1990-05-02 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
117
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
inia, was held on May 2, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office Build-
ing, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Charlotte Y. Humphris, and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
e R. St. John; and County Planner, ¥. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 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. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was
~alled and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Item. 4.1. Copies of Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, (par-
, and April 17, 1990, were received as information.
Item 4.2. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for March,
1990, received as information.
Item 4.3. Letter dated April 20, 1990, from the Department of Historic
Resources stating that Casa Maria has been placed on the Virginia Landmarks
Register and has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places,
received as information.
Item 4.4. Letter dated April 20, 1990, from Peacock Hill Service Com-
pany, requesting permission to connect a well to the existing well system.
This item was placed on the agenda for comments by the Board to be forwarded
to the County Engineer to conclude the process.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many wells are currently connected to the central
system at Peacock Hill. Mr. Agnor said the County Code requires that any
request for connection to a well system with three or more connections be
reviewed by the County and the State Health Department. After review by the
Board, the request is forwarded to the Engineering Department to witness
testing of the well, determination of well capacity and determination of the
number the connections that can be made to the well system. Mrs. Humphris
asked if there is a limit to the number of connections to a central well
system. Mr. St. John said there is no limit to private company connections,
although the categories change as the number increases. The Code states that
three or more connections constitute a central water system. If there are 15
or more connections to a well or private system, there are certain regulations
required by the Health Department. A system of 50 or mo~e connections becomes
a public service company and the State Corporation Commission approves the
rate structure and monitors the program.
Item 4.5. Letter dated April 23, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Engineer, stating that lfDoT intends to repair the existing superstructure
on Route 660 over Mechunk Creek between May 7 and May 11, 1990, received as
information.
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 3_~_8
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Northfields Plat (deferred from April 11,
1990).
(Mr. Bain abstained from discussion of the request due to a conflict of
interest. He then left the room at 7:45 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said on April 11, the Board heard an appeal from Dr.
Charles Hurt on the denial by the Planning Commission of a subdivision in
l/Northfields. In its review of the subdivision plat, staff indicated that the
isubdivision met all requirements of the ordinance and therefore recommended
lapproval. The deferral from April 11 was based on improper notification of
adjacent landowners. Mr. Cilimberg said one item that was raised at the
previous meeting regarded a possible driveway at the location of the proposed
second lot. Staff has visited the site and could find no driveway in place.
Mr. Bowie commented that he also went out and inspected the site and found no
driveway.
At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Mr. Claude Gianniny, an adjoining property owner, said in November, 1989,
he purchased the adjacent single-family dwelling and it was his understanding
that the lot line was temporarily staked. It was also his understanding that
a small portion of the property would be taken from his lot and added to the
adjacent Lot 30. A final survey of the property took a considerable amount of
his driveway and turnaround area. His objection is that the property taken
from his lot was added to Lot 30 to make up the proposed Lot 30B. Also there
are other lots in Northfields that could meet these requirements for subdivi-
sion, if this is approved. He would have no objection if the property taken
from his lot is returned. He also objects to the proposed driveway. There is
a lot of opposition to this subdivision request.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. St. John read the following letter dated March 21, 1990, into the
'ecord:
"Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Planning Department
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse
Chairman, Planning Commission
County Office Building
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-34596
Mr. Larry J. McElwain, Esquire
418 East Water Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Mr. James Hill
c/o Virginia Land Company
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Re: Northfields Re-Subdivision
Gentlemen:
You will find enclosed with this letter an Attorney General's Opinion
dated October 26, 1979, reported in AGR 1979-90, page 327.
This Attorney General's Opinion is definitive on the question of
whether a vacation process is necessary, before lots within a previ-
ously platted subdivision can be re-divided, assuming the re-division
meets all of the lot size requirements, and other zoning and subdivi-
sion~laws.
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The answer is negative.
This opinion also addresses the issue of whether purchasers in a
platted subdivision acquire a vested right that all lots shall remain
as shown on the map or plat. Again, the answer is negative, unless
there are private restrictions which have nothing to do with the
zoning and subdivision laws.
It is, therefore, my opinion that the Planning Commission's denial of
the subject plat on the evening of March 20, cannot be sustained
unless there are separate additional grounds for such denial.
Perhaps the issue is moot in this particular case on account of the
private restrictions, but we should keep this rule in mind for further
reference.
Sincerely,
(SIGNEO)
George R. St. John
County Attorney"
119
Mr. St. John said if a developer sold lots based on the original plat and
led the buyers to expect the lots would always remain that size, that does not
give the buyers a vested right to continue the size of those lots as far as
the County is concerned. The developer does not have to vacate the original
plat in order to redivide certain lots. If the developer mislead the people
or defrauded them in some way, that is a matter for the courts to decide. He
has spoken with the lawyer representing Northfields Homeowners Association who
agrees with his interpretation. The only issue before the Board is whether
this subdivision complies with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. The
Board should not consider the issues raised by the property owners because
those points should be properly raised in court. If the property owners do
have a justiciable case in court, which is not the Board's function to decide,
then whatever action the Board takes will not diminish or enhance the weight
of that case.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the Northfields Subdivison Plat subject to the following conditions:
The Final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Indicate Tax Map and Parcel number;
b. Note deed book reference for sewer easement.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. He reiterated that the only
issue before the Board is whether the subdivision complies with Subdivision
and Zoning Ordinances.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Bowie's statements. He also is
familiar with the lots and would add that Mr. Gianniny's concerns about lot
lines is not a issue for the Board to discuss, but should be addressed in his
deed and purchase agreement.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs.
NAYS: None.
tABSTAIN: Mr. Bain.
JABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Humphris and Mr. Way.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 8:52 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-83. Clifton, The Country Inn. Public hearing
on a petition to expand the existing Inn from seven to 12 rooms and to con-
tinue the 50 seat restaurant. (Sections 10.2.2.24, 10.2.2.26 and 31.2.4) The
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
120
10.3 acre parcel is located on the east side of Route 729 about one-third mile
south of U. S. Route 250 East. Property is described as Tax Map 79, Parcels
23B and 23C and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie read the following letter dated April 30, 1990, from the
applicant:
"Although the application for Clifton Country received unanimous approv-
al by the Planning Commission, we have been advised that our application
is premature because we are not ready to have a restaurant or twelve
rooms. We, therefore, request that the application be withdrawn."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the
applicant's request to withdraw SP-89-83 without prejudice. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
I/NAYS: None.
IABSERT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-11. Kenneth V. Carroll. Public hearing on a
petition to allow a division of land into eight parcels of two.acres each with
a 634.8 acre residue (Section 10.2.2.28). Property located on west side of
Route 800 at the Albemarle/Nelson County line in the Scottsville District.
Property is described as Tax Map 126, Parcel 3lA and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Kenneth Carroll petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit to allow the division of land into eight,
two-acre lots with a 634.8 acre residue on property zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 126, Parcel 3lA, is located on
the west side of Route 800 at the Albemarle/Nelson County lines.
Character of the Area: The rear portion of the site is an abandoned
quarry. Currently there are eight houses on the property which is
proposed for subdivision.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted a description and
justification for this petition (Schedule A & Exhibit B). In addition
a plat showing the proposed division of the property has been submit-
ted. A separate letter describing current conditions has also been
submitted (Attachment D). Currently the houses have no indoor plumb-
ing and water is available from outside frost-free faucets installed
by the Nelson County Service Authority. All houses have outdoor %
toilets. The applicant wants to install water and a sink in eac~~
house. A drain line would be run 40 to 50 feet from the house allow-
ing the waste water to 'run off down through a massive pile of soap-
stone rock which is millions of tons' (Attachment D). The applicant
further states that this would be an improvement over throwing the
water out the back door which is the current practice. (Ail of the
exhibits mentioned are on file.)
