1990-06-20June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
290
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on 3une 20, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Auditorium, County Office
Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
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 and
seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve Item 4.1 and to accept the remaining
items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of June, 1990 were
approved by the vote shown above.
Item 4.2. Planning Commission Minutes for June 5, 1990, were received as
information.
Item 4.3. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for the months
of April and May, 1990, received as information.
Item 4.4. Letter dated June 7, 1990, from Governor Doug Wilder, Common-
wealth of Virginia, offering a Community Improvement Grant in the amount of
$300,000 for Albemarle's Community Development Block Grant project, was
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: To name Route 649 on the west side
of Route 29 North, as Airport Road. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 5 and June 12, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said a petition had been received from landowners or
residents along the portion of Route 649 on the west of Route 29 North,
requesting that the name, "Airport Road", be officially given to this section
of road for mailigg address purposes. He said the petition represents 36
percent of the parcels adjacent to Route 649. The businesses and residents
would have a permanently numbered address rather than a rural route with box
numbers if this name is approved. He said this section has commonly been
referred to as "Airport Road" for a number of years and staff supports the
request.
Mr. Bowerman asked the process used for selecting certain street names.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff attempts to research a proposed name for historical
importance or for common reference. In this case, this portion of Route 649
has been referred to as "Airport Road" for many years.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
291
The public hearing was opened. With no member of the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt
the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the portion of State Route 649 between Route 29 and
Route 606 be named Airport Road.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-13. George B. Hall. Public hearing on a
petition to establish a public garage (10.2.2.37) on five acres. (Deferred
from May 2, 1990.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The property is currently developed with a
single- family dwelling and outbuildings. Property is mostly open
with mature deciduous trees in the area of the proposed garage.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 30
foot by 40 foot garage structure approximately as shown on attachment
A (on file). The proposed hours of operation are 8:00 A.M. to 5:00
P.M. Monday through Saturday.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in an area designated as
Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan discourages development not
related to bona-fide agricultural forestal use.
Summary and Recommendations: In the past, Staff has recommended that
public garage uses are more appropriate to designated growth areas of
the Comprehensive Plan than to random location in the rural areas. In
past reports for public garages, staff has stated that commercial use
of the property be evaluated in terms of appropriateness to the Rural
Areas. That is to say, a determination should be made as to whether
or not this garage would provide service to the area. This property
is situated about four miles south of the Urban Area of the Compre-
hensive Plan, and there is one garage approximately 3.5 miles north of
this site. Planning Staff has no method of determining if this area
is adequately served.
Staff can offer the following guidance to aid the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors in determining if this area is adequately
served.
1) This site is located near the intersection of Routes 631 and 708;
2)
3)
This site is in proximity to the Southern Regional Park;
The existing garage on Route 631 approximately 3.5 miles from
this site is located near the urban area and requires people to
go nearby to the urban area for garage services.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the criteria for
issuance of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1) and offers the
following comments:
The ~arase would not be of substantial detriment to adia-
cent property - In an attempt to make such uses unobtrusive in
rural locations, staff has in the past recommended conditions
that limit operations to mechanical repair and service. Spray-
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
292
painting, body work, gasoline sales and sale/rental of vehicles
should be prohibited. Hours of operation should be limited.
The character of the district would not be changed by
the presence of the garage - One garage is located 3.5 miles
north of this site (SP-83-71 Dallas Gentry). Approval of
this permit may encourage additional requests for commercial
activities in this area. The Southern Regional Park is located
approximately 1.5 miles south of this site.
The garage would be in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and with the uses permitted by right
in the district - A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is 'to
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmoni-
ous community' (Section 1.4.e). The Commission and Board should
consider whether the proposed conditions of approval adequately
accomplish this purpose.
The garage would be consistent with the public health~ safety~
and welfare - The Virginia Department of Transportation has
stated that adequate sight distance does not exist at the current
entrance location. However, it may be possible to improve sight
distance at the existing entrance or to relocate the entrance to
a point with adequate sight distance.
The proposed location of the garage will not be visible from the
state road or adjacent dwellings. The garage will be visible
from the property to the south which is currently vacant. Staff
has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1
and is of the opinion that this use is consistent with purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends approval of SP-90-13, George B. Hall, subject to the
following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and
equipping of vehicles. No body work or spray-painting of vehi-
cles shall be permitted. No gasoline sales or sale or rental of
vehicles shall be permitted;
2. Ail work shall be conducted within the garage;
No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars.
Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate contain-
ers;
Not more than four vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on
the property outdoors at any time;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
No operation until site plan approval has been obtained and
improvements completed or bonded. Site plan to include buffer-
ing/screening as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
Conditions #5 and #6 shall be met prior to Commission review of
the site plan. Building to be located approximately as shown on
Attachment A;
Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
and no operation of the garage on Sunday."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of this petition. He said their decision
was based on possible water pollution. Also, they did not feel there is a
need for this particular service in this location because the garage 3.5 miles
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
293
to the north is felt to be sufficient for people residing in this area. The
Commission also expressed a general concern about the effect of this use on
the character of the district.
The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Reuben Hall and Mr.
George B. Hall came forward to speak. Mr. Reuben Hall brought pictures
showing that the proposed garage would not be visible from the road nor any
neighboring house. He said one of his neighbors has plans to build three
houses, and the garage would probably be visible from those houses. Mr.
George Hall said the garage would be 30 feet by 40 feet in size. To prevent
contamination through oil spillage, Mr. Hall said he is installing concrete
drain ditches with water in them. Any oil spill would rise to the top of the
water. He will have equipment to suction the oil from the water to prevent
seepage into the ground. Mr. Hall said he is a licensed concrete technician
and knows that there are ways to prevent spillage with these devices. He said
he will be responsible for any spillage that might occur.
Mr. Doug Arrington, adjacent property owner, submitted a topographical
map of the area and a copy of a plat showing the subdivision of his property.
Mr. Arrington pointed out the distance on the topographical map from the
building site to a spring which feeds cattle farms further down Route 708. He
is concerned about the possibility that this spring and groundwater will
become tainted if a garage is allowed. He understands that it is his respon-
sibility to prove that the well water is tainted, should a spillage occur. He
said because of the possibility of contamination from a residual collection of
fluids such as antifreeze, transmission fluid, and solvents, he is concerned
about this petition. Mr. Arrington said he feels that a garage located here
would affect the residential nature of the area.
Mr. Way asked who is liable in the case of a spill. Mr. St. John said
the County is immune from any liability that may result from the approval of
this garage. The proprietor and the owner of the land are clearly liable to
adjoining landowners and to the public for any contamination of groundwater.
However, adjoining landowners would have to prove that water contamination
resulted from Mr. Hall's garage. He added that this is a difficult and
expensive burden of proof because of the need for expert witnesses and tests.
Mr. St. John said the liability issue is not the criteria to use to try to
protect groundwater. If the Board is concerned about groundwater, now is the
time to protect it and not after a special use permit has been granted.
Mr. Joe Phillips, owner of two lots north of Mr. Hall's property on which
he plans to build a home, said the Planning Commission recommended denial of
this request because of the possibility of environmental risks. The proposed
use is not a use by right in an area zoned Rural Areas. He said the reason
given for issuing a special use permit is that special use permits have been
granted in the past for support uses in rural areas, such as day care facili-
ties. Mr. Phillips said that Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, has said in
the past that services are not to be duplicated in the rural areas. This area
already has a garage operating under a special use permit, and the Planning
Commission noted that as well. His concern is that a precedent may be
established for granting special use permits without the demonstration of a
clear need. He feels there are areas in the community where such a use can be
allowed by right for someone wishing to establish such a business. Mr.
Phillips said Mr. Hall is currently using the land for a use permitted under
current zoning. Therefore, denial of the application would not amount to a
hardship to Mr. Hall. Granting the application would serve to grant an
individual a windfall use at the expense of the public health, safety and
welfare as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan and in the planning policy of
the County. He requested that the application be denied.
Mr. Gerald Wilkes, adjacent property owner, said he is a Virginia certi-
fied public geologist. He said he is not a "screaming environmentalist".
However, in the course of his work, he has seen mistakes made regarding
protection of groundwater. He feels there is a potential for groundwater
pollution in this area, not only from oil and gasoline, but also from agricul-
tural purposes. He is pleased that Mr. Hall has given some thought to pro-
tecting the water by building a retaining system to catch any possible spill-
age. However, he feels that installing drain tiles into the ground which lead
off to some undetermined location is not adequate. He is a concerned individ-
ual who wants to be sure there is no contamination of groundwater, because
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
294
once contamination occurs, it lasts for a long time. He noted that the
legalities involved in proving the source of contamination make it a lengthy
and difficult process. He asked the Board to take all these things into
consideration. He said he is not personally opposed to a garage and could use
a good mechanic. However, he would hate to see something as precious as
groundwater be tainted, not through irresponsibility, but by accident.
Mr. Henry Scott, resident of Route 631 about one mile from the proposed
garage site, said he feels the time is coming when the garage will be needed
in this growing cox~unity. He said he goes to the garage down the road for
service, and often the owner is not there or service is not available, and he
has to go to Charlottesville anyway. Regarding the pollution, he believes
that Mr. Hall would not do anything to taint his own water. He said other
garages are able to drain oil from cars into a pan and dump it into a drum
without spills, and he feels this one can as well. He said the garage would
be a good thing in this neighborhood, and he would like to see it approved.
Ms. Loretta Hamilton said she owns property across from Mr. Arrington.
Ms. Hamilton said she signed a petition against this garage because it was
explained that the garage would be directly across from her house. She said
Mr. Hall came by and explained to her the proposed location. She said there
are only three residents who would be involved with the visibility of this
garage. She feels that Mr. Hall will not do anything that would taint his own
water. She said she was mislead into signing the petition opposing this
garage.
There were no other members of the public present to speak regarding this
request.
Mrs. Humphris said she was surprised by the staff report regarding this
special use permit in a rural area. She feels this is not an appropriate use
in a rural area. Even though no one would purposely let a spillage occur that
would contaminate the groundwater, accidents do happen. Such an accident in
this case would be a tragic one and the Board cannot take the possibility
lightly. She feels this use is not consistent with the criteria to be used
for issuing special use permits. She feels it would be a detriment to adja-
cent properties; it would change the character of this district; it is incon-
sistent with the public health, safety and welfare; it is not in harmony with
the area; and that service is reasonably available 3.5 miles away. She
concluded by saying that she feels it is not in the public interest to allow
this special use permit.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris to deny SP-90-13.
Mr. Perkins asked if toilet facilities would be required in the garage
before issuance of a building permit. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the
residence on the parcel would contain the toilet facilities. Mr. Hall said he
would probably install a bathroom and septic tank. Mr. Cilimberg said the
question was whether a toilet is required, and it is not required. Mr. Hall
has the option of building a restroom if he chooses.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion and stated that he is concerned about the
consistency of this application with the Comprehensive Plan. The North Garden
Village boundaries were expanded in the recent review of the Comprehensive
Plan, and this is a request for a commercial use outside those boundaries. He
feels that approval would result in a much greater traffic flow at the inter-
section of Routes 631 and 708, and would result in further requests for devel-
opment outside the Village boundaries. He feels that protection of groundwa-
ter can be achieved and is more concerned about expansion outside the bound-
aries.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Cilimberg to compare the conditions imposed on the
garage currently operating in this community, to this special use permit
request. Mr. Cilimberg said that particular special use permit had the same
conditions with the exception that operation was limited to the existing
garage area. Mr. Bain concluded by saying that he would consider more favor-
ably a request within the growth area boundaries.
Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Bain. He feels that materials used in a garage
can be properly controlled, otherwise a garage could not be allowed anywhere
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
295
in rural areas. However, he is concerned about allowing commercial uses in
the area surrounding the Southern Regional Park. On the other hand, Mr. Way
said he is familiar with the property, and a garage would not be visible from
the road in this location.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with the statements made by Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Bain, and he will support the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-23. J. S. & Frances D. Barnett. Public
hearing on a petition to permit a Body Shop with a Wrecker Service. (Deferred
from May 16, 1990.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5, and June 12,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said a letter was received on June 19, 1990, from Mr. Wade
A. 3acobson, Attorney for the applicant, requesting that the petition be
withdrawn.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to
approve a request for withdrawal without prejudice for SP-90-23.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-27. Henry T. & Juanita Garrison. Public
hearing on a request for a special use permit to allow for a Home Occupation
Class B to allow the making of concrete lawn statutes (5.2 and 10.2.2(31)) on
0.59 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 14, Parcel
44A, is located on the west side of Route 810 approximately 900 feet north of
Route 668. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5
and June 12, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: Property is located adjacent to the Old Mount
Fair school. Surrounding properties are mostly open field and two
residences are visible from the site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to make concrete
lawn statues on 0.59 acre. An accessory structure which does not meet
minimum yard requirements will be used. Statues will be stored
outside. Painting of the statues will occur outside. The applicant
delivers the statues to customers. However, some customer pick-up
does occur.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is located in the rural areas of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan discourages development
not related to bona fide agricultural activities.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: One letter of support from an adjacent
property owner has been received.
