
within ten days from the date of receipt of such copy, AHIP
furnishes to the County Executive a written appeal. The decision
of the County Executive or his duly authorized representative for
the determination of such appeals shall promptly be hand deliv-
ered or sent by certified mail to AHIP, and such decision shall
be final and conclusive unless appealed to a court of competent
jurisdiction within 30 days of receipt of the County Executive's
decision, and determined by that court to have been fraudulent,
capricious or arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily
to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence. In
connection with any appeal proceeding under this clause, AHIP
shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard, to be represented
by counsel at its own expense, if it so desires, and to offer
evidence in support of its appeal. Pending final decision of a
dispute hereunder, A_HIP shall proceed diligently with the perfor-
mance of the Agreement and in accordance with the decision of the
contracting officer.
(11) If, through any cause, AHIP or the County fails to comply with
the terms, conditions or requirements of this Agreement, AHIP or
the County may terminate or suspend this Agreement by giving
written notice of such termination or suspension, at least seven
days prior to the effective date of termination or suspension.
AHIP, upon such terminating or suspension, shall be entitled to
funds for costs incurred prior to receipt of the written notice
of termination or suspension only. If, after the effective date
of any suspension of this Agreement, it is mutually agreeable to
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
249
AHIP and the County, the suspension may be lifted and the Agree-
ment shall be in full force and effect after AHIP and the County
have exchanged letters setting forth their mutual understanding
that the cause for suspension has been satisfactorily remedied
and that the Agreement shall hereafter be in full force and
effect.
(12) The County or AHIP may terminate this Agreement in whole, or in
part, when the County and AHIP agree that continuation of the
Agreement would not produce beneficial results commensurate with
further expenditure of funds. In such event, the County and AHIP
shall agree upon termination conditions, including the effective
date thereof, and in cas~s of partial termination, the portion of
the assistance to be ter
obligations for the term
effective date of agreed
(13) AHIP will not discrimina
employment because of ra
national origin, or othe
qualified and meet phys~
position.
(14) None of the funds, mate~
the County or AHIP, undE
performance of this AgrE
ty, or to further the e]
public office.
ninated. AHIP shall not incur new
inated portion of its program after the
termination.
te against any employee or applicant for
ce, color, religion, sex, age, handicap,
r non-merit factors provided they are
cal requirements established for the
ials, property or services contributed by
r this Agreement, shall be used in the
ement for any partisan political activi-
ection or defeat of any candidate for
(15) No officer, member, or ~mployee of the County or AHIP, who
exercise any functions ~ responsibilities in the review or
approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this project,
shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement
which affects his persoiLal interest or have any personal or
pecuniary interest, dir~ct or indirect., in this Agreement or the
proceeds thereof.
(16) No amendments, addition:
party to this Agreement
specific approval of th,
involved.
(17) This AGREEMENT shall be
respective heirs, execu
assigns. IN WITNESS TH
caused to be executed b
AGREEMENT in two copies
nal on the date first a
Agenda Item No. 14b. Appoin
Chairman.
Mr. Bowie said the City Coun
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
confirm that appointment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Ba
Ms. Angela Glomm as Chairman of
;, or deletions shall be instituted by any
without prior written notification and
governing board of each of the parties
binding upon all parties hereto and their
~ors, administrators, successors and
~REOF, the parties hereto have executed or
their duly authorized officials, this:
each of which shall be deemed an origi-
ove written.
Dents: Solid Waste Advisory Committee
cil appointed Ms. Angela Glomm as Chairman of
Advisory Committee and the Board needs to
in and seconded by Mr. Bowerman confirming
he Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Advisory
Committee, with said term to col cide with the term of the Chairman of the
Board of Directors of the Rivann~ ½olid Waste Authority, expiring on May 1,
1992.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 250
(Page 46)
Agenda Item No. 14b. Appointments: Equalization Board.
Mr. Bowie said these appointments may be made at the January 2, 1991,
meeting.
In accordance with previous discussions, the Board agreed that the
Rivanna Magisterial District would not have a representative during 1991 and
the Jack Jouett District would be represented in 1991 instead.
Mr. Way nominated Mr. Thomas A. Allison to continue serving on the Equal-
ization Board, term to expire December 31, 1991.
Mr. Bain nominated Mr. W. Ivar Mawyer to continue to serve on the Equal-
ization Board, term to expire December 31, 1991.
Mr. Bowerman nominated Ms. Barbara Staples to continue to serve on the
Equalization Board, term to expire December 31, 1991.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to accept the
nominations and to reappoint Mr. Thomas A. Alison, Mr. W. Ivar Mawyer and Ms.
bara Staples to the Equalization Board for 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:
1990.
No minutes had been read.
November 7(A) and November 8,
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Perkins asked that staff follow up on the questions he raised last
week regarding the Crozet Housing Project.
Mr. Bowie said a copy of Delegate George Allen's letter dated December
17, 1990, was distributed to Board members. Mr. ~Allen requested a list of
mandates which the Board would like addressed during the General Assembly. He
also requested a draft from the County Attorney regarding a resolution the
Board would like introduced concerning the terms of School Board members. Mr.
Bowie suggested that the County Attorney work directly with the Mr. Allen on
such legislation and report back to the Board on January 2, 1991, if possible.
Mr. Way requested that discussion of the Keene Transfer Station be placed
on the agenda for January 9, 1991.
Regarding Consent Agenda Item 5.8 (letter dated December 12, 1990, from
Mr. John G. Milliken), Mrs. Humphris said she feels the Board should request
another date for a meeting with Mr. Milliken, who cannot make the January 9
date. Mr. Bowie said an official request for a rehearing of the Transporta-
tion Board's decision relative to Route 29 has been made since this request.
Mr. Bain said he feels that time should be given for a response to the
Board's request for a rehearing before another letter is written. Mr. Bowie
suggested that if no response to the letter for a rehearing is received by
January 2, then a follow-up letter can be written on January 9. There were no
objections from Board members.
Regarding Consent Agenda Item 5.4, Mr. Bain asked how the downturn in the
real estate market will be addressed. Mr. Agnor said the entire reassessment
was based on sales data that closed in August, 1989. Any downturn in the real
December 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 251
(Page 47)
estate market occurring after that cannot be considered until the next reas-
sessment is made. Mr. Agnor explained that there is not actually a downturn
in the value of real estate. Rather, there is a slow down of the sale of
property resulting in a flood of properties on the market. The result is a
slow down in the rate of sales and not a decline in the value of real estate.
The effect of that slow down will be evident in the next reassessment cycle.
Mr. Bain feels that there will be a substantial number of people who have
their houses on the market today who cannot sell them for the amount the
County is indicating as the assessed value. He feels that such homeowners
will have a legitimate argument and he anticipates that the Board of Equaliza-
tion will hear more appeals than staff expects.
Mr. Agnor said Governor Wilder has proposed an incentive for employees in
the State Retirement System to retire early as a budget reduction effort. He
said the proposal will have to be approved by the General Assembly. Each
local governing body which participates in the State Retirement System may
choose to participate in this early retirement plan or not. Currently, the
proposal is that eligibility requirements be 25 years of service and 50 years
of age. Mr. Agnor said there will be a window of opportunity between June and
September, 1991, for applications for retirement on November 1. The benefit
to the retiree is $100 per month in addition to the retirement amount, up to
the age of 62. Mr. Agnor said a number of County employees are interested,
but the locality must wait until the General Assembly acts before deciding
whether to participate.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:45 P.M., with all members expressing wishes for a Happy New
Year and congratulating Mr. Agnor on his years of service to the County.
CHAIRMAN