Summary and Recommendation: The Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria
in Section 10.5.2.1 which is to be used during review of a special use
permit for additional lots.
The Board of Supervisors shall determine that such division is compa-
tible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this
ordinance, with reference to the goals and objective of the Compre-
hensive Plan relating to rural areas including the type of division
proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to
the following:
The size~ shape~ topography and existing vegetation of the
property ....
2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
This property consists of 649.5 acres which is divided by Routes
800 and 602. Slopes in the area range from approximately two to
seven percent. The property is mostly wooded.
The actual suitability of the sOil for agricultural or forestal
production ....
The predominant soil on this site is Orange very stony silt loam.
This soil is not suited to hay and cultivated crops due to the
presence of stones which makes use of modern equipment imprac-
tical. The soil is moderately suited to pasture crops. Poten-
tial productivity for trees is moderate. The Soils exhibits a
seasonally high water table. See Attachment F for more informa-
tion regarding soil characteristics.
12
The historiC commmrcial agricultural or forestal uses of the
property since 1950 ....
Property has not been uses for commercial agricultural or
forestal uses,
If loCated in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development on the character of the
area ....
43.5 percent of the land within one mile of this site located in
Albemarle County is under land use taxation which indicates
commercial agricultural or forestal activity. The property
proposed for subdivision does not enjoy land use taxation and was
included in the calculation of the percentage of land within a
mile used for agriculture or forestry.
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural
areas ....
Only three percent of the land within a mile of this site in
Albemarle County was in lots of five acres or less on the adop-
tion date of the ordinance. Therefore, this is not a developed
rural area.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers ....
This property is located 19 miles from Charlottesville, 11 miles
from Scottsville and 15 miles from North Garden.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements proRra~ning ....
This proposal should have a limited effect on capital improve-
mentsprogramming due to the fact that the development is
existing.
The traffic generated from the proposed development would
not ....
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that this
portion of Route 800 is tolerable. Adequate entrances are
needed.
Staff offers the following comments regarding this petition. The
maximum potential development from this tract is 34 lots (four lots of
less than 21 acres, and 30 lots of 21 acres or greater). Potential
development may exceed actual development due to a lack of septic
fields, building sites or due to other requirements of the Zoning or
Subdivision Ordinances. Staff opinion is that the proposed develop-
ment may occur with the utilization of Rural Preservation Development
and pursual of this special use permit is unnecessary. In addition,
separate ownership of these houses could be established through a
condominium regime of ownership. This would not involve a special use
2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
permit or subdivision. Based on this, staff will recommend that
should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this
petition, a condition be included limiting the development of the
residue into a maximum of 26 lots. Staff would also note that four of
the proposed lots can be dreated 'by-right'.
The Zoning Ordinance states, in part, that the purpose and intent of
the ordinance is 'promoting the health, safety, convenience and
general welfare~of the public' Two of the proposed lots have build-
ing sites of less than the minimum required by Section 4.2.2.1. Six
lots have no approved septic area (primary or reserve) and one lot has
no reserve septic field. In addition to the above, other minimum re-
quirements of the ordinance have not been met (Attachment E), however
variances have been obtained.
Staff offered the following comments to the Zoning Administrator
regarding these variances:
Staff opinion is that in order to adequately protect the public health
all lots must have approved septic areas (primary and reserve).
Approval of this petition will establish these lots as perpetual and
lawful under the Zoning regulations. If this petition is not approved
and any houses are discontinued for more than two years, the use would
be abandoned. The options currently available to the applicant are
greater than would be available to the owner of a two-acre parcel, in
terms of finding areas suitable for septic fields.
The applicant has stated that these houses will be able to provide
housing for low to moderate income people. The provisions of afford-
able housing is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff
suggests that these houses will provide affordable housing either as
rental or for sale units. Furthermore, it is staff opinion that the
Comprehensive Plan does not recommend abandonment of basic health
regulations to achieve affordable housing nor does the plan promote
substandard housing to achieve affordability.
Staff opinion is that this request is inconsistent with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 31.2.4.1 and the criteria
for a special use permit found in Section 10.5.2.1. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of SP-90-11 Kenneth Carroll.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff offers the following conditions:
1. Residue shall not be divided into more than 26 parcels;
2. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances;
Staff approval of subdivision plat in general accordance with
Attachment C."
12
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 18,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of SP-90-11.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robin Wood, the attorney representing
the applicant, said six of the eight tenants who dwell in the eight houses are
present tonight. Mr. Wood said this is not the normal application for a
special permit. By granting this permit, the Board will be promoting the
health and welfare of some of its citizens. One family has occupied the same
house for 57 years. Approving this permit will improve the houses and the
people's lives. Mr. Wood explained that Mr. Carroll has already started
improving these houses, and he believes that when these people have an oppor-
tunity to own their property, they will continue to make improvements. Mr.
Wood said he is astounded by the staff report of hypothetical situations that
may occur if this permit is approved. This property has been here for 70
years and none of these situations have ever occurred. By granting this
special permit, the Board would be helping living conditions of these people.
He then presented photographs of the houses and property.
2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
122
Mr. Kenneth Carroll, the applicant, said he signed a contract to purchase
the subject houses in December, 1987. No improvements have been done to any
of these houses for 20 years. Twenty-six people reside in these eight houses.
Since he purchased the houses, he has installed new porches, new steps,
repaired the roofs, installed chimneys, new flooring, five new outhouses and
he has offered to install water in the houses. He then explained the history
of the Nelson County Service Authority extension of water to these properties.
Mr. Carroll said these are low income people who are used to this type of
lifestyle. These people cannot afford more expensive housing. Mr. Carroll
said he worked for Alberene Stone Company for 40 years and one of his jobs was
to manage the company properties. He has sold 205 company houses to low
income people. The houses that he sold are now nice homes. He does not want
to see these 26 people homeless. He then introduced the following tenants:
Mary Tinnell and her three children, Kenney and Janette Hunt, Linwood Allen,
,bert Roberts, James Allen and Charles Wooden. The other two tenants could
come to the meeting. He is trying to help these people. He is not here
~ing to create a new subdivision. Three of these houses have also been
painted inside. He has no problem with the Board adding a stipulation that
once these properties are renovated he must give these tenants first refusal
on purchase of the properties. Also if these people cannot afford to pay the
house payment, then he is willing to find a way to finance it so they can pay
for the house. If he had to offer the properties to someone else it would be
at a much higher price than what he would be offering these people.
Mr. Bowie asked what will happen with the other 26 lots. Mr. Carroll
said he does not know anything about the other acreage. His only concern is
these eight lots. Mr. Bowie asked if this request included the total acreage.
Mr. Carroll responded "no", he does not own the other acreage.
Mr. Vance Wilkins said this property is located about one-half mile from
Schuyler. There is almost no agricultural activity in that area. He does not
have time to manage rental property and therefore wants to sell it. He has
offered to sell the entire 16 acres including the houses to Kenneth Carroll
for $10,000. He has a buyer for the adjoining 25 acres. He is not in this
for the money. He could make more money if he demolished these houses and
sold the total acreage. He wants to give these people an opportunity to own
their own homes. This could only improve that area of the County and these
people's lives. The Board does not have to follow the letter of the law, but
should consider what could be done to help these people. These improvements
not lowering the health standards of these people, but improving them.
inside these homes is better than taking a tub and throwing the water
the back door. These improvements will enhance these people's lives, not
worsen them. He would appreciate the Board giving this request favorable
consideration.