This request proposes to use an accessory structure which does not
meet the minimum yard requirements of the RA, Rural Areas, District.
The accessory structure is located approximately 15 feet from the side
lot line. Required setback is 25 feet. Section 5.2.2.1(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance states in part 'any accessory structure which does
not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in
the district in which it is located shall not be used for any home
occupation' Section 5.1 allows the Planning Commission and Board of
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
296
Supervisors to vary or waive any provision of the supplemental regula-
tions. Additionally, Section 5.2.2.1(a) states in part 'Such occupa-
tion may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory
structure, or both.'
The regulations governing home occupations are intended to limit the
appearance of commercial activity. By reducing setbacks and allowing
outside storage, this property may assume a commercial appearance.
The applicant utilizes a concrete mixer, airbrush and compressor in
the manufacturing process. Allowing activity to occur outside with
less than the minimum yard, noise and fumes on adjacent properties may
increase and thereby change the character of the district.
Staff has identified one proposal for a Home Occupation which proposed
an accessory structure which did not meet minimum setbacks, SP-88-45,
Pope/Mikkelson. In its approval of that request, the Board of Super-
visors required relocation of the structure to a point at which
minimum yard requirements could be met. Additionally, in order to
meet state building codes, the applicant had to make additional
investment, staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of
constructing a new structure which would meet the minimum yard re-
quirements. It cannot be determined at this time if a structure could
be built satisfying minimum yard requirements. In addition, state
building codes would require additional investment in order to con-
struct a building which allows for indoor painting. The applicant has
stated verbally that he would be willing to relocate or construct a
new building which would meet minimum yard requirements. However,
construction of a building allowing for indoor painting would present
a problem.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that the entrance
to this property has less than the minimum sight distance. Based on
the information submitted by the applicant, staff does not recommend
improvements to the entrance if this petition is approved. The
applicant does not anticipate deliveries to exceed several times a
week. Customer pickup would be infrequent, approximately twice a
month. Deliveries and customer pickup would be by means of a standard
pickup truck. No employees are proposed and no large truck traffic is
anticipated. For the reasons stated, staff does not recommend en-
trance improvements.
Staff opinion is that, without a structure meeting minimum yard
requirements and allowing for all activities to occur inside, this
request is inconsistent with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. Should the Planning Commis-
sion and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff
recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Ail activities including storage of materials shall be performed
inside;
Ail accessory structures shall conform to minimum setbacks for
the Rural Areas. Those setbacks are 75 feet from the edge of
right-of-way, 25 feet from the side lot lines and 35 feet from
the rear lot line;
3. No employees other than family members who reside on-site;
Compliance with performance standards of Section 4.14 of the
Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting, on June 5,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
1. The area used for the business shall meet the screening
requirements of Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance
including the fencing requirements of that section;
2. No employees other than family members who reside on-site;
3. Compliance with performance standards of Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
297
Mr. Perkins asked about the fencing requirement in Condition No. 1.
Cilimberg said it would be a stockade fence which would screen the entire
operation.
Mr.
Mr. Bain asked why this request is before the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said
the accessory structure proposed for use does not meet the minimum yard
requirements for home occupation use. The required setback from the side lot
line is 25 feet, and there is only a 15-foot setback in this case. For that
reason, there must be a special use permit application which made.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at this time.
The applicant, Mr. Henry Garrison, came forward to speak. He said he
uses a small cement mixer and a 3/4 horsepower air compressor in his business.
There will be approximately two loads of sand per year delivered to his place.
He will use two or three bags of cement each day he makes statues. His
business does not affect any of his neighbors and none of them are against
this request. He said this will not be a big business, but it will be a
steady job for him.
Mr. Way asked if sales are primarily off site. Mr. Garrison said there
will be no sales on site.
With no other members of the public present to speak, the public hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Perkins said he visited Mr. Garrison's operation last week, and a
visitor would not know the business existed unless Mr. Garrison were actually
making statues at the time. He cannot see a need for the screening require-
ments. He said Mr. Garrison indicated that he would be willing to plant some
trees if that would help screen. Mr. Perkins noted that the closest neighbor
has written a letter of support for the request.
Mrs. Humphris said she thought the basis for the home occupation category
is invisibility to neighbors. Mr. Perkins said he feels the stockade fence
would serve only to block Mr. Garrison's view. The neighbors would see the
stockade fence instead of the building that is there now.
Mrs. Humphris said she is sympathetic to the request. However, even
though the neighbors who are there now do not object, neighbors do change.
The next owner may object to the sound or the fumes from painting. Mr.
Perkins said the cement mixer makes no more noise than the ventilation fans in
this building.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many lawn statues are stored on the property, or
if they are made by special order only. Mr. Garrison said he plans to sell
the statues as quickly as he can make them. He said he would not have a
stockpile of items. Currently, he has about 200 small pieces, none of which
is larger than a bird bath.
Mrs. Humphris said there is no provision in the permit for displaying the
product on the property. She asked if the product is allowed to be visible on
the property through a home occupation permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the idea of
the screening was to make the production and storage of the statues invisible
to the public along the road. Mrs. Humphris said in that case, she feels that
the first condition should be more specific so that nothing connected with the
business is visible.
Mr. Garrison pointed out that the area in which he works is actually
surrounded by the buildings on his property. He said his mixer is electric
and makes very little noise. Mr. Perkins said the inventory of products is
screened by tall grass. Mr. Garrison explained that the hay field adjoining
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
298
his lot is where the products are stored. He said a visitor would have to
walk out into the hay field and look around to find his lawn statues.
Mrs. Humphris said her concern is that circumstances may change in the
future, such as the hay may be cut. She wants to ensure that the screening is
specific enough to prevent problems because of unforeseen changes in the
future. She suggested that the first condition state that no part of the
business production or sales should be visible to the public.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is contained in Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance which is referred to in the first condition. Mr. Cilimberg said the
reference is to site plan provisions for screening. The screening would have
to consist of planting strips, existing vegetation, and wall or fence. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the intent of this section is to screen the operation from
view. Mr. Cilimberg said it is, and that is why this section was cited in the
condition. He said the Planning Commission was concerned about maintaining
the integrity of home occupations in general for the reason Mrs. Humphris
stated regarding visibility. The Planning Commission recommended th~ first
condition rather than requiring that Mr. Garrison build a building to house
the entire operation. The Commission felt that would be an unreasonable
requirement.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the condition as currently stated assumes that the
area used for the business includes production, sales, and everything involved
with this operation. Mr. Cilimberg said it is assumed that everything is
included. However, if the Board would like to be more specific, the wording
could include a phrase, "to include production, storage and sales". Mrs.
Humphris said that would suit her.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris to approve SP-90-27 with
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, amending condition No.
1 to include, "to include production, storage and sales". Mr. Bowerman
seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain said he supports the motion because this is not a commercial
operation, but a home occupation.
Mr. Way said he feels that the requirements for screening with a home
occupation permit refer to a business within a subdivision primarily. He
feels that the location of the home occupation residence makes a difference in
the requirement for screening. He does not feel that it would have to be
surrounded by a fence which is less attractive than the trees or hay field
currently there. However, he realizes that his vote against the motion will
not make a difference. Therefore, he grudgingly supports the motion.
Mr. Perkins asked who will decide what type of screening will be re-
quired. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning staff in conjunction with the Zoning
Administrator will make that decision.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels that the intent of the motion is that staff
use discretion in shielding the activities of this operation using the most
natural screening possible. Mrs. Humphris agreed.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
(Note: The conditions, as approved, are set out in full below:)
The area used for the business, to include production,
storage and sales, shall meet the screening requirements
of Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance including
the fencing requirements of that section;
2. No employees other than family members who reside on-site;
Compliance with performance standards of Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
299
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-38. Edward A. and Betty J. Hunt. Public
hearing on a request for a special use permit to change a temporary single
wide mobile home to a permanent mobile home (5.6 and 10.2.2(10)) on 19.22
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 111,
is located on Route 250 approximately one mile east of Route 240. White Hall
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The property presently contains one house in
good condition and an abandoned dwelling used presently as a shed.
There are five development rights for this parcel. Most of the site
is located approximately thirty feet above the Route 250 road cut.
The property contains mostly deciduous and evergreen vegetation. The
mobile home is screened from other homes and Route 250. There is one
mobile home located within a one mile radius.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This parcel is located in Rural Area Three of the
Comprehensive Plan. As a goal, the Comprehensive Plan proposes to
'Discourage rural residential development other than dwellings related
to a bona fide agricultural/forestal use'. The property is located
adjacent to the Crozet growth area.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: On February 23, 1989, the applicants
applied for interim housing while constructing a home for their son.
This application will expire on August 24, 1990. The applicants have
stated they do not intend to pursue building the permanent house and
are now requesting permanent residence status of the interim mobile
home.
Two letters of objection have been received. Both objectors feel the
location of a permanent mobile home will lower real estate values of
neighboring permanent homes and properties. Other concerns include
decreasing real estate taxes to the county and inaccurate represen-
tation of screening and location of the mobile home by the applicant
(Attachment D is another location sketch of the mobile home submitted
by the applicant). One objector also stated that mobile homes, near
permanent homes and not properly controlled, have become eyesores in
Albemarle and adjacent counties.
Route 250 is a scenic highway and requires a 150-foot building set-
back. This mobile home meets the scenic setback and appears ade-
quately screened from the road. The majority of the property and
mobile home are located above the Route 250 road cut by an approximate
30 foot minimum rise in elevation. Existing vegetation and sloping
topography away from this rise appear to shield the mobile home.
Septic fields and water supplies have been located for this mobile
home.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve SP-90-38, staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
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 days of the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
30,0
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 reasonable satisfaction of the zoning
administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
This special use permit is to be issued for use by Edward A. and
Betty Jane Hunt and their family."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 5,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the condi-
tions of staff, but adding the word, "only" to Condition No. 7.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the term, "to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator". Mr. St. John said the phrase has
developed in the area of zoning law over a period of time. He said the Zoning
Administrator is the proper official to make this determination. The word
"reasonable" was included to avoid a delegation of judgement by the Zoning
Administrator to another administrator with unfettered discretion. This
wording would prevent the Zoning Administrator from being totally arbitrary or
capricious or from withholding approval without some reason that could be
articulated. Mr. St. John said this phrase has been approved by courts as
well.
The public hearing was opened at this time, and the applicant, Mr. Hunt,
came forward to speak. He said if he could afford it, he would build a home
on this property. Under the circumstances, he is requesting a mobile home
permit instead.
There were no other members of the public present to speak, and the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain to approve SP-90-38 with the
seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and set out below.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments 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 days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities
to the reasonable 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 reasonable satisfaction of
the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
This special use permit is to be issued fOr use by
Edward A. and Betty Jane Hunt and their family only.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
301
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-43. Dana Lynn Capps and Robert Lee Sprouse.
Public hearing on a request for a special use permit for a single wide mobile
home (5.6 and 10.2.2(10)) on 3.68 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 114, Parcel 57A6, is located on the north side of Rt. 708
approximately one mile west of Rt. 620. Scottsville District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The property is currently vacant, mostly
wooded, with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous vegetation. There
is a large power line easement cutting between the parcel in question
and Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal district. A combination of
gentle slopes and vegetation appear to screen the proposed location
from any other residential homes as well as Route 708. There are no
mobile homes located within a one mile radius.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This parcel is located in Rural Area 4 of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan 'discourages rural resi-
dential development other than dwellings related to bona fide agri-
cultural/forestal use'. The applicants are not proposing to create
new residential development; rather, they are using an existing lot.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicants are proposing to locate a
mobile home on 3.68 acres. A pipestem extension of parcel 57A(6)
provides access to the rear of the lot. As a result, the mobile home
will be located at least 400 feet away from Route 708.
One letter of objection has been received. The objector has claimed
that placing a mobile home will be detrimental to the Carter's Bridge
agricultural/forestal district. The County Comprehensive Plan states
'techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts and conservation
easements preserve agricultural and forestal lands, and, at the same
time, provide protection for natural, scenic and historic resources'
The proposed mobile home is not in conjunction with any agricultural/
forestal activity. However, this mobile home does not appear to be
visible from Route 708 or the agricultural/forestal district in
question due to the substantial distance across the power line ease-
ment combined with existing vegetation.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve SP-90-43, staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
me
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 days of the issuanCe of
a certificate of occupancy;
4
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval
by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if
applicable under current regulations;
me
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval to driveway
entrance;
7. MObile home is not to be rented;
June 20, lgg0 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
This special use permit is to be issued for use by Dana Lynn
Capps, Robert Lee Sprouse and their family."
302
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 5,
1990, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended
by staff, but adding the word, "only" to Condition No. 8.
