1990-07-18July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
37
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 18, 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. 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.
Mr. Bowie explained that this item has been moved to the beginning of the
agenda at the request of Mr. Perkins. Mr. Bowie said a total of 15 minutes
would be allowed, with no more than five minutes per individual speaker.
Citizens may not address an item already on the agenda. He said this time is
scheduled so that citizens do not have to wait through a long meeting to
address the Board.
There were no members of the public present at this time to address the
Board.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman
and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to accept 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 4.1. County Executive's Financial Report for May, 1990, was re-
ceived as information as follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1989 TO MAY 31, 1990
GENE~LFU~
RE~N~S
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTE
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
47,205,381 42,615,880 4,589,501 90.28%
4,074,240 3,303,285 770,955 - 81.08%
182,370 50,881 131,489 - 27.90%
961~525 961~525 0 - 100.00%
52,423,516 46,931,571 5,491,945 - 89.52%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLI
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3,281,497 2,856,823
1,190,246 1,060,031
5,172,348 4,809,594
1,918,178 1,551,434
3,299,831 2,945,090
27,003,594 24,712,045
1,860,606 1,650,328
1,425,255 1,211,116
424,674 + 87.06%
130,215 + 89.06%
362,754 + 92.99%
366,744 + 80.88%
354,741 + 89.25%
2,291,'549 + 91.51%
210,278 + 88.70%
214,139 + 84.98%
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meetimg)
(Page 2)
38
TRANSFERS 4,104,946 3,173,146
NONDEPARTMENTAL 3~167~015 2~599~547
TOTAL 52,423,516 46,569,154
931,800 + 77.30%
567~468 + 82.08%
5,854,362 + 88.83~
SCHOOL FUND
1989/90 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTE
YTD YTD
8,907 98.23%
LOCAL SOURCES
504,313 495,406
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
17,793,385 14,623,681
357,600 111,717
27~431~258 24~659~541
46,086,556 39,890,345
3,169,704 - 82.19%
245,883 - 31.24%
2~771~717 - 89.90%
6,196,211 - 86.56%
EXPENDITURES
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLI
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION 36,026,619 29,821,537 6,205,082 + 82.78%
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH 1,632,075 1,522,018 110,057 + 93.26%
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 4,071,242 3,527,106 544,136 + 86.63%
FACILITIES OPERATION &MAINT 3,883,929 3,640,543 243,386 + 93.73%
FACILITIES 472~691 416~372 56,319 + 88.09%
TOTAL 46,086,556 38,927,576 7,158,980 + 84.47%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS
EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTE
YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURE.R
383,000 299,375
527,040 75,000
15,383,000 7,345,307
1,424,250 1,424,250
1,431~570 1~431,570
19,148,860 10,575,502
83,625 - 78.17~
452,040 - 14.23%
8,037,693 - 47.75%
0 100.00%
0 100.00%
8,573,358 55.23%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLI
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
OTHER FUNDS
REVENUES
251,594 237,636
29,908 28,505
619,795 472,145
2,223,089 532,870
13,263,116 12,143,172
2,010,555 687,248
216,495 173,966
534~308 0
19,148,860 14,275,542
1989/90 RECEIPTS
EST. REVENUE YTD
13,958 + 94.45%
1,403 + 95.31%
147,650 + 76.18%
1,690,219 + 23.97%
1,119,944 + 91.56%
1,323,307 + 34.18%
42,529 + 80.36%
534~308 + 0.00%
4,873,318 + 74.55%
BALANCE COLLECTE
YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
CDBG-AHIP
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
SLIAG PROGRAM
CBIP SEVERE
E. D. PROGRAM
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND
0 6,124
30,299 30,334
0 732,327
0 239,927
133,903 53,565
0 108,486
0 101,577
1,470,530 1,212,660
510,628 372,108
51,893 30,640
49,000 33,401
0 11,096
25,000 12,991
0 0
36,661 18,999
26,583 4,600
0 13,808
419,823 242,957
557,501 235,734
683,960 432,619
361,511 255,128
10,000 8,120
(6,124)+ 0.00%
(35)+ 100.12Z
(732,327)+ 0.00Z
(239,927)+ 0.00%
80,338 - 40.00%
(108,486)+ 0.00%
(101,577)+ 0.00%
257,870 - 82.46%
138,520 - 72.87%
21,253 - 59.04%
15,599 - 68.17%
(11,096)+ 0.00%
12,009 - 51.96%
0 - 0.00%
17,662 51.82%
21,983 17.30%
(13,808)+ 0.00%
176,866 57.87%
321,767 42.28%
251,341 63.25%
106,383 - 70.57%
1,880 - 81.20%
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
39
JOINT SECURITY
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
2,193,225 2,037,636 155,589 - 92.91%
1,035,195 870,607 164,588 - 84.10%
717,862 692,397 25,465 - 96.45%
152,230 58,924 93,306 - 38.71%
852,331 42,952 809,379 - 5.04%
67,735 62,090 5,645 91.67%
2,670~037 1~712~151 957~886 64.12%
12,055,907 9,633,958 2,421,949 79.91~
EXPENDITU~.S
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLI
APPROP YTD YTD
0 9,642 (9,642)- 0.00%
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
CDBG-AHIP
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
8,287 8,296 + 68.79%
SLIAG
CBIP SEVERE
E D PROGRAM
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND
JOINT SECURITY FUND
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
30INT RECREATION FACILITY
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
30,299 27,727 2,572 + 91.51%
0 721,975 (721,975)- 0.00%
0 239,927 (239,927)- 0.00%
133,903 73,295 60,608 + 54.74%
0 407,813 (407,813)- 0.00%
0 88,606 (88,606)- 0.00%
1,470,530 1,237,455 233,075 + 84.15%
510,628 410,536 100,092 + 80.40%
51,893 44,509 7,384 + 85.77%
49,000 41,177 7,823 + 84.03%
0 17,607 (17,607)- 0.00%
25,000 14,764 10,236 + 59.06%
0 1,445 (1,445)- 0.00%
36,661 24,957 11,704 + 68.08%
26,583
0 18,503 (18,503)- 0.00%
419,823 385,040 34,783 + 91.71%
557,501 472,877 84,624 + 84.82%
683,960 502,863 181,097 + 73.52%
361,511 265,658 95,853 + 73.49%
10,000 8,120 1,880 + 81.20%
2,193,225 2,069,158 124,067 + 94.34%
1,035,195 1,004,271 30,924 + 97.01%
717,862 643,063 74,799 + 89.58%
152,230 101,750 50,480 + 66.84%
852,331 22,902 829,429 + 2.69%
67,735 62,090 5,645 + 91.67%
2~670~037 1~891~762 778~275 + 70.85%
12,055,907 10,827,779 1,228,128 + 89.81%
Item 4.2. Planning Commission Minutes for June 19, and July 3, 1990,
were received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-40. Curtis and Debbie Mundie. Public hearing
on a request for a Home Occupation-Class B (10.2.2.31) and (5.2) to allow a
hauling operation for sand, dirt and gravel with two employees. Property
consists of 4.7 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map
21, Parcel 23A (part), is located on a private road, 1/4 mile south of Rt. 641
and 1/2 mile east of Rt. 29 North. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The applicant is currently constructing a
house and garage on the property. No dwellings are visible from the
site. Other adjacent properties are wooded with deciduous trees. The
site is not visible from the public road.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Applicant is proposing to operate a hauling
business from the site. Activities on site include the storage of
three dump trucks, yard tractor, bulldozer and trailer. The bulldozer
and trailer are generally left at a job site. Two employees arrive in
the morning and depart with the dump trucks or other equipment and
return in the evenings. Trucks will be washed on site and receive
general maintenance. No sign is proposed and no on-site sales will
occur.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial.
Staff opinion is that this request more closely resembles a con-
tractors' office and equipment storage yard which is allowed in the
HC, Highway Commercial, district by special use permit and in the
Industrial districts by-right.
40
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: April 7, 1989
review. Created as a family division.
Parcel currently under
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in the Rural Areas as
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan dis-
courages development which is not related to bona fide agricultural
activities.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Two letters of objection to this petition
have been received. These letters state concerns of truck traffic,
noise, lighting and possible loss of property value.
This activity proposes to utilize an accessory structure. Both the
accessory structure and main structure are under construction. The
location of the structures is as shown on the plat (on file). The
proposed garage is located 25 feet from the rear property line,
minimum setback for a main structure is 35 feet. Section 5.2.2.1(b)
of the Zoning Ordinance states in part 'Any accessory structure which
does not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main struc-
tures in the district in which it is located shall not be used for any
home occupation'. Section 5.1 allows the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors to modify or waive this requirement. No screen-
ing exists between the location of the garage and the adjacent prop-
erty. However, the adjacent property is wooded and vacant.
The size of the proposed garage is 2600 square feet. Section
5.2.2.1(a) of the Zoning Ordinance states in part 'in no event shall
the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or both,
devoted to such occupation exceed 1500 square feet'. The applicant
has stated that a portion of the structure will also be used for
personal use. Staff opinion is that a structure of this size is
inconsistent with Section 5.2.2.1(b) which states buildings shall be
'specifically compatible in design and scale with other development in
the area which located'. In addition, the applicant will store one
truck and other equipment outside. Section 5.2.2.1(a) states that a
Home Occupation 'may be conducted either within the dwelling or
accessory structure, or both'. The intent of the regulations govern-
ing Home Occupations is to limit the appearance of any commercial
activity. The applicant's proposal would result in a commercial
appearance of the property.
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposed use of the property is
more appropriate in a commercial or industrial district under the
classification as a contractors' office and equipment storage yard.
The Comprehensive Plan states, 'Locate commercial zoning districts
only in planned Growth Areas'. While this petition is not a rezoning
request, if approved it would establish a commercial activity allowed
in commercial/industrial districts to be located in the Rural Areas.
This property was created as a family division which does not require
upgrading of the private road or entrance. However, based on the type
of usage, should this proposal be approved staff recommends that the
private road be upgraded to the standards of Section 18-36, Table 1,
for three to five lots as four lots are served by the road. In addi-
tion, staff recommends that the entrance be improved in accordance
with the comments of the Virginia Department of Transportation dated
May 10, 1990.
Staff opinion is that this request would change the character of the
district and is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, and, therefore, staff recommends
denial of SP-90-40, Curtis and Debbie Mundie. Should the Planning
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request,
staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members who reside
on site;
2. No signs;
3. No on-site sales;
Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.14 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
Upgrading private road to the standards of Section 18-36, Table
I, for three to five lots;
Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation comments of
May 10, 1990;
Home occupation shall not commence until dwelling has been issued
a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 19,
1990, voted to recommend denial of this request by a vote of five to one.
Mrs. Humphris asked what is under construction on the property. Mr.
Cilimberg said both a garage and house are under construction.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the Planning Commission minutes
which state that a County representative selected the site for the building
and that construction has started because a County representative said there
was no problem with the location of the buildings. Mr. Cilimberg said appar-
ently that comment came from the Zoning Administrator's office.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Wade Jacobson, legal representative for the applicant, came forward
to speak. He said the applicant has operated a gravel hauling business for
the past 10 years. Currently the applicant has a Class A home occupation
permit and stores his trucks on his mother's property. The Class A permit is
no longer valid because Mr. Mundie has employees. Mr. Jacobson said if this
request for a Class B permit is not granted, Mr. Mundie will have to go out of
business.
Mr. Jacobson said the staff report noted that there is a violation of
setback requirements from the adjacent property. He pointed out that the
County granted the building permit for the structure located as it is. He
said Mr. Mundie has already spent $8,000 having the foundation and gravel laid
for the two structures. Mr. Jacobson said the two letters of objection to
this request are from people who are not residents of Albemarle County. He
said there is no dwelling on the lot owned by Mr. Bacon, who resides in
Georgia. Mrs. Via is an adjoining property owner who lives in Alexandria,
Virginia. The violation of the setback requirement causes the structure to be
10 feet closer to Mrs. Via's property than it would have been. He said that
Mrs. Via offered some suggestions which would satisfy her concerns.
Mr. Jacobson said that granting this permit would only affect Mr. and
Mrs. Mundie and their family. The lot in question is part of a 50-acre family
tract. The private road accessing this lot is for the use of this family
only. He said Mr. Mundie's trucks will leave in the morning and return at
night. Therefore, additional traffic or noise would be minimal. Mr. Jacobson
said that one neighbor, Mr. Roudabush, addressed the Planning Commission in
objection to this request although Mr. Roudabush is not an adjoining property
owner. He said Mr. Roudabush objected because this area is near a National
Wetlands preservation area, and he is concerned about runoff from Mr. Mundie's
operation. Mr. Jacobson said there will be no runoff because of the eight
inches of gravel under the trucks. Any maintenance will be done inside the
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
garage. The only possible runoff could come from changing oil in the trucks.
He said that Mr. Mundie is very careful about storing the oil in barrels and
having it removed from his property. Mr. Roudabush had also said that allow-
ing this permit would set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Jacobson said he has
found that terms such as that are excuses for making decisions that a~e
unfair. He feels that granting this permit would have no affect on any
neighbors.
Mr. Jacobson concluded by saying that, although there is a violation of
the setback requirement, the County did tell Mr. Mundie where to locate the
structure, and the building permit was subsequently granted. The only lot
which the setback violation affects belongs to a property owner who lives in
Alexandria. He said the lot in question is not visible from any dwelling
which is not a Mundie family member. He asked the Board to give favorable
consideration to Mr. Mundie's request for a Class B permit.
Mr. Curtis Mundie, the applicant, came forward to speak. He said he owns
a trucking business which he has operated for the past ten years. Mr. Mundie
said he and his brother are in business together and own three trucks. He
showed pictures of the trucks and the site where construction has begun. He
has one employee, and one truck is not being used currently. The only time
the workers are at the property is at night. They work from 6:30 A.M. until
6:00 P.M., and any maintenance is done in the evenings. Mr. Mundie said he
has new trucks, and the maintenance is currently under warranty. He said if
he is not allowed to park the trucks on this property, he does not know what
he will do. He cannot afford anything else because of the expense of buying
the new trucks. He said his trucks cannot be parked just anywhere. If he
parks the trucks away from his property, they are vandalized. He feels that a
landowner should be able to keep his trucks on his own land. Mr. Mundie said
he has tried to be a good neighbor, and does not know why Mr. Roudabush is
objecting.
Mr. Mundie handed out letters to the Board from neighbors who did not
want to attend the meeting but were in support of his request. He said that
Mr. Grady, a County employee, showed him where to locate the building. Mr.
Mundie said he was in the Zoning office for two hours before he began any
on the site. He obtained the permits required by the County, and told Mr.
Grady what his plans were. He said Mr. Grady showed him on the plat where the
building should be located and what the setback requirements were. Mr. Mundie
said he did what Mr. Grady told him, and now the County says that the square
footage is wrong and the buildings are too close. He said at his current
location he has two small metal buildings and a 12-foot by 20-foot shop. All
the maintenance is done outside in the weather. He said the new shop would
eliminate any noise. He said he is trying to get along with his neighbors.
Mr. Way asked why Mr. Mundie is moving his trucks from the place he
currently keeps them. Mr. Mundie said his in-laws gave him five acres of land
in the middle of their 50-acre parcel so he could build a home and locate his
shop there as well. Mr. Mundie said there were no objections until he had
spent over $7000 in a building which the County now says cannot be built
there. He said he and his family have sacrificed money and time to get this
business going, and it is struggling at this point.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Mundie has explored the possibility of locating
these trucks in a commercial area or renting space from someone else. Mr.
Mundie said there is nothing available for inside storage of vehicles this
size. He said the main thing he needs is a building to keep his trucks inside
out of the weather. He said the maintenance is done after hours or on days
when the weather is too bad to haul gravel. During the day the trucks wait on
the lot at Luck Stone Quarry to be dispatched. None of his business is done
from the home. Ail he needs is a place to park and service his trucks on his
own property. Mr. Mundie said the budget he is on now will not allow rental
of space when he is paying for new trucks.
Mr. W. S. Roudabush said he lives in the neighborhood where Mr. Mundie
wants to locate the proposed facility. He said it is difficult to oppose
something that a neighbor wants to do. However, he would not be here if he
thought the request was clearly allowed by right. Mr. Roudabush said he is
not the only person in the neighborhood who is opposed to this operation.
Others could not come or did not care to speak at a public meeting.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
43
Mr. Houdabush said it was mentioned that he is not affected by this
request because he is not an adjacent property owner. He said he lives within
2000 feet of this tract of land, although it is further by road. He said the
sound of the men working on the trucks travels to his place. He noted that
Mr. Mundie has been frank with him in talking about his operation.
Mr. Roudabush said this facility is located in a residential area. There
are 20 lots scattered throughout the area. He handed out an aerial photograph
indicating the location of Mr. Mundie's property. Mr. Houdabush said there
are two issues to be addressed. He pointed out that the current operation is
under a Class A permit which does not allow an accessory structure. He said
the operation currently has support facilities, a developed parking lot and
paved areas. He feels that conditions of the Class A permit have been vio-
lated. He believes that no random inspection has been made for compliance
with conditions of the permit, and that vehicles are visible from the road or
adjoining property. He said the facilities have been enlarged and are not in
compliance with the conditions. Mr. Roudabush feels that the Zoning Adminis-
trator should determine the adequacy of existing parking for vehicles involved
in the operation. The accessory building does not meet the setbacks for home
occupation requirements, and the size far exceeds that allowed under Class B
permits. The outside appearance should be compatible with the existing
neighborhood and with the characteristics of residential buildings. He said a
building that houses trucks of this size probably will not be compatible with
the residential area. Mr. Roudabush said the ordinance requires that home
occupations comply with performance standards which require an engineer's
report prior to approval of a site plan. He believes that no engineer's
report has been submitted and no site plan has been submitted. He said there
are other conditions in the ordinance which he feels have not been properly
addressed. Staff stated that a contractor's office is permitted only in
industrial zones by right or in highway commercial zones by special use
permit. If the Board approves this request, then citizens who are thinking
about locating in industrial or highway commercial areas would be better off
financially to buy a residence and obtain a home occupation permit. If this
operation were located in an industrial or commercial zone, the applicant
would have to comply with the buffer and landscape requirements of the zoning
ordinance. He said this approval would completely ignore those requirements.
Mr. Roudabush said the subdivision where he lives is situated around a
12-acre lake. Ail of the drainage from the existing facility and the proposed
site drains directly into that lake. The lake is identified on the National
Wetlands inventory maps, and he is concerned about runoff even though there is
a gravel parking area. Mr. Roudabush feels that none of these things is being
considered in this application. If this were a commercial or industrial area,
there would be a site plan reviewed by the County Engineer and the Watershed
Management Official. He feels it is not proper to approve a commercial or
industrial operation in a rural area without imposing requirements for a
commercial use. Mr. Roudabush said he is sorry to have to oppose a neighbor's
application, but feels this is not appropriate for a residential area.
Mr. Jenks McDaniel, father-in-law to Mr. Mundie, came forward to speak.
He said his son-in-law and daughter are having a struggle to make ends meet.
They have two small children and are buying new trucks for their business. He
said he and his wife gave this piece of land to the Mundies on which to build
a house and garage as a "bond of love" and to have his daughter near them. If
the trucking business cannot be located there, the Mundies will have to move
someplace else, and he feels the bond of love would be broken in that event.
He feels that approval of this request is not a disadvantage to any neighbors
since he is the nearest neighbor at 1200 feet distance from the proposed
structures. Mr. McDaniel said he is planning to build a lake on his property
much closer than the lake Mr. Roudabush referred to. He does not feel that
any runoff would travel as far as Mr. Roudabush's property. He said the
e is about 250 feet from the branch, and there is a good layer of gravel
a good road onto the property. He said the site is up on a hill, and the
percolation tests for the septic fields are extremely good. Mr. McDaniel
feels that approval of this request would be good for the County because it
would mean more real estate and personal property taxes. He asked the Board
~o grant the request.
Mr. Mark Mundie, brother of the applicant, said he is in business with
~is brother. He said the current site has not been changed as Mr. Roudabush
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 44
(Page 8)
said. The small shop where the tools are kept is the same. Two small metal
buildings were added in which to store tires. Mr. Mundie said the ground was
leveled out for the metal buildings and gravel has been added from time to
time when there is some left over from a delivery. He said the new site would
keep the trucks out of sight and keep the noise further from the neighbors.
He said the trucking business has been at its present location, which is
closer to the lake than the new one, for 10 years without any problems of
runoff.
Mrs. Debbie Mundie said that approval of this request means a lot to her
family and to the family of their employee as well. She said her husband does
the best job of taking care of his equipment. She feels that if Board members
could see the location, there would be no doubt about approving the request.
She said the building will not be visible to any neighbors. She said the land
was given by her father, Mr. McDaniel, and is a dream come true. She feels the
County is taking that away by denying this request. She said she and her
family have sacrificed to have a business, and it will be lost unless the
Board approves this permit. She feels that it is not right to deny the
request.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said his heart goes out to the Mundies. However, he under-
stands that the Class A permit currently issued to the Mundies is in violation
due to accessory structures, etc. at the old site. To say that the violations
will not affect anybody is just not true. He said Mr. Roudabush is essen-
tially correct in his analysis of the ordinance. This request would have to
meet requirements were it located in an industrial zone where it belongs, but
would be allowed with no requirements if approved tonight. He feels that the
situation is not as serious as the Mundies may believe at this point.
Mr. Bain asked if a permit is required for three brothers who own three
trucks on adjoining lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the brothers and family members
having no outside employees could operate their business from their homes
under a Class A permit as long as no accessory structure were involved.
Mr. Bain asked the process involved in getting a Class A permit. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Zoning Administrator must consider the applicable sections
of the ordinance and make that decision. Denial by the Zoning Administrator
could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals and then to the court.
Mr. Bain asked if the applicant is requesting a Class B permit because of
the employee and the structure. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct.
Mr. St. John said he is uncertain about what can be done by right and
what requires a Class A permit regarding home occupations. However, the
question before the Board is solely a request for Class B. If the Board
denies the request, and the applicant feels that the operation should not
require a Class B permit in the first place, the Board of Zoning Appeals or
the court would have to deal with that.
Mr. Bain asked the zoning district which allows by right repair and
maintenance of vehicles as required in this business. Mr. Cilimberg said
under the application before the Board, repair and maintenance is incidental
to a Class B permit. Repair or maintenance under a Class A permit could occur
in the rural area district. Undertaking maintenance of vehicles other than
vehicles used in a business would be a use allowed in commercial or industrial
districts.
Mr. Bain said this is a difficult decision. In the rural areas, a
landowner can drive a big truck to and from his house anytime he wants.
However, this request goes beyond that.
Mrs. Humphris said she wishes that the Board could deal with cases of
personal hardship, but as a Board member she is here to apply ordinances that
have been enacted in Albemarle County. The information given to the Board
shows clearly that the proposal is not within the limits of the ordinance.
There is an accessory structure which is not in accordance with minimum
setback requirements. The proposed building is 2600 square feet which is in
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) z~5
(Page 9)
excess of the 1500 square feet maximum allowed. Mrs. Humphris said the whole
purpose of home occupation permits is to allow an operation that does not
change the character of the area. Mrs. Humphris feels that the Board must
consider the future neighbors as well. She agrees with the recommendation of
staff and the Planning Commission, although she is aware of the personal
feelings involved.
Mrs. Humphris then offered a motion to deny SP-90-40. Mr. Bowerman
seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain asked if two brothers could work on trucks without a structure
if one lived on the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be a decision for
the Zoning Administrator to make.
Mr. Bowerman said the proposal presented to the Board is clearly incon-
sistent with the requirements of a special use permit for use in this area.
He feels that the applicant has the ability to modify his operation in such a
way as to permit the continuance of his business in a fashion that is accept-
able to the County. For example, if each employee takes a truck home and the
trucks are not serviced on the property, there is no need for a permanent
facility. Mr. Bowerman feels there is enough flexibility within the ordinance
so that the business could continue, although he cannot agree to this particu-
lar application.
Mr. Perkins said if there were no exceptions allowed to the County's
ordinances, many citizens in Albemarle County would go out of business. He
said dump trucks and tractor trailers are parked at homes all over the County
because the vehicles are used to make a living. He said the ordinances are in
place to regulate what people do with their property and their businesses.
However, the Board of Supervisors is here not only to enforce the regulations
but to grant exceptions. Mr. Perkins feels this is a legitimate request for
an exception, and he will not support the motion for denial.
Mr. Way said this is the debate that went on in 1968 in this County when
the first zoning ordinance was adopted. While citizens may feel they should
be able to do what they want to do with their own land, there is a responsi-
bility by the Board to uphold the zoning ordinance in effect in this County.
Mr. Way agreed that the zoning ordinance may not be fair in every situation.
He feels that this request is a close call and a difficult decision to make.
Mr. Bain agreed and said, however, that he agrees with Mr. Bowerman that
there may be other avenues for the applicant to explore. He also understands
the need for an individual to carry on his business as pointed out by Mr.
Perkins.
Mrs. Humphris said this case is not a matter of a citizen using one truc~
and bringing it home at night. This is a full-blown trucking business in the
rural areas district.
Mr. Bowie said he lives in a rural subdivision where one of the residents
has a trucking business. The citizen has a legal right to park his 18 wheeler
truck at his residence. However, he does not have three trucks, employees and
a garage. When a business goes beyond what is allowed by right, that is when
the zoning ordinance is necessary. He feels that the Board must enforce the
zoning regulations.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is here to protect the rights of all individ-
uals, including adjacent property owners. Looking at each case independently
of the zoning ordinance will quickly result in no ordinance at all and in uses
going in areas that are inappropriate. Unless there is a guideline that can
be enforced, with variances granted where possible, there will be chaos. The
Board is faced with a clearly defined use which has been found by staff not to
be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. He feels the Board has no choice
but to vote against the request.
There was no further discussion at this time. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) z16
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-42. Kathleen Pearson. Public hearing on a
request for a Home Occupation-Class B (10.2.2.31 and 5.2) with two part-time
employees. Use is an off-site indoor plant maintenance with small flower
delivery only. Property consists of 1.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Proper-
ty, described as Tax Map 62B1, Parcel B10, is located at 353 Key West Drive in
the Key West Subdivision. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie said a letter has been received from the applicant, Mrs.
Kathleen Pearson, requesting deferral to September 19, 1990.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris
to defer this hearing to September 19, 1990. 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. SP-90-46. Albemarle Concrete, Inc (applicant), S. L.
Williamson Company, Inc. (owner). Public hearing on a request for a concrete
plant (30.4.2.2.1) on 4.0 acres in the NR, Natural Resources Overlay District.
Property, described as Tax Map 100, Parcel 24A is located on the south side of
Route 708 across from Red Hill Quarry approximately 2.7 miles west of Route
631. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and
July 10, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The Red Hill Quarry is located on the north
side of Route 708. Adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas, and
are partially in the NR, Natural Resources Extraction Overlay Dis-
trict. Property is currently used for timber storage. The site is
currently screened by white pines averaging 30 feet in height.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a
concrete batching plant which will employ up to eight individuals,
four of whom will be full time drivers. The applicant has submitted a
plan which shows the location of structures, material stockpiles and
existing landscaping.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan refers to the Natural
Resource Extraction Overlay District for the utilization of minerals
in Albemarle County. The Comprehensive Plan recommends in the Village
of North Garden 'verification of suitable water supply shall be
required for development proposals due to the uncertainty of available
groundwater and studies indicating difficulty in providing central
utilities' While this site is not located within the village of
North Garden, it does share similar geologic characteristics.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant will obtain the majority of
stone from the adjacent quarry, while sand will be delivered from
other areas. Most vehicles entering and leaving the site will use
Route 29. The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that
Route 708 is currently tolerable. However, the entrance will need to
be relocated to the west in order to obtain adequate sight distance.
The problem with sight distance is the vertical alignment of Route
708.
Review of the plan indicates that the proposed material storage areas
and office trailer do not satisfy the 100-foot setback required by
Section 30.4.6. However, staff does not foresee any difficult£es in
reconfiguring the site so as to conform to the required setbacks.
To meet industry standards, potable water must be used in the batching
process. The applicant has stated that potential water withdrawal
will be approximately 6000 gallons per day. This water will be used
for production, truck washdown and domestic use. This use represents
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) z~'7
(Page 11)
approximately 4.2 gallons per minute over a 24-hour period. A 1980
study by the State Water Control Board indicates that a well drilled
on or near this property yielded four gallons per minute in 1975. The
applicant has stated that a water storage tank may be utilized to
store water for peak demand.
The applicant will utilize settling ponds to contain wastewater from
processing and truck washdown. This containment plan will be a zero
discharge permit which is regulated by the State Water Control Board.
As a portion of the wastewater will be recycled by reusing water,
demand on groundwater may be reduced.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Sections 31.2.4.1 and 30.4.1 and recommends approval subject to
the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Operations shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to midnight;
Health Department approval;
Staff approval of site plan to include relocation of entrance and
construction of turn lanes in accordance with the comments of the
Virginia Department of Transportation dated May 23, 1990;
4. Compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Prior to site plan submittal, County Engineer review of a report
prepared by a hydrogeologist demonstrating that water withdrawal
will not constitute overdrafting to the detriment of adjacent
properties and properties within the designated North Garden
Village."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 19,
1990, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended
by staff with condition No. 5 amended, and adding Condit Nos. 6 and 7, all
reading as follows:
Prior to site plan submittal, County Engineer review and approval
a report prepared by a hydrogeologist demonstrating that water
withdrawal will not constitute overdrafting to the detriment of
adjacent properties and properties within the designated North
Garden Village.
All structures, including office trailer and stockpiles, shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet from any public road right-of-way or
adjoining property within any residential district;
Office trailer shall be allowed only with approval of VA 90-20, or
in compliance with Section 5.8.
Mr. Bowie asked why the hours of operation were until midnight. Mr.
Cilimberg said that was the applicant's request.
Mrs. Humphris asked what adjacent properties might be impacted by the
noise from this operation. Mr. Cilimberg said adjacent properties are zoned
RA, Rural Areas, and some property is within a Natural Resource Overlay area
as well. Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the statement that potable
water must be used in the batching process which seems to conflict with a
statement about wastewater being recycled. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant
could best address that question.
Mrs. Humphris asked how accurate a hydrogeolOgist report can be which is
based on a 1980 study of a well drilled in 1975. Mr. Cilimberg said a fairly
accurate estimate can be made based on test wells, the yields from wells on
adjacent properties, and a knowledge of the geology of the area. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that the adjacent property is getting approximately 45 gallons
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) z~8
(Page 12)
per minute according to a May 30, 1990, letter attached to the Planning
Commission minutes. Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels that a hydrogeologist
report should be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer as a condition
of a special use permit.
The public hearing was opened, and the applicant's representative came
forward to speak.
Mr. Larry McElwain of Parker, McElwain and Jacobs, said he is present on
behalf of Albemarle Concrete. He said the applicant's intent is to preserve
the landscaping already existing on the site. There are 30-foot white pines
between the plant and the road. A new scheme is being developed for the site
plan that will adjust the entrance further to the left as well as preserve
those white pines. Mr. McElwain said the problem with sight distance is at
the exit rather than the entrance. Almost all of the traffic will be coming
in from Route 29 and exiting toward Route 29. He said the applicant would
like to maintain the deceleration lane as shown and the entrance as shown, but
would like to cut an exit further to the left. He said he would like to avoid
wording in Condition No. 3 which would prevent that change, providing that the
Department of Transportation is agreeable. He proposed that the condition
read, "Staff approval of site plan in accordance with the comments of the
Virginia Department of Transportation." Mr. McElwain said he does not want to
refer to an entrance in the condition, when in fact, the applicant wants to
keep the entrance as it is and move the exit to help preserve the landscaping
and comply with the sight distance requirements.
Mr. McElwain said the plant will not be operated at midnight. He said
closing time is at dark and suggested that the widest range of operation would
be from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. McElwain said that Albemarle Concrete is a tenant on the property
which is owned by Mr. S. L. Williamson. He said the letter referred to by
staff is accurate with regard to the flow of water. Mr. McElwain said he
hopes to obtain sufficient water on site to meet the commercial standards of
this business. He said the recycling process includes filtration which would
return the water to a standard necessary for reuse in mixing concrete. He
said the applicant is conscious of the ecological impact of his operation and
intends to preserve the site to the best extent possible. Mr. McElwain said
a storage tank will be used so that immediate strains will not be placed on
the water system. If it is impossible to meet the needs for water on site,
there is an ample source of water available from the landlord on neighboring
property. He said the operation involves washing and separating unused
concrete to prevent a buildup of waste material. He said leftover concrete
will be used for internal road surfaces within the project. Mr. McElwain said
the applicant has no objections to the conditions proposed with the two
modifications he has suggested.
Mr. Bain asked how many loads of sand would be delivered per week to this
site. Mr. McElwain said there are stockpiles of sand on site, and there will
be three to four loads of sand brought in on a daily basis.
There being no other members of the public present to speak to this
issue, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked what affect the proposed change to Condition No. 3 would
have. Mrs. Humphris added that she is not comfortable talking about changing
the road entrance design. Mr. Cilimberg said the road is a site plan issue
and is not tied definitively as a condition to the special use permit. He
said all that is available from VDoT is a comment which the Commission added
as a condition. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the existing condition remain
with the addition, "or alternative comments by VDoT provided at site plan
approval".
Mr. Bain said he feels as much of the existing buffer as possible should
be preserved. Mr. Cilimberg said he visited the site today, and the buffer
consists of obviously mature trees. Part of the buffer will have to be
removed if the entrance is relocated. Staff would be pleased to deal with an
alternative that would preserve the trees and meet VDoT requirements.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 49
(Page 13)
Mr. Bain offered a motion to approve SP-90-46 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission and set out below, amending Condition
No. 1 to show hours of operation from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. and adding "or
any alternative solution recommended by Virginia Department of Transportation
at the time of site plan review" to Condition No. 3. Mrs. Humphris seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Operations shall be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. to
8:30 p.m.;
2. Health Department approval;
Staff approval of site plan to include relocation of entrance and
construction of turn lanes in accordance with the comments of the
Virginia Department of Transportation dated May 23, 1990, or any
alternative solution recommended by VDoT at the time of site plan
review;
4. Compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Prior to site plan submittal, County Engineer review and approval
of a report prepared by a hydrogeologist demonstrating that water
withdrawal will not constitute overdrafting to the detriment of
adjacent properties and properties within the designated North
Garden Village;
Ail structures, including office trailer and stockpiles, shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet from any public road right-of-way
or adjoining property within any residential district;
Office trailer shall be allowed only with approval of VA-90-20,
or in compliance with Section 5.8.
The Board recessed at 9:08 P.M. and reconvened at 9:21 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-47. Wrenson Corporation (applicant) Lawrence
D. Howell (owner). Public hearing on a request to allow a rural preservation
development of 33 lots (10.5.2.1) on 338 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Pro
ties located on east side of Route 635 south of and adjacent to 1-64. ~Tax Map
72, Parcels 17, 21, and 45 (former parcels 2lA and 38A). Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The property is a mixture of cleared and open
land. Four dwellings are currently located on the property and have
individual entrances onto Route 791. Several other residences are
located in proximity to the site. Property is bordered by Interstate
64 (I-64) on the north, Route 635 to the west and Route 791 to the
south.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to create 32 lots
served primarily by an internal road. A 100-acre preservation tract
is proposed in addition to 71.5 acres of open space. Three proposed
lots with existing dwellings and established entrances are to have
access to Route 791. The applicant has provided buffers from streams
and 1-64. The applicant is proposing to access the property approxi-
mately 300 feet south of 1-64. The property runs parallel to 1-64
with an overall length of 1.7 miles and a depth of one-half mile. The
development lots are parallel to 1-64 for a distance of 0.83 miles
with the remaining land adjacent to 1-64 being designated as open
space and preservation tract. The preservation tract will have a
single dwelling and is intended to be used for agriculture. The open
space preservation area will have no dwellings and is intended to
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Me~ting) -5-3:O
(Page 14)
preserve the land in its current condition. The property has approxi-
mately 900 feet of frontage on Route 791. The Mechums River and
several unnamed tributaries are on the property as well as two ponds.
The Mechums River is entirely surrounded by open space and the preser-
vation tract. The property has a wide variety of topography. Level
flood plain exists along the Mechums River area, with slopes exceeding
25 percent scattered throughout the property. The majority of the
site is rolling.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan makes provisions for the
Rural Preservation Development. 'The advantages of the small lot
option are: (1) acreage is preserved for agricultural/forestal use
and is not unnecessarily wasted on homesites; (2) the landowner may
derive economic benefits from lots and still continue agricultural/
forestal activities on open space; and, (3) the landowner does not
have to develop steep or inaccessible land, but may use it as open
space, and develop small lots on more suitable land.' The Compre-
hensive Plan states that 'a special use permit shall be required for
clustering more than 20 lots.' This requirement allows the County to
review developments approaching a Village scale. The Comprehensive
Plan states that all decisions regarding the rural areas shall be made
in the interest of four major elements. 'The four major elements are:
(1) preservation of agriculture and forestal activities; (2) water
supply protection; (3) limited service delivery to the Rural Areas;
,
and (4) consideration of natural scenic and historical resources.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Rural Preservation Development
option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of
the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan than can be achieved under conventional develop-
ment. The Rural Preservation option is intended to accomplish the
following objectives:
a. Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
b. Water supply protection; and/or
c. Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources.
Staff will address each item found in Sections 10.3.3.2 and 10.5.2.1.
Section 10.3.3.2, Intent~ Design Standards:
a. Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities~ ~
The applicant is proposing a 100-acre preservation tract and 71.5
acres of open space. The majority of the land indicated as a
preservation tract and open space is currently receiving land use
value taxation. Currently these areas are used for cattle and
forested land.
b. Water supply protection~
The applicant has provided 100 to 200-foot setbacks from all
streams. Building sites are located so as to protect streams.
Roads have been designed to minimize stream crossings and the
preservation tract and open space surrounds the MechumRiver.
The comments of the Watershed Management Official are are file.
Staff will require easements designed to preserve water supply
quality and quantity.
c. Conservation of naturalt scenic or historic resources.
Conservation of water supply has been addressed above. In an
effort to preserve the scenic resources of the property, the
applicant has indicated an undisturbed buffer 100 feet in width
on development lots adjacent to 1-64. Visibility of the develop-
ment from any public roads will be limited due to topography and
existing vegetative cover. Adjacent to 1-64 a wooded ridge
exists which separates the development from the interstate. The
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
property slopes away from Route 635 and four potential house
sites may be visible. However, existing vegetative cover may
screen these houses from view. A portion of the preservation
tract and open space will be visible from the interstate highway
due to lower topography and cleared area used for agriculture.
Development lots sbnll not encroach into prime~ important or
unique agricultural or forestal soils as the same shall be ~hown
on the most recent published maps of the United States Depart-
ment of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source
deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice~
The Soil Conservation Service has indicated that five soils capa-
bility classes are included in the development. While the site
has no Class I soils, a significant amount of Class II soils do
exist. Class II soils have some limitations that reduce the
choice of plants or require moderate conservation techniques.
Some of the development lots do encroach into Class II soils.
The preservation tract and open space include significant areas
of Class II soils.
e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope
or flood plain and shall be situated as far as possible from
public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking
water impoundments~
Development lots have been designed to minimize encroachment into
areas of critical slopes. The placement of critical slopes on
the property makes their inclusion in the preservation tract
difficult. Housing sites have been located so as to avoid
encroachment onto critical slopes by the dwellings or accessways.
No development lots encroach on areas of flood plain. Ail flood
plain areas are included in the preservation tract and open
space. Comments regarding the development impact on water supply
tributaries is found in Attachment A (on file).
Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve
historic and scenic settings deemed to be of importance to the
general public and natural resource areas whether such features
are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel~
Due to existing vegetation and topography, the development lots
will have a limited impact on views from the public roads. Only
those lots near Route 635 will be visible. A 100-foot undis-
turbed buffer has been provided adjacent to 1-64 which will
protect views.
Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and
shall be situated so that no portion of the rural preservation
tract shall intrude between any development lots~
The development lots are clustered towards the front and middle
of the development. The only portion of the preservation tract
which intrudes into the development lots is that area required to
provide access and a building site.
Ail development lots shall have access restricted to an internal
street in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle~
Four existing houses currently have access to Route 791. One of
these houses is to be removed. Requiring these houses to utilize
the internal road system would require two stream crossings or
intrusion into the 100-foot setback from one stream and one
stream crossing. The overall length of this connection would be
a minimum of 1880 feet. Route 791 is currently nontolerable and
the Department of Transportation has stated 'that there be no
access or at least be limited to Route 791 until it is improved.'
This request limits access to Route 791 and reduces the number of
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 52
(Page 16)
entrances by one. Staff will recommend the construction of a
public road to serve this development in order to avoid inequi-
table distribution of maintenance costs caused by use of farm
vehicles for the preservation tract.
Section 10.5.2.1~ Where Permitted by Special Use Permit in the Rural
Areas:
The Board of Supervisors shall determine that such division is compat-
ible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this
ordinance, with reference to the goals and objectives of the Compre-
hensive Plan relating to rural areas including the type of division
proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to
the following:
1. The size~ shape, topoKraphy and existing vegetation of the prop-
erty ....
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
production ....
These two items have been addressed in Section 10.3.3.2(a). The
topography of the site is largely flood plain, however, areas of
critical slopes do exist. The shape of the preservation tract is
such that it substantially preserves those areas currently
devoted to agricultural activities.
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the
property since 1950 ....
The historic land use of this property is cattle grazing in the
open upper meadows and crop farming along the MechumRiver.
If located in an agricultural for forestal area~ the probable ef-
fect of the proposed development on the character of the area ....
Staff has determined that 60 percent of the land within one mile
of this property is in agricultural or forestal use. Development
has direct and indirect effects on agricultural and forestal
activities.
Among direct effects are: the vandalism of crops and equipment
and the destruction of livestock by children and pets; the desire
to regulate routine farm activities by residents of the develop-
ment (i.e., spraying of pesticides and herbicides; spreading of
lime and manure; proximity of livestock to residential areas;
commercial timbering activities) and high land prices which make
it difficult for existing farmers to expand and new farmers to
locate in the area.
Indirect effects are generally related to the expectation of
continued development in the area, resulting in the impression
that agricultural land is in transition. Indirect effects
include: reduced or marginal production; disinvestment in
equipment, livestock and other aspects of farming requiring large
and/or long-term investment and idling of farmland. Development
in an agricultural and forestal area can change the character of
the area, not only in the immediate vicinity but in remote areas.
Increased residential traffic on rural roads can result in
hazardous conflicts with slower moving tractors, fruit trucks and
logging trucks. New or expanded utility corridors through farms
may be required to serve new development.
Staff does not intend to imply that this development will result
in all these negative effects and offers them as general comments
only. These comments come from the President's Commission on
Agriculture. Locally, the County has experienced requests for
leash laws and leaf burning ordinances in rural subdivisions.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
5. The relationships of the property in regard to developed rural
areas ....
The development is not located in a developed rural area as only
four percent of the land within one mile is in parcels of five
acres or less.
53
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and pro-
posed population centers~ ....
Property is lOcated 11.4 miles from the Urban Area; 1.1 miles
from the Community of Crozet; and 7.2 miles from Ivy. North
Garden is 8.1 miles distant.
o
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital im-
provements programming ....
This proposal may result in the following school impacts:
Brownsville Elementary School - six additional students;
Henley Middle School four additional students; Western
Albemarle High School - five additional students.
The traffic generated from the proposed development would not,
in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: a.
Occasion the need for road improvement~ b. Cause a tolerable
road to become a nontolerable road~ c. Increase traffic on an
existing nontolerable road.
Route 635 is currently tolerable. Route 791 is currently nontol-
erable, however, entrances onto this road are to be reduced by
one.
The applicant submitted Item 9 comments.
With respect to application for special use permits for land ly-
ing wholly or partially within the boundaries for the water-
shed ....
The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as
related to filtration of sediments ....
Existing vegetative cover adjacent to streams is largely
tilled cropland and pasture. Other areas are wooded.
Existing vegetation adjacent to streams will be substantial-
ly maintained and should provide an effective filter strip.
The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be re-
moved ....
Housing sites are located near tree lines and should result
in a minimal amount of tree removal. Road configuration has
been designed to minimize impact.
c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after devel-
opment~
Impervious cover will be limited to buildin§ sites and road
construction.
The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area~
structure~ or drainfield to any perennial or intermittent
stream ....
Roads have been designed to minimize stream crossings.
Housing sites have been designated in areas which do not
impact streams or require stream crossings for access.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
e_~. The type and characteristics of soils ....
A preliminary soils scientist report has been submitted by
the applicant. This report by E. 0. Gooch and Associates
indicates that 'soils in the area investigated are suitable
for the installation of drainfields lines.' Soils on the
steeper slopes have the highest degree of erodibility.
Those soils adjacent to watercourses experience seasonally
high watertables.
The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturb-
ance during construction ....
The applicant's plan does not indicate disturbance of any
areas with slopes of 25 percent or greater. However, areas
with slopes approaching or exceeding 20 percent may be
disturbed.
The estimated duration and timing of the construction ....
No timing or phasing plan for this development is available.
The de~ree to which original topography or vegetative cover
have been altered ....
No activity has taken place in anticipation of this or any
other permit.
i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et sec.
of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the crea-
tion of artificial devices ....
No artificial devices are proposed other than existing
ponds.
Staff can support the open space east of the Mechum River as it
preserves areas of critical slopes and area adjacent to the river
which are sensitive to activity, both residential and agricultural.
The open space is to be owned by a homeowner's association and will
require an easement through the preservation tract in order to allow
access.
The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance require special use
permit for Rural Preservation Developments exceeding 20 lots. This
request is for 32 lots, which is equal to the potential number of lots
possible under 'Conventional Development'. In staff opinion, the
applicant has adequately addressed the concerns of the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, based on a comparison of Conventional
Development versus Rural Preservation Development.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan showing division 'by-
right' of the property. Staff opinion is that the proposed special
use permit Rural Preservation Development is superior to Conventional
or by-right Rural Preservation Development for the following reasons:
1. Preservation of significant agricultural areas;
Protection of water supply resulting from fewer stream crossings
and increased distance of development lotS from water courses;
3. Greater protection of areas of critical slopes;
4. Provision of undisturbed buffer from 1-64;
Superior design allowing concentrated preservation areas not
available with by-right development;
Configuration of 32 lots in this location would not constitute a
village orientation due to the general character of the area;
Development lots are located away from adjacent large tracts.
The open space and preservation tract are located near large
tracts of land currently in land use.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
For the above stated reasons, staff opinion is that this request is
consistent with Sections 10.3.3.2, 10.5.2.1 and 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and, therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-90-47,
Wrenson Corporation, subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff approval of preservation easement in accordance with
Rivanna Water and Sewer Easement prepared for Buck Mountain
Reservoir;
Development shall be in general accord with sketch titled 'Howell
Property' dated June 15, 1990;
3. Planning Commission approval of subdivision plat;
Access road to be constructed as a public road and dedicated to
public use.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 3,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the petition, subject to the condi-
tions recommended by staffadding the following conditions:
Buffer shall be required between Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and
23 and existing residential properties;
Planning Commission reserves the right to relocate the
entrance road with regard to streams.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission added Condition No. 5 because
of the concern raised by an adjacent property owner that much of the develop-
ment would be visible from his property. Condition No. 6 was added due to a
question regarding the relationship of the road to a stream running along the
property line.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff confirmed in the field that there is an inter-
mittent stream on the property. When staff visited the site, there was no
running water visible, but it was obvious that water drains through the area.
Mr. Bain asked if the terms "preservation tract" and "open space tract"
are synonymous in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said the terms are
separated by staff because of different uses. However, the terms are synony-
mous regarding the easement. There will be a dwelling only on the preserva-
tion tract.
Mr. Perkins asked who has ownership of the open space tract. Mr.
Cilimberg said he assumes it will be the homeowners' association, with ease-
ments provided to the tract across other properties. The preservation tract
will be owned by an individual who will live there. Ail of the residents of
the development may use the open space tract, but not the preservation tract.
There will be access across the preservation tract by easement.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the recommendations by the Watershed Management
Official in terms of lake maintenance are addressed by any of the conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said Condition No. 1 is intended to address the comments by the
Watershed Management Official, although the lake is not specifically ad-
dressed. He said the applicant could address the question of maintenance of
the lake when he speaks.
Mr. Perkins referred to the Watershed Management Official's comments
regarding language in the easement to prohibit full-scale timbering opera-
tions. He feels that rural preservations are intended to preserve land from
the development of houses, not from agricultural or timbering operations. Mr.
Cilimberg said these comments were related to any activities that would affect
water quality, since that is considered to be the primary significance of this
easement. Staff has proposed a condition that the easement be structured in
the same manner as the easement for the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir. In
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 56
(Page 20)
that easement, water quality is the primary purpose, with allowances for some
level of agricultural and forestal activity to occur.
Mr. Perkins said water quality is important in this application because
the MechumRiver flows into the Rivanna Reservoir. However, his opinion is
that rural preservation areas are set aside in cluster developments to pre-
serve the existing use of the land. In this case that is agricultural and
forestry practices.
Mr. St. John said the Open Space Land Act sets out what can be done on
open space lands under these easements. Agricultural uses and timbering are
specifically named as permitted uses in an open space easement. Mr. Cilimberg
said there will be agricultural and forestry activities allowed under the
water quality protection language.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the easement cannot be written that way. Mr. St.
John concurred and said the language is acceptable if the landowner agrees to
grant an easement under those terms. He said this language is above and
beyond what the Open Space Act calls for in restrictions. The basic concept
of the Act and of the idea of a preservation tract, in his opinion, is not an
opportunity to impose additional environmental restrictions, but to preserve
land from development.
Mr. Cilimberg said the ordinance cites three primary reasons for having
preservation tracts, one of which is water supply protection. The easement
language is structured so that the Board can approve any one of the three
reasons or require all three as purposes for the easement. If the Board feels
that the primary purpose of this particular easement should not be for water
supply protection, then the language based on the Buck Mountain easement may
not be desirable. He said the Planning Commission agreed with staff that
water protection, because of the location of the preservation tract along the
MechumRiver, is of a greater concern than agricultural and forestal activi-
ties or the conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources. He
pointed out that the language does not prohibit agricultural and forestal
activities.
Mr. Bain said it makes a difference who owns the open space tract as to
whether timbering operations will go on. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant can
verify ownership. He said staff will need to know the Board's intent as to
whether water protection is the primary intent of this easement so that the
language can be structured accordingly.
Mr. Bowie said it seems that the location of the land on a river that
feeds the water supply reservoir would make water protection a primary pur-
pose.
Mr. Perkins said when land is preserved for agricultural and forestry
uses, the water supply is automatically protected to the degree that it is
currently protected. Mr. Cilimberg said that is recognized in the language
for the Buck Mountain reservoir easement which allows agricultural activities,
but not to the detriment of the water supply.
Mr. Bain asked the size of the lots in the development. Mr. Cilimberg
said most of the lots are less than five acres.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Steve Von Storch, agent for the Wrenson Corporation, came forward to
speak. He said the open space will be owned by the neighborhood association.
He said the idea is that the neighbors have access through the preservation
area to the open space tract and have the right to hike and enjoy the land
without the owner of the preservation tract putting up "no trespassing" signs
He said Wrenson is interesting, in pursuing the language of the Buck Mountain
Reservoir easement, unless the Board feels that is not in the best interests
of the County. He feels that watershed protection is more important on this
property than a timbering perspective because most of the timber is on 25
percent slopes.
Mr. Yon Storch said he hopes the Board can see the advantages of this
development in that almost 50 percent of the land will be permanently pro-
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 57
(Page 21)
tected from development. He said the only reason this request is before the
Board is because the development contains more than 20 lots which could
otherwise be developed by right. He said staff expressed concern that large
developments not occur in remote areas of the County. Mr. Yon Storch said
this development is only one-tenth of a mile outside the recommended radius
from the Crozet growth area. He feels that no dangerous precedent is being
set by granting this development. He hopes the Board can support the request.
Mr. St. John said there was a question about the maintenance of the lake.
Mr. Von Storch said the applicant would prefer to see the lake owned and
maintained by the owner of the preservation tract, rather than being contained
within an easement. He said the pond is not currently used for anything, is
remote, and the road to it is almost inaccessible.
Mr. St. John agreed that it would be awkward to require the homeowners to
maintain the lake without the benefit of use or enjoyment from it.
Mr. Bowie asked if an easement to the open space is to be provided to
landowners. Mr. Von Storch that is their intent, and he will be glad to work
with staff on the specifications of the language. He said it is intended to
be a hiking and equestrian trail.
Mr. Perkins said it makes more sense to him to have the open space tract
adjacent to the people who will be using it. Mr. Von Storch said the ordi-
nance is currently structured so that the preservation tract is to have the
dwelling unit on it. Mr. Perkins said the property could still be divided to
allow for that. Mr. Von Storch agreed, and said he is open to discussion as
to a better division, given that the preservation tract has the dwelling unit.
He feels that the easement giving access to the open space accomplishes the
applicant's goal.
Mr. Cilimberg said the original presentation of the open space tract was
without any connection to the residential area. Since that time, the proposal
makes a tie between the open space and the residential area which staff feels
is adequate. He added that redesign of the parcels is certainly possible as
part of the subdivision plat review.
Mr. Von Storch said the applicant wants the whole design to make as much
sense as possible and is flexible regarding the design of the parcels. Mr.
Bowie said this is the first application under the new ordinance, and he is
delighted to see it. He supports the concept, but some flexibility is neces-
sary for the first time application.
Mr. Tom Wyant said he is the "infamous" adjoining property owner to the
south of this development. He said rural preservation sounds laudable. If
the application were for land in the Scottsville District instead of the
Samuel Miller District, he would have no complaints. However, the application
is next to him. He said the property is not in a designated growth area as
called for in the Comprehensive Plan. He feels that Albemarle County has a
good Comprehensive Plan which the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commis-
sion and staff have worked hard on. He said it is painful to him to see the
Comprehensive Plan manipulated every time an application comes before the
Board. Mr. Wyant said the lots are small and many are steep. Considerations
such as critical slopes, percolation characteristics, well locations and
required setbacks severely limit the location of a house. In addition, this
land is highly erodible with a stream on the south side which feeds into
Mechum River. Mr. Wyant said it is not a dry weather stream, and any distur-
bance will put silt into the stream. He said he has been fighting erosion on
his property for years, and his land is either wooded or grassland. Mr. Wyant
pointed out that access to the open space by anyone for any use will require a
stream crossing in a flood plain, which staff failed to mention. He said the
open space is "dead" land which was added to the total tract at a cheap price
so that the planners could be shown a piece of land colored green on a map.
Mr. Wyant said this piece of property appears to have been assembled together
recently from three properties. If the property lines have not been vacated,
it is possible that the Board is being asked to approve a nonconforming subdi-
vision on two parcels. He said all of these things must be considered. He
concluded by saying he opposes this special use permit as it now stands and
hopes that the Board will deny the request.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mrs. Humphris read from the Planning Commission minutes which indicated
that Mr. Tom Wyant was not opposed to the proposal but had expressed concerns
about the development. She asked Mr. Wyant to comment on the statement. Mr.
Wyant said the statement is not entirely correct.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bain noted that some of Mr. Wyant's concerns will be addressed at the
time of subdivision plat approval. Mr. Cilimberg said building sites must be
verified by the Planning Commission, taking into consideration the slopes and
other items mentioned by Mr. Wyant.
Mr. Bain said he assumes that staff verified that all of the parcels
included here meet the requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances
in response to Mr. Wyant's statement that these parcels have recently been put
together. Mr. Cilimberg said the actual development rights were based on the
three parent parcels identified in the staff report.
Mr. Bain said this type of development was discussed at great length in
reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and in developing the ordinance. He said the
only reason this is before the Board is because the development exceeds 20
lots, and the Board retained the right to review cluster developments exceed-
ing 20 lots. Mr. Bain said he feels this is an improvement over what was
allowed before the ordinance was amended, and he supports the application. He
is concerned about some aspects, but much of what the Board envisioned is
included in this development. The lots are four to six acres, leaving a large
residue parcel for agricultural use as the Board discussed.
Mr. Bowerman concurred that the proposal accomplishes the policies
decided by the Board and included in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordi-
nance.
Mr. Bain offered a motion to approve SP-90-47 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. He said other issues of concern must
be addressed at the time of subdivision plat approval. Mr. Bowerman seconded
the motion.
Mr. St. John raised a question as to whether a bridge over MechumRiver
would be required for access to the open space tract. Mr. Bowie said that
would have to come before the Board for approval. Mr. St. John said approval
of this special use permit with an open space tract as shown, seems to be a
commitment by the Board to allow such a bridge.
Mr. Bowerman said an application for a stream crossing is a separate item
which must meet other provisions of the ordinance. He doesnot feel that
approval of this request implies approval of a future request. Mr. St. John
then asked if this special use permit should be conditioned on approval of a
stream crossing. He feels the Board should deal with this now before approval
is granted and the stream crossing issue left dangling.
Mr. Perkins said he asked about the possibility of relocating the open
space tract because of the need to cross the stream.
Mr. St. John suggested that a condition be included that this special use
permit is conditioned on the approval of a subsequent special use permit for a
bridge across MechumRiver to carry the easement from the cluster development
to the open space. He asked Mr. Cilimberg to comment. Mr. Cilimberg said
that condition would mean that the entire development plan would hinge on
getting to the open space tract. He said the applicant may have some ideas on
providing access.
Mr. Von Storch said he does not object to a condition requiring review by
the Planning staff or Planning Commission of the configuration of the open
space with respect to a required stream crossing. He said the applicant will
work with staff to eliminate the need for a stream crossing if it looks as
though one is undesirable or unachievable. He said he has had no previous
experience with the requirements for a stream crossing. Mr. St. John pointed
out that the Mechum River is a pretty big stream, and the County is circum-
spect about the provisions of such a crossing.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Cilimberg said if access to the open space is critical in the Board's
review, such a condition is valid. Mr. St. John said he has been assuming all
along that the access to the open space is critical to the review. Mr.
Cilimberg said if the open space tract is adequate without the necessity of a
stream crossing, a condition could be added that access provided to the open
space tract would be subject to a special use permit.
Mr. Von Storch said he would like to get approval of the special use
permit tonight on the whole project so work can move forward. He said the
acreage will be under the same restrictions whether the term is open space or
preservation tract. The question is whether or not a special use permit for
stream crossing could be obtained. He feels there is no need to hold up the
project for a second special use permit process.
Mr. Cilimberg said an alternative for the applicant is to add the open
space tract to the preservation tract and make one large tract only for the
access of the owner of-the preservation tract. That would eliminate the need
for another special use permit process.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to see exactly what the applicant plans for
the stream crossing and any possible redesign of the parcels. Mr. Bain
withdrew his motion to approve, and Mr. Bowerman withdrew his second.
Mr. Bain then offered a motion that SP-90-47 be deferred to August 1,
1990, for resolution of the conditions in accord with the discussions tonight.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the conditions should include a provision for an
easement to the open space and ownership of the open space tract.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-51. Joyce D. Norford. Public hearing on a
request to locate a single-wide mobile home on property located on east side
of Route 20, about 1.2 miles south of intersection with Route 641. Tax Map
35, Parcel 19. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3
and July 10, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The property is currently developed with a
single dwelling and various out buildings. The proposed mobile home
location is in a wooded area. Existing vegetation screens the pro-
posed mobile home from the state road and adjacent properties. No
dwellings are visible from the proposed mobile home. Currently, two
mobile homes are located within one mile of this property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This parcel is located in Rural Area II of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states 'discourage rural
residential development other than dwellings related to bona fide
agricultural/forestal use'
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Two letters of objection have been
received concerning this petition. These letters stated a general
objection and incompatibility with surrounding uses.
The proposed mobile home is to be rented. The resident of the mobile
home is to assist in the repair of the house which is currently
occupied. The Board of Supervisors has viewed mobile homes favorably
when providing necessary housing but have not endorsed mobile homes as
rental units outside of mobile home parks. The location of the
proposed mobile home and existing house is shown on Attachment D (on
file).
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
6O
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions of
approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Be
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 3,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of the petition based on this being a
rental unit.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
The applicant spoke from the audience and indicated that she was tired of
waiting to be heard and the Board could make its decision without input from
her.
No other members of the public were present to address this issue, and
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he has not voted against a mobile home for owner-occupied
housing during his seven years on the Board. However, he has never voted for
a mobile home for rental use and he will not support this request tonight.
Mr. Bowerman immediately offered a motion to deny SP-90-51. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. 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. 11. ZMA-90-07. Unisys Corporation. Public hearing on
request to rezone 34 acres from LI, Light Industrial, to HC, Highway Commer-
cial. Properties are located in Urban Neighborhood One. Tax'Map 61W, Section
3, Parcels 19A and 19B. Parcel 19A located on north side of Hydarulic Road,
east of and adjacent to Village Green Shopping Center. Parcel 19B located on
west side of Route 29, south of and adjacent to Sperry Marine. Charlottes-
ville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10,
1990.)
Mr. Bowie said a letter has been received from the applicant requesting
indefinite deferral of this item. He suggested that deferral be granted to
August 1 to allow staff to determine whether the applicant wishes to set
another date to be heard.
Mr. Bain immediately offered a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
defer ZMA-90-07 to August 1, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 61
(Page 25)
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-90-53. John E. & Karin L. Slough. Public
hearing on a request for a stream crossing in the flood plain of Red Bud Creek
(30.3.5.2.1) on 27.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property on west side of
Route 20 about 4/10 mile south of Route 621. Tax Map 62, Parcel 49 (part).
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The parcel is currently undeveloped. Adja-
cent parcels are agricultural and residential. The stream is not
canoeable.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a
stream crossing which will utilize two 42-inch corrugated metal pipes.
The crossing will provide access to the rear portions of the site.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the information submitted by
the applicant and recommends approval as to engineering aspects.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 'Encroachment into flood plain lands by develop-
ment and other inappropriate uses can result in increased danger to
life, health and property; public costs for flood control measures,
rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation;
pollution of water resources, and general degradation of the natural
and man-made environment. Stripping land and paving over soil in-
creases the rate and amount of stormwater runoff, and can increase
flood levels.'
SUMM~Y AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed stream crossing will provide
access to the rear of the parcel in order to allow residential devel-
opment. The parcel was created from a larger tract which currently
has a stream crossing. The existing crossing is located on the
western boundary of the residue tract. Staff has discussed with the
applicant using the existing crossing to serve the parcel currently
under review as well as the residue. The applicant is not agreeable
to a joint crossing. The applicant cites existing development and
horse pasture as reasons to allow individual crossings. Staff agrees
with the applicant that utilizing the existing crossing would inter-
fere with the agricultural use of the property. Staff has also
discussed with the applicant a condition requiring provision of access
over the proposed crossing for any future lots created from the
residue. The applicant is agreeable to this condition. Past actions
by the County have attempted to minimize stream crossings by providing
access to multiple tracts of land, and a condition requiring joint
access is consistent with this policy.
A single stream crossing is consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as it provides for convenience of access and may reduce or
prevent congestion in the public streets by the utilization of a joint
access.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended that the
entrance to this site be improved. Staff recommends that the entrance
be improved prior to construction of the stream crossing in order to
ensure safe and convenient access.
The proposed stream crossing has been reviewed for flood impact by the
Engineering Department. The Engineering Department recommends approv-
al of this request. With the provision of access to future lots
created from the residue, staff recommends approval of SP-90-53,
John and Karin Slough, subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Department of Engineering approval of grading plan;
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
62
Crossing shall provide access to residue of Tax Map 62, Parcel
49. At the time of provision of access, staff shall require
joint maintenance agreement in order to ensure adequate mainte-
nance of the stream crossing and access road;
Prior to construction, entrance shall be improved in accordance
with Virginia Department of Transportation comments of June 21,
1990."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 3,
1990, recommended approval of this petition by a vote of four to two, subject
to the conditions recommended by staff. He said the applicant has clarified
Condition No. 2 in a letter dated July 18, 1990, to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cilimberg distributed the letter containing the following condition:
There shall be not more than two stream crossings over the one
hundred year flood plain providing access to Tax Map 62, Parcel 49
as it existed on January 1, 1990, the existing stream crossing and
this new stream crossing. Utilization of the existing stream crossing
by additional development shall be subject to the issuance of a
separate special use permit. At the time of provision of access
to the new stream crossing, the Department of Planning staff shall
require a joint maintenance agreement, in order to ensure adequate
maintenance of the stream crossing and access road.
Mr. Bain asked what is needed to upgrade the stream crossing should new
development occur. Mr. Cilimberg said the current crossing is for two dwell-
ing units and is not subject to requirements for a private road. Should
another lot be created to access this road, private road requirements will
have to be met. The stream crossing will have to be improved or replaced
subject to a special use permit. The new stream crossing is constructed to
serve any type of road design for this area in the future. The road itself
may require upgrading in the future, but the stream crossing will be adequate.
At this time, the public hearing was opened and the applicant came
forward to speak. Mr. John Slough said the 27-acre parcel was created by an
exempt transaction on January 31, 1990. Th~ parcel is currently undeveloped.
To the north there are several residences which were part of this tract many
years ago. The current stream crossing has been used since 1809 or longer.
Mr. Slough said the only access to this property in recent times requires
going from Route 20 across the flood plain. If there were a viable alterna-
tive to access this parcel from another state road, he would have considered
that first. Mr. Slough feels this proposal will keep the property in an
agricultural state and preserve the rustic nature of the property.
Mr. Slough said he submitted a clarification of Condition No. 2 as a
compromise because staff was concerned about sufficient road frontage to
create an additional exempt plat which would trigger the possibility of
another stream crossing. He offered this compromise because he does not
intend to put in a road over the current crossing or the new crossing. Mr.
Slough said he does not want to change the character of this 1809 estate by
putting in a paved state road.
There being no other members of the public present to address this
petition, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the
Board.
Mr. Bain asked how many by-right lots are on the 27-acre exempt plat.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are two lots.
Mr. Bowie said he is familiar with the property and has no problem with
the application.
Mr. Bowerman then offered a motion to approve SP-90-53, subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, substituting the new
Condition No. 2 distributed to the Board tonight and dated July 18, 1990.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
63
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.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below.)
1. Department of Engineering approval of grading plan;
There shall be not more than two streamcrossings over the one
hundred year flood plain providing access to Tax Map 62, Parcel 49,
as it existed on January 1, 1990, the existing stream crossing and
this new stream crossing. Utilization of the existing stream crossing
by additional development shall be subject to the issuance of a
separate special use permit. At the time of provision of access
to the new stream crossing, the Department of Planning staff shall
require a joint maintenance agreement in order to ensure adequate mainte-
nance of the stream crossing and access road;
Prior to construction, entrance shall be improved in accordance with
Virginia Department of Transportation comments of June 21, 1990.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Grant for Child Care.
Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman of the School Board, said the School Board
voted to apply for Federal Job Training Partnership Act funds for a $60,000
grant to operate a one-year program for teen parents at Murray High School.
They also voted to request the Board to accept the grant and appropriate fund~
to the program. The program will provide education, employment training and
parenting skills for student parents who have been accepted into the Murray
Program and meet the eligibility requirements of JTPA.
Mr. Way asked how many children would be in the day care center. Mr.
Martin said there is no way to say exactly how many children will be in the
day care at this time. He said 19 mothers who are not in school have been
identified as potential participants in the program. He said it would be nice
to have about 10 children, although it will take time to get to that number.
Mr. Bowie said this is not a public hearing; however, there are citizens
present who have been waiting in the hope of addressing the Board on this
matter.
Ms. Susan Bramley, Co-Chairperson of the Murray High School Parent
Advisory Committee, said she is speaking for the other parents who are present
and asked for the Board's support in accepting the grant. She said Murray
High School was developed in response to the sizable number of high school
students.in this community who are at risk of dropping out or of graduating
well below their potential. She said these parents feel that the proposed
program logically fits into the Murray High School program. It is a way the
community can help break a tragic cycle of young parents not finishing their
education. She said the children of these young parents all too often grow to
repeat the same cycle. She said her organization would like to see the
benefits of keeping these parents in school to gain a better education, become
more productive citizens, learn parenting skills, and be physically close
enough to foster the bonding and commitment necessary to the young children.
She said this program will help a group of kids who want to make good choices
from what may be a bad spot in their lives.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the primary purpose of the program is to allow
young parents to obtain their high school education. Mr. Martin said the two
primary objectives are drop-out prevention and vocational training. In his
opinion, drop-out prevention is the main focus. He said the goal is to keep
these students from dropping out or to bring them back %o school. He said
there are side benefits of better day care provisions for the children as well
as the students becoming better parents.
Mr. Bowie said the program addresses Murray High School continually as
the site. He asked if other high schools are involved in the grant program.
Mr. Martin said this grant is focused entirely on the program being located at
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Murray. He said it is possible that students who dropped out of other schools
may be accepted into Murray High School and thus, become eligible for this
program.
Mr. Perkins asked if there has been any effort to locate this program at
Western Albemarle High School as a substitute for the child care program which
was discontinued this year or to locate the program at CA-TECH where there is
an existing child care program. Mr. Perkins said his concern is that a
special program is being created for Murray High School.
Mr. Martin said this program would not help students at CA-TECH because
no other educational credits are offered there. These students would be
forced to take vocational courses only and could not get the credit necessary
to graduate from high school. He said if CA-TECH changes into a full scale
high school with academic credits, then the program may be more appropriate
there. At Western a similar program, which was not part of the JTPA grant, is
being cancelled because of a lack of interest and a lack of need. Mr. Perkins
said he feels it would be better to try to make the current program more
attractive rather than creating a new one. Mr. Martin said one consideration
is that this program is free.
Mr. Way said the grant represents $60,000 of taxpayers' money, so it is
anything but free.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the money could have been applied for use at
Western Albemarle High School as well as at Murray. Mr. Martin said at the
time the application was made, the program at Western was still going, and it
seemed to the School Board that Murray offered a better location for this
program because of the curriculum structure. He said the children will be
with the students r~!c~ in the day care training portion, while the parents
focus on academic courses for the remaining half of the day.
Mr. Bain asked if Western Albemarle High School was ever seriously
considered as a possibility for the location of this particular program. Mr.
Martin said the School Board did not consider Western as a possible site. He
is not sure whether staff considered Western or not. He said this program was
already planned before the Western child care program was cancelled. He feels
that this program fits the alternative education program at Murray better and
because there are students currently at Murray who would benefit from this
program.
Mrs. Humphris said instead of looking at what was wrong with this program
when it was presented to the Board in February, she prefers to look at what is
right now. She said the Board is in a much better position to deal with the
presentation than it was in February, due to the lack of planning and thought
with which the proposal came to the Board. This proposal indicates that the
School Board prepared answers to questions, and she looks forward to observing
the program when it gets underway and to the evaluation at the end of the next
school year.
Mr. Way said he still cannot support this program for many reasons. He
feels there are better ways of solving the problem than this program offers.
He said there is a problem which needs to be addressed, but he feels that this
is not the right way to address the problem. Although the hour is late, he
will give his reasons for opposing this program and offer an alternative
solution.
Mr. Way said he opposes this program for financial reasons. This $60,000
program is for 10 children at a cost of $6000 per child for 180 days of care,
or $160 a week. He feels that is not a proper use of taxpayers' funds. Child
care in this community does not cos~ $160 per week.
He said another aspect of the program with which he disagrees is that the
ram is free to participants. Everyone in the program automatically gets a
100 percent scholarship for free child care. He realizes that the program
~es to achieve more than just day care and that there is an instructional
~onent to train-teen mothers to become future day care workers and give
parenting skills. He saiH a similar program at Western Albemarle High
~chool originated in 1986 with 14 students. For the past two years there have
~een nine students; now there are only four students, and the program is being
:ancelled. Yet, the Board is told there is a crying need to supply a program
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
to train day care workers. Mr. Way asked if Murray High School really needs
additional elective nonacademic courses to better enable its students to find
employment after graduation. He said test results were published in the
papers recently from Albemarle County high schools. The composite score for
Murray was 28, for Albemarle High School it was 67, and for Western Albemarle
it was 60. The Board is being told that the way to improve the opportunity
for Murray students to achieve employment is to have additional nonacademic
programs included. Mr. Way feels this program will not assist students in
achieving employment. In fact, he feels it will hurt them. He feels that if
the high school students knew how to read and write, they would be able to
achieve employment.
Mr. Way wonders what is meant by "parenting skills". He tried to get
information from Fairfax County, another school district which provides this
kind of program. After a two hour runaround on the telephone, the most
information he could get is that parenting skills is a program developed by
Fairfax County. He was told nothing about what the program contains. Mr. Way
said his idea of parenting skills might be different from that of another
Board member. His point is that "parenting skills" is not an appropriate
subject to be taught in the public schools and he feels strongly about it. He
said he is aware on a national basis of some things included in the curriculum
under parenting skills. He is not saying that these things will be taught in
Albemarle County, but he is terrified at what is included in some curricula.
He doubts that the School Board has the faintest idea of what is actually
included in the curriculum, and the Board of Supervisors will probably never
know.
Mr. Way said the day care component in this proposal will not be licensed
by the state because it is an "educational laboratory", and Mr. Way said he
does not know what that means. He said the day care facility could not
benefit Murray students if it were at CA-TECH as Mr. Martin explained. Yet
students from Albemarle and Western are able to enroll in courses at CA-TECH.
For some reason, it appears to be an extremely important goal to get the
babies of high school students into the school buildings with their mothers so
that they can interact during the course of the educational experience. Mr.
Way said he does not believe that such a proposal is in the best interest of
either the baby, the mother, or the other students in the school. He believes
that the schools are determined to be the agency to cure all social ills and
to fill the curriculum with liberal social programs, thus diverting attention
from the primary goal of academically educating the youth. He added that the
financial rewards for these programs are staggering. The students and tax-
payers continue to be the losers in his opinion.
Mr. Way said he cannot support this program because he feels it is the
wrong solution and is not in the best interest of students. If the problem of
providing day care in order to help teen parents continue their education is
an important goal, and Mr. Way feels that it is, then the Board has a respon-
sibility to address that problem. He also believes that part of the problem
is within the curriculum currently in existence.
Mr. Way suggested that either the Board of Supervisors or the School
Board, or a combination of both, establish a fund of $20,000 to be used
exclusively for the children of students enrolled in high schools in the
County. Perhaps the United Way Child Scholarship Fund would be willing to act
as an administering agent for the fund. There are already criteria estab-
lished by them, and they are familiar with the many child care facilities
available. He feels that the financial situation of the teen mother, the teen
mother's parents, of the teen father, and of his parents, if possible, should
be taken into account. In this situation, the parents would have a choice of
the day care facility. They would not be forced to bring them into a "labora-
tory'' run by the state to raise their children. He said the details can be
worked out and put in place before the opening of school this year. This
solution would remove the responsibility of day care from the schools and
place it where it belongs. He feels the proper social agency, the teen
parents and their families should take the responsibility. He is convinced
that if the Board enacts the proposed program, it will proliferate. The same
facilities will exist in all three high schools, there will be a day care
coordinator in the central office for the School Division, and the County will
be spending about one-half million dollars per year.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
For these reasons, Mr. Way said he cannot support this particular pro-
gram. It is inappropriate and not the best way to deal with the problem. He
offers his alternative instead.
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Way gave an excellent presentation. He said this
proposal allows the mother to select the day care center of her choice while
she is at school, and the child care training can be done at CA-TECH. This
program would be available to any student from any Albemarle County school who
qualifies.
Mr. Bain said a philosophical discussion about this could go on forever.
He does not disagree with much of what Mr. Way said. However, he feels that
the key component of the school's program is education, with the goal of
breaking the cycle of students dropping out of school. He said the failure of
our school system will cost more than the amount of this grant if the cycle is
not broken. He sees the school's use of this grant as a chance to begin that
process. He feels that, with the right teacher dealing with the type of
students who are in the Murray program now, the School Board's proposed
program can work. The program addresses some of the things that the Murray
program has been attempting to address. He sees some possible problems, but
he sees some promising results, as well. He feels that this program will reach
the type of children who are attending Murray which the other high school
settings cannot reach. These students are on the borderline in terms of
background and motivation, and he feels this program can make a difference for
a number of them. He said the program should be carefully scrutinized, with
criteria established by the School Board.
Mr. Bowie said one aspect of Mr. Way's suggestion is that the teens who
have children, as well as their parents, are considered by their ability to
pay.
Mr. Way said he has been told that the main detriment to teen mothers
being able to finish school is child care. Therefore, the main thrust of his
proposal is to provide that care. He feels firmly and with all his heart that
the school system is not the place for child care and other social programs.
He feels that educators need to get on with the business of educating children
and not providing for all of their social needs. That is the basis for his
proposal which addresses those two issues.
Mr. Perkins said he agrees with Mr. Way that Murray students should be
given the opportunity to attend CA-TECH to learn a vocation, whether it be a
child care vocation or another. Mr. Bain said he suspects they have that
opportunity now. ~
Mrs. Humphris said she admires the amount of thought which Mr. Way gave
to his proposal, and she understands completely his point of view. She is
looking at a problem which is currently facing the community and must be dealt
with. She said this is a possible opportunity to accept a federal grant. She
said she is cognizant of the fact that this is $60~000 of taxpayers' money and
that it is definitely not free money. She is, however, willing to take a
chance this one time for this one year to see if this program helps. Mrs.
Humphris pointed out that this program does fly in the face of information
given to her from other people in the school system who say that regardless of
the opportunities given for teen parents in the way of child care, they are
more interested in earning money now than in finishing their education.
Therefore, these students drop out of school quickly to take a job which looks
better to them at the time than getting a high school diploma. She said the
proponents of this program say that it will mitigate that cycle.
Mrs. Humphris offered a motion to accept the grant and appropriate the
funds to the program if they become available. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with much of what Mr. Way said. With regard
to Mr. Way's concern about the role of the schools in social programs, he
feels that the role of schools has changed over the years. For example, in
Mr. Bowerman's school days, drugs and alcohol were not as prevalent and broken
homes and other problems of today's society were not as prevalent. He feels
that breaking the cycle is worth spending the money. However, he feels that
the School Board can evaluate this program at the end of the year and decide
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
how to proceed. He feels the School Board looked mt the program and gave the
public a chance to comment in response to discussions in February. He is
willing to support this motion to approve the grant in the hope that teen
parents will be helped, with further evaluation given at the end of the year.
Mr. Way said he differs with Mr. Bowerman because he believes the program
will hurt more than help.
Mr. Bowie said he would have supported a motion to implement the program
suggested by Mr. Way, but such a motion was not made. He believes everything
Mr. Way said is correct. However, it is apparent that there will be little
chance for any program to address the teen parent problem if this program
fails today. He said he does not like this solution, but the problem must be
faced andsolved. However, he would like to pursue Mr. Way's suggestion. He
believes, based on his six years on the JTPA, that such a program would be
funded by JTPA. He concluded by saying that he agrees completely with Mr.
Way, but to avoid failure of any program, he will support the motion. Next
year he would like to see the County pursue the suggestion by Mr. Way as a
better alternative. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 14. Report: Route 20/Avon Street Intersection Improve-
ment Project, Underground Tank.
Mr. Agnor said the School Division was advised over two months ago that
there will be a delay in construction of this project. Bus routes have been
scheduled around this intersection by using Monticello Road and Avon Street.
The buses are being re-routed without violating the School Board's policy
regarding the length of time students should ride a bus. The students prima-
rily affected live in Marshall Manor and Willow Lake. Mr. Agnor said that Mr.
Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of Virginia Department of Transportation, dis-
cussed with State agencies the possibility of the Board pursuing efforts to
expedite the project. He was told that concerns could be addressed to Mr.
Thomas Farley, the District Engineer in Culpeper. Mr. Agnor recommended that
no action be taken at this time since the school system has adjusted to the
problem. He sees no benefit by the Board getting involved.
Mr. Bain suggested that the Board stay in touch with Mr. Farley via the
County Executive and let him know that the County expects this intersection to
be open by September, 1991. He feels that the "burr needs to stay under the
saddle".
There was no further discussion of this item.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Proposed Budget Reductions of Local
Governments.
Mr. Bowie said two proposed resolutions are included for the Board's
review in opposition to proposed state budget reductions for local government.
One relates to this fiscal year and the other relates to future years. Mr.
Bowie said the resolutions could be distributed to all members of the Planning
District Commission and Chairmen of all Boards of Supervisors in Virginia.
Mr. Way offered a motion which was seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the two
resolutions as follows. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mrl Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties reported to its
members that on June 18 and June 22, resPectively, the Secretary of
Finance of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Paul Timmreck, presented the
House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Con~nittee with a
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
report stating that the current fiscal year will end with state
revenues being over $100 million short of estimates; and
68
WHEREAS, on June 28 a memorandum was received from Governor
Wilder in which it is stated that "in view of the prospect of further
declines in projected revenues, state agencies will again be subject
to additional budget cuts. Because sixty percent of the state general
fund budget consists of aid to localities and individuals, it may not
be possible to continue the current policy of exempting most local aid
from budget cuts"; and
WHEREAS, this Board has held the required public hearings and set
the tax rates for 1990; and
WHEREAS, these rates cannot now be changed.
THEREFORE, any reduction in State aid will result in direct
reduction in services to citizens, primarily in the fields of educa-
tion and social services, and some of these will be drastic.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that a copy of this resolution be for-
warded to the Honorable Lawrence Douglas Wilder, the Honorable
Thomas J. Michie, Jr., the Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres, the Honor-
able George F. Allen, the Senate Finance Committee, and the House
Appropriations Committee before the Governor unveils his solutions to
this problem on August 17, 1990.
WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties has reported to its
members that the Secretary of Finance of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Paul Timmreck, has stated that Commonwealth revenues may be over $200
million short of estimates for the 1990-92 biennium; and
WHEREAS, Governor Wilder has stated that it may not be possible
to exempt most local aid from budget cuts needed to correct this
expected deficiency; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is currently engaged in a large capital
improvements building program for the Albemarle County Public School
System due to a twenty-three percent population increase during the
last ten years, while being poised on the brink of a projected popula-
tion explosion expected during the 1990's; and
WHEREAS, the main source of income for the county is the real
property tax; and
WHEREAS, this Board has repeatedly asked for authority from the
legislature to raise revenues through means other than the real
property tax and that authority has never been granted; and
WHEREAS, any reduction in State aid without some compensating
ability for local governments to raise money will result in a reduc-
tion of necessary programs in the areas of education and social
services and some may be drastic reductions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board again petitions the
General Assembly to grant to localities the authority to obtain
revenues through other methods, including the return of a portion of
lottery proceeds to localities, a local option income tax, a meals and
increased lodging tax; and the continuation of the return of recorda-
tion taxes to localities.
FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby directs that a copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Honorable Thomas J. Michie, Jr., the Honorable
Mitchell Van Yahres, the Honorable George F.. Allen, the Senate Finance
Committee, and the House Appropriations Cox~ittee.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Agenda Item No. 16. Revisions to Personnel Policy.
Mr. Agnor said the salary administration section of Personnel Policy No.
60 needs to be revised to include payment of shift differentials as approved
in the Police Department budget.
There was no further discussion. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and
seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve the policy change by the addition of
paragraph H.5 as set out below. 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.
Shift Differential - When an employee is assigned to work eve-
ning/midnight shifts, a pay differential will be paid as
follows:
Evening: 4:00 P.M. - 12:00 A.M.: four percent of
base salary for position
Midnight: 12:00 A.M. 8:00 A.M.: five percent of
base salary for position
Employees must be permanently assigned to a shift to be
eligible for the differential. If an employee works a shift
that encompasses both evening and midnight shifts, the
differential will be paid based on the majority of hours
worked.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Ratify Execution of Purchase Option for the Urban
Area Elementary School Site.
Mr. Agnor said the Board is requested to ratify the Chairman's signature
on an option to purchase a 24-acre tract of land between the SPCA Road and
Berkmar Drive Extended. The option involves four owners and seven parcels of
land. There is a six-month option which costs $5000. The purchase price is
$1.08 million dollars. Mr. Agnor said the option will also cost one percent
of the purchase price per month beginning August 13 until the option is
exercised. If the land is purchased, this money is credited to the purchase
price. The purchase option provides for a number of easements for entrances
to the property, water and sewer lines, and access to detention basins. Mr.
Agnor said a buy-back option is included by the landowners in the event the
property is purchased by the County and not used for the school.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion seconded by Mrs. Humphris to ratify the
Chairman's signature on an option agreement made on July 3, 1990, by and
between 659 Land Trust, Encore Investors Limited Partnership, William W.
Stevenson and Alton F. Martin, William W. Stevenson, Grantor, and the County
of Albemarle, Virginia on property described as follows:
Grantor: 659 Land Trust, William W. Stevenson, Trustee. Lots 1,
2, 3 and 4 totaling 7.5513 acres identified on Albemarle Tax Map
45 as Parcels 29B, 29C, 29D and 29E. Subject to an easement. See
Declaration dated 7/23/87 (on file); save and excepting approximately
two-tenths acre lying in the northwest corner of Parcel 45-29B, and
formed by straight extension of the boundary line between Parcels
45-92 and 45-91, to State Route 659.
Grantor: Encore Investors Limited Partnership c/o Charles Rotgin.
Parcel A containing 5.029 acres identified on Albemarle-Tax Map 45
as Parcel 95A.
Grantor: William W. Stevenson and Alton F. Martin. 8.7508 acres
along Berkmar Drive identified on Albemarle Tax Map 45 as Parcel 94.
Grantor: William W. Stevenson. 4.64 acres between Route 659 and
Berkmar Drive identified on Albemarle Tax Map 45 as Parcel 92 less
and except about one acre as shown on exhibit B (on file) in the
northeast corner.
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
7O
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
There were no appointments made.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: May 16, June 6 and June 13,
1990.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes of June 13, 1990, Pages 11 through 23, and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Bain reported that a letter is coming from the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission to Mr. Bowie regarding outlying counties wanting
ko be included in the solid waste authority jurisdiction. He urged the Board
to consider carefully allowing outlying counties to be a part of this program.
He said strong expression has been made to that effect. Mr. Bowie said he and
Mr. Agnor attended a breakfast meeting, and he believes there was a misunder-
standing on the part of outlying counties. He said there was a terrible
failure to communicate, and everyone came out with the wrong impression.
Mr. Bowerman asked Board members for a consensus in asking staff to
provide information regarding what role the County may have in the licensing
process for Cable Television. He said there is frustration on the part of
users due to the difficulty in communicating and getting satisfactory answers
to complaints. Mr. St. John said he has a thick file on this subject and will
report to the Board on this matter.
Mr. Bowie said he received a letter as he came into the meeting tonight
from the Mayor of Charlottesville regarding a meeting to discuss Route 29
North. The letter proposes that two members of this Board, two members of
City Council and two representatives from the University of ¥irginiat[~omeet
discuss setting a public meeting. The aim is to have the full Board and
Council at the second meeting. The purpose of the first meeting is to decide
how to have that meeting. He said the County and the University have taken
essentially the same position. He is willing to go to such a meeting and
suggested the he and Mr. Bowerman be the representatives.
Mrs. Humphris asked why it is necessary to go outside the Joint Transpor-
tation Committee to have a meeting. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board would like
to call a meeting of the Joint Transportation Committee. Mrs. Humphris asked
why not just set up a meeting. Mr. Bain agreed that a pre-meeting is not
necessary. He suggested that Mr. Bowie, Mayor Edwards or Mrs. Waters, City
Manager Cole Hendrix and Mr. Agnor structure an agenda and set a meeting date.
Two representatives from the University should be included as well. No Board
members objected to the suggestion.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn to July 19, 1990, 2:30 P.M., Room 11.
At 11:55 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adjourn to July 19,
July 18, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
1990, at 2:30 P.M. 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.
CHAIRMAN