Mr. Bowie asked if this permit refers only to the 16 acres or the entire
tract of land. Mr. Wilkins said just the 16 acres, the remaining acreage
would remain in its present state.
To clarify, Mr. Cilimberg said this subdivision, if approved, would
create an area of eight two-acre lots and a residue of 634.8 acres. The
special permit is for the entire parcel. The rest of the parcel unless
limited by the special permit is subject to the subdivision standard regula-
tions in the ordinance.
Next to address the Board, Mrs. Mary Tinnell said she is one of the
tenants. She asks the Board to give Mr. Carroll a chance to improve this
property. All of the tenants would appreciate a favorable decision.
Mr. Earl Roberts said he is low income and cannot afford anything else.
Mr. Carroll has done a good job fixing up these houses. He hopes that the
Board will consider that these people do not have much and need these homes.
Mr. Kenney Hunt said he and his wife moved into one of these houses in
January, 1990, because he could not afford the rent at his previous apartment.
This is the only way he will ever be able to afford a home.
Mr. Charles Wooden said he also is a tenant who lives with his wife,
three children and mother-in-law. He lives about three miles from his place
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 12
(Page 8)
of employment. He does not have a drivers license and if he had to move, he
would prHbably lose his job. He thinks that Mr. Carroll is a good person and
the Board should approve this request.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he does not understand where all of the other lots come
from. He asked if these eight lots could not be taken from the whole tract
which would take care of the smaller lots and then not allow any more lots of
less than 21 acres. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board chose to approve this
request, it could add a condition that there be no further subdivision of the
residue property. This permit is for additional small lots over the four
allowed by right.
Mr. Way said this property lies in his district and this is a difficult
situation. The staff report is correct in that this would create lots that do
not meet the requirements of the ordinance. He is torn about this entire
situation. He knows of three people who in the past two months have tried to
provide low cost housing in this county and it simply cannot be done within
the standards of County ordinances. Unless some exceptions are made to the
Zoning Ordinance, there will not be any low cost housing in the County. In
this case, the houses are already there. Nothing is going to change. Every-
thing will go on as has been except now the people can own their homes instead
of renting them. He does not have the solution where these lots can meet the
criteria of the Zoning Ordinance, but if the permit is granted nothing is
changed. The more he considers the business of low cost housing, he is
convinced that there will never be low cost housing in Albemarle County unless
the Board makes some exceptions when the opportunity comes along. He does not
think it is possible for someone to meet all of the criteria of the Ordinance
and provide low cost housing.
Mr. Bain said everything Mr. Way says is true, but the Board needs to
look at each request as it comes before the Board. He is willing to look at
the entire issue of low cost housing. Health Department requirements are
specifically outlined in the Ordinance to promote the public health and
safety, and he has problems with approving a request when it does not meet
those requirements. These houses are there now and can remain without the
Board taking any action. It is up to Mr. Wilkins what happens to those
houses. He does not think the Board can take one set of circumstances which
~ill change and affect the Zoning Ordinance, particularly as it relates to
rural areas and specific Health Department issues. Those requirements are in
the Ordinance for legitimate reasons.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the statements in the staff
report that "Staff opinion is that the proposed development may occur with the
utilization of Rural Preservation Department and this special use permit is
unnecessary .... This would not involve a special use permit or subdivision."
Mr. Cilimberg said the property would qualify for rural preservation develop-
ment which would allow the owner to create eight or more small lots, depending
on how many large lots he is entitled to, and at the same time require the
owner to create and insure maintenance by a permanent easement of a residue
parcel of a large size. The staff has talked to the applicant about that and
he is unwilling to do that. The condominium regime is separate altogether and
not covered under County ordinances which is a possibility for any particular
use.
Mr. St. John said the applicants have the right concerning a condominium
regime, but that is totally unrealistic in this case. A condominium regime
involves setting up a homeowner's association and having common areas on the
land with individual owernship of the box of the house on the land. Approval
for any condominium regime must come from the State Board of Real Estate in
Richmond. He does not believe that a project such as this could ever get
approved as a condominium regime nor could it be run as one. It seems to him
also that the preservation development is just a means to get around issuance
of a special permit. It would not solve any of the health problems that seem
to be the hang-up here. Those problems still exist.
Mrs. Humphris said she finds this extremely difficult, but the Board is
supposed to promote the health, safety and general welfare of all of the
)ublic. There are two proposed lots here that have building sites which are
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
1
less than the minimum size required by the Zoning Ordinance; six lots with no
approved' septic area at all, primary or reserved; one lot that has no reserved
septic field and it is her understanding that all of these houses have no
means of waste removal at all and the proposal is for a pipe running from each
house out into a rock pile. It is the Board's job to protect the public
health. She believes that basic to protecting public health is having
approved septic areas, primary and reserved. If the Board were to approve
this request, it would be establishing these lots as perpetual and unlawful.
She does not think it is in anyone's best interest to abandon the requirements
for basic health regulations even though there is a laudable goal of achieving
affordable housing for these people. It does not make sense for the Board "to
promote substandard housing in order to achieve affordable housing". As
difficult as this is, this Board is not precipitating the problem these people
have. She intends to vote against the request for the special permit.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris in principle, but people have
lived in these houses on these lots from 10 to 57 years and they are there to
stay. He has problems with approving a larger subdivision. He would support
the request if it had some additional conditions. One condition would be that
the residue have no more small lot options, 26 lots being the maximum on the
remainder of the property with no small lots, all would have to be a minimum
of 21 acres. He would also accept as a condition that the current residents
would have the right of first refusal with stated below market price. This
would give these people a chance to buy these homes. He would support the
request, if these additional conditions.
Mr. Bowerman said with respect to Mr. Way's statements, he would never
vote for a subdivision of eight lots with the characteristics of these lots,
if houses had not been built on them. He thinks the health requirements are
appropriate considerations for any subdivision in this County. He also
believes that minimum lot sizes for protection are adequate. He does not
think those requirements are too strict, but maybe some other things can be
done. He would do nothing in the future to remove any Health Department
requirement or restriction. He is mindful of Mr. Way's and Mr. Bowie's
statements. These houses exist. There are 26 people living in these houses.
Action by this Board could determine whether these people continue to live in
the houses. It does not appear that septic fields could ever be provided in
that location unless they were done on some sort of pumping basis. The fact
that the houses exist, that people are living in them, and that approving this
request would improve the public health and safety seems, in his opinion, to
iustify approving this request. He would support a motion for approval. He
loes not think the Board would be setting a precedent of any kind in terms of
2he rest of the ordinance for permit applications in the rural areas.
Mr. Way then offered motion to approve SP-90-11 subject to the three
conditions listed by the staff, and the addition of a fourth condition:
"Current occupants have right of first refusal on purchase of the house." Mr.
Bowie said he would support the motion if an additional condition were added
that "Residue may not be divided into lots of less than 21 acres." Mr.
Cilimberg suggested that the first condition could be amended to "Residue
shall not be divided into more than 26 parcels of not less than 21 acres per
parcel." Mr. St. John said that is an accurate condition, but the Zoning
Ordinance already makes that statement. Mr. Way agreed to amend the first
condition to "Residue shall not be divided into more than 26 parcels of not
less than 21 acres." Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The conditions in
full are as follows:
Residue shall not be divided into more than 26 parcels of not
less than 21 acres;
2. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrances;
Staff approval of subdivision plat in general accordance with
Attachment C;
Current occupants have right of first refusal on purchase of
house.
Mr. Bain asked about the enforceability and what has been accomplished by
the fourth condition. Mr. St. John said he does not think that it is likely
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
that somebody will offer a substantial sum for one of these lots. The very
socio-economic factors in this case were put into it by the applicants and
used as an inducement. In fact, that was the main inducement for this Board
to approve the special permit and when that is done, it is a different situa-
t'ion than if the Board had thought up the condition and imposed it. The
applicants have agreed to this condition, and under the Sie-Gray case the
condition is enforceable, though it would not have been in absence of the
applicants' agreement and suggestion. It is enforceable from a legal perspec-
tive. If the applicants do not abide by the condition, then the tenants would
have to come in and complain. Mr. Bowie said he would also like the record to
show that when the Board mentioned first refusal and low cost both Mr. Wilkins
and Mr. Carroll nodded their heads in the affirmative. Mr. St. John said Mr.
Carroll repeatedly voiced that he would agree to this. Interrupting, Mr.
Carroll said he would even agree to the tenants signing a statement to this
effect and he will provide it to the County Attorney. Mr. St. John repeated
that he thinks this is enforceable.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-13. George B. Hall. Public hearing on a
petition to establish a public garage (Section 10.2.2.37) on five acres.
Property located on east end of Route 631, about 600 feet north of its inter-
section with Route 708. Property is described as Tax Map 101, Parcel 12C
(part of) and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Scottsville District. (AdVertised
April 17 and April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie said a letter has been received from the applicant requesting
that this item be deferred to June 20. He then asked if anyone was present
concerning this petition. There was no response from the audience. Motion
was the offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer SP-90-13 until
June 20. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-15. Crossroads Waldorf School. Public hearing
on a petition to operate a private school at the existing Camp Holiday Trails
site (Section 10.2.2.5). A maximum of 100 students from kindergarten through
Grade 8 will utilize the 20 acre site. The property is located at the end of
Route 702 in the Samuel Miller District. Property is described as Tax Map 75,
Parcel 47C and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 17 and April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is developed with the facilities for
Camp Holiday Trails. A majority of the land in the area is forested;
however, a significant portion of the camp is cleared.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a private school for
100 children in grades K through 8. The applicant has submitted a
description of the request. No new construction is proposed. The.
school will utilize those buildings noted in Attachment B (on file).
Summary and Recommendations: Staff opinion is that this request is
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-90-15 Crossroads Waldorf
School.
Summary and Recommendation: Due to the existing development of this
site, staff has not reviewed this request as a conversion of
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
125
agricultural land to a commercial use. The current use of the proper-
ty is~a camp which provides facilities for 40 to 50 children for two
week sessions and a total of three sessions are held each year. In
addition approximately 40 children attend the State Blind Camp near
the end of summer.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated 'The Department
does not support this request since it would add a significant amount
of traffic to Route 702 and the width and alignment of this existing
road is narrow and poor' Route 702 is narrow and in places two
vehicles cannot pass. Portions of this road are located in cuts which
offer no shoulder or ditch to give drivers opportunity to pass. The
alignment of Route 702 does not allow for reasonable access by emer-
gency vehicles. A similar situation occurred during review for
SP-89-104 for Paran United Methodist Church. In that case the church
upgraded the road to a standard which allowed two vehicles to pass and
provided reasonable access by emergency vehicles.
Two recent day care centers have been approved on Route 702 for
Michele Mattioli and Trinity Presbyterian Church. Route 702 at the
location of these proposals has enough width to pass two vehicles and
provide for reasonable access by emergency vehicles.
Based on comments of the Department of Transportation and staff
observation, this request does not appear to be in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recom-
mends denial of SP-90-15 Crossroads Waldorf School.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff offers the following conditi6ns of
approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Enrollment is limited to 100 students;
e
School to operate from September through May, Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.;
Use shall be limited to buildings 1-8 as shown on Attachment B;
and
4. Albemarle County Fire Official approval."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 17,
1990, recOmmended denial of SP-90-15.
Mr. Cilimberg said school officials have estimated 52 vehicle trips per
day. Route 702 is one of the highest traveled unpaved roads in the County,
and in 1988 the Highway Department took a count of 411 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Bain asked hOw many students attended the school when the County
operated the Ragged Mountain School at the Camp Holiday Trails site. Mr.
Cilimberg said no more than 15 children attended the school during its five
years of operation.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a special permit runs with the property, with the
use, or with the particular applicant. He asked if the use could be limited
to the applicant, at a specific location, for a finite period of~time. Mr.
St. John said the finite time is one issue, but for a specific person he does
not believe so. Mr. Bowerman asked if the permit could have a limited period
of time. Mr. St. John said only if the time limitation is based on some
rational reason. A fundamental rule of special permits is that they are fixed
to the land and not a personal right. The only exception is if there is some
personal need of the applicant.
Before opening the public hearing, Mr. Bowie acknowledged receipt of
about 50 to 60 letters from citizens concerning this petition. The public
hearing was opened.
~ay 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 12~
(Page 12)
The applicant, Mr. John Koehne, Chairman of the Board of Crossroads
~aldorf School, one of the founders of the school and a grandparent with two
zhildren in the school, addressed the Board. Mr. Koehne said this school has
~een in existence for eight years, starting with kindergarten at Crossroads,
~hich is where the name came from. Not only was the school physically located
at Crossroads, but as individuals were at a crossroads in their life in
starting a school. From the beginning, the school has worked with the County.
his is a non-profit corporation. This school is also a licensed day care
~enter. At this time, the owners are negotiating, and have a contract to
)urchase some property in Albemarle County. If the Board should approve this
)etition, the conditions recommended are acceptable to the school and a
:ondition on time limit would be acceptable. The school does not expect to be
Lt Camp Holiday Trails permanently. The school grows gradually primarily by
word of mouth and because it is a good school. Each year the school has added
~ne grade. Next Fall Grade 8 will be added and the school will have reached
its maximum planned program for the foreseeable future. Any further growth
beyond that is a tremendous problem and requires a very mature grade school.
this is a responsible thriving organization. This past school year they
started out with a balanced budget. The school sponsors some annual events to
raise money because it thrives off its own resources. The move of Crossroads
School to Camp Holiday Trails was not an attempt to evade County regulations.
In fact, the school felt it was in accord because it knew that day schools had
been operating at Camp Holiday Trails for almost ten years before appearing on
the scene. The reason this petition is before the Board is to allow Cross-
roads School to continue operating at Camp Holiday Trails until the school can
move to a permanent location.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Koehne when Crossroads expects to vacate the Camp
Holiday site for a permanent location. Mr. Koehne said he thinks in approxi-
mately three years because they have to build a new facility.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Koehne to cox~ent on the use of a bus. Mr. Koehne
lsaid the Board of Crossroads School and its faculty would be pleased if a bus
Ior large vans were used.' The Board is contemplating a mandatory busing plan
lunder which children would be bused to school and the school is prepared to
ladopt that as a policy.
Mr. Koehne repeated that the County staff's recommendations are accept-
able to the school, as is a busing program and a time limit to vacate the
site.
Mr. Bowie then asked how many people in the audience were parents of
children in the school and have driven Route 702. Approximately 50 people
raised their hands.
Mrs. Lennie Covington, a parent with a child attending the school, said
one of the issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting concerned emergen-
cy vehicle access. The school has had personal contact with the rescue squad
and has been assured that the rescue squad can make the trip on Route 702
within an acceptable time to the hospital in the event of a major emergency.
In the event of a minor emergency, a child needing stitches, the school does
have a designated vehicle located on the premises at all times. The faculty
and the staff at the school have demonstrated their capacity for taking charge
and being competent and being able to handle any situation that has come up in
the past. The parents feel they can place their trust in the school to do a
good job.
Mr. Bowie asked how many persons agreed with the statements made by the
previous speaker (approximately 50 people raised their hands). Mr. Bowie
again said the Board received a lot of material from people and understands
Ilhow everyone feels-
Mr. Frank Jolly, the parent of a child who will be attending first grade,
said he will address the good being served by this school. This school is
still in its childhood and needs guidance from the outside. Waldorf School is
not just a means of education, but also a way of raising children. Parents
have come as far as Georgia and New Hampshire and have sacrificed longstanding
jobs, as he has, to give their children this opportunity. He wonders what
good it does for the community if another element of diversity is eliminated.
Many of these teachers, have experience in public and private education. He
~ay 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 12~
(Page 13)
asks what benefit this would be to the children who are eager and enthusiastic
to attend these classes. He asks the Board to think about the human costs of
~is decision it is making tonight.
Mr. Bowie asked how many persons agreed with the previous speaker (50
~eople raised their hands). He again stated that the Board understands their
~osition. He then asked if anyone present was opposed to the request. There
~as no response.
Mr. Mark Thurston, a resident of Crozet and parent of a child attending
Waldorf School, said he would reemphasize the asset the school is to this
community. The quality of life in Albemarle County is enhanced by diversity
of education. Waldorf education has been around for 70 years. There are
approximately 350 Waldorf schools world-wide, 100 in America and this is the
only school in Virginia. Waldorf draws people to the County because of its
existence. He served on boards of two private schools in Virginia Beach.
½efore moving here, he got to know the leaders of Waldorf School and he was
~articularly impressed with the high ethical standards, good will and the
lependability of these leaders. This is a group bf people who the County can
work with in the future and trust.
Mr. Bowie asked how many persons agreed with this speaker (50 people
again raised their hands). He said the Board members understand their posi-
tion. Mr. Bowie pointed out that the issue before the Board is land use, not
the Waldorf School.
Mr. Robert Forsythe, President of the Board of Camp Holiday Trails, next
addressed the Board. Mr. Forsythe said Augusta County Schools rented from
Camp Holiday Trails from 1976-1983. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County rented property froTM 1983 until 1988. On Route ~702 the single largest
distance in which two vehicles could not pass side by side is approximately
150 yards. When these cars have to pull off the side the road, it does not
Ldd a detriment to either vehicle. There are two blind curves on Route 702,
Jut at five miles an hour, both of the curves are safe or no more dangerous
~han some other curves in the County. In the current Comprehensive Plan, Camp
Roliday Trails is zoned for low-density residential use. This operation
Linimizes congestion that could otherwise be on Route 702. If Camp Holiday
'rails loses Crossroads School, it will have to seek other tenants for rental
~ich means the road will be more heavily used. He thinks this special permit
is in the best interest of Crossroads School, Camp Holiday Trails and the
County.
'Dr. Polsen (no first name given), Medical Director of Camp Holiday
Trails, asked the Board to support Camp Holiday Trails. This is the only camp
of its type in the entire world. The camp accepts children with any kind of
medical disability and it is a tremendous benefit to both the family and the
child. In the same way, the Camp is benefiting from Waldorf School. She
urges the Board to support the request.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Joseph Casterina, a camper at Camp Holiday
Trails from 1979 until 1983, said he is blind and has never driven Route 702.
He has walked the road and did not encounter any problems. He hopes the Board
will approve this request from Waldorf School because it will greatly enhance
the financial stability of the Camp.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Humphris said she has driven over Route 702 and was bothered about
the joggers. She has two reasons for supporting the petition. The first
reason for support is what the school does for the children, parents and
community. The second reason to support the request is Camp Holiday Trails
and what it contributes to this community and the children from all over. She
thinks that what Mr. Koehne said about three years is something that should be
one of the conditions for approval. She thinks that it would be a good idea
to set a time limit. She thinks it would be more appropriate for parents to
transport their own children rather than going through the problems that would
be caused by busing. If the parents are willing to assume that risk and would
prefer that, it would be better than a busing procedure. Mr. Bowie said he
agrees compltely with Mrs. Humphris' comments about busing.
~ay 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 13
(Page 14)
Mr. St. John said if the Board is going to approve this permit that is a
moot question, enforcement of busing. A condition like that is not something
that is legally void. It is legally unenforceable. If the Board added that
as a condition it is something the Zoning Administrator would have to enforce.
Would the Zoning Administrator rely on parents to report each other or would
she sit out there and monitor the situation? It is extremely difficult to
enforce conditions which the Board feels are to protect people from their own
lack of judgment.
Mr. Bain asked if a condition could be added that this permit expires
June 30, 1993, or if the permit automatically "ran with the land". Mr. St.
John said a time limit could be put on the permit, at which time, the permit
would quit running with the land. As a general rule, it is not a proper
condition to limit the permit to the person who made the application. In this
case, he does think the condition could be limited to the Crossroads Waldorf
School. Mr. Bowerman said the intent is that if a limit of three years is put
on the permit and if the School is out in two years, the permit would expire
when they leave the site. Mr. St. John said that is valid in this case.
Mr. Bain said he is in favor of the application. He understands the
reasons for the staff's recommendation for denial based on the conditions of
the road. He can support the permit for a limited period of time. Mr. Bain
then offered motion to approve SP-90-15 subject to the four conditions out-
lined by the staff and a fourth condition: "The special use permit is for
Crossroads Waldorf School and will expire on June 30, 1993, or when Crossroads
Waldorf School vacates the premises, whichever occurs first." Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion. Mr. Way said he will support the motion, but does not
understand what difference it makes whether Crossroads Waldorf or someone else
uses the facility.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
The conditions of approval are set out below:
1. Enrollment is limited to 100 students;
School to operate from September through May, Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.;
3. Use shall be limited to buildings 1-8 as shown on Attachment B;
4. Albemarle County Fire Official approval; and
The special use permit is for Crossroads Waldorf School and will
expire on June 30, 1993, or when Crossroads Waldorf School
vacates the premises, whichever occurs first.
(At 9:33 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at
9:45 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-19. Multi-Channel TV Cable Company. Public
hearing on a petition to. amend SP-79-32 in order to allow for a larger build-
ing on 0.63 acre (Section 10.2.2.6). Property located on west side of Route
743, 1000 feet north of Route 631. Property described as Tax Map 45, Parcel
16A, is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with a tower,
small building and satellite receiving dishes. No structures are
visible on adjacent properties.
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24
foot by 30 foot building to house satellite reception and decoding
electronic equipment.
Summary and Recommendation: The applicant has submitted a brief
description of this project. This development will not result in
increased maintenance traffic and only minimal grading is proposed.
Existing vegetation consisting of mature decidous trees and evergreens
provides for adequate screening from adjacent parcels. Due to the
limited size of the structure, staff is requesting administrative
approval of the site plan. The location of the proposed structure has
not been shown. However, staff opinion is that the setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance and conditions of this special use
permit are adequate to control the location of the building.
Staff opinion is that the proposed expansion is consistent with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
SP-90-19 Multi-Channel TV Cable subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Staff approval of site plan;
2. Building size shall be limited to 24 feet by 30 feet;
0
Building shall have the exterior appearance of residential
buildings and shall have landscaping, screen planting and/or
fencing. Trespass fencing and other safety measures may be
required at the time of site plan review."
131
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-19 subject to the conditions
set forth in the staff's report. These conditions are in addition to those
conditions already imposed on SP-79-32.
Mr. Bowie asked the height of the building. Mr. Cilimberg said he
believes the building will be a one-story structure.
Mr. Michael Smith, Regional Engineer for Adelphia Cable, the operating
company for Multi-Channel, said when this building was first constructed in
1979 most of the reception was picked up from the air, off the towers. Over
the years, with the addition of new channels and newer equipment, more of the
services are picked up via satellite. The company has outgrown the eight-foot
by ten-foot present building. As the cable system for the County and the City
of Charlottesville is upgraded, the company will need a larger facility. The
building is proposed to be one story. The applicant has agreed that because
the area is growing there is no problem with putting a screen fencing around
the boundary to enclose the area and prevent children from coming onto the
site. Planting white pines as a screen fencing has also been discussed.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the five satellite dishes got on the property.
In July, 1979, when a permit was approved for this property it was for a TV
tower and small building. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know. The location
of the dishes are under the purview of the Zoning Administrator as to whether
they meet the requirements of the special permit for the site. Mr. Smith said
he also does not know, but the satellite dishes were already on the property
when Adelphia Cable purchased the property from Multi-Channel two years ago.
Mrs. Humphris asked where the new building is to be located. Mr. Smith
said from the rear corner of the present building, going out approximately
- five feet, the building will set at an angle in the cleared area of the
property.
Mrs. Humphris asked the height of the new building. Mr. Smith replied 15
to 18 feet in height with some pitch to the roof.
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
132
Mrs. Humphris said this lot is little more than one-half acre. It abuts
building lots in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision and directly abuts a lot on which
house is being built. There are three large white satellite dishes turned
towards the subdivision and two smaller satellite dishes. The staff report is
incorrect when it states that existing vegetation consisting of mature decidu-
ous trees and evergreens provides adequate screening from adjacent parcels.
These trees do not provide any screening at all for adjacent properties.
There are only about five pine trees on the entire parcel and they are tall
and spindly, with no lower branches. There is a "Danger High Voltage'' sign on
a small building which means that some kind of tight security fencing would be
necessary because of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said the voltage of 120 is
typical of a home or business. The sign is there more as a psychological
deterrent.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the Highway Department states that there
is access internally to the adjacent property to the south from this entrance
and asked about that access. Mr. Smith said the only access he is aware of
that is-being used is the one off the pavement going back down the easement to
the property. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the Highway Departments refer-
ence is identified as a 24 foot right-of-way to the property to the south. He
does not believe that is a part of Roslyn Ridge.
Mrs. Humphris asked if any more satellite dishes will be added. Mr.
Smith said no additional dishes are in the plans. Mrs. Humphris asked if the
dishes must be bright white. Mr. Smith said the white dishes improve recep-
tion because of their reflection from the light. The black dishes are not
normally used in commercial applications. Mrs. Humphris said the residents of
Roslyn Ridge are going to have a view of large white satellite dishes unless
there is some careful, well-planned screening. It concerns her when the staff
report states that there is adequate screening and she knows there is not,
which makes her wonder what the final product will be.
Mr. Bowie said he would support a condition that adequate screening and
trespass fencing be included in site review. However, the dishes were out
there when the people in Roslyn Ridge bought the lots. Mr. Bowerman suggested
that the Planning Commission review the site plan and that they be made aware
of the Board's concern. Mr. Bain said if Board members are concerned about
additional satellite dishes, then a condition should be added that no more
will be allowed.
Mrs. Humphris then offered motion to approve SP-90-19 subject to the
three conditions of the Planning Commission, with #3 amended to read: "Build-
ing shall have the exterior appearance of residential buildings and shall have
landscaping, screen planting and/or fencing. Trespass fencing and other
safety measures shall be required at the time of site plan review;" and a
condition #4 reading: "No additional satellite dishes shall be added on the
site." Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Mr. Bain asked if those conditions
could be enforced. Mr. St. John replied yes. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff
will pay extra attention to screening. Mrs. Humphris also requested that the
Planning Commission review the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board
wanted the Commission to review all elements of the site plan or just the
landscaping. Mrs. Humphris replied all elements of the site plan because she
thinks the siting of the building is particularly important. This is a small
parcel of land. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a copy of the Board's minutes on
the petition be distributed to the Commission for its review of the site plan.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
The conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan;
2. Building size shall be limited to 24 feet by 30 feet;
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Building shall have the exterior appearance of residential
buildings and shall have landscaping, screen planting and/or
fencing. Trespass fencing and other safety measures shall be
required at the time of site plan review; and
4. No additional satellite dishes shall be added on the site.
lB
(The Chairman suggested that Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12 be discussed
jointly. )
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-90-04. Forest Lakes Associates. Public hearing
on a request to rezone 3.71 acres from R-l, Residential, to R-6, Residential
(Section 33.2.1). Property located on Timberwood Parkway north and adjacent
to the existing Arbor Lakes Townhomes. Property is described as Tax Map 32,
Parcel 29N2, and is cUrrently zoned R-i, Residential. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1990.)
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-90-05. Forest Lakes Associates. Public hearing
on a request to rezone 2.69 acres from R-4, Residential, to R-6, Residential
(Section 33.2.1). Property located on the south side of Route 649 approxi-
mately 1/2 mile east of Route 29 North. Property is described as Tax Map
46B3, Parcel 1 (part of) is currently zoned R-4, Residential. Rivanna Dis-
trict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Proposal is located in the Forest Lakes
Development adjacent to the existing townhomes.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has provided a proffered plan for
development (Attachments A & B). The plan indicates 38 townhouse
units which will access Timberwood Parkway through the existing
entrance to Arbor Lakes.
Summary and Recommendation: This proposal would allow for additional
development similar to that currently present adjacent to the site.
The proposed plan utilizes the existing entrance to Timberwood Park-
way.
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff recom-
mends approval of ZMA-90-04 and ZMA-90-05 Forest Lakes Associates with
the acceptance of the applicant's proffer:
The plan that we submitted for 38 additional townhouses in Forest
Lakes is proffered as'part of the rezoning request. If the
rezoning is approved, development will proceed in general compli-
ance with that plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3,
unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-gO-04 and ZMA-90-05, subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has submitted the plan displayed before
the Board tonight for review by staff as the site plan. Mr. Bain suggested
that the plan presented be initialled and dated.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the Highway Department's comment that "traffic
impact needs to be determined so that the roads and pavement designs can be
checked" can be done. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be done during site plan
review.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc., representing the
applicant said Mr. Stephen N. Runkle of The Kessler Group is also present.
Mr. Roudabush said this proposal is for two parcels of land. One parcel is
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
currently owned by Forest Lakes Associates and the other portion is under a
contract of purchase to be completed in a couple of days. Forest Lakes was
intended to provide several different types of housing, multi-family, single-
family and townhouse units as well as a limited amount of commercial area. In
recent mont%hs it was decided that in order to complete the development of
townhous~s in that area it would be better to compact all in one area where
the townhouses have already been approved and construction completed on the
first 24 units. These 38 units will adjoin the initial 24 units so that all
62 units will be in the same area, will use a common entrance and he thinks
this will be all of the townhouses developed in the northern portion of the
project. It makes sense to keep them all in the same relative area. Ail of
the development plans for the Forest Lakes area north of Hollymead have been
submitted for the residential lands with the exception of one little area that
runs out to Route 649, north. This essentially will conclude the residential
development of the northern portion of Forest Lakes. Relative to the Highway
Department's comment about traffic, a traffic generation study has been
completed and submitted to the County and Highway Department and it indicates
that with these additional 38 units, no additional upgrading of Timberwood
Parkway will be required. The originaldesign is adequate to accommodate this
additional development as well as all of the proposed development in that
With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve
ZMA-90-04 and ZMA-90-05, as proffered in letter dated March 21, 1990, from Mr.
Stephen N. Runkle, The Kessler Group, addressed to Mr. Bill Fritz, Planning
Department, and in accord with Plan for Townhouse B, Forest Lakes, Albemarle
County, Virginia, dated February 20, 1990, prepared by Roudabush, Gale &
Assoc., Inc., initialed by V. Wayne Cilimberg on May 2, 1990. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 2.1 of the County Code by the addition of Section 2.1-4 (s) to be
known as the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. Located to the west
and south of Batesville on State Route 635, 636, 637 and 692 and consisting of
approximately 907 acres. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and
April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Location: The proposed district is located to the west and south of
Batesville on State Routes 635, 636, 637 and 692.
Acreage: The proposed district contains about 907 acres in nineteen
parcels.
Time Period: Ten (10) years.
.~c~Agricultural ~and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed district
is being used for forestry, pasture and hay.
Significant Lands Not in A8ricultural/Forestal Production: The use
value assessment program is a good indication of the actual use of the
properties. Seve~ of the nineteen parcels are not enrolled in the
program (about 36 acres). In addition, about eight acres of the
enrolled properties are non-qualifying because of dwellings. About
662 acres are being used for forestry and about 201 acres are being
used for agriculture.
Land Use Other Than Agriculture and Forestry: There are twelve
dwellings in the proposed district, or one dwelling per 75 acres.
There are at least four historic homes in the district, all dating
from the nineteenth century. A special use permit for a rdpes course,
SP-89-110 Falls River Wilderness Center, was approved on February 21,
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
1990, on Tax Map 85, Parcel 3A. Part of that 79.5 acre parcel is
proposed to be included in this district.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: The proposed district in-
cludes large rural properties as well as smaller acreages, some of
which are in the village of Batesville. Because Batesville is located
within the South Fork Rivanna reservoir watershed, it is not desig-
nated as a growth area. Therefore, staff has no problem with includ-
ing properties which are located in the village.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The proposed district is
located in Rural Areas III, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest
growth areas are North Garden (four miles east) and Crozet (three
miles north). The Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District lies
adjacent to the north.
Environmental Benefits: The proposed district is located within a
reservoir watershed. Preservation of wooded areas will help protect
ground and surface water quality, wildlife habitat and critical
slopes.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval.
AdvisoryCommittee Recommendations: The Advisory Committee on
April 2, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of the Batesville
District.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Albemarle County Planning
Commission on April 24, 1990 unanimously recommended approval of the
Batesville District. The Commission noted that the special use permit
on Tax Map 85, Parcel 3A, is supportive of forestal uses."
13
The public hearing was opened. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the
Piedmont Environmental Council, handed out a letter from Mrs. Margaret John-
son, who helped to organize the district. The letter asks that the Board
support the creation of this new agricultural/forestal district.
With no further comments coming from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1 of the County Code by the addition
of Section 2.1-4 (s) to be known as the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal
District. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same
hereby is, amended to add a new subsection (s) to be known as the
"Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District", reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(s) The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 70, parcel 40, 40A (part); tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 26,
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
26A, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3A (part), 3B,
4J,' 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A,
parcel 1.
136
Agenda Item No. 14. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 2.1 of the County Code, Section 2.1-4 (g) Moorman's River Agricultur-
al/ Forestal District by the addition of parcels. Located west of Lake
Albemarle off State Route 680 in the vicinity of White Hall and consisting of
approximately 186 acres. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and
April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
',Location: The proposed addition is located west of Lake Albemarle,
Off Route 680 in the vicinity of White Hall; north side Moorman's
River off Route 678; north side Mechums River on Route 678; south side
MechumRiver off Route 614.
Acreage: The proposed addition contains 443.436 acres in six parcels.
The current district contains 10,478.70 acres, and is the largest
district in the County.
Time Period: Same as for the original district, or eight (8) years
from December 17, 1986.
Agricultural/Forestal SignifiCance: Land in the proposed addition is
being used for pasture and forestry.
Significant Lands Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use
value assessment program is a good indication of the actual use of the
properties. Five of the six parcels are enrolled in the program, with
about 142 acres being used for agriculture, 294 acres being used for
forestry, and one acre non-qualifying because of a dwelling. One
parcel containing 6.4 acres is not enrolled in the program.
Land Use Other Than Agriculture and Forestry: There are two dwellings
in the proposed addition.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: The proposed addition is
surrounded by properties already enrolled in the Moorman-'-s River
District. This is an agricultural area with scattered dwellings.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The proposed addition is
located in Rural Areas I and III, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
nearest growth area is Crozet, situated about two miles southwest.
Environmental Benefits: The proposed addition is located within the
South Fork Rivanna reservoir watershed. Preservation of wooded areas
will help protect ground and surface water quality, wildlife habitat
and critical slopes.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Advisory Committee on April 2,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the Addition to Moorman's
River III District.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Albemarle County Planning
Commission on April 24, 1990 unanimously recommended approval of the
addition to the Moorman's River III District. (Note that the Planning
Commission did not have before them one parcel, Tax Map 43, Parcel 2A,
because staff had not confirmed the parcel number at that time.)"
Mr. Way asked if it was not usual to approve a district for ten years as
Board just did with Batesville. Mr. Cilimberg said ten years is the new
maximum allowed time period approved by the General Assembly.
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
137
Mr. Bowie asked what happens to the district in 1994 when the time period
expires. Mr. Cilimberg said property owners will be back before the Board at
that time either to renew the district or withdraw from the district.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1 of the County Code, Section 2.1-4
(g) Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District by the addition of parcels.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
~BSENT: Mr. Perkins.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4(g) of the Code of Albemarle be, and the
same hereby is, amended to add additional parcels to the "Moorman's
River Agricultural and Forestal District", reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(g) The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 27, parcels 32, 40 40A, 42; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4,
5, 6, 6A, 7Al, 8, 11, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A,
34B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 7B, 8, 8B,
8E, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63,
63A, 63D, 67, 67C, 69D, 69P 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 70H 70H1, 70K,
70L, 70M, 71, 7lA, 73B, 74A, 76, 77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2, 79B, 79C,
79D, 79D1, 80, 84; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A, 18E; tax map
41, parcels 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, 44 50, 67, 67B, 68, 70,
72, 72B, 72C 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 7, 8, 8A, 8C, 10, 10A,
10D, 25C, 25C1, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C,.40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H, 40H2, 41,
42B, 43, 43A, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map 43, parcels 1, lB, 2, 2A, 3,
3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18C, 18E4, 18F,
18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 2lA, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A,
25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, 33D, 34 45, 45A,
45C, 45D, 58; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B,
27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 3lA, 31Al, 31D, 31F, 31G,
32G, 32G1; tax map 59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 2.1 of the County Code, Section 2.1-4 (f) Kinloch Agricultural/
FOrestal District by the addition of a parcel. Located on the north side of
Route 22 at the Albemarle/Louisa County line near Cobham and consisting of
approximately 64 acres. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and
April 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Location: The proposed addition is located on the north side of
Route 22 at the County line near Cobham.
Acreage: The proposed addition contains 63.4 acres. (Note: Part of
Parcel 34 is situated in Louisa County and is not included in the
addition.) The current district contains 1,586.60 acres.
Time Period: Same as for the original district, or eight years from
September 3, 1986.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed addition
is being used for forestry.
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
138
Significant Lands Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use
value assessment program is a good indication of the actual use of the
properties. Both parcels are enrolled in the program, with all of the
land being used for forestry except three acres which are non-qualify-
ing because of dwellings.
Land Use Other Than AKriculture and Forestry: There are three dwell-
ings in the proposed addition.
Land Developmental Patterns and Needs: The proposed addition is
located in an area of large farms and scattered dwellings.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The proposed addition is
located in Rural Area II, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest
growth area is the Urban Area, about four and one-half miles west.
Environmental Benefits: A major stream, the Mechunk Creek traverses
this property. Preservation of wooded areas will help protect ground
and surface water quality, wildlife habitat and critical slopes.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Advisory Committee on April 2,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the addition to Kinloch
District.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Albemarle County Planning
Commission on April 24, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of the
addition to Kinloch District."
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1 of the County Code, Section 2.1-4
(f) Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District by the addition of a parcel. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4(f) of the Code of Albemarle be, and the
same hereby is, amended to add an additional parcel to the "Kinloch
Agricultural and Forestal District", reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(f) The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 65,
parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 9lA, 92, 93, 94, 100, 121,
t21A; tax map 66, parcels 2, 3C, 32, 32D 34 (Albemarle part only),
34B.
Not Docketed: Mr. Way asked the staff to verify the date of review for
the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. Several landowners have
asked him that question.
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
139
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Request to Use Rivanna Park for Fourth
of July Activities.
Mr. Darden Towe, Chairman of the Independence Day Committee, presented
the following letter outlining his request:
"As Chairman of the Independence Day Committee, I am asking the County
for permission to use Rivanna Park for our picnic, band concert, and
fireworks display on the Fourth of July. No lights will be required
for any of these activities. The Jaycees will sponsor the picnic and
other activities which would take place in the park, and the Municipal
Band would play their usual Fourth of July concert from 7:00 to 8:00
P.M., and then the fireworks display would be set off about 9:00 or
9:15 P.M.
I have been Chairman of the Independence Day Committee for the last 20
years, and many different community organizations participate in the
activities on the Fourth of July, such as the naturalization ceremony
at Monticello, the Jaycees with the picnic in.the park, the Municipal
Band, and the various DAR Chapters. There will also be the 14 year
old baseball tournament taking place at the Lane Field, and a softball
invitational tournament which will be taking place at the various
fields around the city and county on that day."
Mr. Towe said the fireworks will last about 20 minutes. Mr. Bowerman
asked if there is enough parking at Rivanna Park to accommodate the expected
crowd. Mr. Towe said parking can be controlled at the park. He thinks that
many of the people will remain on the other side of the River at Pen Park and
walk down to the golf course to see the fireworks. People watch fireworks
from all over the City. The Committee has viewed the area around the River
and feels that the fireworks can be set off so that they will not be a detri-
A fire department from the County and City will be in attendance for
ment.
safety reasons.
Mr. Bowie asked if a rescue squad will be on site. Mr. Towe responded
"yes". Mr. Bowie asked how all of the people will get out of the park with no
lights. Mr. Towe said there will be assistance from the two police depart-
ments. Mr. Bowie asked about the people who will want to remain in the park.
Mr. Agnor said the public address system built into the lights and sirens of
the police cars will broadcast the time for closing of the gates. Mr. Towe
said for information, this year's activities are being dedicated to a young
man from Bristol, Virginia who has been at the University of Virginia Hospital
now has an adopted family in this community.
Mr. Towe said this is a one-time request, next year McIntire Park is
~osed to be back in operation. He has spoken with people from the City and
the County Parks Departments and they feel that the event can be controlled.
Mr. Bain said he favors the request only for a one-time use for the park
and with no lights.
Mr. Agnor said the action the Board needs to take is to grant the Inde-
pendence Day Committee permission to use the Rivanna Park. Eventually, he
hopes such requests will not have to come before the Board for review, but can
be handled administratively.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to grant the
Independence Day Committee permission to use the Rivanna Park for its Fourth
of July activities in 1990. Roll was called and th~ motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Way said exceptions for the Fourth of July are continually made in
all areas of this county except in Scottsville, where they are still not
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
allowed to have their parade without interruption.
year and nothing seems to change.
14(3
He goes through this every
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
There were no appointments made. Mr. Bowie indicated that the Board will
interview applicants for appointment next week during lunch.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: December 6(N), 1989.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of December 6 (N), 1989, and found them to
be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt a
resolution urging the United SCates Postal Service to consider instituting a
local government postal rate as part of its current rate filing. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service has filed notice for an
increase in postage rates to be effective upon the approval of all
appropriate bodies; and
WHEREAS, such postal increase will mandate a significant finan-
cial impact on local county governments throughout the United States
for essential services provided by local entities, i.e. tax notices,
voter registration forms, jury duty summonses, jury duty pay, general
payments of local counties, et al; and
WHEREAS, in essence, such a postal rate increase will be a form
of "double taxation" on local county government taxpayers, for
required governmental services; and
WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service and local county
governments should be working mutually for the benefit of local
taxpayers, to whom they both provide a "service";
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby requests that the United States
Postal Service strongly consider the institution of a "local govern-
ment postal rate" as a part of its current rate filing in an effort to
reduce the burden of cost increases in postal rates to local county
government taxpayers.
Mrs. Humphris asked that the resolution be sent to the Postmaster Gener-
al, National Association of Counties and the Boards of Supervisors in the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Mr. Bowie asked that the resolution adopted by the Board on April 25,
[990, opposing efforts to eliminate or restrict state and local income and
May 2, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
14.1
property tax deductions be sent to the Chairmen of the Board of Supervisors in
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Mr. Bain said he would be attending the Department of Transportation's
Round Table meeting in Culpeper.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter received from Citizens for Albemarle
requesting that the County insert in its advertisements whether the property
lies in or outside of a designated growth area. Pertinent wording in the
letter states "The planning policy of the County rests on the strategy of
allowing development in designated growth areas and discourages it in other
rural areas." The Citizens for Albemarle feel this distinction is crucial to
the current vision of the County's future. They believe all summaries of land
use issues before the Board, Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
· I, or
should stipulate either "This property is in a designated growth area.
"This property is not in a designated growth area." Mr. Bowie said he has no
problem with that addition, but first asks staff to look at the ramifications
of adding that statement and bring the information back to the Board on May 9.
Mrs. Humphris said in January the Board asked to have input in the
appointment of the member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board was
notified that the current appointment would expire sometime in May. Now that
there is a new judge, the Board should look again at how it can have input in
the appointment. Mr. Bowie suggested that it be discussed during appointments
on May 9.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. At 10:51 P.M., there being no further
business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN