1990-09-05September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
145
A regular meeting of the' Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
¥irginia, was held on September 5, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Item 5.15 on the Consent Agenda and to
accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Notice of Willingness to hold a public hearing on the Route
729 project (0729-002-239, C501). Letter from J. A. Echols, Assistant Resi-
dent Engineer, dated August 15, 1990, states that any such request must be
received by September 7, 1990. Received for information.
Item 5.2. Letter dated August 16, 1990, from E. C. Cochran, Jr., State
Location and Design Engineer, YDoT, stating that the location and major design
features of Project 0631-002-224, C-502, Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road/Stage-
coach Road) have been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, was
received for information. (In his letter, Mr. Cochran states that the project
was approved with the following modifications: provide left turns at all
crossovers, delete the raised median at Pinehurst Court and provide a flush
painted median, and provide concrete sidewalks in the urban design area and
asphalt sidewalks in the rural design area at County cost.)
Item 5.3. Letter dated August 20, 1990, from H. W. Mills, Maintenance
Manager, stating VDoT's intent to repair the existing superstructure over two
small streams near Newtown on Route 690, during the period from September 10
through September 14, 1990. Received for information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated August 22, 1990, from J. S. Hodge, Chief Engi-
neer, VDoT, re: Route 29 Corridor Study North of Charlottesville, in response
to a letter dated August 13, 1990, from F. R. Bowie, as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of August 13 regarding the proposed
corridor development north of Charlottesville. I was happy to
accommodate you and others by extending the comment period on this
important issue.
We appreciate the efforts of the County Board of Supervisors, the
Charlottesville City Council and the University of Virginia in working
together to reach a mutually satisfactory solution and recommendation.
I realize varied opinions make it difficult to reach agreements on
matters that are important for the total area.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
146
As we continue to consider this matter, we will take into considera-
tion the County's concerns, as well as those of the citizens in the
total area. The study results, of course, will also be an important
part of the considerations.
Again, we look forward to continuing working with the County and
others to reach a reasonable solution for this very sensitive and
critical matter."
Item 5.5. Notice of a Location Public Hearing to consider the proposed
location of Route 691 (Tabor Street) between Route 240 and High Street (Route
1210) or the location of Park Road (Route 1204) intersecting Route 240 south
or west of Crozet (Project 0691-002-234, C501). Letter dated August 28, 1990,
from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, VDoT, states that the hearing is set
for September 19, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., at the Brownsville Elementary School.
Received for information.
Item 5.6. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for July 24, August
14, and August 21, 1990, received for information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated August 9, 1990, from Richard P. Moring, Director
of Engineering, re: request for central sewage system from James F. Dulaney,
Jr., on Tax Map 59, Parcels 77 and 80B. (In his letter, Mr. Moring states
that the Engineering Department has investigated the circumstances surrounding
the request and determined that the proposed modifications do not constitute a
central sewage system. Charlottesville Oil Company and/or Mr. Dulaney will
continue as the sole owner of the septic system and will provide sewage
service to the tenants through respective lease agreements. Unless there is
some intent to subdivide the existing parcels and sell the parcels and/or the
building on the parcels to the individual tenants, this septic system is not a
central sewage system and does not need the approval of the Engineering
Department or the Board of Supervisors.)
Item 5.8. Notice from the State Department of Education dated July 30,
1990, stating that an application for Virginia Migrant Education funds for
Fiscal Year 1991 in the amount of $11,620 has been approved (State Project
Number 802-91-1). Received for information.
Item 5.9. Notice from the State Department of Education dated July 30,
1990, stating that an application for Virginia Migrant Education funds for
Fiscal Year 1991 in the amount of $11,100 has been approved (State Project
Number 802-91-2). Received for information.
Item 5.10. Statements from the State Corporation Commission of Virginia
showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the beginning of the First Day of
January, 1990, of the property of: Gas and Pipeline Distribution Corpora-
tions; Electric Light and Power Corporations; Water Corporations and Tele-
communications Companies were received as information.
Item 5.11. Letter dated August 24, 1990, from George R. St. John, County
Attorney, advising that a petition for writ of election for a special election
to fill the office of Commonwealth's Attorney is not necessary. (In his
letter, Mr. St. John states that under Code Section 24.1-76, the Judges of the
Circuit Court will make the appointment on an interim basis. Section B of
this Code section requires that the governing body file a petition with the
Court to issue a writ of election to fill the vacancy by special election;
however, because there are less than 120 days remaining prior to the 1990
general election, the earliest a special election could be held would be
November of 1991, which is also the next date for election of a commonwealth's
attorney.)
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
147
Item 5.12. Letter dated August 22, 1990, from Hugh C. Miller, Department
of Historic Resources, to Phil and Mary Sheridan, owners of Mount Fair Resort
and Farm, stating that Mount Fair has been placed on the Virginia Landmarks
Register and endorsed its nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places. Received for information.
Item 5.13. Memorandum dated August 30, 1990, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., re:
Environmental Impact Review of University of Virginia projects. Attached is a
copy of a letter addressed to the Council on the Environment listing the
County's comments on the ~'Outdoor Field Space, North Grounds". (Mrs. Humphris
asked if the University recognizes County comments on the environmental impact
of University projects. Mr. Agnor said, in the past, the University has been
receptive to the recommendations and proposals that the County has made on
projects.)
Item 5.14. Memorandum dated August 30, 1990, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
forwarding a copy of an analysis by the County Attorney of the use of cash
proffers in zoning requests. Received for information.
Item 5.14a. Copy of Order from the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court on
the appointment of Lester A. Wilson, III, as Interim Attorney for the Common-
wealth of Virginia of Albemarle County, Virginia, effective September 10,
1990, and ending December 31, 1991, which represents the unexpired portion of
the term of Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Received for information.
Item 5.14b. Letter dated August 28, 1990, from The Honorable Lawrence
Douglas Wilder, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, concerning the Board's
resolutions on revenue shortfalls. Received for information.
Item 5.15. Memorandum dated August 30, 1990, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
recommending approval of the application of Police Officer Randolph F. Davis
for early retirement effective November 1, 1990. By the above recorded vote,
the Board approved the early retirement of Randolph F. Davis, effective
November 1, 1990.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-56. Alvin L. or Mary Lenahan (owners). For a
single-wide mobile home on 21 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property 2/10 mile
on private easement off southwest side Route 736 1/10 mile northwest of
intersection with Route 635. Tax Map 84, Parcel 14. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28, 1990).
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is currently developed with a
dwelling and two outbuildings. Approximately 20 inoperable vehicles
are located on the site. The applicant has been notified that this is
a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The properties adjacent to this
site are mostly wooded and no dwellings are visible from the proposed
mobile home site. The site is not visible from the state road.
Currently there are three mobile homes within a one mile radius of
this property.
Planning and Zoning History:
SP-426 - Issued administratively on October 31, 1974, for a portion of
Parcel 14, now shown as Parcel 14I. This was a permit to allow a
mobile home.
March 17, 1988 - Property was subdivided as a family division.
Comprehensive Plan: This parcel is located in Rural Area Three of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states 'discourage rural
residential development other than dwellings related to bona fide
agricultural/forestal use'.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
148
Sun, nary and Recommendations: One letter of objection has been re-
ceived from an adjacent property owner. As stated previously, the
applicant has been notified that the inoperable vehicles on the site
are a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. This violation is not
directly related to the mobile home request and staff recommends that
should this permit be approved, the mobile home not be placed on the
property until the violation is abated or the applicant submits an
acceptable administrative consent order with the Zoning Administrator.
These vehicles were on the site prior to the applicant's obtaining the
land by the 1988 subdivision.
The mobile home is intended to replace the existing dwelling on the
property which may be classified as substandard due to the lack of hot
water and limited living space. The mobile home will be occupied by
the owners of the property and is not intended for rental. The
existing house is to. be used for storage. Development rights remain
with the parcel which would allow the continued use of the house as a
dwelling unit. The proposed location of the mobile home is shown as
Attachment B (on file).
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;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (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;
Mobile home shall not be located on the property until such time
as all zoning violations have been abated or the applicant
submits an acceptable administrative consent order with the
Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 14,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-56 subject to the six
conditions of the staff and the following condition #7: "Mobile home is to be
occupied by Alvin and Mary Lenahan and family only and is notto be rented."
The public hearing was opened and the applicant, Mr. Alvin Lenahan, came
forward. Mr. Lenahan said the cars have been on the propertY for a long time.
He has had all of the vehicles crushed except for a couple of old buses.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-90-56 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located';
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
149
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;
Mobile home shall not be located on the property until such time
as all zoning violations have been abated or the applicant
submits an acceptable administrative consent order with the
Zoning Administrator;
Mobile home is to be occupied by Alvin and Mary Lenahan and
family only and is not to be rented.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorde,
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-61. Mitchell O. Cart/Augusta Lumber & Supply,
Inc. To amend SP-82-9 to allow saw mill hours of operation to be expanded to
6:00 A.M. until 12 midnight (5.1.15). Property on west side of Route 712
approx. 9/10 mile south of Route 692. Tax Map 99, Parcel 49A. Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
1990.)
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is developed with a sawmill and
lumber yard approved with SP-82-09. A single-family dwelling exists
immediately adjacent to the north. In 1978, a special use permit
(SP-78-01) was approved for the location of a sawmill on property to
the south and west (Tax Map 99, Parcel 49).
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend condition
l(c) of SP-82-09. The applicant is requesting that all activities be
permitted between 6:00 a.m. and 12 midnight. Activities include
sawing, planing, shipping, operation of other processing machinery,
and loading/unloading of wood/wood products. The boiler plant and
drying kiln would continue to remain unrestricted as to hours of
operation. All other conditions of SP-82-09 would remain in effect.
The applicant has submitted a justification for this request.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in Rural Area Three of
the Comprehensive Plan. The sawmill and lumber yard represent utili-
zation of the forestal resources of the County which is supportive of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary and Recommendation: The conditions of the current special use
permit limit the hours of operation with no activities, other than
boiler plant and drying kiln, permitted before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00
p.m. The hours of operation specified in SP-82-09 for sawing, plan-
ing, chipping and operation of other processing machinery is consis-
tent with Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance. The hours of
operation specified by SP-82-09 for loading/unloading of wood/wood
products are more restrictive than the hours noted in Section 5.1.15.
The limit on hours of operation were amended by the Board of Supervi-
sors (May 19, 1982) as requested by the applicant in a March 11, 1982,
letter to Ronald Keeler.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
150
The applicant has stated economic efficiency as a justification to
allow increased hours of operation. The applicant has noted a need to
operate two shifts in order to supply sufficient lumber for the drying
kilns and to provide waste material as fuel for the boiler. No
increase in employees or traffic is anticipated. Currently, approxi-
mately 50 people are employed on the site and approximately 26 trucks
visit the site a day.
The applicant is requesting amendment to SP-82-09 due to complaints
received by the County for operation of the facility beyond the
specified hours of operation. The nearest dwelling is located approx-
imately 100 feet north of this site. While the use is supportive of
the County's forest industry, staff is reluctant to recommend expanded
hours of operation as they would reduce the number of quiet hours the
adjacent property owner could expect to have for sleep. That is to
say, expanded hours may deprive adjoining owners of reasonable use of
their properties. Operations as late as 12:00 midnight would not be
in harmony with the character of the district, and would be of sub-
stantial detriment to adjacent property owners. Therefore, staff
cannot recommend approval of SP-90-61 Mitchell O. Cart/Augusta Lumber
& Supply, Inc.
The Department of Transportation has recommended clearing of vegeta-
tion at the entrances to the site. Staff is not recommending a
condition requiring that this work be done as it is not directly
related to this request. Trimming of vegetation should occur peri-
odically in order to maintain adequate sight distance.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this request, staff recommends that condition l(c) of SP-82-09
be amended as follows:
1(c).
No sawing, planing, chipping or operations of other process-
ing machinery (except the boiler plant and drying kiln),
loading/ unloading or wood/wood products shall occur between
12 a.m. (midnight) and 6:00 a.m."
Mr. Bain asked the approved hours of operation. In one place the staff
report lists the hours of operation as being from 6 a.m. until 9 p.m. and then
later in the report, the hours of operation are listed as being from 7 a.m.
until 7 p.m. Mr. Keeler said the correct hours are listed in a letter dated
May 20, 1982, addressed to the applicant (Attachment A) reading: "No sawing,
planing, chipping or operation of other processing machinery (except the
boiler plant and drying kiln) shall occur between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. No
loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall occur between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m."
These hours of operation were amended at the request of the applicant and are
consistent with the limitations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance in its'
Supplementary Regulations.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 14,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of SP-90-61.
The public hearing was opened and the applicant, Mr. Howard Carr, came
forward. Mr. Carr said the land for this sawmill was purchased in 1959 and
the sawmill built shortly thereafter. When Mr. Sam Henderson, a neighboring
property owner, purchased his property, the sawmill was already in existence.
Mr. Carr explained-that the reason for the request is to allow additional work
hours during periods of large inventory so that the logs will not deteriorate.
He stated that the business has been operating from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. and he
was under the impression that he was in compliance with the special permit.
Earlier in the year a large influx of logs was received and the business began
operating until 11 p.m. At that time, he was informed by the Zoning Admini-
strator that he was not in compliance with the special permit. He does not
anticipate the business running two shifts from 6 a.m. to 12 midnight, but
requested the longer hours to give the business some leeway in case those
hours were needed for operations. If the business is not allowed to operate
the hours it presently is operating, some employees will have to be laid off
and he does not know how the business would fare economically. Mr. Cart said
he has no problem with changing the request to make the hours of operation
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
151
from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. That would allow the neighboring property owner eight
hours of sleep instead of six hours. He never knows when the business will
receive large influxes of timber. He feels that the business will be badly
damaged economically if it cannot get the additional hours of operation.
Mr. Bowie asked if Augusta Lumber ever had a special permit that extended
the hours until 9 p.m. Mr. Carr said he was under the impression that the
business could operate until 9 p.m. Mr. Bowie asked what would happen to the
business economically if the hours were extended to just 9 p.m. Mr. Cart said
the business is currently operating from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. and has built
additional facilities to handle the production. If he does not get the
additional hours, he would not have an opportunity to saw influxes of logs.
The consequences of not operating longer hours would mean cutting off taking
logs a month earlier in the year.
Mr. Carr said the business has attempted to cut its noise level. A new
chipper was installed a couple of years ago. They have also substantially cut
the noise from the blower. The decibel readings taken now are substantially
lower than when previously taken. Mr. Carr said he also thought that the
sawmill was grandfathered because of its preexisting status. That is why he
though the business could operate until 9 p.m.
Mr. Bowie asked why the sawmill had to turn the loggers away. Mr. Carr
said because following some bad weather conditions, the loggers worked over-
time and cut a lot of logs. His business was not allowed to operate the long
hours necessary to handle all of the logs that were coming in.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the business operated every day until 9 p.m. Mr.
Cart said over the past five years, they operated a number of different hours,
but have consistently operated more than eight hours a day. This is the first
year they have ever declined to take logs. Mr. Bowerman asked if the logs can
be stored on the site. Mr. Cart said logs cannot be store for a long length
of time because they will stain and crack open. Also, they have to take into
account that approximately 70 percent of their lumber is exported.
Mr. Perkins asked for a comparison of the decibel readings from a handout
Mr. Carr handed to the Board earlier. Mr. Carr said if a person is standing
15 to 75 feet off the road and a car goes by, it will register about 80
decibels. The same thing happens at a sawmill, there are bursts of noise.
Mr. Carr said the business has taken a few steps in changing the chipper
and loading procedures. In addition, they have changed their traffic pattern
to move loading away from Mr. Henderson's house.
Mr. Samuel H. Henderson, a neighboring property owner, said his house is
located to the northwest of the mill. His only complaint is the noise from
the chipper. The chipper is pointing directly towards his house and is
approximately 125 feet away. When the chipper was changed, he tried to get
Mr. Carr to turn it to the opposite side of the mill away from his house and
Mr. Carr presented him with all kinds of excuses why it could not be done. He
purchased his house in 1964. The mill was there when he bought the house, but
it was a small operation and was not a problem. At that time, the mill
operated from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. He has been told that the Zoning Admini-
strator has written letters to Mr. Carr on two separate occasions informing
him that he is in violation of his permit. When the mill is operating and the
chipper is going, in his house, if he is more than ten feet away from his
wife, they have to yell at each other to be heard. If a decibel level is
taken at his property line, he is sure it would be more than the level allowed
by law. Again, his only complaint is the noise from the chipper. Mr. Hender-
son then presented a petition with more than 40 names of neighbors in opposi-
tion to the request. If the sawmill operates until 12 midnight, he does not
know when he and his wife are supposed to sleep. He is retired, but his wife
is still working. He asks the Board to not allow the business to operate any
more hours than it is presently operating.
Next to address the Board was Mr. David Franzene a resident of Route 712
in North Garden. He used to live on Route 813 which lies perpendicular to
Route 712, across from the sawmill. He is now about two miles from the
sawmill but can still hear it, not just the chipper and the truck. The
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
152
petition that the Board has before it has 42 names of people who live pri-
marily in North Garden, but also some other people in the County who are
concerned about the request. He then read some of the names from the peti-
tion. The area is primarily a quiet, residential, rural community and is near
the North Garden Village. This request is inconsistent and not in harmony
with the district. In his opinion, by allowing this request, it would be
inconsistent with the directions of the Board for the North Garden area which
is to encourage residential growth. Mr. Cart has mentioned the layoff of
employees if this request is not granted. He is not sure that makes a lot of
sense. If he is operating now until 9 p.m., admittedly in violation, he does
not see how if he is not permitted to operate until 12 midnight that he would
have to lay offemployees. He may not have the opportunity to hire additional
employees. Mr. Cart continues to be in violation of his permit. This is a
significant amount of noise and there is significant opposition on the part of
the North Garden community. He would encourage the Board to consider the
recommendation of the staff and Planning Commission and deny the request.
Mr. Harry Campbell, another neighboring property owner, said the opera-
tions of the sawmill also disturb him. He also runs a sawmill on property
adjoining Mr. Carr's and he runs his operation eight hours a day. There are
few sawmills that run two shifts and sawmills can govern the logs that come
in.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Carr if the chipper could be moved since that is the
item that received the most complaints. Mr. Carr responded "no".
Mrs. Humphris asked if it would not be possible to change the schedule of
the loggers. Mr. Carr said he could govern the loggers by cutting them off
and not buying from them, or he could cut back to receiving a certain number
of loads a week, but most of the time he needs these loggers. If he cuts
these loggers off and they start hauling to another county, he would have a
hard time getting them to start delivering to him again. There are mills in
other counties that he has to compete with and most of those mills are running
two shifts. In his case, it is much more efficient to run a 12 hour shift
than it is to run an eight hour shift.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cart what he considers to be fair to his neigh-
bor. Mr. Carr said he has taken some steps. He thinks it is the blower
making the noise, not the chipper. He has cut the noise from the blower
considerably in the last week. Mr. Henderson may not have noticed the change
yet, but he will. He can agree to the hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and does not
think those hours would create any economic problems. Mr. Carr said he has
talked to a lot of people in North Garden who do not have a problem with the
noise from the mill. He also has a small petition that people have signed.
It has been his experience that if someone takes a petition around and asks
people to sign it, most of the time people will sign the petition no matter
the position it advocates. He thinks that Mr. Henderson is a good neighbor,
but he does not know of anything more that he can do to alleviate the noise.
Mrs. Humphris asked why the chipper cannot be moved. Mr. Cart said the
chips have to be blown into a container that is 40 feet long. That container
is hooked onto a truck which is another 20 to 25 feet long which has to be
maneuvered into that position. The operating space is limited the way it is
right now. He did look at another location on the property, but did not feel
that the space was adequate. Mrs. Humphris asked if the chipping has to be
done all of the time. Mr. Carr said the chipping is an integral part of the
process. When the log is taken into the mill, the first thing they do is cut
the slab bark off. The bark then goes through the chipper. It would not be
feasible to do this some other way. They have never done any planing at the
mill. Other parts of the log also go into the chipper. Mrs. Humphris asked
if it is feasible to do this any other way to reserve chipping to regular day
time hours. Mr. Carr replied "no'!. They are already having trouble getting
rid of their chips.
Mr. Bain said this operation has been in the neighborhood for a long
period of time. He is not willing to allow the hours from 6 a.m. to 12
midnight, but he could agree to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. which he thinks is a normal
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
153
operating time. The applicant should be able to control the operation during
that time frame. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Bain.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks this operation is important to Albemarle
County in that it does provide a good market for logs. This operation is alsc
important for the number of employees and because the County has excellent
soils for growing red oak and yellow poplar trees. The best way he knows that
landowners can be encouraged to grow something is to pay a good price for that
service and if one buyer is eliminated then the price of the logs is cut. He
can support hours of operation being from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. or 7 a.m. to 11
p.m. The sawmill has been there long enough that the neighbors know of its
existence. He thinks the noise is something that the people can get used to,
tolerate and adjust to. If this operation is not allowed to exist here, then
he does not know where it can go.
Mrs. Humphris said she is not discussing the validity or trying to
diminish the value of this business to the community. This has to do with
whether Mr. Henderson can sleep and talk to his wife, which she thinks Mr.
Henderson should have a right to do, for a certain number of hours a day.
This problem has come up before Where a business starts off small in a rural
area and grows. This was not a problem in the beginning because it was small.
She wants Augusta Lumber to continue in operation, and does ~o~ want to damage
their business, but she feels that the Board should also be sensitive to Mr.
Henderson and the fact that he lives within 100 feet. She thinks that 7 a.m.
to 9 p.m. would be a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees that the neighbors have a right to talk to each
other, but they have been living there for 25 years. Nobody lived there
before the sawmill was located and the person who moved away did not move that
far away. This company pays premium prices for good wood which ripples
throughout the County. He would not support the operation until 12 midnight,
but would like to see them have a fair chance at running the business and
could agree to 10 p.m. He has received several calls from loggers in support
of the request.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-90-61 to amend condition l(c) of SP-82-9 as follows:
l(c) No sawing, planing, chipping or operations of other processing machinery
(except the boiler plant and drying kiln), loading/unloading or wood/
wood products shall occur between 9:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.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.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-66. Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville
(applicant), Louise W. Fisher (owner). To construct a monopole communications
tower of approx. 150 feet (10.2.2.6) on 88.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property on north side of Route 633 approx, one mile west of Route 698. Tax
Map 97, Parcel 4D, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on August 21 and August 28, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Centel Cellular Company petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit for location of a RADIOWAVE TRANSMISSION
TOWER (10.2.2.6) on 5682 square feet of an 88.5 acre tract zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property is located at the peak of Heard's Mountain near
Route 633 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: Currently, four towers are located in a
cluster in this area:
AT&T communications tower - 150 foot height;
Southern Railroad (Georgia Realty) communications tower -
150 foot height;
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
154
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline communications tower -
150 foot height;
Virginia Department of Forestry lookout tower - 85 foot height.
Centel Cellular proposes razing of the Forestry tower.
The communication towers are visible from U. S. Route 29 South and
other areas. However, due to tree height, the 85-foot Forestry tower
is not visible.
Applicant's Proposal: Centel Cellular Company proposes removal of the
85 foot Forestry tower and replacement with either a 150 foot self-
support (lattice) tower or a 150 foot (self-support) galvanized steel
monopole tower. The tower would be designed to accommodate additional
usage (Virginia Tech). This project is designed to improve cellular
telephone coverage within the Centel service area.
Staff Comment: Broadcast would be within the 825 MHz - 890 MHz fre-
quency band (UHF band) which is above the human resonant frequency
range (30 - 300 MHz). Broadcast power would not exceed 100 watts.
For these reasons, staff has not requested information related to RF
radiation or blanketing interference. Other towers in the area employ
'line-of-sight' microwave transmission/reception and, therefore,
ambient exposure levels to the general area should be relatively low.
Due to remoteness from residential uses, visibility and compatibility
are not pronounced issues. The closest dwelling is about 3000 feet
from the site and situated on Heard's Mountain. Due to tree height
and other factors, the various towers are not visible from this loca-
tion.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has recommended installa-
tion of a commercial entrance at Route 633, but from past reviews,
staff opinion is that maintenance traffic will not be of a volume to
warrant a commercial entrance. The entrance, however, is on the
inside of a sharp curve and staff would recommend that a minimum
private entrance sight distance be achieved (i.e., 250 feet in both
directions) which will involve tree removal and grading.
Summary and Recommendations: New modes of radiowave communication,
combined with the physiography of Albemarle County have resulted in
numerous requests for transmission/reception tower locations. In
response, the County has attempted to confine broadcast towers to
clusters or 'tower farms.' In an effort to reduce the total number of
new towers, the County has recently encouraged tower design to accom-
modate additional (future) users. Centel Cellular has responded to
those general guidelines and is designing the tower for additional
usage.
The proposed tower would be 150 feet in height, comparable to the
existing Southern Railroad and AT&T towers, but would be less visible
due to different antennae.
Staff opinion is that this use would not be detrimental nor obtrusive
in this area and is otherwise consistent with the criteria of Section
31.2.4.1. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet;
2. Administrative approval of site plan to include:
a. Staff approval of equipment building(s) and other improve-
ments;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of plan to
obtain 250 feet of sight distance at entrance to Route 633;
Existing Forestry tower to be removed prior to construction of
new tower;
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
155
Staff approval of additional (future) antennae installation. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or
approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc.,
even though they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this petition."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 14,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-66 subject to the conditions
of the staff, deleting condition #2b.
Mr. Bowie asked why the Planning Commission deleted condition #2b. Mr.
Keeler said the Commission felt that the traffic generated by the towers on
the site was so insignificant that the access did not warrant improvements.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Fred Landess, representing the
applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Landess introduced Ms. Patty Mayes, a
staff engineer for Centel, who was present to answer any technical questions.
He said Mr. Keeler had done a good job of presenting the request. Mr. Landess
said WVTF is a public broadcasting station sponsored by Virginia Tech. The
owners of this property gave Virginia Tech permission to use the site and
Centel indicated it had no problem with accommodating the request. Regarding
traffic, Centel normally makes about two trips per month to this site.
Mrs. Humphris referenced a letter received from Centel which states that
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not require lighting or marking
for the structure, and asked if there is any objection to a condition that
there be no lighting on top of the structure. Mr. Landess said he does not
think Centel would have any objection because the tower is not expected to be
lighted. The only difference would be if a federal agency made lighting a
requirement. Mr. Keeler said the FAA usually requires red obstruction
lighting on structures at an elevation of 200 feet or greater.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve
SP-90-66 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Con~nission and
a fifth condition stating: "There shall be no lighting on the Centel tower
unless required by a federal agency." The conditions are set out in full
below:
1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet;
Administrative approval of site plan to include:
a. Staff approval of equipment building(s) and other improve-
ments;
Existing Forestry tower to be removed prior to construction of
new tower;
Staff approval of additional (future) antennae installation. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or
approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc.,
even though they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this petition;
There shall be no lighting on the Centel tower unless required by
a federal agency.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-65. Moore House, Inc. (applicant), Bishop
Walter F. Sullivan (owner). To construct elderly housing, nursing facility
and adult day care (20.3.2.3) on 7.04 acres zoned PUD. Property on east side
of Hillsdale Drive north of and adjacent to the Church of the Incarnation in
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
156
the Branchlands Development (Neighborhood 2). Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel
8. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21
and August 28, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Property is cleared adjacent to Hillsdale
Drive. The rear portion of the site is wooded. Squire Hills Apart-
ments are adjacent to the north and the Church of the Incarnation is
located to the south.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to provide 64
independent living units with 52 assisted living accommodations of
which 16 rooms are envisioned to be converted to provide 30 beds of
intermediate care nursing. This will result in a total of 116 units
with a density of 16.5 dwellings units per acre. The applicant has
provided a detailed description of this request (on file). A site
plan has been submitted which has been reviewed in conjunction with
the special use permit (on file). The applicant's proposal includes a
donation of 1.01 acres for use by the Jefferson Area Board for Aging
for an Adult Day Care Center. The Zoning Administrator has stated
that information has been submitted which would allow for the JABA
Adult Day Care to be established as a by-right public use, provided
that it is found in keeping with the intent of the approved PUD and
the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning and Zoning History: The original Branchlands PUD was ap-
proved in the late 1970's and a substantial revision occurred in early
1981. The current PUD conditions were amended by the Board of Super-
visors on July 6, 1988.
Staff has received comment from another developer in Branchlands who
objects to the appropriateness of this application. The developer's
concern is that this site was specifically approved for either 82
'fair market' units or 106 low/moderate cost dwellings and that no
other use may be made of the property without a unified rezoning
petition filed by all members of the PUD. Further, it is the deve-
loper's contention that a rezoning application for this purpose is
required by the last amendment to the PUD which incorporated agree-
ments and commitments as required by Section 8.5.1(i) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Background: Mos~ of what is currently Branchlands PUD was owned by
the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond. In the early 1970's, the
Church sought to divest oWnership of the majority of the property
which at that time was zoned for high-density residential and commer-
cial development. Rather than market the property with unfettered
zoning, the Church obtained PUD approval which envisioned among other
things inclusion of some low and moderate cost housing (this was not a
condition of approval but an intent of the Church at that time).
Following original PUD designation, several amended PUD petitions were
submitted and approved.
Since 1978, it has been County policy not to endorse rezonings along
the U. S. Route 29 North corridor between the South Fork Rivanna River
and the City which would increase traffic generation. Review of
Branchlands files since that time will reveal that the issue of
TRAFFIC GENERATION as opposed to the specifics of LAND USE MIXES has
been the primary focus in staff recommendation.
Also during this period, the PUD was parceled-out into multiple
ownerships and disputes arose among these various owners. Finally, in
the late 1980's it became evident that issues of drainage and road
construction would not be resolved without amendment to the PUD and
that further development without unified drainage and road plans would
be contrary to the public interest. Staff advised the various pro-
perty owners that until these issues of mutual and public interest
were resolved through unified plans and new agreements,_staff would be
unable to recommend approval of any additional development within the
project.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
157
The result was ZMA-88-07, approved by the Board in July 1988, which
provided unified drainage and road plans as well as a revised land use
schedule. The posture of the current Moore House petition should be
compared to staff review of ZMA-88-07:
Under ZMA-88-07, the various property owners developed agreements
and conditions to govern development of the project. Staff
restricted its review of the agreements/conditions to matters of
public interest. The Moore House petition does not appear
inconsistent with these agreements/conditions in terms of any
feature of mutual interests to the various developers (i.e, - no
change to drainage or road plans is proposed).
As to land uses proposed under ZMA-88-07, staff focused on issues
of traffic generation as opposed to specifics of the proposed
land use mix. The Moore House petition has been reviewed in like-
manner.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Neighborhood Two and is
recommended for medium density residential.
Traffic Generation: The applicant has submitted a traffic study for
review. This traffic study indicates that total traffic generation
will be 460 vehicle trips per day. The Virginia Department of
Transportation has stated that the 1986 traffic study for Branchlands
indicated 500 vehicle trips per day from this site. Based on the
information provided by the applicant, traffic may be reduced when
compared to the by-right use of the property.
Compliance with PUD Agreements: This site has been allocated a
development allowance of 82 dwellings or 106 low/moderate cost units
by the approved PUD. The applicant has stated that a portion of the
units will be subsidized by the Church. However, the applicant is
unable to provide sufficient information to qualify for bonus factors
as low/moderate cost units. The intent of allowing for additional
units if they are low/moderate cost is to allow the property owner to
take advantage of the bonus provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The
bonus provisions allow for a density increase of up to 30 percent with
the provision of low and moderate cost housing. The applicant is
requesting a density increase of approximately 29 percent. Dedication
of land for public use allows a developer to receive a 15 percent
density increase. The dedication of land for use by JABA would allow
for this density increase. Item A.2 of the agreements for the PUD
requires compliance with the open space and recreational requirements
of the ordinance. The site plan indicates that 55 percent of the site
will be used as open space which exceeds the 25 percent requirement of
Section 20.8.2. No recreational facilities have been provided due to
the character of the development.
Other uses have been established in the Branchlands PUD by special use
permit. Those uses are a Congregate Care facility for the elderly,
SP-85-76, and a motel, SP-85-75. Both of these permits were reviewed
primarily for their impact on the overall traffic generation from
Branchlands, as well as their compliance with the PUD agreements. The
facility for the elderly provided 120 one-bed units in an area desig-
nated for residential use. The total number of units allowed in that
portion of the PUD was 312 elderly housing units. The 120 units were
counted as part of the total allowed units. The motel was located in
an area shown for commercial/service. Staff opinion is that the
proposed use may be established by a special use permit in the same
manner as SP-85-75 and SP-85-76, provided that the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors can make positive findings in the uses,
compliance with the general PUD agreements, the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for
medium density residential use with a density of 4.01 to 10 dwellings
units per acre. As stated previously, density on this site under the
applicant's proposal will be for 16.5 dwellings units per acre which
exceeds the recommended density of the Comprehensive Plan. Section
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
158
2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which regulates bonus factors states
that 'the resulting density shall not exceed the recommended density
shown in the Comprehensive Plan'. The current by-right level of
development may result in a density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre
which also exceeds the recommended density of the Comprehensive Plan.
The total density for the residential portions of the PUD is 10.5
dwelling units per acre. This density slightly exceeds the Compre-
hensive Plan's recommendation density for the area.
Compliance with Supplementary Regulations (5.1.13): This section of
the Ordinance regulates rest homes, nursing homes, convalescent homes
and orphanages.
Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical sur-
roundings are compatible to the particular area; Adjacent uses
include Squire Hill Apartments, Marriot Hotel and the Church of
the Incarnation. Adjacent uses appear to be compatible with the
proposed use.
No such use shall be established in any area either by-right or
by special use permit until the Albemarle County fire official
has determined that adequate fire protection is available to
such use; Available fire flow is 3100 gpm. The building is to be
sprinklered.
Generally~ such uses should be located in proximity to or in
short response time to emergency medical and fire protection
facilities. Uses for the elderly and handicapped should be
convenient to shopping, social~ education and cultural uses~ This
site is located in close proximity to major shopping centers.
The Seminole Trail Fire Department, located on Berkmar Drive,
will provide short response times in the event of an emergency.
The adjacent Church of the Incarnation may be used by the resi-
dents of the facility which is being developed by the Roman
Catholic Church Diocese of Richmond. The applicant is donating
1.01 acres to JABA for an Adult Day Care Center. In addition,
the site plan for the Senior Center at Pepsi Place was approved
by the Planning Commission on April 3, 1990, which will provide
services for the elderly.
No such use shall be operated without approval~ and where appropri-
ate~ licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Wel-
fare~ the Virginia Department of Health~ and other such appropriate
local~ state and federal agencies as may have authority in a parti-
cular case; The applicant has been unable to obtain a certificate
of need for the Nursing Home due to a statewide moratorium on the
issuance of certificates of need. The applicant is aware that
the nursing home may not operate without appropriate approvals.
The proposed JABA Adult Day Care as a public use must be reviewed
under Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. The Comprehensive
Plan states as an objective 'Support programs and services which
address community wide problems, especially those assisting socio-
economic groups of greatest need.' No specific locations are given
for public uses of this type. However, the Comprehensive Plan
encourages that all development not related to agricultural and
forestal use be located in the growth areas. Staff opinion is that
the proposed JABA location is in general compliance with the Compre-
hensive Plan.
Summary: This use would result in a greater density than allowed
under current PUD agreements. However, the applicant's traffic study
indicates that there would be a reduction in the total volume of
traffic generated from the site when compared to by-right uses. In
order to determine compliance with the PUD, staff offers the following
comments:
The Elderly Housing and Nursing Facility represent a residential
use of the property as indicated in the PUD agreements. However,
the applicant proposes 116 units which exceeds by ten the maximum
number of low/moderate cost units allowed.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
159
The JABA Adult Day Care is not a residential use. However, it
would be supportive of the proposed Elderly Housing and Nursing
Facility as well as other elderly housing in the Branchlands
Community. In addition, donation of land for JABA is consistent
with the bonus provisions of the ordinance.
Other uses have been established by special use permit in the
Branchlands PUD. Those uses were approved with SP-85-75 and
SP-85-76.
In staff opinion the proposed uses are consistent with the PUD agree-
ments, Section 5.1.13 and 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to
the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Use limited to 116 units with not more than 30 beds to be con-
verted to intermediate care nursing;
2. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-88-07;
o
Site shall be developed in general accord with plan by Gloeckner
& Osborne dated June 15, 1990, and revised July 12, 1990;
e
Donation of + 1.010 acres for use by Jefferson Area Board for
Aging as an Adult Day Care Center."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 22,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-65 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Bain asked how the staff arrived at the density figures. Mr. Keeler
said in 1988, the Church indicated that it might wish to develop the seven
acres for low and moderate cost housing. There are no bonus units, per se,
within a PUD to increase its density, but the staff reviewed the application
under the bonus provisions that are provided in other districts and this area
was approved for either 82 fair market dwelling units or 106 low and moderate
cost units. The 82 units appeared on an earlier plan and were carried over.
In terms of the land uses involved in Branchlands over the years, the staff
has supported adjustments between residential and commercial areas, but the
limiting factor since 1978 has been that whatever combination of land uses was
approved, the staff did not recommend any increase in traffic generation to
Route 29 North. That has been the primary framework in reviewing varied land
use plans that have been submitted over the years. It has not been so much
the proposals, but the traffic generation has been the limiting factor. When
the Church originally sought to sell this property in the early 1970's the
front portion was zoned B-l, Business, which at that time was the County's
commercial district. The back portion of the property allowed up to 35
dwelling units per acre. The Church chose not to market the property with
that zoning and, at that time, pursued planned development. For the public
purpose, the staff looked at traffic limitations, insuring the construction of
Hillsdale Drive and the other roads internal to this development which will
connect the commercial area of Branchlands to Fashion Square Mall and also
provide access to the residential areas and Squire Hills Apartments out to Rio
Road, and to provide some relief or Route 29 North.
~Mr. Bain asked how the staff got from 106 units to 116 units. Mr. Keeler
said there is no limit as it relates to 106 low and moderate cost units. It
could be 106 single-family units, parents and children and the like. The
terms "units" here is not synonymous with the term "units" for the 106 units
because some of these are single bed units. The actual population to be
housed in the 116 units and the traffic generation from there would be less
than if developed at 106 conventional dwelling units. Mr. Bain said the
language in the staff report and conditions needs to be more clearly defined.
Mr. Keeler said Moore House has submitted a descriptive summary which is on
the file. He agrees that the term "unit" is used differently in Moore Houses'
proposal. Mr. Way also said the terms need to be more clearly defined.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) ~_60
(Page 16)
Mrs. Humphris said this request is for a density of 16.5 dwelling units
per acre, by right a density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre is allowed, and
the Comprehensive Plan recommends a density of 4.01 to 10 dwelling units per
acre and the Zoning Ordinance in Section 2.4.1 refers to the application of
bonus factors "except that the resulting density shall not exceed the recom-
mended density shown in the Comprehensive Plan". She asked what that all
means. Mr. Keeler said the Comprehensive Plan is wrong in that it did not
recognize the Board's action in 1988 which permitted the 14.5 dwelling units
per acre. That zoning was in place when the Comprehensive Plan Map was
adopted. There may be some other errors like that in the Plan. He believes
that the intent of the Plan was to recognize the overall residential density
of Branchlands which would average between four and ten units. Mrs. Humphris
asked that staff make a note of that to see if some changes in the Plan will
need to be made.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Dick Gibson, representing the
applicant, Bishop Walter Sullivan, of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, came
forward. Present with him were other members of the development team:
McNichols & Associates; David Draper, the project designer; and Bryan Smith of
Gloeckner & Osborne who prepared the traffic study and site plan. These
persons were present to answer any technical questions. The concept of this
project is to meet a social need which is to provide low to moderate cost
housing for elderly citizens. This is a three stage dependency project. A
person can move come in when they can completely care for themselves, move
into other stages of dependency as they grow older, and ultimately can move
into the nursing facility. This is a non-profit 501(c)(3) Corporation. It is
partially subsidized by the state and three local parishes are supportive of
the project. This is a nondenominational project. Bishop Sullivan has done
other projects similar to this across the state and the projects have enjoyed
a great acceptance in the communities in which they have been constructed.
This is different from other retirement projects that have come before the
Board in that there is no large down payment required of the applicant. It is
a month-to-month rental situation. A person also does not have to sign up for
care for the rest of his/her life. Even though this will be for low to
moderate income people, it will be an attractive project. It is located in a
good area so that the residents will be able to get out into the community.
It will be located near the new Senior Center which is a positive aspect which
will be a tremendous magn~et._ for the elderly people living in the area and it
will be next to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Center and the Adult Day
Care Center.
Mr. Draper, also representing the applicant, presented exhibits and
explained the features of similar projects designed by the same development
team for Bishop Sullivan.
Mr. Gibson said this project would have less of an impact on the property
and on the services than would exist if the property were developed without
any changes in the PUD. The applicant plans to put 64 independent dwelling
units on the property. Those independent dwelling units would equate with the
definition of dwelling unit in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, they
propose to put 52 dependent, supportive assisted-living accommodations. Of
the 52, I6 spaces are envisioned to provide 30 beds of intermediate care
nursing. Mr. Way asked what the numbers mean in terms of the number of
people. Mr. Gibson said the PUD now allows 106 units which equates to 270
people. His calculations come to about 151 people which is 120 less than
allowed in the PUD. The traffic generation studies indicate approximately 30
percent less traffic generation with this use than under the PUD plan.
In response to a concern raised by Mr. Bowie, Mr. Keeler said the appli-
cant's analysis uses the definitions that are in the Zoning Ordinance. Under
the County's definition those 64 units are dwelling units because they have
all the complete facilities to be independent, that the other 52 units trigger
the requirement for the application under the special use permit application
and are not by definition under the Ordinance for separate dwelling units.
Mr. Gibson said there will be 120 less people living here than under the
PUD plan and there will be no children living in these facilities. The
applicant has met all of the technical requirements and worked closely with
the Planning staff. Mr. Gibson.said there was one technical objection raised
at the Planning Commission concerning the project which has been resolved. He
then asked the persons present in support of the project to stand; approxi-
mately 50 people stood.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
163_
Mr. Donald R. Hanson, representing the Albemarle Housing Coalition,
presented a letter from the Coalition in support of the proposed development
because of a growing need for more senior citizen housing at affordable rents.
Two important features of this project are: there is no entrance or endowment
fee thereby allowing elderly people with few assets living on fixed incomes,
to apply, and; secondly, the length of residence by any one senior citizen can
be on a monthly, annual or fixed term basis, allowing considerable flexibility
in meeting any circumstances of the applicants. The Coalition also supports
the adjacent Adult Day Care facility which will be administered by the Jeffer-
son Area Board on Aging.
Ms. Elizabeth Seabrook, Executive Director of the Senior Center, said she
sees a need in this community for a facility such as that proposed by Moore
House which is directed at a segment of the elderly population that cannot
afford entrance fees in order to live in a retirement setting. Moore House
will meet that need, not just for independent senior citizens, but also for
those who will need assistance in their daily routines and if it becomes
necessary, nursing home care at some future time. The Senior Center whole-
heartedly supports this project and had a lot of members attend the Planning
Commission meeting, but they could not make it out again tonight.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins asked if this property would be tax exempt because of church
affiliation. Mr. McNichols responded "yes". This property is 501(c)(3), tax
exempt, non-profit. The Board has not granted tax exemption status to the
property yet.
Mr. Bain suggested that condition #1 be amended to reflect the following
language in the applicant's proposal: "Use limited to 64 independent living
units, with 52 assisted living accommodations, with not more than 16 units
providing 30 beds to be converted to intermediate care nursing".
Mr. Bowerman said he has been involved with this project since coming a
member of the Planning Commission and he believes that this proposal is
consistent with the overall intent of limiting density and limiting traffic
generation from the development. Mr. Bowerman then offered motion, which was
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-90-65 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, with condition #1 amended as recom-
mended by Mr. Bain, as follows:
Use limited to 64 independent living units, with 52 assisted
living accommodations, with not more than 16 units providing 30
beds to be converted to intermediate care nursing;
2. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-88-07;
Site shall be developed in general accord with plan by Gloeckner
& Osborne dated June 15, 1990, and revised July 12, 1990;
Donation of + 1.010 acres for use by Jefferson Area Board for
Aging as an ~dult Day Care Center.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 9:09 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
9:24 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-90-09. Cathcart-Turner Development Company
(applicant), Hurt Investment (owner). To rezone 24.06 acres from R-l, Resi-
dential, to PRD, Planned Residential Development, with a maximum of 360 units.
Property on east side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extd.) east of The Armory
(Neighborhood 4). Tax Map 91, Parcel 2(part). Scottsville District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28, 1990.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to refer
ZMA-90-09 back to the Planning Commission at the request of the staff.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 162
(Page 18)
There being 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. ZTA-90-07. Entrance Corridor Overlay District and
Architectural Review Board. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 30.0,
Overlay Districts, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to add an En-
trance Corridor Overlay District; and to add a new Section 34A.1, Architec-
tural Review Board. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to conserve
elements of the County's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect certain
qualifying roadway corridors as permitted by Section 15.1-503.2 of the Code of
Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
1990.)
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Origin: Planning staff.
Public Purpose To Be Served: To conserve elements of the County's
scenic beauty and to preserve and protect certain (qualifying) roadway
corridors as enabled under Section 15.1-503.2 of the Code of Virginia;
to promote the tourism economy.
Staff Comment: The Board of Supervisors has become increasingly
concerned as to the character of development along major roadway
corridors particularly in the Urban Area and in the vicinity of
historic sites. The City of Charlottesville is pursuing similar
entrance corridor zoning and has developed specific plans for certain
roads. Finally, the Code of Virginia was recently amended providing
localities relatively broad authority to protect roadway corridors
leading to historic areas or other general tourist routes.
A comprehensive approach would extend well beyond the Entrance Corri-
dor (EC) draft ordinance and could include:
Development of specific corridor design plans (listed as #11 in
the Comprehensive Plan Action Agenda, page 227);
Establishment of an Architectural Review Board;
Enactment of an Historic zoning district;
Wholesale revision of 4.15 SIGN REGULATIONS;
Reassessment of the SA-Scenic Areas overlay district related to
roadways.
In the interim, and given the current pace and scale of development,
additional regulation may provide some reasonable measure of protec-
tion. The initial EC overlay zoning district is intended to address
certain aspects of physical development. The draft EC regulations
would require increased setback, reduced building height, increased
landscaping/screening and special sign regulations. This EC overlay
district could be implemented by current Planning and Zoning staffs.
EC Text: Section 30.6.7 SIGN REGULATIONS follows the language of the
scenic highways regulations (Section 30.5.7). At this time, Zoning is
developing wholesale revisions to sign regulations, including Section
30.5.7. It is recommended that special sign regulations not be
included in the EC district at this time. Sections 30.6.4.2 and
30.6.7 would be 'Reserved' and other language relative to signs would
be deleted.
EC Designation: Section 30.6.2 lists sixteen roadways for possible
designation. Roads recox~ended for designation within Charlottesville
and existing County designated scenic highways are so noted. Current-
ly the City is considering application of zoning regulations to U. S.
Route 250 East and U. S. Route 29 South. Regarding County designation,
staff offers the following:
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
163
Designation of 1-64, U. S. Route 29 North, U. S. Route 29 South, U.
S. Route 250 East, and Virginia Route 53 would represent the major
tourist entrances to the City and Monticello/Ash Lawn (U. S. Route
250 West and Virginia Route 20 South have County Scenic Highway
designation). Staff recommends that these corridors be designa-
ted at this time.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for a review of criteria for Scenic
Highway designation. Such a review~will require an assessment of
the special attributes of scenic highways. Based on the results
of that assessment, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervi-
sors may wish to consider replacement of scenic highway regula-
tions with EC regulations to avoid duplication and confusion.
Such action would bring U. S. Route 250 West, Virginia Route 20
South, Virginia Route 6, and Virginia Route 151 under EC designation
These roads represent major toUrist entrances to Albemarle,
Charlottesville, Scottsville and Nelson County.
Other roadways should be evaluated for designation under criteria
in Section 30.6.1 INTENT. Staff would recommend that such
evaluation be conducted by the Architectural Review Board, if
established. Please note that the Code of Virginia allows
designation of roads that provide access to contiguous locali-
ties. The Board of Supervisors may wish to entreat comment from
these localities as to possible roadway designation in Albemarle.
Architectural Review Board (ARB): Should the Board of Supervisors
create an ARB, among its duties and responsibilities should be the
development of Entrance Corridor Plans for each individual EC roadway.
Such plans could include speCific building and other architectural
design criteria which may be incorporated into the EC zone as regula-
tion. Such criteria should be explicit and stated objectively to
limit exercise of personal preference in the review process. The ARB
could be authorized to approve building design, signage and other
aesthetic matters, and act in advisory capacity during reviews by the
Planning Commission and Board. It should be noted that traditional
concerns of the review process (health and safety) will continue to
receive emphasis over aesthetic concerns by staff in its review and
recommendations."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 21,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to
create both an Entrance Corridor Overlay District and an Architectural Review
Board. The Entrance Corridor Overlay District to be applied to U. S. Route
250 East, U. S. Route 29 North, U. S. Route 29 South, Interstate 1-64, Vir-
ginia Route 53 (all as recommended by staff) and, in addition, Virginia Route
20 North.
Mr. Keeler said the proposed text amendment is a "bare-bones" ordinance
designed to put some provisions on "the books" to deal with development
occurring along certain specified entrance corridors. It is not the staff's,
nor the Planning Commission's, intent that this ordinance language be the
final step. This is just the first step in the process. As drafted, this
ordinance will not do much to improve the visual quality of development along
these corridors. The intent is for the the Board of Supervisors to establish
an Architectural Review Board (ARB) to develop definitive design criteria for
each individual corridor. Mr. Keeler asked that the Board defer adopting the
language for the ARB until September 12. The staff needs to get a determina-
tion from the State as to whether the proposed membership of the ARB will
qualify for the Certified Local Government Program, a state program which
makes available to counties certain monies for historic preservation efforts.
Mr. Keeler then summarized the features of the proposed district: (1)
limit certain by-right uses that involve outdoor storage and display, thus
requiring a special use permit; (2) double the setback requirements; (3)
double either the volume or size of landscape materials; (4) increase parking
setback for parking lots to 30 feet from the right-of-way; (5) allow the
Planning Commission to reduce the building setback if the applicant's proposal
equals or satisfies the intent of the designation; and (6) a by-right height
limitation of 45 feet, anything over would require a special use permit.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
164
Mr. Keeler recommended that the sign regulations not be adopted at this
time, but be marked as "reserved". The Zoning Department is currently working
on a wholesale revision to all sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. The
staff felt it might cause some nonconformities and confusion if the Board
adopted a set of regulations now and then three months later adopted another
set of regulations. He asked that the effective date of the ordinance be
immediately; however, for planned developments, proffered zonings that involve
a detailed proffered plan, and where a property has received preliminary site
plan approval, the provisions regarding parking setback and building setback
not be imposed, but increased landscaping provisions be required.
The public hearing was opened. A person who did not identify himself,
representing the Citizens for Albemarle, summarized a letter, dated August 20,
1990, (copy on file) from the Citizens of Albemarle. Citizens for Albemarle
recommends that a Historical Preservation Committee be formed and run con-
currently with the ARB. Citizens for Albemarle encourages the Board to not
allow this proposed district to overshadow the need for a Historical Preserva-
tion Committee. He does not think the ordinance as proposed goes far enough
with regard to historical preservation.
Next to address the Board was Mr. Andrew J. Dracopoli, representing
Worrell Investment, an owner of property along Route 250 East. Mr. Dracopoli
referenced a letter dated August 16 (copy on file) submitted previously to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Dracopoli said Worrell Investment has always been
supportive of design guidelines along Route 250 East and has a vested interest
in it being maintained as an attractive corridor. It is his opinion that the
proposed ordinance is inadequate and he does not think it will make a signifi-
cant difference. It is his understanding that the Planning staff has always
encouraged applicants to double their setbacks and increase the amount of
landscaping required. This ordinance will not improve thequality of design,
or improve the compatibility of structures with existing landscaping. Worrell
is concerned that this ordinance will be seen as the solution to the problem.
He realizes that there is strong pressure on the County to do something, but
fears that this is all that will be done. An ARB is expensive to fund and he
wonders where the funds will come from. An ARB needs staff and facilities.
The design guideline studies are going to be expensive to produce. He is
concerned that budget pressures are going to delay the implementation of this
first step. Mr. Dracopoli suggested that a two year limit be put on this
ordinance and that if nothing is done within that period of time then the
ordinance lapses. There should be a concrete time limit and a penalty to make
sure that something is done. In producing the guidelines, the Board will need
to take into consideration what is already in the area which cannot be ignored.
As an example, Route 29 North. Design guidelines could be produced for Route
29 North, but most of the area is already built out, so the guidelines would
have little effect. He thinks that creative guidelines can be developed which
will improve the quality of development along the corridors. He does not
think that in two years there would be any difference in tree canopy with the
ordinance as proposed.
Representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom
next addressed the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with comments made by
Mr. Dracopoli. PEC has read the proposed text amendment and proposes some
optional language for the Board to consider. He then presented PEC's proposal~
dated August 31, 1990, which included a cover memorandum and changes proposed
to the staff's recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the
total problem with development is with the setback and landscaping. He is
mote concerned with the grading of the site and the structures located on the
si~e after the grading is completed. It is also his opinion that the staff
can get a better "foot in the door" without requiring developers to submit
tremendous amounts of information. Although he supports the creation of the
ARB and thinks that it should be done quickly, it is not required right now.
Using Westminister Canterbury, as an example, the configuration of the build-
ings on the site could have made a big difference. Given the ordinance
presented, an ARB will not be able to address that issue. The proposed
ordinance creates an ARB, but only gives it the power to look at the site.plan
and determine whether setback and landscaping requirements have been met.
This ordinance does not give the ARB the authority to mandate preservation of
existing vegetation and natural features. This ordinancedoes not give the
ARB the authority to deal with what the building will look like, how it is
configured on the site, or how it is oriented to the corridor the County is
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) ]_65
(Page 21)
trying to protect. PEC's proposal attempts to address both of those issues.
PEC suggests that the proposed ordinance mandate that the developer identify
on the site plan or landscape plan the existing natural features. The Site
Plan Review Committee would then determine which of those features should be
preserved so the building is integrated into the site. He thinks that if 90
percent of the structures are built in that fashion, there would be far less
complaints. PEC also recox~ends adding language that requires the developer
to delineate on the site plan the features that are to be preserved and that
the canopy area be cordoned off so as not to be destroyed. PEC recommends
that the ARB or the staff look at sketched elevations, not detailed archi-
tectural drawings, of the buildings as they would be seen from the road and
from historical structures in the vicinity to minimize their impact. This is
an attempt by PEC to lay an ordinance foundation for the ARB to address the
real issues in the development of sites on entrance corridors.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are two other items in PEC's proposal. The Code
of Virginia also addresses parcels contiguous to the roads that are being
addressed. The staff proposes a 500 foot setback. He suggests that the
regulation apply to the entire parcel which would exert the County's authority
to the full extent allowed by the Code. This would provide the Board with
more flexibility. He would support having the entrance corridor regulations
apply to the greater of a 500 foot area or the contiguous parcel. PEC pro-
poses that all existing structures be treated the same under the nonconforming
use section in the ordinance, and not make a distinction for agricultural or
residential structures. Staff's proposal would allow renovations and exten-
sions to existing structures without regard to this. He then presented a
rendering (on file) of an example of the topographic provisions suggested by
PEC on preservation of natural features.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the Commission's inClusion of Route 20
North in the proposed district. PEC has designed its proposal so that it can
be implemented in theory without an ARB. He thinks that by including a
certified landscape architect on the Site Plan Review Committee to review
entrance corridor plans, most of PEC's proposal could be implemented as a
temporary measure. He supports the development of detailed design criteria
for the district, but he does not know how long that would take. He thinks an
ordinance stronger than the one presented is needed. He thinks that at a
minimum the issue of existing vegetation and the configuration of the building
on the site needs to be addressed now.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie said he would like most of PEC's proposal included in the
ordinance, but he thinks it is important to get an ordinance on the books.
also has no problem with the suggestion of a Historical Review Co~nittee.
He
Mr. Bain asked if the Planning Commission would be able to consider the
amendments suggested tonight, and return the ordinance for Board review on
October 10. Mr. Keeler said "yes", but the Board may wish to proceed with
what the Commission has recommended and then add the amendments at a later
date. The only major change is the 500 feet proposal. However, he does think
that because PEC's proposal would initially place review in the hands of the
Planning Commission, the Board would want Commission comments first. The
Commission is concerned that a considerable length of time may be allowed to
lapse between adoption of an ordinance and creation of an ARB. The Planning
staff and the Commission do not feel that they have the expertise needed to
make the types of evaluations that are needed. He would recommend that the
Board proceed with the Cox~ission's recommendation and refer PEC's language
back for review.
Mr. Bowerman said he has a problem with Mr. Keeler's suggestion because
he gets the impression from reading the Planning Commission's minutes that the
Commission was stampeded into getting something to the Board. It was cer-
tainly his intention to have available as soon as possible an EC Overlay
District, but with enough detail to accomplish something. He thinks that an
ordinance of this magnitude, with the factors that are involved, requires a
comprehensive review. He is uncomfortable with taking action on the proposed
ordinance tonight. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Bowerman.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
166
Mr. Bowie said some good comments have been received and should be
considered and modified for inclusion in the ordinance, but petitions are
continually being filed and no ordinance is in place to use during approval.
He would support adopting the proposed ordinance and then going back and
considering PEC's comments and the recommendation for the Historic District,
and if necessary add a sunset clause.
Mr. Bain said this ordinance is important in that he feels it should have
some "teeth" in it when it comes to the Board. He also agrees with the
comments that have been made tonight that the ordinance, as proposed, just
doubles the setback and reduces the height of the structure. Mr. Bowie said
this is better than the present regulations. Mr. Bain said the proposed
language does not have a function, goal or purpose, nor any details. Mr.
Bowie said if the Board waits for the perfect ordinance, there will be nothing
enacted in the near future. He would like to see the Board enact something
and then send it back to the Planning Commission with the comments received
for modifications. For example, he thinks there should be a set of general
guidelines for the corridors since he does not think each corridor needs
individual guidelines. He still thinks the proposal is better than what is
required by the present ordinance. This gives the Board more control over
what happens in the near future than if the Board just waits for more details.
Mr. Bowerman said he has the same frustrations as Mr. Bowie, but he does
not think enough work has been done to the document which has been presented
to the Board. He feels the proposal is too incomplete at this stage to
accomplish anything.
Mr. Bowie said if this ordinance had been in place when the Board heard
the Wiltshire Apartment proposal on Route 20 North or the Westminister
Canterbury proposal, the developments would look differently. There would be
more control.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels "deluged with incompleteness". The Board is
discussing an EC Overlay District, an ARB and the possibility of an Historic
Preservation Ordinance. She thinks the Board has received some substantive
and excellent suggestions from PEC. The staff is not to blame, but she does
not think there should be any pride in the authorship of this ordinance. She
thinks the Board needs to take the best ideas from all of the sources. None
of the Board members have had a chance to read or digest all of the informa-
tion (some of the information just presented tonight). She feels that the
Board would be doing the county and its citizens a real disservice if it just
adopted this proposal to get "something on the books". She would much rather
deal with the applications as they come up and get a good ordinance.
Mr. Keeler said he does not disagree with anything that has been said.
The staff's notion was to get a "bare-bones" ordinance adopted and to estab-
lish an ARB. The ARB was envisioned as the group to administer the ordinance
and develop the criteria for the ordinance. The Planning staff and Commission
do not feel they have the expertise that is needed for a comprehensive
to this question. If the Board does not feel that it can adopt the proposed
ordinance, then he would suggest it still proceed with establishment of the
ARB at the next Board meeting and then charge the ARB with developing the
ordinance. The staff also envisioned the ARB as developing an Historic
Preservation Ordinance. He thinks the ARB may feel it would have something
more vested in its reviews if they developed the criteria.
Mr. Way asked who would serve as staff to the ARB if that were the
organization to write the ordinance, etc. Mr. Keeler said this all hinges on
the product that the Board wants. Mr. Bain said part of that is addressed in
the PEC comments. The Board may not get an ARB because of the costs, but the
landscape architect person could be added to the Site Plan Review Committee to
deal with some of the proposals at the site plan stage. The ARB may be
something the Board will want to discuss in detail.
Mrs. Humphris said a lot of questions were raised at the Commission
meeting about the power and operation of the ARB. She would have to discuss
in depth the ARB's authority before setting it up. If the Board feels it is
necessary to proceed with some ordinance provision, she thinks that Section
30.6.1 should be spelled out more clearly.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 167
(Page 23)
Mr. Bowerman asked the requirements for a moratorium while an ordinance
is being developed. Mr. St. John said the County cannot have a moratorium on
the kind of development activity that would be most effected by this ordi-
nance. Most of the applications before the Board do not apply to legislative
acts.
Mr. St. John said the EC enabling language in the Code of Virginia is
intermingled with the historic preservation language insofar as being adminis-
tered by an architectural review board. The language reads: "The governing
body may provide for an architectural review board to administer such ordi-
nance.'' Such ordinance refers back to both the historic and entrance corridor
criteria. The Code further states that the ordinance may include a provision
that "no building or structure, including signs, shall be erected, recon-
structed, raised ... until the architectural review board, or on appeal, the
governing body, determines that it is architecturally compatible with the
historic landmarks, buildings or other structures, therein." This means that
this group is looking at more than historic buildings along entrance corri-
dors. He thinks that by not having an architectural review board, but instead
to enact a list of criteria, the Board would not be acting under the spirit or
the purpose of the ordinance, much less procedurally in accord with the way it
is set out in the Code. For that reason, he thinks that if the Board is going
to adopt this ordinance, it is urgent that the ARB be appointed, not just
established. The Board can set guidelines so that the members of the ARB are
not completely free to apply their artistic inclinations. He agrees with the
comments that if this is not just the first step towards something more, it
will serve no purpose. He is not sure that a bare-bones doubling of the
setback and reduction of height will "pass muster" as being a rational exer-
cise of the police power under this ordinance. How can the Board say that
makes the entrance corridor compatible architecturally with the character of
the historic community it is trying to preserve. He thinks such an ordinance
will be difficult to sustain. He thinks that should be a part of the ARB and
not just in the hands of a person on the Site Plan Review Committee. The ARB
is needed and it should develop the guidelines. He thinks the ARB should have
two distinct functions. The first function is to establish the standards and
the next function is to apply those standards to individual buildings. This
ordinance is just the first small step toward the ultimate goal.
Mr. Bain said it was not his impression that the entrance corridor
legislation was connected that tightly with historic preservation. Mr. St.
John said the ARB makes sure that any structure erected is architecturally
compatible with historic landmarks, buildings or structures therein.
Mr. Lindstrom again addressed the Board and said he agrees with the
comments made by Board members tonight and thinks that the viewpoints can be
accommodated. He would urge the Board to adopt the amendments proposed by PEC
to provide some direction and some teeth to the proposed Ordinance and then
let the ARB "flesh it all out". That way, the Board would have something in
place to deal with development proposals that come in now.
Mr. Bowerman asked what exactly is before the Board tonight. Mr. St.
John said the proposed ordinance as advertised and whatever amendments may be
made to that proposal.
Mr. Bain said he has a problem with adopting the amendments without
getting input from the Commission first. Mr. St. John said the Board can
refer the amendments back to the staff and Commission for review and in order
for them to incorporate recommendations heard tonight into the proposed
language.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, to defer taking action on ZTA-90-07
until September 19 to allow the Planning Commission time to review the amend-
ments proposed by the Piedmont Environmental Council, Worrell Investment and
Citizens for Albemarle. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. There being 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.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
168
Agenda Item No. 12. Child Care Proposal.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum, dated August 30, 1990,
from Ms. Karen L. Morris, Director of Social Services:
"As you requested, I have talked with United Way, Teensight, and staff
from this Department to explore the most appropriate administrative
agent for the child care funds being appropriated by the Board of
Supervisors for teenage mothers still in school. I talked with Zakira
Beasley at United Way and Alicia Lugo at Teensight.
Both expressed an interest in providing this service for the County.
Under its current payment method, Teensight could likely serve 15 to
20 students. United Way would restructure its payment arrangements to
better meet the needs of this unique population. Not having done this
yet, it is difficult to accurately estimate the number it could serve.
However, it would strive to serve the same number while also using
other available community resources for which the student may be
eligible.
I learned that Teensight has had some limited funding for child care
for this particular population. Ms. Lugo worked with twelve students
at Albemarle High School, six of whom got child care assistance. She
stated she served no students at Murray or Western Albemarle. When I
asked about serving Murray last year, she said she had had no calls
from anyone at Murray.
The United Way Child Care Scholarship Fund has a long history, as you
well know, of administering child care funds responsibly. As you also
know, they will be handling another allocation from the County this
year for scholarships. They have in place the necessary fiscal
procedures to handle this funding. Taking on this additional popula-
tion would not be overburdensome for them.
The Department of Social Services currently administers four different
funding sources for child day care - all of which vary either by
distinct population served, or eligibility guidelines or both. Since
the one staff member devoted to these programs part-time is already
very busy, I do not feel we can take on full responsibility for an
additional program. However, we would provide some support services,
as needed. For example, we could assist initially by helping with the
application process, thereby assessing whether or not a student might
be eligible for one of our programs. Additionally, we could conduct a
'mini' evaluation of a provider who is not already a certified or
licensed provider.
It is my recommendation, therefore, that the United Way Child Care
Scholarship Committee receive the funding being considered by the
Board of Supervisors. They have an established track record in the
provision of child care and indicate the ability to serve all three
high schools. Should funds be available, they would also request
permission to make them available to students in the middle schools
who have also become parents at that young age.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:30 P.M.) Mr. Bowie asked if a
relative can take care of the child under the United Way Child Care
Scholarship Program. Ms. Morris replied "no", only United Way approved
providers, those certified by the Social Services Department or licensed by
the State. For this new program, United Way is considering the use of rela-
tives and next door neighbors. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:33
P.M.)
Mr. Bowie asked if someone verifies that the mother is attending school.
Ms. Morris replied "yes", through school attendance records.
Mr. Way said he has no preference between Teensight or United Way admini-
stering the program. He thinks that the program should include as many
students as possible rather than gearing it to 100 percent coverage for a few
students. Frequently a small amount of help can make the difference. Not
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
mentioned in the staff report is that Teensight provides counseling services
to its participants if they want the service. Ms. Morris said that is a
benefit of the Teensight program, but she is concerned that Teensight is
presently serving the City heavily, with only a part-time person. She does
not know whether the person would be able to take on the additional persons
unless the staff was increased.
Mr. Bowie said he supports this proposal for child care and asked if it
would be possible to split the money between the two agencies. Mr. Way said
he would be reluctant to do that. He thinks one agency should administer the
program. Mr. Bain said he thinks Teensight may be spreading itself too thin.
Although he does not have a preference, he thinks that United Way could
possibly do a better job. He thinks that the County's Social Services Depart-
ment should monitor the program, for the first year.
Mr. Way then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution to appropriate $20,000 from the General Fund Balance to
fund a child care program for high school and middle school students to be
administered by the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program:
FISCAL YEAR: 1990-91
FUND: General
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
United Way Child Care Scholarship Program
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100059000567900
United Way $20~000.00
TOTAL $20,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100 Fund Balance $20~000.00
TOTAL $20,000.00
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. 13. New Urban Area Elementary School: Confirmation of
Exercise of Purchase Option.
Mr. Agnor said that at its meeting on August 14, the Planning Co~nission
found that the proposed urban elementary school site was in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. The school architects completed preliminary site plan
analysis and determined that the project is adaptable to the site. On August
Mr. Bowie notified the property owners that the County was exercising its
option to purchase the property in accordance with the terms of the option.
He requests the Board to confirm Mr. Bowie's action of exercising the option.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to ratify
Mr. Bowie's action of exercising the County's option to purchase property for
the new urban area elementary school (as set out in the minutes of July 18,
1990, page 33). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: June 20, June 29, July 11,
July 18, July 19, August 1 and August 8, 1990.
Mr. Way had read the minutes of June 6, 1990, pages 1 20, and found
them to be satisfactory.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of July 19, 1990, and found them to be
satisfactory.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of July 11, 1990, and found them to be
satisfactory.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
17
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of June 29, 1990, and found them to be
satisfactory.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of August 8, 1990, Pages 1 21, and found
one typographical error. He also noted that during discussion of the proposed
affordable housing project in Crozet, Mr. Ronnie Hancock spoke concerning
Farmers Home Administration loans. Mr. Bowie asked that when this project
comes back to the Board for discussion, the staff report include information
on how a person qualifies for a FHA loan and if it is possible to restrict
future sale of the house to another FHA qualifier.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Bain asked when a report would made concerning the U. S. Census. Mr.
Agnor said a report is scheduled for the September 12 meeting.
Mr. Bain said theklegislative committee of the Virginia Association of
Counties met several weeks ago. One of the main items discussed was a comment
from an unknown senator that if the counties want income tax options, they all
~need to work together and promote the idea in the Legislature. It was this
senator's opinion that if all of the counties worked together they might have
a chance of getting the legislation passed.
Mr. Way brought to the Board's attention that an advertisement is
to appear in the Daily Progress next week seeking applications for members to
serve on the proposed joint Charlottesville/Albemarle Youth Commission. He
does recognize that this Board has not yet adopted any language establishing
the Youth Commission.
Mr. Bowie said he wrote letters to the chairmen of all boards of supervi-
sors in the Commonwealth and sent them copies of resolutions the Board adopted
concerning State budget reductions. He asked these counties to adopt similar
resolutions. He has received only one negative response. The Board has
received responses from 16 of the counties who have adopted similar resolu-
tions. With regard to the comments Mr. Bain made, if the county wants to get
something done, then he would suggest that a letter be sent to all of the
counties again.
At 10:46 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain,
to adjourn into executive session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.7, to
discuss legal matters pertaining to litigation involving the Ingleside Pre-
liminary Plat and the Curtis Mundie case. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 10:47 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman,
to include in the executive session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.7
potential threatened litigation pertaining to Blandemar Farms development
rights and Loucille's Dance Hall. 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.
September 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
17
At 1'1:22 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and motion was
offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following Certifi-
cation of Executive Meeting:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
CHAIRMAN