The public hearing was opened and the applicants came forward to speak.
Mr. Robert Sprouse said he expressed his feelings at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting. The only problem at that time was that one neighbor opposed the
request.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mrs. Humphris
to approve SP-90-43 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and set out in full below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty days of the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and
approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health, if applicable under current regulations;
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be main-
tained in good condition and replaced if it should die;
6. Virginia Department of Transportation approval to driveway
entrance;
7. Mobile home is not to be rented;
8. This special use permit is to be issued for use by Dana
Lynn Capps, Robert Lee Sprouse and their family only.
Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Perkins stated that the public hearing
before the Planning Commission on the Adventure Bound School request lasted
for over three hours. He said the Board wants everyone to have a chance to
say what needs to be said. However, it is not necessary to have the same
statements repeated. Therefore, Mr. Perkins asked that those wishing to speak
regarding the Adventure Bound item on the agenda get together and decide how
the presentation should be made. He said the Board will decide what time
limit should be placed on the discussion. Mr. Bowerman said the materials
already presented by both sides in the Board's package of materials is
lengthy. He feels that 45 minutes for each side should be more than adequate
for the discussion. Mr. Bain concurred and felt that even 30 minutes would be
sufficient. Mr. Way concurred as well. Mrs. Humphris assured those present
that she has read all of the material already presented. Mr. Perkins asked if
45 minutes or less is agreeable with both sides of this issue.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
303
Representatives for both sides indicated their agreement with the time limit.
The Board then resumed with the next agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-90-45. Homestead Partners. Public hearing on a
request for a special use permit for a pond in the Burruss Branch flood plain
(30.3) on 42 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 29,
Parcel 1, Lots 11 and 12 of Logan Development are located on the west side of
Route 601 approximately one-half mile north of Route 665. White Hall Dis-
trict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: Property is currently undeveloped and wooded
in the area of the proposed pond, the remainder of the property is
open field. The pond is proposed on two of the 13 approved lots in
the development.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 2.5
acre pond in the flood plain of Burruss Branch.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in the Rural Areas of
the Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has submitted technical
information to the Engineering Department for review. The Engineering
Department has recommended approval subject to conditions. The
proposed pond will affect two parcels and staff will recommend that an
easement document be approved by staff providing for a flood easement
and ponding for maintenance of the dam. The Engineering Department
has stated that the project will not impact upstream properties. The
project will not affect any existing or future public roads.
Staff recommends approval of SP-90-45 Homestead Partners subject to
the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Department of Engineering approval of dam design to include
reinforced concrete riser and discharge pipe;
2. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit requirements
pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream;
4. Staff approval of dam maintenance agreement and flood easement."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 5,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the four
conditions in the staff report and Condition No. 5 as follows:
Staff approval of revised plat indicating 100-foot septic and
building setback from the edge of the impoundment.
Mrs. Humphris asked regarding Condition No. 5, if a setback from the
stream is required. Mr. Cilimberg said that setback is automatically in
place. This condition makes a definitive note that the 100-foot setback
should apply to the pond and not to the original perennial stream that was
there. Mrs. Humphris said it was not clear to her from the Planning Commis-
sion minutes as to who would be responsible for the maintenance of the dam.
Mr. Cilimberg said pond maintenance would be established as the responsibility
of the owners of the two parcels. He said the agreement would be developed by
the applicant and provided to staff for review to assure that the agreement is
satisfactory. He said the agreement would appear in the legal documents as
part of the ownership of the property. Mr. St. John said that could be in a
deed or a declaration put to record with the approved plat. Mr. St. John said
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
304
all of the owners of lots are normally made responsible througha homeowner's
agreement. However, if the responsibility is going to be on the owners of
these two lots, the County does not object as long as someone is responsible.
Mrs. Humphris said the question of what happens in the event that the dam
washes out should be addressed further. She said although a damis supposed
to be built so that this does not happen, she personally owned a dam that did
wash out, and she was responsible.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Mark Osborne, engineer representing the applicant, said the mainte-
nance of the pond will be similar to that of a shared driveway. Only these
two properties will have the benefit of the pond and will bear the expense of
maintaining it jointly. He said the responsibility for the safety of the dam
falls on the property owners. He said the design standards affect the long
term safety of the project and the areas downstream. The project is designed
using the same standards used for the Southern Regional Park, which is the
Soil Conservation Service TR60, Design of Small Dams. This design provides
for containment of up to a one hundred-year frequency storm within the pond,
draining only through the outlet pipe and not through the emergency spillover.
Only in storms exceeding the one hundred-year frequency would any water go
around the dam through the side spill. In addition, the overall stability and
integrity of this dam is designed so that up to one-half of the probable
maximum precipitation, which is 14 inches of rainfall in a six hour period,
could occur with water rising to the top but not going over the dam.
Mr. St. John asked what provision is made that the riparian rights will
be protected during the construction of this dam, since this is a perennial
stream which furnishes water for stock or agricultural use. He said that
property owners have a right to an uninterrupted flow of this stream. Mr.
Osborne said such a condition is usually placed by the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, and the applicant is quite agreeable to that. He said
this stream is under the auspices of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
and an application has been submitted to them and to the Army Corps of Engi-
neers.
There were no other members of the public present to speak about this
matter, and the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris
approving SP-90-45 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and set out in full below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Department of Engineering approval of dam design to include rein-
forced concrete riser and discharge pipe;
2. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
o
Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit requirements
pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream;
4. Staff approval of dam maintenance agreement and flood easement.
Staff approval of revised plat indicating 100-foot septic and
building setback from the edge of the impoundment.
The Board recessed at 8:55 P.M. and reconvened at 9:10 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-90-16. Adventure Bound Inc. Public hearing on a
petition to expand the existing Private school and Home for the Develop-
mentally Disabled (10.2.2.5 and 10.2.2.15). The applicant proposes to con-
struct additional structures and increase enrollment to a maximum of 30
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
305
students on the 36 acre site. Property located on south side of the intersec-
tion of Route 810 and Route 687. Property described as Tax Map 6, Parcels 24,
25 (part) and 25B is zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg handed out copies of a three-page description of the
activities of Adventure Bound School based on input provided through the
approval agencies, as well as a copy of the interdepartmental license issued
to this School. He said a key question involving this application is whether
or not the operation at Adventure Bound actually fits the category of a
private school under which a special use permit was applied for and approved
by the Planning Con~nission previously. He said the original Adventure Bound
application was accepted as a private school along with an application for a
home for the developmentally disabled. The home for the developmentally
disabled aspect was later dropped from consideration based on the characteris-
tics of the application. He said the Planning Commission has recommended
AdventUre Bound to the Board as a private school. Mr. Cilimberg said it is
difficult to determine whether this is totally a private school, or whether it
is a mixture of a private school and a residential treatment facility.
However, a treatment facility is not an allowed use in the Rural Area Dis-
trict.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission considered this request in two
meetings. He gave the staff report from the first meeting, April 3, 1990, as
follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The area consists of large tracts of land
with limited development. A large portion of the land in this area is
forested. The property under review is primarily open and developed
with the existing school.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted a description of
this request as well as justification. The applicant is proposing to
increase enrollment from 24 students to 30 students and construct
additional housing for the students. See attachment C (on file) for
location of existing and proposed structures.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is of the
opinion that the character of the district will not be changed and
that this use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-90-16, Adven-
ture Bound, Inc.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is located within the water supply
watershed in Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan states as a strate-
gy, 'support services which promote positive youth development.'
(1988-2010 Comprehensive Plan page 52). This school provides services
for emotionally disturbed, learning disabled or conduct disordered.
This use provides a service to the community and has been in its
current location since 1979. The Rural Areas are not intended for
development as stated by the plan. However, the previously referenced
statement in the Comprehensive Plan appears to support the use.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has identified two requests which
are similar to the applicant's. These requests, SP-84-43 and SP-88-43
were for Free Union Country School and Little Keswick School. These
requests were for a small increase in enrollment and both requests
were approved. This request is somewhat different in that the appli-
cant is proposing additional structures. The proposed structure will
provide housing for additional students as well as replace housing
currently provided on nearby property leased by the school. In
addition, two other structures are proposed which would replace
housing currently provided by the other buildings at the school site.
A sketch showing the proposed building type has been provided by the
applicant.
Staff opinion is that this request complies with Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and therefore staff recommends approval of
SP-90-16, Adventure Bound, Inc., subject to the following conditions.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Planning Commission approval of site plan to be in general
accord with Attachment D:
2. Albemarle County Fire Official;
3. Enrollment is limited to 30 students who shall reside on site."
306
Mr. Cilimberg said the request was deferred from the first meeting in
order to address the expansion and consolidation of the Adventure Bound
School. The proposal was to allow for a population of 30 students and to
construct additional housing for the students. He said there are actually two
sites at which students reside. There are 16 students at the main campus.
The second site, known as Hill House, had a special use permit to a particular
landowner for a group home. The special use permit has now expired and the
property has been sold.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the addendum to the staff report for the May 15, 1990,
Planning Commission meeting as follows:
"At the April 3, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, several questions
were raised concerning this petition. Specifically these questions
were:
1. What was the original purpose of the school?
What type of children does the school serve, including current
and past enrollment?
3. What is the success rate?
4. Does the school meet the definition of group home?
Staff has been unable to find any written descriptions of the original
'Boys Haven' school. Presentations made by the public indicate that
the school originally served a small number (approximately five) of
mentally retarded boys.
The applicant has provided information on current and past enrollment.
The applicant has stated that all students are emotionally disturbed,
learning disabled or mentally ill. Eighty-six percent of the current
students are emotionally disturbed or learning disabled for educa-
tional purposes and are handicapped according to state and federal
law. Information submitted by the applicant indicates that for the
past three years, of the 83 students enrolled at Adventure Bound, one
student had been placed at Adventure Bound by the Albemarle County
Department of Social Services. Four students have been placed by
Charlottesville Social Services, and three students have been placed
by adjacent counties. From the information regarding placement, it is
clear that a majority of students at the school are from other areas.
MOwever, the school does provide some local service and is supported
bY the local Social Services offices.
The success rate of the school is included in Attachment A. Staff
calculations indicate that 35 percent of past students have graduated,
56 percent have been removed by Adventure Bound, six percent have been
removed by the placing agency, and four percent have been removed for
other reasons. Students have been removed because needs were better
addressed at another location, a determination that treatment was no
longer required, or due to a belief by Adventure Bound or the placing
agency that the students could not be helped by Adventure Bound's
programs.
The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the layout of the proposed
buildings and is of the opinion that they would qualify as single
family detached dwellings. However, the Zoning Ordinance under the
definition of a group home limits the number of residents to eight
boys and/or girls unrelated to the adult under the supervision of that
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
307
adult. The proposed buildings would house ten boys. The Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors may limit the number of boys to
eight or may consider this as a residential private school.
Staff has contacted the Albemarle County Police Department concerning
the existing school and has discovered that since 1987 a total of 23
calls were received. Of these, only two were calls made by individu-
als no~ associated with Adventure Bound. Two arrests were made, one
for disorderly conduct and a second for a drug related offense, both
reported by Adventure Bound. Nineteen calls were for missing persons,
one call was for burglary of the school, and one call was for vandal-
ism which was cancelled. Discussions with the Police Department
indicate that this facility appears to be well run and does not
present a safety problem.
This school provides some local service and is supported by the local
Social Services departments. The County Police Department does not
view this school operation as a policing problem. However, it is
clear from public cox~ent that in the past there have been isolated
security problems in the area. Staff opinion is that it would be
inappropriate to approve an expansion of the school at this time given
the concerns of the public. However, staff does recommend that one
additional structure be approved to compensate for the loss of living
space currently provided by 'Hill House'. With the prohibition of
students which are a danger to themselves, others, or the community at
large, security concerns would be addressed. Therefore, staff recom-
mends approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Planning Commission approval of site plan of a single building to
be located in general accord with sketch submitted by John Knight
dated February 19, 1990;
2. Albemarle County Fire Official approval;
Enrollment is limited to twenty-four (24) students who shall
reside on site;
School shall not accept conduct disordered students, who are a
danger to themselves, others or the con~nunity at large."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 15,
1990, recommended approval of this petition by a vote of 5 to 1 with the
following conditions:
Planning Commission approval of site plan of a single building
to be located in general accord with sketch submitted by John
Knight dated February 19, 1990;
2. Albemarle County Fire Official approval;
Be
Enrollment is limited to twenty-six students who shall reside
on site;
School shall accept only mildly conduct disordered students,
who are no~ a danger to themselves, others or the community at
large.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission felt that 26 students would be an
appropriate population and would allow the School to add a staff member which
would be a benefit to the school and the community.
Mr. Cilimberg then handed out a letter dated June 11, 1990, from Mr. John
Knight, Executive Director of Adventure Bound School, requesting a change in
the last recommendation. The proposed amended condition would allow more
flexibility for accepting students who are mildly conduct disordered or any
category less than mildly disordered. Whereas, the previous condition limits
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page lg)
308
acceptance of mildly disordered students only. The proposed condition would
read, "The school shall accept no students who are moderately or severely
conduct disordered, or who are a danger to themselves, others, or the com-
munity at large." .
Mr. Bain asked if the County Attorney has any comments regarding the
legal aspects of the decision to be made by the Board tonight. Mr. St. John
said the question for the Board to decide is whether this operation belongs at
this location under the criteria for a special use permit. In getting to that
question, the Board must decide what type of a facility Adventure Bound is.
Ordinarily that would be a ruling for the Zoning Administrator to make. If an
institution is acting under a special use permit or a by-right use as a
private school, but the activities taking place there are not those of a
private school, the Zoning Administrator has an enforcement problem. In this
case, Mr. St. John feels that it is not an encroachment on the Zoning Adminis-
trator's power for the Board to make a determination on the use of this
facility within the frame work of this application.
Mr. Bain said the licensing procedure of the Commonwealth of Virginia
indicates that this is a combination facility. He feels that the Board is not
necessarily bound by that procedure. Mr. St. John said that is correct,
because the CommonWealth of Virginia does not decide whether this institution
belongs at this place. That is a decision for the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County.
Mr. Cilimberg then placed into the record ten postcards received by the
Planning Department indicating support for the Adventure Bound School.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Herbert Beskin, attorney for Adventure Bound School, said he would
address the Board regarding the issues of a description of the school, the
physical layout of the School, the proposed changes being requested, and the
concerns raised by the residents of the Boonesville community and by the
staff. Mr. Beskin said the school is a non-profit corporation established in
1977 and has operated continuously since that time. The school deals with
male students from ages eight to seventeen who are handicapped and developmen-
tally disabled. These students are emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, many
have learning disabilities, and some who are mildly or moderately conduct
disordered. Mr. Beskin pointed out that only three students presently at the
School are mildly conduct disordered. None are moderately or severely conduct
disordered. He said over the past few years, fewer students in the moderately
and severely conduct disordered category have been accepted. He said the
School is willing to accept as a condition of the special use permit that only
moderately conduct disordered students be accepted.
The Adventure Bound School is licensed by an interdepartmental process
involving mental health, mental retardation, and others. The license allows
the School to treat up to 24 students at one time. Students are referred from
the Social Services Departments, from juvenile courts, from school systems,
and from private placement agencies. The percentage of students who are court
referrals has been decreasing over the years. He said the number has de-
creased from 27 percent to 14 percent currently, and that trend is expected to
continue. Similarly, the percentage of students who are conduct disordered
was about 27 percent three years ago and is currently about 10 percent. Mr.
Beskin said students are referred to this School because of problems they are
experiencing as a result of abuse or neglect. They have problems at school,
in foster homes, with special educational homes, and many need to be away from
their home environment. Mr. Beskin said these students come from a variety of
areas throughout the state. About 10 out of 80 students referred to Adventure
Bound over the past ten years come from the Charlottesville/Albemarle area.
He said the reason for few referrals from Albemarle County is that children
have a tendency to run away and go back home if the school is close to home.
Mr. Beskin gave the example of a child from Charlottesville at Adventure Bound
in 1989 who ran away nine times before he was removed from the School. On
none of those occasions did he do any harm to anyone or to any property; he
just kept running away.
Mr. Beskin said Adventure Bound is part of a regional and state-wide
network which provides this type of residential school for male students.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
309
There are six throughout the State. Each locality cannot afford a facility
like this one because it is too expensive.
Before a student is admitted to Adventure Bound, Mr. Beskin said the
School looks at extensive records including educational records, social
histories, test scores and transcripts. If there is any indication that the
child is going to be a danger to himself, to other students, to members of the
staff or to the community at large, the child is not placed at Adventure
Bound. Mr. Beskin said that a child is not placed at Adventure Bound unless
the child wants to go there and unless the School wants the child to be there.
The School cannot be forced by a court, by any agency or arm of the State to
take a child who is deemed to be inappropriate for this School. He said the
School's policy for a number of years has been not to accept severely conduct
disordered students because the School does not have the facilities nor staff
to handle them. He said the School's progrsm involves a variety of services
and approaches. There is a month-long orientation, a system of ascending
levels based on increasing responsibilities and increasingprivileges, and an
individualized educational plan which is carefully monitored. The classes are
kept small to meet the needs of individual students. The daily schedule
provides for about four hours of academic classes in the morning. In the
afternoon there are vocational and physical education classes, and in the
evening there is time for homework, for chores, for meeting the requirements
of each student's contract, and for group meetings. Group meetings are held
twice a week. Parents may visit one Sunday a month. There are treatment
teams meeting once a week to discuss each child, with an in-depth review of
each student at least once every three months. There is professional therapy
provided in Charlottesville for students who require it. Parents and place-
ment agencies are kept abreast of the progress of each student.
Mr. Beskin said a student stays an average of 15 months at Adventure
Bound. The School has the authority to remove a student at any time, and the
statistics show that the School exercises that power when it becomes inappro-
priate for a student to remain. Any time a student jeopardizes other stu-
dents, members of the staff, or people in the community, he will be removed
from Adventure Bound to a more appropriate setting. If a student meets all of
the requirements of his contract and all of the goals he has been given, there
is a graduation ceremony to which family, friends and social workers are
invited. Mr. Beskin said there is also a Graduate Equivalency Degree (GED)
program which has been completed by a number of students while attending
Adventure Bound. He said the primary goal of the School is to return the
students to their community with increased understanding of their responsibil-
ities, of the rights of others, and of the problems that brought them there.
Many of the students from Adventure Bound are now working full time or have
been returned to the schools from which they came. Some have gone on to
colleges, including the University of Virginia. One former student of Adven-
ture Bound was chosen to be a Congressional scholar and sent to a special
program in Washington.
Mr. Beskin said this intensive help requires a sizable staff. There are
27 full time staff members at the school, including teachers and counselors.
He said the State requires that at least two counselors be present for every
10 students during waking hours.
Mr. Beskin then described the physical layout of the School and pointed
out the location on a sketch he brought of the two sites. The Hill House is
located one-half a mile away from the main campus on Route 810 and currently
houses eight students. The main campus is older and houses 16 students. Mr.
Beskin said the Hill House campus has been sold, and the new owner has given
notice that the students have to be removed. Adventure Bound is, therefore,
asking for permission to construct a building on property newly acquired and
adjacent to the main campus to house these eight students. He said there is
no room in the existing facilities on the main campus for these students. A
ten-student dormitory is planned because that is a cost effective ratio of
students to teachers. Unlike the existing buildings which were not built for
the purpose of a school, this building will allow better supervision of the
students, which is in the best interests of the School and the community.
There are currently five buildings on the campus. There is one dorm for ten
students which also acts as a dining facility, a smaller building called The
Cottage which houses six students, a newer recreation building, a converted
church which acts as a school having four classrooms, and a trailer which
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
310
houses the office. Mr. Beskin said the property is bounded on the south by a
mountain, on the east and west by substantial wooded areas, and on the north
by Route 810. The closest neighbor is Mrs. Bertha Morris, who is about 850
feet from the School. Of that distance, about 350 feet is in fairly thick
woods. The second closest neighbor is about 2000 feet from the school.
Therefore, he feels it is a rather isolated site.
Mr. Beskin said the special use permit request is so that the School can
increase enrollment from the present level of 24 to 30. That will be accom-
plished in three stages, the first of which will occur this summer with the
building of the 10 student dorm called the Duncan Home. The eight students
from Hill House would be housed there with an additional two students,
increasing the enrollment from 24 to 26. The second dormitory would be built
next year. It would be a ten-student dorm to replace the one now used as a
dining hall. There would be no increase at all in the population of that
building. It would simply be improved quarters designed to provide quality
supervision. The third stage would be a building further up the mountainside
planned for construction in 1992. The six students from The Cottage in
addition to four more students would be housed in this new dorm. That would
mean an increase in enrollment to 30 by the year 1992.
Mr. Beskin said these would be replacement buildings and are in the best
interest of the coranunity as well. The traffic that' once ran from Hill House
to the main campus will be eliminated. All the traffic will be basically foot
traffic on the property belonging to the school at one location. The dormito-
ries provide better supervision because of the ratio of counselors to stu-
dents. The structures are wood frame designed to fit in with the community.
Mr. Beskin noted that staff recommended that the School be allowed to build
the Duncan Home. However, they suggested that enrollment be limited to 24
students. The request is for 30 students because the school is funded on a
per-student basis from the State. At a maximum level of 24 students, the
School would not be able to afford a number of improvements that will deal
with the concerns raised by the Boonesville Community. For example, the extra
funds will allow a crisis intervention counselor during the day and a part-
time cook for evenings and weekends. Currently, supervisory staff members
must leave their duties and prepare these meals. The School would also be
able to replace an aging van and raise the salaries of the staff to a level
closer to the State median. He said there are maintenance and repair needs
and education supplies which the enrollment of 30 students will afford. Mr.
Beskin said these items have been budgeted into the school's 1990/91 budget
which had to be submitted by March 1, 1990. Another reason the request is for
30 students and three buildings is because of the cost to the School of having
to come back to the County for future approvals.
Mr. Beskin said the proposed timetable calls for a gradual increase of
only six students over the next two years and will allow the School to make
adjustments to deal with the increased enrollment. He said the most important
reason the request for 30 students is being made is because the school has to
turn down students and postpone entry of some students because of the capacity
of 24. If the School does not take them, some of them have to stay on the
street because there is no place else for them to go.
Regarding the concerns raised by the Boonesville Community at the Plan-
ning Commission meetings, Mr. Beskin said the statistics of this School show
that the incidents of runaways has decreased over the past few years. Accord-
ing to police reports, there have been no reported runaways since August,
1989. Mr. Beskin also pointed out that the 1989 figures appear higher because
of the one child who ran away nine times. He also noted that only two of the
calls came from residents of the community. Mr. Beskin said he understands
there has been no destruction of property in this area for about four years.
The Police Department reported that the School is not a safety problem and
that it is well run. Mr. Beskin said the School has taken some steps as a
result of the legitimate concerns raised by the community. For example, the
School has instituted a policy of four random mandatory bed checks every night
to be sure there are no runaways. He said the School has also instituted a
24-hour crisis "hotline" so that a high-level personnel member can be reached
immediately at the School.
Mr. Beskin said another issue raised at the Commission were the problems
the School has experienced in the past. He referred to a 22-page report from
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
311
the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. There was an unan-
nounced inspection visit at Adventure Bound on March 30 of this year. Not
only were both campuses found to be in total compliance with every require-
ment, but every problem reported in prior inspections had been corrected.
Regarding traffic, Mr. Beskin feels that this proposal will be a consid-
erable improvement by eliminating traffic on Route 810 between the two campus-
es. He said the additional students would produce no extra traffic at all.
The community was concerned about future expansion. He said he is sure
that the Board will set a maximum number of students allowed by this special
use permit. That will satisfy the concern of the community that the school
not continue to expand. Any future expansion request would have to be ap-
proved by the Board.
Mr. Beskin said the community expressed concern about the communication
between residents of the community and the School. He said the School is
proposing to put three Boonesville residents on the Board of Directors of the
School. These would be working members with an active role in deciding what
the School is going to do. The School is also willing to establish a liaison
committee with the residents of Boonesville. He said that-is important
because the relationship in the past has been based on emergencysituations.
He said the School wants to be a good neighbor and is willing to take reason-
able steps to convince the Board and the community that it means to do that.
Regarding the issue of the legality of the existence of the School, Mr.
Beskin said the Albemarle County Zoning Administrator in February, 1979, said
the school is classified as an educational institution and could be in that
location by right. Mr. Beskin said nothing has changed in the school since
then because it deals with the same kinds of students and has the same
function. Because of the Zoning Administrator's opinion in 1979, no special
use permit was ever required for the main campus. Mr. Beskin pointed out that
the licensing agency of the State considers Adventure Bound to be a school for
the handicapped.
Another concern of the community involved how the condition suggested by
staff that the school not accept severely or moderately conduct disordered
students would be enforced. Mr. Beskin agreed that a zoning administrator
does not have the capability of making that type of determination. He re-
ferred to a letter from the State Department of Mental Health dated June 20,
1990, from Mr. Barry Craig, Director of Licensing, which stated that if the
school changes its admission standards and that is made a part of the special
use permit, then part of the yearly licensing and review procedure will be to
make sure that such a condition is enforced. Mr. Craig agreed to report any
violation of the condition to the Zoning Administrator as well.
Mr. Beskin noted that the Comprehensive Plan has a human services objec-
tive to support programs and services dealing with socio-economic groups with
the greatest need. One of the strategies for doing that is to support ser-
vices to promote positive youth development. Mr. Beskin said if the Board
cauld visit Adventure Bound School and see the type of services being given,
he feels the Board would agree that the services fit the definition of
"school". He said the special use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance
provides for private schools and provides for homes for the developmentally
disabled, both of which are activities provided by this School. As the staff
has pointed out, the School is not a substantial detriment to adjacent proper-
ty, nor will it change the character of the district. Mr. Beskin feels that
this school carries on the tradition started by Rev. Fisk in his boys' homes
over 20 years ago. He said it provides help for boys in a place where they
can accept help that can change their lives. Mr. Beskin feels that the
Boonesville community is saying they do not want this school in this location,
and they are not opposing this specific request. He said the issue before the
Board is not whether the school should be there at all. It is there by right
and will continue to be there, whether this special use permit is granted or
not. The issue before the Board is whether to allow the school to increase
its enrollment slightly and to replace the buildings. He said if the enroll-
ment is limited to 24, additional staff cannot be hired to better deal with
the problems. He feels that the few additional students will not make any
worse the concerns raised by the community. On the contrary, he feels that
the school will be better able to deal with legitimate concerns by providing a
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
312
better ratio between counselors and students and better housing facilities.
If the Board rejects the special use permit request, Adventure Bound will be
limited to 16 students. The funding will be such that the school cannot
afford a full time Executive Director. He asked the Board to consider these
issues in dealing with the community's concerns and the school's needs.
Mr. Beskin said if the Board does not see fit to expand the school, an
alternative would be to allow the school to increase to 26 students and allow
the first two buildings. This would prevent the school from having to come
back next year and request the second building, and allowing the second
building does not allow an increase in the population.
Mr. Beskin pointed out that letters of recommendation were received from
Albemarle County residents, from departments of social services, and citizens
were present to support the school. He asked for a show of hands of those in
support of the request. There were approximately 18 people who responded.
Mr. Beskin concluded by saying he would like to reserve a few minutes at the
end for rebuttal if his time allotment has not been used.
Ms. Eleanor May, a resident of the County and Vice President of the
Adventure Bound School Board, said she has been on the board for three years.
She said the board's responsibilities have to do with setting policy, advising
the staff, and raising funds needed for capital expenditures which are not
funded through the State. Ms. May said the board is very interested in
getting support and cooperation from the Boonesville residents. They would
like to have up to three members of the community on the board as part of the
community effort. The board is also enthusiastic about having communication
directly between the school and the community. Rather than having perceived
problems continue to fester, the idea is to solve problems through immediate
communication. The board is unanimous in supporting the efforts to expand the
school to 30 students.
Dr. Tom DeMaio, a psychologist in Charlottesville, said he worked as the
school psychologist at Adventure Bound from 1980 to 1988. He was with Mr.
Gary Duncan, the founder of the school, when the State talked with him regard-
ing developing a residential school for children. At that time, children were
being sent out of Virginia for treatment because there were no places in
Virginia for these children. Dr. DeMaio said the original idea was to have a
school where boys could be out in the wilderness away from an urban environ-
ment and learn. He said the school began at Dudley Mountain, and there were
also sites at Shadwell, at Keene and at Boonesville.
Dr. DeMaio said the children served by this school are emotionally,
academically, and socially developmentally disabled. That means they lag
behind their peers because of various reasons. These youngsters have been
diagnosed as emotionally disturbed and learning disabled. He explained that
emotionally disturbed can mean severely or mildly depressed; it can be an
anxiety disorder or it can be a conduct disorder. Dr. DeMaio said conduct
disorder is a descriptive term used to avoid labeling a child, and it means
~he child has a problem with conduct. It could be mild as in some stealing or
yelling. It can be more severe as in displaying a weapon or hurting someone.
He said it can be very severe to the point that the youngster is dangerous.
Court and social services and other agencies often send children labeled
"mildly conduct disordered" to Adventure Bound because these boys do not have
a home adequate to maintain them. They need treatment for the conduct dis-
ordered, and they are sent to a place like Adventure Bound because they are
not severe enough to go into the hospital or the Department of Corrections.
If they were more severe they would be ordered by the courts into a training
school for boys. He said these youngsters are selected out by various agen-
cies as having mild disorders and are able to remain in their community. Dr.
DeMaio said this mildly conduct disordered label is used for children in
public schools right now, as well as labels such as emotionally disturbed and
learning disabled. These children are not significantly different from those
at Adventure Bound with the exception that the children at-Adventure Bound do
not have homes adequate to maintain them and to treat them. He said the staff
is not adequate to treat children who are severely disordered. He said the
school setting is an open one with no fences, no locked doors and no locks on
the windows. The students could come and go if they chose. He said a safe
environment is maintained at Adventure Bound because students are removed who
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
313
do not abide by the rules. The staff is trained in-house generally, and that
is why consultation services are needed.
Dr. DeMaio said the statement has been made that 35 percent of the
students graduated. That means that 35 percent met all of their goals during
treatment. He said another one-third met most of their goals. He said many
students are removed from Adventure Bound because most of their goals are met
and it is felt that the student can now manage in his own home setting. He
said what appears to be a 35 percent graduation rate is actually more like
two-thirds, taking into account that so many students came close to their
goals. When he was at Adventure Bound he tried to get staff not to call the
police when a youngster was out of the house for an hour. He said it was the
staff who called the police because of their concern for the students.
Dr. DeMaio said Adventure Bound is needed because there is a need for
places within our own community to treat our kids. He said these youngsters
need a warm environment with normal staff. They do not need to be "put away"
with a fence around them because they are not particularly dangerous. He said
his concern is that labeling kids makes the community think the students are
different or dangerous, and he does not believe that is the case. He said the
school is an asset to the community, even though he realizes there are fears
in the community. He feels that if the community becomes more involved with
the program, they will realize that these boys are not dangerous. He said
they are regular boys who are experiencing some difficulties. He concluded by
urging the Board to support the request for expansion.
At this time, Mr. Ronald Hodges, attorney for three adjoining landowners
in the Boonesville community, asked the people he represents, Mr. and Mrs.
Junior Gibson, Mrs. Bertha Morris and Mr. and Mrs. Wayne to stand. Mr. Hodges
then referred to various exhibits in a large document he had prepared for the
Board. He pointed out a map showing the adjoining propertY lines as well as
the layout of the school. He said that Mrs. Bertha Morris, the closest
neighbor to Adventure Bound, is about 600 feet away. Mr. Hodges said Mrs.
Morris is concerned that if the special use permit is granted and the appli-
cant builds the first building, the dorm will be only 600 feet from her as
opposed to the current dorm which is three-fourths of a mile away. The second
proposed structure will be about 125 feet from Mrs. Morris' property line and
up on a hill above her property. He said if students housed in that dorm
should be inclined to run away, it is likely they will be going right by Mrs.
Morris' house to get to the nearest road.
Mr. Hodges then addressed the issue of whether this facility is a private
school as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. He referred to the interagency
license for this school and noted that it is a "license to operate a facility
providing services to the mentally retarded, mentally ill/emotionally dis-
turbed, and/or substance abuser". According to the descriptions given tonight
by Mr. Beskin and previously at the Planning Commission meetings, this opera-
tion is characterized as a treatment facility. Mr. Hodges said the Department
of Corrections manual, which is distributed throughout the State, contains a
three-page description prepared by Adventure Bound which lists the school as
"Private residential treatment facility for the emotionally disturbed". Mr.
Hodges said there are four times as many counselors, or treatment folks, as
there are teachers. He said this facility is regulated by various state
agencies, with the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation being
the lead agency. He feels there are no other private schools within Albemarle
County regulated and licensed by the Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation and regulated and inspected by the Department of Inspections.
Mr. Hodges pointed out that the records indicate 239 days per year of
special education, while room and board, counseling, recreation and transpor-
tation are shown for 303 days per year. He said there is a big disparity
between the number of days of treatment and the number of days in the educa-
tion program. He also pointed out the disparity in 239 days for education
compared to other private schools. Mr. Hodges said in 1979 when this activity
first began at Boonesville, there was a program across the state which permit-
ted proprietary school license which Adventure Bound had at one time. He said
Adventure Bound no longer applies for a license for proprietary school,
indicating that Adventure Bound no longer serves in that capacity. He said
there is an organization in the state known as the Virginia Association of
Independent Special Education Facilities. If this is a private school,
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
314
Adventure Bound would qualify for membership in that organization, and it is
not listed as a member. Mr. Hodges called the Board's attention to a letter
dated October 8, 1980, in which the Adventure Bound Executive Director says he
cannot accept the County of Albemarle's decision to require a special use
permit for the Shadwell School. Mr. Hodges said several months later the
Shadwell facility was closed, and the eight children housed there were brought
to Boonesville. There is no record of the applicant ever complying with the
requirement for a special use permit. Based on these arguments, Mr. Hodges
feels this facility is a residential treatment facility rather than a private
school.
Mr. Hodges feels that the term, "conduct disordered", is a new term for
juvenile delinquency. He pointed out the definition of mild conduct disorders
as causing '~only minor harm to others". He asked if his clients should be
required to subject themselves to exposure to minor harm from these students.
He said there is a demonstrated history of runaways. For example, a couple of
the boys from Adventure Bound stole a car, wrecked it in front of his client's
property and tore out a fence. To date, Mr. Gibson has never been reimbursed
nor had any offer to repair the fence. Mr. Hodges said the Good Shepherd of
the Hills Church was broken into and homes at Earlysville were ransacked and
vandalized. He said records of the Police Department demonstrate that calls
are still being placed, although the applicant states that these problems
occurred years ago. He noted that in March, 1989, when the state inspection
was made, a letter was written to Adventure Bound indicating that proper
discipline or control of runaways was not being applied. Mr. Hodges said the
time to protect the neighborhood is now; not after the damage is done.
Mr. Hodges said it is clear that the Zoning Administrator cannot enforce
the condition controlling the type of child to be accepted. He said the past
history of Adventure Bound is such that they cannot be given the opportunity
to enforce this condition themselves. He said there have been demonstrated
problems with these children. To stand before the Board tonight and say there
is no risk to the community is a strong statement in light of the fact that
one of the residents raped and abducted a University of Virginia student. He
said one of the runaways from Adventure Bound shot a police officer in Ohio
and is in jail now for that. He said the question can be asked if this
applicant has demonstrated that it deserves an opportunity to expose the
community to these risks. He feels the answer is no. Mr. Hodges pointed out
that the Department of Corrections forwarded a listing of the number of
referrals they made to Adventure Bound, indicating a total of 65 over the past
five years.
Mr. Hodges then pointed out a letter dated April 16, 1990, to Adventure
Bound from the Zoning Administrator, indicating that Adventure Bound is in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He further stated that a letter dated
April 18, 1990, from the Erosion Control Officer indicates that Adventure
Bound is in violation of another ordinance.
To answer the question of whether this facility services Albemarle
County, Mr. Hodges referred to a letter dated June 7, 1990, from the Albemarle
County Department of Social Services, which states that only one youth was
placed at Adventure Bound from that department during the past seven years.
Mr. Hodges said after the first meeting of the Planning Commission on this
request, Mr. Knight wrote a letter dated May 10, 1990, to the Planning Commis-
sion. The letter refers to an Albemarle County student as being a "success"
at Adventure Bound. According to the Department of Social Services, that same
child ran away on four occasions, the last of which was for a period of
several months.
Mr. Hodges said the Board has been diligent in applying land use criteria
from the Comprehensive Plan in making decisions. He is in the position of
having to object to what sounds like a favorable program to help disturbed
juvenile delinquents. Mr. Hodges said he is in favor of helping boys.
However, the question before the Board is whether this facility belongs in
this place. The question is not whether it is helpful in serving handicapped
children or juvenile delinquents. The issue is whether this 26 acres should
be allowed to have dormitories built on it, not whether the project has merit.
Mr. Hodges cited the Comprehensive Plan as stating that the agricultural and
forestry uses are important enough to Albemarle County to be given the highest
priority as a land use in the rural areas. He said this facility is not in
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
~Page 26)
315
harmony with the community, it does not enhance the adjoining property values,
and it does provide a health and safety risk to a number of residents of the
community. Mr. Hodges then asked those present in opposition to the Adventure
Bound request to raise their hands. There were approximately 50 people who
indicated their opposition.
Mr. Hodges said he was surprised that staff did not mention the issue of
traffic. He cited a report from the Department of Transportation dated
March 29, 1990, indicating that Route 810 is currently nontolerable with only
320 feet of sight distance existing at this location. VDoT indicates that the
increase in the number of students will result in an increase of traffic to
the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows for no increase in traffic on existing
nontolerable roads. He feels that this report from VDoT alone is enough to
reject this application.
Mr. Hodges concluded by urging the Board to deny the application in full
and restrict the facility to the 1§ students presently at the main campus.
Mr. Lloyd Gibson said he is representing members of the co~unity of
Boonesville. He said when Adventure Bound came to this community in 1979,
people were told that it was another Boy's Haven school. The community
believed that until 1982 when break-in's by Adventure Bound students took
place at the Crozet School, the Boy's Club, the State Highway Department's
shop and other locations. Mr. Gibson said he called Sheriff George Bailey,
and his Board of Supervisor's representative, Mr. Joe Henley, to find out what
type of school this was. Mr. Gibson said the residents of the community held
a meeting chaired by the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Scott Goodman.
The question the community asked was how this type of school was allowed
without the residents knowing that the students were referrals from the courts
and the Department of Corrections. Mr. Gibson said within this community is
the Faith Mission Home, which has twice as many children as Adventure Bound,
and there has never been a problem. He said Innisfree Village has retarded
children as well with no reports like those from the children at Adventure
Bound. Mr. Gibson said the Boys' Haven School was in this community for years
and people were not concerned about it. That is why the community did not
object to a school that was apparently going to be like Boys' Haven. Mr.
Gibson said the community hired a lawyer and asked Adventure Bound to accept
no referrals from the Department of Corrections or the Juvenile Courts, to
screen applicants more carefully, to retain the boys on the grounds and allow
three members of the community on the Board of Directors. He said Adventure
Bound refused to refrain from accepting court and Corrections Department
referrals. The School agreed to screen the boys, retain them on the grounds,
and have three members on the Board. Mr. Gibson said he was one of those
members and served on the board for about four years. He said he knew nothing
at all of what went on at the school while he was on the board. For example,
when the license of the school was revoked by the State and the director and
two instructors were expelled for sexual abuse, the three Boonesville area
residents on the board found out the night before the newspaper published the
story. He said the newspaper stated that twice before the school had operated
under a provisional license, of which the Boonesville board members knew
nothing. Mr. Gibson said shortly after this incident, he and the other two
members of the board resigned. He said a hot line is being proposed now so
that the Director can be contacted at all times. Mr. Gibson said in the
agreement that the community had with Adventure Bound years ago, they agreed
to install an answering service so that the supervisor could be contacted 24
hours a day. Mr. Gibson said the school apparently never installed the
answering service. He said the agreement also stated that the school would
not expand. He read from the agreement, "The Board of Directors does not
intend to expand its program anywhere in the Boonesville area, and we are
committed to providing quality service to the children and feel that any
further growth would jeopardize that goal". Mr. Gibson said the community had
planned to take the school to court to determine if this school could legally
be located in the Boonesville community. After getting this letter of agree-
ment, the community decided not to go to court. He said now it is obvious
that the agreement was just a piece of paper. He asked the Board not to honor
this request for a special use permit because of the previous history of
Adventure Bound.
Mr. Gibson said the Boonesville area is isolated. He said it is about an
hour before a police officer arrives after a call, Mr. Gibson related an
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
316
incident in which two boys arrived at his house at 11:00 P.M., and he called
the police at 11:15 P.M.. The police arrived after 1:00 A.M., flashed a light
around the yard, and left without coming to the door. That is why he feels
this type of school should not be in this area. Mr. Gibson said if these
children were simply mentally retarded, there would be no objection from the
community. In fact, the community would help them. The community found out
after two years that this school is not what it was purported to be. Based on
these reasons, Mr. Gibson said his community is begging the Board not to grant
this request for expansion.
Mr. Richard Cogan came forward to speak. He suggested that there are
moral reasons and lawful reasons why the Board should deny this request. He
said the lawful reasons have been well explained. Mr. Cogan feels that this
is not a school and that a special use permit cannot be issued under the
Zoning Ordinance. He read from a letter dated April 16, 1990, from the Zoning
Administrator to Adventure Bound, "After investigation, the Zoning Administra-
tor has determined that the group home operated by Adventure Bound on Tax Map
6, Parcel 40, constitutes a violation of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle
County. Operation of a group home on property zoned Rural Areas requires a
special use permit issued by the Board of Supervisors. There is no currently
valid special permit for that use on this property. The special use permit
80-44, approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 20, 1980, was issued for
the applicant, Gary Duncan, and is not transferable. This requirement was
condition No. 4 of the Board's approval." He said this operation was catego-
rized as a group home under the first special use permit because it was not a
private school then, and Mr. Cogan feels it still is not one. Under that
category, only eight people are allowed other than immediate family members.
Mr. Cogan said he thinks this operation has been in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance for three years. He asked how the Board could ensure that
the conditions now recommended by the Planning Commission could be enforced
when the County could not enforce the illegal transfer of the license from the
former director to the current one, which went for three years unnoticed.
Regarding the moral issue, Mr. Cogan said the criteria for granting any
special use permit is that the use not be detrimental to the co~unity in
particular, or the County as a whole. Furthermore, the use must provide some
benefit to the community in which it is located. Mr. Cogan said this use fits
neither category as evidenced by the book of documents presented by Mr.
Hodges. He feels this facility is a detriment to this community. Adventure
Bound has a poor "track record" in that promises made in writing were not
kept. He said the Board should not impose the fear that this facility is
putting on the people in the community.
Dr. Leo Falk, resident of the community, said this issue has been a
difficult one for him because so much of his career has been spent in counsel-
ing families with troubled boys. He said most of the problem is based on the
fact that the school betrayed the confidence of the Boonesville community. He
said if this operation is not a treatment facility, and this school is accept-
ing the type of boys they say they are accepting, then that is a crime in
itself. He said it has to be a treatment facility to accept boys with the
problems explained tonight. Dr. Falk said it is well known by experts in the
field that screening is an imprecise matter. He feels it is just not possible
to differentiate between the mild and moderate conduct disordered children.
Dr. Falk consulted with an authority on screening who confirmed this state-
ment. This expert said the success rate for schools of this type is poor,
even in the best of schools no matter how well they are operated. Dr. Falk
said it has been stated that these boys have committed minor offenses like
shoplifting. He read in "The Washington Post" yesterday of a young man who
committed a brutal crime on a teenager whose first criminal act was shop-
lifting. The expert Dr. Falk conferred with said that youthful criminality is
the best predictor of future criminal activity. Dr. Falk concluded by saying
it is difficult to be in the position of not giving someone a second chance.
He said boys should be given a second chance, but he feels that a school with
the problems this one has had should not be allowed in the rural community of
Boonesville.
Mr. Keith Ford said he is a neighbor of Adventure Bound School. He said
he wants to make it clear that he is not against mentally retarded children.
He said the community is living in constant fear and asked the Board to help
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
317
the community because they cannot continue to live in fear. He said last week
one of the boys was at his gate unattended. The boy said he does not like it
at Adventure Bound and wants to leave. Mr. Ford said he has lived in this
area all his life and works every day. He said he cannot stay up nights
listening to the music from the School. He said Mr. Knight has cleaned up the
problems at the school, and he is not finding fault with Mr. Knight person-
ally. However, the problems have cleared up in the past, but have reoccurred.
Mr. Ford said his aunt would not have raised seven mentally retarded children
who are here with her tonight if the community were against mentally retarded
folks. The point is that the community cannot live with the fear any longer.
The community has no other recourse but to appeal to the Board of Supervisors.
He realizes that the school needs a location, but the community of Boonesville
is not the place. The members of the community need help. He said his aunt
is 84 years old, his mother is 76 years old, and they are scared to death in
their own community.
Mr. John Knight, Director of Adventure Bound, said one student has been
mentioned several times tonight because he raped a student in Charlottesville.
Mr. Knight said that boy was at Adventure Bound when he was 12 years old and
was kicked out of the school at the age of 13. He was from Charlottesville,
and had been away from Adventure Bound for two years when the incident
occurred. He feels that the school should not be held responsible for that
boy's actions. He explained that if a boy is truant, if he runs away or if he
lies, he can be classified as mildly conduct disordered, if those happen
within a six-month period. The school does accept boys who have shoplifted,
and he feels that society cannot afford to put a boy who shoplifts one time in
jail until he is an old man. He feels that boys like that must be given a
chance to change, and that is what this school is about. He said the boys are
in academic classes four hours a day. In the afternoon, they are in physical
education classes and a vocational work program. He said this school is in
session more days per year than public schools because Adventure Bound is also
a treatment facility for emotionally disturbed boys. That is what the license
says and that is what the school does. He said he had no idea that the
special use permit for the school was in the name of Gary Duncan. As soon as
he found out, he took steps to remedy the situation. When he heard that Mr.
Gibson's fence was damaged in 1986, he sent a letter offering to pay for it.
He said if Mr. Gibson had not received that letter, he is making the offer
now. Mr. Knight said he knows nothing about a special use permit in Shadwell,
but he feels that it has nothing to do with this case. The main campus of
Adventure Bound has never had to have a special use permit. He said the Hill
House campus had a special use permit, and he is requesting another one. The
school needs a place for these boys to live. He said this move would allow
another staff member for better supervision, a crisis intervention person and
a cook on the weekends. Mr. Knight said this school is not licensed by the
Department of Corrections. The school is licensed by the State Department of
Education and by the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.
Neither is the school governed by the Department of Corrections. He said Mr.
Hodges made a point that Adventure Bound is not a member of the Association
for Independent Special Education. Mr. Knight said there are several organ-
izations this school could be involved with on a voluntary basis. He said
Adventure Bound chose not to join because dues for those organizations are
several hundreds of dollars per year. Adventure Bound is an active member of
the Virginia Association of Children's Homes.
Mr. Knight said the original drawing of the plans for expansion submitted
to the Planning Commission was a sketch Mr. Knight had made. He said it did
not show accurate distances. An architect prepared the drawing shown tonight
with accurate distances between buildings and to the property of Mrs. Morris,
which is 850 feet. Mr. Knight asked for the Board's approval to place the
buildings as shown on the drawing tonight, rather than his original hand
sketch. He said a student from Albemarle County who attended Adventure Bound
has written a letter to the Board and the Planning Commission about his time
at the school. He referred the Board to that letter as an example of a
success.
The public hearing was closed at the end of the allotted time, and the
matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bain asked how Innisfree and Faith Mission Home are categorized under
the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, said
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
318
Innisfree has a special use permit for a home for the developmentally dis-
abled. She said her understanding is that these children all have some
element of brain damage. She did not know the status of Faith Mission Home.
Mr. Way said he believes that Faith Mission Home pre-existed the Zoning
Ordinance. He asked how the Little Keswick School is categorized. Mrs.
Patterson said it is a private school.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are more than eight residents at Innisfree.
Mrs. Patterson said there are. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is classified as a
group home. Mrs. Patterson said Innisfree is not listed as a group home. She
said there is no limitation on the number of residents in a home for the
developmentally disabled.
Mr. Bain asked the history of the main campus of Adventure Bound. Mrs.
Patterson said site plan approval was given under the private school use prior
to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in December, 1980. In 1980,
there was a change in the Zoning Ordinance classification for private schools
from by-right usage to special permit usage. Mrs. Patterson said the original
letter of description dated February 16, 1979, from Mr. Gary Duncan, upon
which a determination was made by the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Ben Dick,
states that Adventure Bound was classified as an educational rehabilitative
institution. It is referred to as a private, non-profit school for learning
disabled children. The letter says the school is chartered in the Common-
wealth of Virginia as a non-profit, non-state corporation for the express
purpose of providing educational services. Adventure Bound was issued a
special permit by the State Board of Education to solicit for students under
the provisions of special education services according to the letter. The
curriculum is approved by the State Department of Education and students are
allowed to complete regular academic requirements for promotion and gradua-
tion. Mrs. Patterson said a list showing four teaching staff members and two
counselors was attached to the letter in 1979.
Mr. Bain asked when the school began accepting referrals from the Depart-
ment of Corrections. Mrs. Patterson said she has nothing in the files to
indicate that change. Mr. Knight said the school does not take boys from the
Department of Corrections. He said they accept some referrals from court
service units. Mr. Bain asked if that has always been the policy. Mr. Knight
said to the best of his knowledge that has been the case from the beginning.
The percentage of students from court referrals has declined. Out of 21
students in April, there were only three who had been referred from the
courts.
Mr. Bowerman asked the County Attorney if more than one definition can
apply to a land use category. He said it seems that Adventure Bound is a
group home with more than eight boys as well as a school. Mr. St. John said
there can only be one primary use on a parcel of land. He said the activity
may fit into more than one definition, but the application for special use
permit has to meet the definition listed in the Zoning Ordinance. There is no
definition for "private school" in the Ordinance, so the common usage defini-
tion is used. Mr. St. John said one way to determine the appropriate defini-
tion is to ask what is the fundamental purpose of the facility. If it is a
behavioral correction facility for children, they must have educational
facilities, but that use would be ancillary. If the facility is not a school,
he feels it cannot lawfully be given a special use permit. If it is a school,
then the Board has the discretion to grant a permit or not, depending on the
criteria presented.
Mr. Way said he knows that Adventure Bound is not a group home. The
ordinance amendment for a group home was adopted some 14 years ago when Mr.
Way had such a facility. He feels Adventure Bound is a combination of a
school and a treatment facility. He said it is interesting that those who
spoke for Adventure Bound spoke primarily of the treatment of the children
rather than their education. However, Mr. Knight specifically emphasized
education. Mr. Way said this is a difficult question because of the impor-
tance of having facilities for children who need special help. He said he is
aware of the fact that Mr. Knight took over a facility with a lot of problems,
and he has tried to improve the name of the facility in many ways. He feels
that Mr. Knight has been conscientious and sincere in his efforts. Mr. Way
said he cannot accept the idea that expanding the school will mean that the
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
319
school will then be able to do what it already purports to do. He said if he
were the head of an institution of this kind, he would deal with the problem
of the number of people who feel so strongly in opposition to the school
before planning to expand. Mr. Way wondered why the effort to improve commu-
nity relations by increasing community participation on the board and through
other efforts has not been attempted before this point. He said whatever
decision is made tonight by the Board, Adventure Bound will continue as a
school. Ideally, it would be wonderful if trust could be instilled back into
the community and they could support the efforts of Adventure Bound. However,
at this time, there is genuine fear, and Mr. Way feels it does not all come
from misunderstanding. Therefore, he cannot support the application at this
time because there is too much mistrust.
Mr. Bain said from a comprehensive land use perspective, he feels this is
the wrong place and the wrong time for this request. There is a need for
these facilities, and Albemarle County cannot prevent such a facility in this
County. He said the Board spent many hours on the Comprehensive Plan and
tried to look carefully at what facilities are appropriate in which locations.
He feels that the fears are certainly legitimate, though some may be blown out
of proportion. Mr. Bain feels the public health, safety and welfare issue,
which is mandated under State law, is questionable. Although the school is
providing a service, he cannot support expansion at this time. If, in the
future, the misunderstandings and fears are allayed, and another request comes
before the Board, he is willing to consider it. For these reasons, he will
not support a motion to approve this request.
Mr. Bowerman said this is one of the most difficult decisions he has
faced in his 11 years in public life. He agrees that the facilities are
needed, but the degree of trust that is necessary for this facility to be in
that community is not present. He feels that Adventure Bound is primarily a
treatment facility and that the school is ancillary to that. Therefore, he
will not support this petition.
Mr. Bain offered a motion to deny SP-90-1§. Mrs. Humphris seconded the
motion. She said she feels a great deal of compassion for these young people
and recognizes that the purpose of Adventure Bound is a good and worthy one.
The recent effort for improvement has been genuine in her opinion. ~owever,
the past history has not been good. She believes that the facilities would
not exist were it not for the treatment being given. She feels that it is
unfortunate that the obvious improvements which were needed for so long have
not been achieved before now. The people in the Boonesville community are
genuinely afraid and should not have to live that way. Therefore, she feels
this petition does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and she cannot
support the request.
Mr. Perkins said this school is in his district, and he has never seen so
much fear expressed in a community. He said he cannot support this request
for a special use permit tonight.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-90-06. County of Albemarle. Public hearing on
an amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 32.7.9
Landscaping and Screening Requirements to require minimum tree canopy. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"With the adoption of the revised Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
last July, a number of resource protection measures were identified,
some of which could be accomplished through ordinancerevisions. One
of the emphasis areas under the Natural Scenic and Historic Resources
section of the Plan was Wooded Areas. The Plan includes the following
language regarding wooded areas:
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
320
Wooded areas in both the Rural and Growth Areas are important
for the benefits which they provide to the environment.
Wooded areas are necessary for the maintenance of ground and
surface water quality, ground water recharge area, and aquatic
and wildlife habitat. Undisturbed wooded areas protect
critical slopes and prevent soil erosion and sedimentation.
In urban areas, wooded areas provide shade and windbreaks,
improve air quality, and reduce dust, noise and glare. On a
large scale, wooded areas absorb carbon dioxide and other
pollutants and modulate temperatures, thereby affecting the
general climate over an extended period of time.
The following GENERAL STANDARDS should be used in wooded
areas:
Protect wooded or partially wooded areas subject to
development by limiting clearance of trees on the site
to approved building sites and access roads.
With the passage of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board of Supervisors
has requested that several ordinance changes be provided which would
address resource protection. One such provision would be for the
requirement for preservation of trees in developments. This requires
amendments to the site development plan provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. Use of such provisions is enabled through Section
15.1-14.2 of the Virginia Code.
Staff has researched the effect of the tree cover provisions as
allowed in the State Code. As a result of this research, staff offers
amendments to Section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends
approval as being totally consistent with the resource protection
goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan."
The amendment recommended is set out in full below:
32.7.9.9 TREE CANOPY
The foregoing notwithstanding, a minimum tree canopy shall
be provided in accordance with this section. "Tree canopy"
or "tree cover" shall include all areas of coverage by trees
exceeding five (5) feet in height at a maturity of ten (10)
years. Existing trees to be preserved in accordance with
32.7.9.4(b) together with trees required under sections
32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8 shall count toward satisfac-
tion of minimum tree canopy.
The following minimum requirements shall apply:
a. Ten (10) percent tree canopy for a site to be developed
with commercial, office or industrial uses;
Ten (10) percent tree canopy for a residential site to
be developed at a gross density of twenty (20) dwelling
units per acre or more;
Fifteen (15) percent tree canopy for a residential site
to be developed at a gross density of more than ten
(10) but less than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre;
Twenty (20) percent tree canopy for a residential site
to be developed at a gross density of ten (10) or fewer
dwelling units per acre.
In calculation of land area subject to this section, the follow-
ing areas may be deducted at the option of the developer:
-Recreation areas as required under section 4.16;
-Open space areas as required under section 4.7;
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
-Land dedicated to public use;
-Playing fields and recreation areas attendant to
schools, day care and the like;
-Ponds or lakes deemed by the commission to constitute a desirable open space amenity;
-Areas required for preservation of wetlands, flood
plain or other areas required to be maintained in
natural state by this ordinance or other applicable
law.
Deductions provided above shall be cumulative but shall not be
duplicative.
321
Mr. Cilimberg said the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission
on June 5, 1990, by a vote of 6 to 1 is presented to the Board with a staff
recommendation for further amendment, based on the opinion of the County
Attorney to better relate to the State enabling legislation. He handed out
copies of the revisions proposed by staff. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has
researched the effects of the proposed ordinance and recommends that: 1)
there be ten percent tree canopy for a site zoned business, commercial or
industrial; 2) that there be ten percent tree canopy for a residential site
zoned for 20 or more units per acre; 3) that there be 15 percent canopy for a
residential site zoned for more than ten but less than 20 units per acre; and
4) that there be 20 percent tree canopy for a residential site zoned for ten
units or less. He said these percentages are to occur no later than ten years
after planting.
Mr. Cilimberg handed out further materials and said that staff compared
the effect of the proposed canopy cover ordinance on six existing site plans.
The result of the comparison shows that tree cover averaged 8.43 percent under
the current ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said the recommended provisions are
intended to be flexible and consistent with existing landscaping provisions
and provide for tree cover in compliance with enabling legislation and the
intent of the comprehensive plan for adequate screening.
Mr. Cilimberg then pointed out the changes suggested by the County
Attorney to better comply with the State Code. He noted that an extensive
calculation of all plant materials and the square footage of canopy cover at
ten years is listed and will be known as Appendix A. He said these changes do
not alter the intent of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that an additional amendment is proposed by Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning, for granting additional coverage credit for exist-
ing trees. This would provide an opportunity to receive additional credit for
natural growth in any type of development.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Don Wagner, member of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association and
representing Great Eastern Management Corporation, said he does not oppose the
canopy ordinance but would offer some suggestions. He said Great Eastern
Management likes trees. They have an apartment complex under construction and
have spent $1500 to leave trees on the construction site. Mr. Wagner said he
could not relate in practical terms to what 10 or 20 percent of canopy cover
means. He studied the Westgate Apartments site, which is 11.04 acres devel-
oped at a density of over 20 units per acre. Under the proposed legislation,
a developer would be required to have a 10 percent tree cover in 10 years.
The first section of Westgate was built over 16 years ago. He said there are
200 trees at this site with 18.7 percent canopy cover. Mr. Wagner said for
several years now his company has done significant pruning at Westgate Apart-
ments to allow light and keep trees away from the roofs of buildings. He said
his understanding is that this ordinance is before the Board now because the
enabling legislation changes on July 1, and the County will not be able to
require these coverages in 10 years, but rather will have to allow 20 years.
He said the legislation is being changed because the 10-year requirement was a
mistake.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
322
Mr. Wagner complimented the effort of the staff in preparing this amend-
ment. He noted that he had suggested a change in wording from "trees" to
"plant material" in the first paragraph of Section 32.7.9.9 to the Planning
Commission, and they chose not to make the change. However, the County
Attorney agrees with the suggestion because it is the language of the enabling
legislation. Mr. Wagner said he is concerned that the Board is moving this
amendment along too quickly. He said the City is also working on the same
ordinance and Mr. Wagner handed out a comparison of the figures being studied
by the City Council.
Mr. Wagner said he took the five types of trees found at the Westgate
Apartments and projected the size of those trees in 16 years using the Coun-
ty's growth rate calculations found in Appendix A and compared the results to
the actual growth of the trees found at Westgate. He said the results show
that the trees at Westgate are outperforming County standards. He said his
trees are a little over twice as big as the Appendix A figures would expect
them to be.
Mr. Wagner said he is concerned that the staff is relying on texts for
tree sizes, rather than on-site comparisons. He feels that Albemarle County
has done a good job over the years in looking at landscape plans and sending
out zoning inspectors to be sure trees were planted as they should be. He
suggests that rather than relying on arithmetic to figure the size of the
trees in Albemarle County, that actual measurements be made of trees which
have been planted for 10 years. He feels that requiring more trees than is
necessary will increase costs. He said developers do not absorb extra costs;
they pass them on to the customers, resulting in higher sales costs and higher
rents. He said trees which are planted now will cost the owners money to have
them cut back in ten years.
Mr. Wagner handed out his suggestions for amendments to the proposed
ordinance. He feels that a maturity period of 20 years should be used instead
of ten years. He said the General Assembly is not changing the law on a whim;
they realize that ten years is a mistake. He also suggested that wording be
included to allow the Director of Planning to accept other standardized
landscape specifications than those listed specifically in the proposed
amendment. Regarding Appendix A proposed in the amendment, Mr. Wagner feels
that it is not supported by the facts of tree growth in Albemarle County. He
feels that the Director of Planning should be given the flexibility to amend
Appendix A from time to time as additional information becomes available. He
also suggested that language be added to Appendix A that would allow a bonus
growth rate of 20 percent if an irrigation system is included in the landscape
plan. If someone spends the money to irrigate, he feels that credit should be
given.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, Great Eastern Management Corporation, said he feels
that the criteria proposed in this amendment will cause future problems. For
that reason, his company studied the Westgate Apartment complex to see the
growth characteristics locally. He said the proposed ordinance applies to
land zoned 20 units per acre and 10 units per acre. In Albemarle County,
there is no land zoned 20 units per acre. He said there is. an R-15 designa-
tion, which will exacerbate the problem. If a developer proposed 20 units per
acre in R-15, which can be done with bonus points, the 10 percent criteria is
not available in that case. He feels that this technical problem needs to be
reviewed. He said Great Eastern has received numerous complaints from pro-
spective tenants and existing tenants at Pantops Shopping Center regarding the
trees planted there. He said the merchants have demanded that the trees be
cut back because of visibility. He said it is important that the guidelines
be based on realistic growing conditions in this County so that not too many
trees are planted to satisfy a 10-year requirement. Mr. Rotgin agreed that
the Appendix should not come from a text because there is sufficient develop-
ment history in Albemarle County to review for determining actual growth
characteristics. Mr. Rotgin said his company is not opposed to the tree
ordinance, but he would like the ordinance to be as realistic as possible. He
asked the Board to allow staff adequate time to compare growth characteristics
which are critical in establishing an ordinance. He said as trees grow up,
the canopy spreads wider. Therefore, the second 10 years shows a much faster
growth rate in terms of canopy cover than the first 10 years. He said a
requirement of 10 percent coverage in 10 years may mean coverage of 30 percent
in 20 years. He is concerned that the requirement is too high, and that is
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
323
why the General Assembly changed the law. He asked the Board to revise the
ordinance to require 20 years for maturity rather than 10, that staff be given
the opportunity to amend this ordinance when necessary without coming back for
Board approval, that a bonus be allowed for installation of an irrigation
system, and that Albemarle County growth characteristics be used to establish
requirements rather than a textbook.
The public hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that any County ordinance adopted prior to July 1
which imposes different standards than those in the new legislation will not
be invalidated by the new legislation. He said the prior landscape procedures
can continue as he understands the law. He said the Board should consider
whether it is better to require more trees initially, resulting in immediate
coverage, or to require fewer trees initially, resulting in less need for
pruning and removal of trees. He said there are developments which will
exceed 10 percent coverage in 10 years such as the Rio Hills development.
Mr. Bain said he would like to see some research on growth of trees
required by site plans over the past few years. Mr. Cilimberg said the
landscaping provisions of the ordinance were adopted just a few years ago.
At this point there was conversation from the audience which was inaudi-
ble for the record.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff compared the proposed amendment to the
growth figures used in the most recently approved site plan. Based on the
density of the development, more than a 15 percent coverage would result after
ten years using the criteria in the proposed amendment.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to see the emphasis placed on having ten
percent coverage as quickly as possible. He feels the critical time for
coverage is the initial stage of the development. Mr. Cilimberg said that
means that more trees will be planted initially.
Again, there was conversation from the audience which was not audible for
the record.
Mr. Perkins said if the ordinance is adopted as recommended, it can be
amended later if staff studies previous site plans and feels that the ordi-
nance should be changed. Mr. Cilimberg said staff could do some analysis,
especially in regard to structuring Appendix A. He said the Board could
consider giving staff the authority to amend Appendix A to allow some flexi-
bility once it is in place. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with that.
Mr. St. John said if the species of trees and other standards are enacted
into the ordinance, staff cannot amend them. That action can only be taken by
the Board of Supervisors. He said the Board can enact the substance of the
ordinance and leave the species and the system for rating the desirability of
various trees to staff's discretion. He feels that the specific tree species
should not go in a general ordinance in the first place, but that it should be
an administrative decision. Mr. Cilimberg said that could be accomplished by
eliminating the wording to set up Appendix A and leaving the ordinance as it
currently reads in that section.
There were comments from the audience at this point which were not picked
up by the recording equipment.
Mr. Bain then offered motion to adopt an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance
to Amend and Reenact Section 32.7, Minimum Standards for Improvement, to amend
Section 32.7.9.5(b), Minimum Standards, and to add Section 32.7.9.9, Tree
Canopy, to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance". Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
Mr. Perkins asked if the irrigation bonus is included. Mr. Bain said he
does not think it is necessary to include that in the ordinance as Mr. St.
John just explained. Those types of things can be done with more flexibility
without including them in the ordinance.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
324
Mr. Bowerman said the intent is that the agent put together a list that
is realistic. There was conversation from the audience to which Mr. Bowerman
responded that it is a good suggestion, and it is his intent.
There was no further discussion of this item. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
(Note: The ordinance is set out below in its entirety.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 32.7, MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT,
TO AMEND SECTION 32.7.9.5(b), MINIMUM STANDARDS, AND
Tu ADD SECTION 32.7.9.9, TREE CANOPY,
TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
AS FOLLOWS:
32.7.9.5 MINIMUM STANDARDS
(b)
Ail trees to be planted shall meet the specifications
of the American Association of Nurserymen. The plant-
ing of trees shall be done in accordance with either
the standardized landscape specifications jointly
adopted by the Virginia Nurserymen's Association, the
Virginia Society of Landscape Designers and the Virgin-
ia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Archi-
tects, or the road and bridge specifications of the
Virginia Department of Transportation. Planting
islands shall contain a minimum of fifty (50) square
feet per tree, with a minimum dimension of five (5)
feet in order to protect the landscaping and allow for
proper growth. Wheel stops, curbing or other barriers
shall be provided to prevent damage to landscaping by
vehicles. Where necessary, trees shall be welled or
otherwise protected against change of grade. All
pervious areas of the site shall be permanently pro-
tected from soil erosion with grass or other ground
cover or mulch material.
32.7.9.9 TREE CANOPY
The foregoing notwithstanding, a minimum tree canopy
shall be provided in accordance with this section.
"Tree canopy" or "tree cover" shall include all areas
of coverage by plant material exceeding five (5) feet
in height at a maturity of ten (10) years after plant-
ing. Selection of species for planting shall be in
accord with section 32.7.9.4(a). Specifications for
plantings shall be in accord with section 32.7.9.5(b).
Existing trees to be preserved in accordance with
section 32.7.9.4(b) together with trees required under
sections 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7 and 32.7.9.8 shall count
toward satisfaction of minimum tree canopy.
b. The following minimum requirements shall apply:
Ten (10) percent tree canopy for a site to be
developed with commercial, office or industrial
uses;
Ten (10) percent tree canopy for a residential
site to be developed at a gross density of twenty
(20) dwelling units per acre or more;
, I
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
325
Fifteen (15) percent tree canopy fora residential
site to be developed at a gross density of more
than ten (10) but less than twenty (20) dwelling
units per acre;
Twenty (20) percent tree canopy for a residential
site to be developed at a gross density of ten
(10) or fewer dwelling units per acre.
In calculation of land area subject to this section,
the following areas may be deducted at the option of
the developer:
-Farm land or other areas devoid of woody materials at
time of adoption of this section;
-Recreation areas as required under section 4.16;
-Open space areas as required under section 4.7;
-Land dedicated to public use;
-Playing fields and recreation areas attendant to
schools, day care and the like;
-Ponds or lakes deemed by the commission to constitute
a desirable open space amenity;
-Areas required for preservation of wetlands, flood
plain or other ar~as rm~uired to be maintained in
natural state by this ordinance or other applicable
law;
-Areas approved by the agent in accord with section
32.7.9.3.
Deductions provided above shall be cumulative but shall
not be duplicative.
Where existing trees are maintained, a canopy bonus
shall be granted as follows:
Area of canopy shall be calculated at ten (10)
years of additional maturity;
The resultant area shall be multiplied by a factor
of 1.25.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: DEIS Statement. This item was dropped
from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 15. End of Year Appropriations.
Mr. Agnor gave the following summary of nondepartmental appropriations
for approval prior to June 30. Most of these will have revenue sources from
the State or Federal government to cover the expenditures. The only exception
is for Building Permit Refunds and the SPCA Shelter, for a total of $8800.
These will be funded through the General Fund Balance.
1. General Fund
Building Permit Refunds will exceed projections by approximately
$20,000. All but $5000 can be covered from other refund items.
Payments to the SPCA Shelter will exceed projactions by $3800. This
is due to increased usage of their services.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
326
2. SLIAG - State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant
This program is operated by the School System and provides educational
assistance to new citizens.
3. Metropolitan Planning Organization Grant
This is an on-going project operated by the Planning Department which
provides funding for various planning projects.
4. A.H.I.P. - Albemarle Housing In~rove~aent Pro~ram
This grant, which provided funding for A.H.I.P., is completed.
5. Moderate Rehabilitation
This is an on-going grant which provides rental housing assistance
payments.
6. Drop out Prevention Grant
The State authorized these unexpended funds from a prior year grant to be
expended for this program.
Mr. Agnor said that in addition to the above, the County has received
advances from the insurance company resulting from the fire at Albemarle High
School. These advances have been expended for the emergency repairs required.
An appropriation will be requested later when actual costs are finalized.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve
the year-end appropriations as recommended. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1989/90
GENERAL
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100092010580306
1100039000565500
REVENUE
BLDG PERMIT REFUNDS
SPCA SHELTER CONTRIBUTION
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$5,000.00
3~800.00
$8,800.00
AMOUNT
2100051000510100
APP FROM GEN'L FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$8,800.00
$8,800.00
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1989/90
SLIAG
BLrDGET ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1311063380132100
1311063380210000
1311063380312700
1311063380550400
1311063380601300
REVENUE
PT/WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
PROF SER CONSULTANTS
TRAVEL-EDUCATION
EDUC & RECRFATION SUPPLIES
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$16,792.42
1,276.46
130.00
335.04
3~584.28
$22,118.20
AMOUNT
2311018100189900
2311033000300001
DONATIONS & GIFTS
GRANT-FEDERAL
TOTAL
$612.00
21~506.20
$22,118.20
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
FISCAL Y1AR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
i989/90
MPO GRANT
BUDGET ADJUSTMEIfrs
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1120881201110000
1120881201601700
1120881209110000
1120881209130000
1120881209601700
1120881212110000
1120881217110000
1120881217130000
REVENUE
SALARIES-REGULAR
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES-REGULAR
PART-TIME WAGES
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES-REGULAR
SALARIES-REGULAR
PART-TrME WAGES
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
$4,000.00
10.00
4,000.00
3,000.00
20.00
200.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
$i4,730.00
AMOUNT
2120824000240500
2120833000330001
2120851000512004
GRANT-STATE
GRANT-FEDERAL
TRS FROM GEN'L FUND
TOTAL
$1,000.00
12,730.00
1,000.00
$I4,730.00
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1989/90
ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1122481020563100 AHIP
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
~239,927.00
$239,927.00
AMOUNT
2122433000330001
GRkNT-FEDERAL
TOTAL
$239~927.00
$239,927.00
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1989/90
MODERATE REHABILITATION
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1122781920579001
1122781920579002
1122781920579003
1122781920579004
REVENUE
HOUSING ASSIST PAYMENTS
VACANCY LOSS PAYMENTS
DAMAGE/UNPAID RENT
UTILITY REIMBURSEMENTS
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
$751,637.00
6,218.00
10,104.00
15~000.00
$782,959.00
AMOUNT
2122733000330001
GRANT- FEDERAL
TOTAL
$782~959.00
$782,959.00
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1089/90
DROP-OUT PREVENTION
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1310663365112100
1310663365210000
1310663365221000
1310663365231000
1310663365232000
1310663365241000
REVENUE
SALARIES-TEACHER
FICA
VSRS
HEALTH INS
DgNTAL INS
VSRS-LIFE INS
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
$3,000.00
269,82
330.00
900.00
60.00
30.00
$4', 589.82
AMOUNT
2310651000510100
APP FROM FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$4,589.82
$4,589.82
327
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night m~eting)
(Page 39)
32~
Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: March 28, April 11 and May 16,
1990.
Mr. Way had read the minutes for March 28, 1990, and April 11, Pages 17
to the end, and found one typographical error. He noted that he was not
present for a portion of the April 11 meeting which he was assigned to read.
There was no objection from other Board members to Mr. Way reading those
minutes.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bain
to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Mr. Way asked Board members to consider possible appointees to the
Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board.
There were no names offered at this time.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board.
Mr. Agnor reported that the Charlottesville City Council has taken
concurrent action to appoint Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta as Chairman of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. He said staff has
worked with Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie to develop the Articles of Incorporation to
be advertised to create the new Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. A listing of
the names of the first Board members has to be included with the advertise-
ment. He asked the Board to set a public hearing date so the articles of
incorporation can be advertised. Mr. Agnor said he would distribute copies of
the articles tomorrow if Board members wish a copy.
Mr. Bain offered a motion to schedule a public hearing for August 1,
1990, on a Resolution forming a Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Agnor said the goal for completion of selection of the new urban area
elementary school site was set for the end of June. He feels a joint meeting
of the School Board and the Board of Supervisors is necessary. He said a
meeting could be held on July 11, except that Mrs. Humphris will be away at
that time. He asked the Board when they would like to schedule this meeting
in order to keep the schedule for the new school.
Mr. Way suggested that the Chairman work out an agreeable date between
now and July 11. Mr. Agnor noted that when the July 4 Board meeting was can-
celled, several staff members scheduled vacation. Mr. Agnor said he would
schedule a meeting for the time most suitable to most members of the Board.
Mr. Bain said he gave some suggestions to staff today for the Board's
statement on the Route 29 North DEIS. He said a substantive change was in the
final paragraph, but he is agreeable with the wording. Mr. Bowerman said he
also is satisfied with that draft and feels that it is in complete accord with
the Board's previous discussions.
June 20, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
329
Mr. St. John reported, in response to a question from a Board member in
June regarding the possibility of having the meals tax added to the November
referendum, that the Judge would have to sign an order calling for the elec-
tion no later than September 6 to be on the November 6 ballot. He said the
Board would have to enact a resolution prior to that time directing the County
Attorney to give an order to the judge which contains the exactwording to be
on the ballot. He said almost the same wording could be used from the previ-
ous ballot on this issue.
Mr. Bain asked if a public hearing is required first. Mr. St. John said
it is not required.
Mr. Agnor said the Virginia Association of Counties has commented to
localities that there will be more legislation presented on the meals tax
issue during the next session of the General Assembly. The feeling is that
there is a good chance that legislation will be considered favorably. VACO is
discouraging localities from proceeding with a local referendum because of the
clause added to prohibit adopting an ordinance if a referendum has beeh held
within a certain time frame.
Mr. Bain said last year VACo members felt that this legislation would be
acted on favorably, but nothing was passed.
Mr. St. John said a decision will have to be made by the Zoning Adminis-
trator as to whether the Adventure Bound facility is operating legally.
Adventure Bound is currently operating under a license as a school. Mr. St.
John said he wants the Board to be aware that this decision will have to be
made soon. If Adventure Bound is found to be something other than a school,
the school would have to be abandoned so the decision could result in a law
suit.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn.
At 12:40 A.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN