1989-12-20December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 20, 1989, at 7:35 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 4~01McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and
Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive;
Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:36 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed: Mr. Way thanked Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke for their
service as members of the Board of Supervisors. Since Mr. Lindstrom had been
unable to attend the reception held earlier in the afternoon in honor of the
two Supervisors, Mr. Way said he would like to take this opportunity to thank
Mr. Lindstrom publicly for his 12 years of service. Mr. Way said Mr.
Lindstrom has been the most articulate Supervisor on this Board and with this
talent, has served the County well, speaking for the Comprehensive Plan, for
land-use planning and for the protection of the environment. Mr. Way said
that Mr. Lindstrom should be credited for the fact that much of the County
remains beautiful and unspoiled today. Mr. Way then presented several tokens
of the County's appreciation: a pin engraved with the County seal, a framed
certificate of appreciation, and a framed photograph of the County Office
Building.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Way and said it has been a privilege to serve
on the Board.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and
seconded by Mr. Perkins to accept the consent agenda as information. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Letter dated December 7, 1989, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, re: Resolution adopted by the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Board approving the County's request for recreational access funds
for the Southern Regional'Park, was received as follows:
"This is to advise that at its meeting on November 16, 1989, the
Commonwealth Transporation Board approved the County's request for
recreational accessfunds for the Southern Regional Park. I have
attached a copy of the Transportation Board's resolution for your
information.
You will note that your application has been approved with four
contingencies which are listed in the resolution. It is expected that
the County will meet these contingencies prior to the Department
authorizing payment of funds from the recreational access fund. I
will be in touch with your staff concerning this matter in more
detail."
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia sets forth that
the General Assembly of Virginia has found and declared that it is
"... in the public interest that access roads and bikeways for public
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
2
recreational areas and historical sites be provided .... ," reserves
$3,000,000 from highway funds for such purpose, and further provides
that "The Commonwealth Transportation Board, with the concurrence of
the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, is
hereby authorized to make regulations to carry out the provisions of
this section."; and
WHEREAS, the Director of the Department of Conservation and
Recreation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board have adopted a
joint policy to govern the use of Recreational Access Funds pursuant
to Section 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has by
resolution requested the use of Recreational Access Funds to construct
the access road into the Southern Park in Albemarle County, and the
said access is estimated to cost $624,000; and
WHEREAS, this request has been considered by the Director of the
Department of Conservation and Recreation and has been found to comply
fully with the provisions of Section 33.1-223; and
WHEREAS, the Director of the Department of Conservation and
Recreation has recommended the construction of the aforementioned
access.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that $350,000 from the 1989-90
Fiscal Year Recreational Access fund be allocated to construct the
access road within Southern Park in Albemarle County, Project
0880-002-244, M501, contingent upon
all necessary right of way and utility adjustments being
provided at no cost to the Commonwealth;
all eligible project costs between $250,000 and $450,000
being borne equally by Recreational Access Funds and
Albemarle County funds; and
any ineligible project costs and all eligible project costs
in excess of $450,000 being borne entirely by Albemarle
County; and
the execution of an appropriate contractual agreement
between Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of
Transportation to provide for the financing, design, con-
struction, and contract administration of this access
project.
AND, FURTHER the project constructed in accordance with this
resolution shall hereafter be known as a "Virginia Byway."
Agenda Item No. 4a. Request from Southern Family Practice, Inc., to
approve sale of present site of the Southside Health Center.
Mr. Tucker said that last February, the Board provided $12,000 to the
Southside Health Center, Inc., as part of an agreement between the Center and
the County, along with the Central Virginia Community Health Center whereby
the two health centers would purchase a centrally located site and construct
an enlarged facility in order to combine and expand health services to south-
ern Albemarle residents. The $12,000 came from rent paid over several years
to the County for use of a building on Route 627 near Yancey School.
The County received a HUD block grant in 1979 to develop the health
clinic. The requirements of that grant have been met, and there are no
Federal restrictions on the use or sale of t,he property, as long as the County
has participated in providing for the continuation of health services, which
was satisfied by the $12,000 appropriation.
The agreement provided for discontinued use of the current site when the
new facility became available. He explained that the new group is called the
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Southern Family Practice, and they have requested approval of the sale of the
present site with proceeds to be allocated to the new group to match Federal
grants for the new facility. Additionally, an office trailer at the present
site is requested for continued use at the new location.
Mr. Bowie, a member of the Building Committee, reported that the Building
Committee would like to see the old facility used for low to moderate income
housing. He recommended that staff be authorized to allow the Southern Family
Practice to dispose of the property to offset the County's contribution to the
new joint facility; and contact low income housing groups such as the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP).and the Charlottesville Housing
Improvement Program (CHIP) and give them opportunity to bid on the property.
Dr. Cary Moon addressed the Board and offered to answer any questions.
He said he concurs with the recommendation offered by Mr. Bowie.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Perkins to: 1)
authorize the sale with the proceeds allocated to match the federal grant; and
2) asked staff to ensure that low income housing groups be given a chance to
bid on the property. Mr. BoWie added that if the sale price of the house
exceeds the amount of the federal match, the excess amount should revert to
Albemarle County.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public hearing to consider adopting an ordinance to
make it unlawful to keep more than two inoperative motor vehicles, trailers or
semi-trailers on any property zoned for residential or commercial or agricul-
tural purposes, except within a fully enclosed building or structure or
otherwise shielded or screened from public view. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 5 and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. St. John said that this item could not be heard because the adver-
tisement was incomplete and did not state the correct substance of the ordi-
nance. According to the advertisement, an individual may keep any number of
inoperable vehicles on his property, as long as the vehicles are screened or
in an enclosed building. According to the proposed ordinance, an individual
may keep no inoperable vehicles, unless they are screened or in an enclosed
building, in which case, he may keep up to two inoperable vehicles.
Mr. St. John suggested that the ordinance as drafted be re-advertised and
scheduled for hearing at a later date. He also pointed out that new rules
will be coming from the Division of Motor Vehicles in the near future which
would have a bearing on collecting a bounty for the removal of cars under this
ordinance. He would rather review those rules before adopting the ordinance.
Mr. Way felt that those citizens who were present to speak as a result of
the advertisement for tonight should be heard by the Board. Therefore, he
opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Roger Stephens addressed the Board and said he is concerned that the
proposed ordinance would not recognize collectible vehicles. In other coun-
ties with similar ordinances, he said, there are judges who will not order the
removal of a vehicle like an inoperable 1966 Mustang, if the vehicle can be
documented to be restorable. Mr. Stephens said he thinks an individual should
be able to keep such inoperable vehicles on his property, if the vehicles can
be kept out of sight and the owner is careful to drain fluids and such that
could pollute the property. He said most owners and restorers of collectible
vehicles shelter the vehicles in an enclosed building, but store inoperable
used vehicle parts outside. He agrees that these vehicles should be screened,
but he thinks the ordinance goes too far in limiting the number of vehicles
that can be kept, even if they are screened.
Mr. Stephens said the proposed ordinance does not clearly state what
penalties an individual will face if he violates the ordinance. He said the
rates for towing vehicles vary widely; a property owner could be charged
anything from $25 to $200 for having an inoperable vehicle towed. Mr.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
Stephens said he thinks it is reasonable and practical for people who maintain
their homes and property to be protected from neighbors whose hobby may be all
too visible. Nevertheless, he thinks the proposed ordinance should address
the two points he mentioned: whether the inoperable vehicle is collectible
and how much an owner will be charged for having an inoperable vehicle re-
moved.
Mr. Harold Pillar addressed the Board and said he concurred with the
con~nents just made by Mr. Stephens. Mr. Pillar said he collects vehicles and,
among other cars, has a 1922 Cadillac, 1929 Franklin, a 1951 International
pick-up truck, all of which are inoperable. He said he has been restoring the
Franklin for 15 years. It has taken him so long because the parts are scarce
and expensive. He said he cannot afford to build a shelter to house all of
his cars. He said he has screened the cars from the road, but not from all
the adjoining landowners. He said his hobby is not hurting his neighbors. He
said he does not like the idea that any time his neighbors get mad at him,
they can call up the Zoning Administrator, who can then accuse him of violat-
ing the ordinance. He said Albemarle County is really two counties: one
heavily populated and the other much less populated. In areas that are not
heavily populated, he said, inoperable vehicles offend no one. Mr. Pillar
asked that the ordinance embody the idea that having inoperable vehicles may
be acceptable in some areas of the County.
Mr. Fred Gerke, a member of the Proffit Neighborhood Association, ad-
dressed the Board. Mr. Gerke said he owns property next to Mr. Roger Stephens
and he has never seen a classical car on this property. If the ordinance is
adopted, he said, he hopes it is scrupulously enforced, to keep people from
switching license plates or moving vehicles around on a lot in an attempt to
fool the zoning inspectors. Mr. Gerke said this ordinance will help preserve
the beauty of the County and protect its groundwater. He said the Proffit
Neighborhood Association spends hundreds of hours picking up litter along the
roads in the area. He said it is an insult to the community to have an
operating junkyard in the area. He said the Proffit Neighborhood Association
supports the proposed ordinance and asks that the Board consider the problem
of other junk-like materials, such as scrap construction materials. If it is
possible, Mr. Gerke said, the Association would like the proposed ordinance to
be even stronger and encompass more than inoperable vehicles.
Ms. Kitty Fisher, a resident of Proffit who lives across the road from
the Proffit Exchange, addressed the Board. She handed the Board photographs
of inoperable vehicles in the Proffit area. She said the County needs an
ordinance prohibiting inoperable vehicles that can be enforced.
Mr. Roger Stevens addressed the Board again and asked if he could correct
some allegations made about his business. Of the number of vehicles on his
property, he said, three are registered, inspected, licensed and insured
vehicles. He said one of the members of the Proffer Neighborhood Association
has seven inoperable Corvairs in his backyard that are visible from the road.
Mr. Stevens said he is being singled out simply because he owns the Proffit
Exchange, a point of contention in the area long before he bought the busi-
ness. He said he thinks the citizens speaking during this public hearing
should confine their remarks to the ordinance itself, rather than attacking
him.
Ms. Rosemary Sheuchenko, a representative of the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Clean Community Commission (CAC3), addressed the Board. She said
CAC3 has encouraged the County to enact this ordinance because there are
probably thousands of abandoned and inoperative vehicles littering the County.
She said there are also probably many citizens who would like to have an
inoperable vehicle removed, but they cannot afford the cost. Ms. Cheuchenko
said she has been working to set up a program called "From Rust to Recycling"
that would make it possible for citizens to have inoperable vehicles removed
free of charge. She said she has two contractors who have agreed to this
arrangement, the necessary forms from the VirginialDepartment of Motor Vehi-
cles (DMV) and a form for citizens to use to request the removal of an inoper-
able vehicle. She said the County Attorney and the Zoning Administrator have
reviewed this program, the Virginia DMV has conducted a public hearing on the
program and should send the Coun~ty an updated report soon, which should
clarify the details of the program.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
Since no one else wished to address the proposed ordinance, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
The Board agreed to re-advertise and reschedule this item after the DMV
rules have been reviewed. Mr. St. John said it is important that the County's
ordinance complies with these rules, otherwise the County forfeits the bounty
offered by the DMV of $50 per vehicle.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-89-16. J.W.K. Public hearing on a request to
amend Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to height re-
quirements in regard to certain architectural features. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 5 and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Background: In December 1987, the Board of Supervisors amended the
Zoning Ordinance to include 'agricultural museum' by special use
permit in the RA, Rural Areas, district. Special use permits were
approved to authorize the Albemarle Carriage Museum.
The museum had been designed without regard to height limitation of
the RA zone and in excess of limited exception permitted under section
4.10.3.2. Two successive variances were sought to section 10.4, Area
and Bulk Regulations, of the RA zone. Both variances were denied.
Applicant's Proposal: Staff discussed several alternative proposals
with the applicant intended to accommodate the carriage museum and
also outlined concerns regarding amending current regulation. Zoning
provisions currently limit the height of the structure to 42 feet.
The applicant proposes amendment to section 4.10.3.1 which would allow
a height of 100 feet.
More specifically, the applicant proposes to 'liberalize height
regulations with respect to certain aesthetically-effective architec-
tural features' The amendment would allow 'flexibility in permitting
certain architectural features which are designed for ornament and/or
historic authenticity primarily without substantially affecting size
of primary building or creating fire or other hazard'. The applicant
proposes the following amendment:
4.10.3.1 EXCEPTIONS--EXCLUDED FROM APPLICATION
The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to
barns, silos, farm buildings, residential chimneys, spi~es
and other subordinate architectural features of a structure,
flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cable;
smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower;
provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission
in a specific case, no such structure shall be located closer
in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure;
and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed 100
feet in height in a residential district. This height limita-
tion shall not apply to any of the above designated structures
now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements.
For the purpose of this section, the term "subordinate archi-
tectural feature" shall mean any part of a structure which is
clearly subordinate in size to the main part of the structure;
which is intended primarily for aesthetic effect; and which is
neither open to, nor accessible from, the interior of the main
part of the structure.
Current Provisions: In comment to the Zoning Administrator regarding
these provisions as related to one of the variances sought by the
applicant, the Planning staff stated that:
VA-89-40 JWK Properties, Inc.: to increase height of structure from
35 feet to 75 feet. Height regulations of the Zoning Ordinance were
developed in concert with a prior Fire Official and are based on fire
safety concerns as outlined in Section 4.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
A maximum height of 65 feet was established for more intensive resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial zones with knowledge that such
zoning districts would be restricted primarily to areas where public
water service was available and based on limitations of local fire
fighting capabilities (i.e. aerial equipment; breathing apparatus,
etc.). Local governing bodies, because of their knowledge of local
conditions and the needs of their individual communities, are allowed
wide discretion in the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinance
(Byrum v. Board of Supervisors, 217 Virginia 37, 225, 2nd 369 (1976)).
Therefore, should there be conflict between BOCA regulations and a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 32.7.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance discernible as to 'local conditions,' it would appear
that 'the most severe or stringent requirement or standard shall
prevail.' (Section 2.3 CONFLICTING ORDINANCE of the Zoning Ordi-
nance.)
Staff Comment: The remainder of the staff report will discuss various
issues related to the proposed amendment:
Statement of intent or 4.10 HEIGHT OF BUILDING AND OTHER STRUC-
TURES; Public purpose to be served by amending height regula-
tions; Implementation; Alternative actions.
Section 4.10 Height of Building and Other Structures is intended 'to
secure safety, to provide adequate light and air, and to protect the
character of districts and the interests of the general public.'
Regarding fire safety, the applicant has attempted to address the
issue with restriction that such portion of the structure would be
'neither open to, nor accessible from, the interior of the main part
of the structure'. This language is intended to restrict human access
to such areas but does not prohibit access. Prohibition of access may
be difficult to enforce if access to mechanical equipment and the like
is necessary for maintenance. Note that current Section 4.10.3.1
allows a height of 100 feet for structures not generally accessed by
humans except for maintenance (with the exception of certain farm
buildings). Section 4.10.3.2 allows only limited height exception for
features which are generally accessible to humans or open to the
interior of the building (i.e. - gable, penthouses, cupolas, scenery
lofts), and contains provisions expressly limiting access.
Under the applicant's proposal any architectural feature cited in
Section 4.10.3.2 would be permitted under Section 4.10.3.1. For
safety purposes, it would be appropriate to include the restrictive
language of Section 4.10.3.2 in the proposed provisions of Section
4.10.3.1.
As to provision of adequate light and air, as well as safety Section
4.10.3.1 currently requires that 'except as otherwise permitted by the
commission in a specific case, no such structure shall be located
closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure;
and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred
(100) feet in a residential district'
Regarding protection to the character of the various zoning districts
staff opinion is that the proposal would change the character of all
zoning districts by substantially broadening height limitation
restrictions. For example, a scenery loft coUld be established to a
height of 100 feet in any residential district.
Public Purpose to be Served is a consideration in any zoning text
amendment. As stated previously, the statement of intent for height
regulations includes consideration as to 'the interests of the general
public' which should be determined by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors.
One measure as to the public demand for change to the zoning ordinance
is in terms of variance petitions. For example, the Board of Super-
visors, largely in response to the number of sign variances reviewed
by the Board of Zoning Appeals, has directed staff to revise sign
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
provisions. Section 34.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states in part that:
'No variance shall be authorized unless the board of zoning appeals
finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the
intended use of the property is not of so general recurring a nature
as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regula-
tion to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.'
Since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1980, staff is aware of only
one other variance to building height (Hilton Hotel) to be reviewed by
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Therefore, as evidenced by variances,
staff can determine no general public demand for amending height
regulations.
Another measure of public purpose to be served is the extent to which
the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other
County policy. The issue is whether or not promotion of agricultural/
forestry as a policy statement outweighs negative aspects of this
proposal, and if so, can the request be confined as has been done for
working-farm buildings (i.e. silos, barns). That is to say, would
it be practical to simply add 'agricultural museum' to the list of
exempted structures?
Implementation: Under the applicant's proposed language, height
exemption would be available to a 'subordinate architectural feature'
of a building and the applicant also offers definition of the term.
The Zoning Administrator has no interest in introducing language which
would likely result in protracted debate.
As with certain other measures being discussed by the Board (Highway
Corridor Protection, Historic zoning district, Scenic Highways), this
provision could be more satisfactorily implemented through an Archi-
tectural Review Committee, which would be better prepared to deliber-
ate aesthetic and other architectural considerations.
Alternative Actions: This section of the report will summarize prior
comment in the form of three alternative actions.
l)
No Amendment - As stated earlier, staff is unable to determine
any public demand or public necessity to amend the height regula-
tions.
2)
Amendment as Proposed by Applicant While staff has not identi-
fied a demand for height exemption, it may be widely employed if
allowed. As proposed, the exemption would be available to any
use in any zoning district. The provision could be best imple-
mented through creation of an Architectural Review Committee and
in that regard, the proposal should be viewed as premature.
3)
Amendment Applicable only to 'Agricultural Museum' Histori-
cally, staff has opposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which
is arbitrarily tailored to serve one applicant or one situation,
particularly when the project can be designed to meet current
ordinance provisions. In this case, amendment for a particular
use (agricultural museum) may be appropriate if the Board finds
that: such action would promote the agricultural/forestal objec-
tives of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore serves a public
purpose as opposed to the proprietary interest of the applicant,
and/or museums are inherently tall structures so as to render
current height restriction inappropriate and unworkable.
Should the Board choose to pursue this alternative, staff would
recommend that this constitutes a change of circumstances which would
warrant re-evaluation of SP-87-98, Albemarle Carriage Museum.
In summary, staff cannot determine that the existing ordinance pro-
visions are incorrect, unduly restrictive, nor unworkable. There
appears to be no evidence of public demand to increase current height
limitations. While the museum itself may seem to support the Compre-
hensive Plan's intent to promote the agricultural/forestal industry,
this amendment does not appear to further support that intent.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
8
The Planning Commission deferred this zoning text amendment on Novem-
ber 9, 1989, to allow the applicant and staff further discussion of
the proposed amendment. The applicant's current proposal is similar
to Alternative 3 of the original staff report:
Amendment Applicable only to 'Agricultural Museum'. Histori-
cally, staff has opposed amendment to the zoning ordinance which
is arbitrarily tailored to serve one applicant or one situation,
particularly when the project can be designed to meet current
ordinance provisions. In this case, amendment for a particular
use (agricultural museum) may be appropriate if the Board finds
that: such action would promote the agricultural/forestal objec-
tives of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore serves a public
purpose as opposed to the proprietary interest of the applicant
and/or museums are inherently tall structures so as to render
current height restriction inappropriate and unworkable.
'Agricultural museum' is provided only by special use permit and only
within the Rural Areas zoning district. Section 31.2.4.3 permits the
Board among other things to impose special height limits in a particu-
lar case. Given this background, the following comments are offered
as to the applicant's revised proposal:
Section 4.10 Height of Buildings and Other Structures is intended
'to secure safety, to provide adequate light and air, and to
protect the character of districts and the interests of the
general public.' Each of these issues can be specifically
addressed during special use permit review. If the proposed use
does not satisfy (or cannot be made to satisfy) these concerns,
the special use permit can be disapproved as to increased height.
Implementation would not appear to be a problem since the pro-
posal would be applicable only to agricultural museum and design
issues could be addressed by the Planning Commission and Board
during special permit review.
o
Public purpose to be served: As stated earlier, the Planning
Commission and Board should determine whether or not the proposal
is consistent with, promotes, or is contrary to the agricultural
objective of the Comprehensive Plan. Simply stated, is it
appropriate to permit an agricultural museum to exceed normal
height limitation as has been done for barns, silos, and other
farm buildings. For example, a 'dairy museum' consisting of farm
buildings may require additional height in order to appear
authentic. This issue could be addressed on a case-by-case basis
through special use permit review.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this request, staff
would recommend that this constitutes a change of circumstance which
would warrant re-evaluation of SP-87-98 Albemarle Carriage Museum.
This approach would provide opportunity for the public to comment."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Novem-
ber 28, 1989, had unanimously recommended approval of this petition, but
noting that this change constituted a change in circumstance and, therefore,
the special permit should be reviewed again.
The public hearing was opened, and the applicant's representative, Mr.
Fred Payne, came forward to speak. He introduced Mr. John Williamson, an
employee of JWK Properties, and Mr. Bill Dagger, the architect. Mr. Payne
said the applicant is making this proposal to correct what he sees as an
oversight in the original zoning text amendment that permitted this use by
special use permit. Mr. Payne said the second draft of the applicant's
request was intended to respond to staff's concern that the first draft would
exclude too many types of structures from the height restrictions in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Payne said the museum will be fundamentally historical and agricul-
tural in character. It is intended to house and display historic wheeled
vehicles, such as carriages and other agricultural vehicles. When the Board
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
9
amended the Zoning Ordinance and issued the special use permit for this use,
he said, the Board determined that an agricultural museum of this sort was
consistent with the Rural Areas. He said the applicant has a remarkable
collection of vehicles and needs the right building to complement this collec-
tion. Mr. Payne said he considers this museum to be a "stable, frozen in
time". He pointed out that if the museum were filled with real horses,
instead of plastic ones, it would be classified as a farm structure and could
be built without amending the zoning text. Mr. Payne said this building would
not serve the purpose intended by the applicant unless it looked like a real
stable.
Mr. Payne said the proposed zoning text amendment would apply to one use
and one use only, an agricultural museum. Moreover, the amendment would be
applicable only to a certain kind of agricultural museum: an agricultural
museum that is indistinguishable from a farm building. Except for the cupola,
the museum would meet the Zoning Ordinance's height restrictions. He said the
cupola is architecturally necessary; otherwise, the museum will not be an
historically accurate representation of a stable. The size of the cupola is
important, too, because it was scaled to fit the size of the museum.
Mr. Doggett addressed the Board and showed drawings of the proposed
museum and cupola.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Cilimberg if approving this zoning text amendment
would mean the Board would have to approve requests for other museums in the
rural areas whose height equalled that of the museum and the cupola combined.
Mr. Cilimberg said this amendment could theoretically apply to such a case,
but the Board could decide that a structure has no relation to agriculture.
Mr. Payne said the Planning Commission anticipated the question raised by
Mr. Bowie. Mr. Payne said the Planning Commission also wished to make sure
that approving the zoning text amendment would not lead to the architect
designing a 300-foot cupola, instead of what is shown in the design. There-
fore, the Planning Commission advised that the Board should once again review
the special use permit.
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that this proPosed zoning text amendment
might allow taller buildings anywhere in the rural areas, provided the build-
ings are museums and look like barns. Mr. Cilimberg said the special use
process allows the Board legislative discretion.
(Mr. St. John left at 8:29 P.M.)
Mr. Payne said he would also like to address the issue of the public
purpose this zoning text amendment would serve. He said this museum clearly
promotes two of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance: the preservation of
the historical and agricultural character of the County. Mr. Payne said
members of the Planning Commission asked whether this museum would be a
private toy or open to the public. He said one of the conditions of the
special use permit requires this museum to be open to the public, so the
public can join in the celebration of the agricultural history of the County.
(Mr. St. John returned at 8:'42 P.M.).
The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has a problem with the approach taken by the
applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this request for a zoning text
amendment approaches special legislation. Nor does he think the museum looks
like a traditional, Albemarle County farm building~ Mr. Lindstrom said he
does not believe there will be another such application before the Board. If
the Board is interested in allowing these kinds of amendments, he thinks the
Board should approve the language originally proposed and establish an Archi-
tectural Review Board, which could decide other aesthetic issues. Mr.
Lindstrom said he cannot support the amendment as proposed, because he thinks
it is special legislation designed for nothing more than to allow this partic-
ular building to be constructed. For the amendment to be neutral, Mr.
Lindstrom continued, he thinks it must provide for an Architectural Review
Board to review all kind of structures in all kinds of zones to determine
whether these buildings fit the context of the structure and the environments
in which they are situated.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
lO
Mrs. Cooke asked if there is a way to allow the cupola on the museum
without changing the entire ordinance. She said she thinks the cupola must be
the height designed; otherwise, it will be out of proportion with the building
and would ruin the appearance of the entire structure. She said she does not
understand why the Board cannot deal with just this building and this cupola,
without having to change the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said the appli-
cant tried getting a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals under the
hardship clause; however, the BZA did not grant the variance. He said there
is no way to allow the applicant to build this building and cupola without
changing the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Payne asked that the Board consider this.amendment in the context of
the Zoning Ordinance as a whole. He said that zoning ordinances are intended
to be flexible; uses that were excluded in certain zones simply because they
were not considered can be added later, as "agricultural museum" was added to
the list of uses allowed by special use permit in'the rural areas. If this
use is appropriate to the rural areas, Mr. Payne said, he thinks the issue
should be whether the museum is built as it should be, or by a half-measure.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks if the issue is architecture, then the
Zoning Ordinance should be amended to establish an architectural review board,
because there will be other structures that do not fit the County's require-
ments. He said he does not see how the cupola promotes the agricultural and
forestal objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, although he thinks the museum
promotes those objectives. Nor does he believe that museums are inherently
tall structures, which might render the current height restrictions inappro-
priate.
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the County needs an architectural review
board, but establishing such a board would take time. She said this request
seems to her to be a small, technical matter, a matter simply of allowing the
applicant to erect a building with a cupola in proportion to the size of the
building. She said she appreciates the applicant's concern for aesthetics.
She asked if the Board must make the applicant wait until it establishes an
architectural review board or if there is some way the problem can be handled
now.
Mr. Lindstrom said the architect should have read the Zoning Ordinance
before he designed the museum. Mrs. Cooke said the size of the collection
dictated the scale and design of the museum. She said this rather trivial
matter should not occupy hours of the Board's time, if there is something the
Board can do, short of changing the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John said the
Board cannot handle this matter without changing the ordinance, even if it
establishes an architectural review board.
Mr. Way said he supports amending the ordinance as requested. Mrs. Cooke
agreed. Mr. Perkins said he also supported the application, commenting that
if the applicant had called this building a "barn" and not a "museum", he
would not have to appear before this Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to
adopt the amendment set out below as recommended by the Planning Commission
and recognizing that this zoning text change constituted a change in circum-
stance and, therefore, the special permit should be reviewed again.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mr. Lindstrom.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS,
SECTION 4.0 GENERAL REGULATIONS
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article II, Basic Regulations, Section 4.0, General
Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted
in Subsection 4.10.3.1 as follows:
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
4.10.3.1 EXCEPTIONS--EXCLUDED FROM APPLICATION
The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to
barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed
to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chim-
neys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers
and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television
antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permit-
ted by the commission in a specific case, no such structure
shall be located Closer in distance to any lot line than the
height of the structure; and, provided further that such
structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height
in a residential district. This height limitation shall not
apply to any of the above designated structures now or
hereafter located on existing public utility easements.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-89-17. Midmont Limited Partnership. Public
hearing on a request to rezone 6~4517 acres from R-1 Residential to R-4
Residential. Property on southwest side of Midmont Lane near the School of
Continuing Education. Tax Map 76, Parcel 3. Samuel Miller District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on December 5 and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. St. John said a question had been raised as to whether the applicant
has legal standing to make this application. In his opinion, the applicant
has the right to make this application, and it would not be appropriate for
that legal question to be addressed at this point., He said if the lawyers for
both sides wished to submit documents supporting ~heir views to the County
Attorney, they could do so. However, he suggested to the Board that the
discussion tonight be limited strictly to the application and not to the legal
question of standing.
There was no objection from the Board to Mr. St. John's suggestion.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This property is surrounded on the north,
west and south by the University of Virginia (R-i) and on the east by
the St. Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic Church. The site itself con-
tains a single-family residence which was originally built circa 1760.
Several additions have been made to the two-story brick structure.
The grounds and gardens consiSt of a series of terraces and contain
important specimens of oak trees and English/American boxwoods, some
dating back an estimated 300 years.
The immediate house site is relatively level, but both moderate to
severe slopes (25 percent or greater) are evidenced on the property as
well as the presence of a creek which traverses the southern half of
the site.
Midmont Lane and Kent Road converge at a single point at the inter-
section with Alderman Road.
Past History: On two occasions in 1988, the applicant submitted
Zoning Map Amendment requests for this site. ZMA-88-24 was withdrawn
and ZMA-88-28/SP-88-11 were unanimously denied by the Board of Super-
visors. These rezoning requests were for R-10 and C-I/R-10 zoning
respectively.
The property has been included in the Lewis Mountain/University
Heights Neighborhood Study for the City/County/University of Virginia
Planning & Coordination Council (not yet adopted as an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan). This study recommends the preservation of
the existing historic site and natural characteristics in development.
Low density residential uses (not exceeding four dwelling units per
acre) or housing for 40 to 60 students would be appropriate, as long
as the development complements existing site characteristics. The
Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County shows the site to be located
within Urban Neighborhood 6 and makes reference to the Lewis Mountain
Neighborhood Study for the development of this property.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
3_2
Applicants' Proposal: The applicant proposes the construction of 26
housing units, clustered in possibly four buildings. A portion of the
site will be reserved as common open space. Included in the plan are
52 parking spaces for use of residents and guests.
The applicant, by letter dated October 20, 1989, addresses several
issues raised during the review of this proposal and offers proffers
relative and specific to this development.
Site Analysis:
Current Zoning and Proposed Uses" As stated in prior staff
report for ZMA-88-28, existing R-l, Residential Zoning, may not
provide appropriate use of the property based on surrounding
development (residential, public/semi-public uses). The proposed
rezoning to R-4, Residential, is preferred to other potentially
more intense development and is consistent with the recommenda-
tions found in the Lewis Mountain/University Heights Neighborhood
study.
Environmental Impact: In addition to historical concerns, two
other important elements of the site are: 1) the stream and 2)
critical slopes. The unnamed stream bisects the property and
continues to Emmet Street. The area known as 'The Dell', which
runs adjacent to the Education School, is subject to flooding.
However, the extent and cause of the flooding is presently
unknown. Development of the site will be subject to the
Stormwater Detention Ordinance which requires no increase in the
rate of run-off after development.
Two areas of critical slopes exist on the site. However, the
precise extent of those slopes are not yet determined. Staff
will recommend that no development be allowed to occur in areas
of critical slope.
Staff recognizes that the current development proposal seems to
protect the critical slopes located on the site.
Preservation of an Historic Resource: The applicant has stated
that it is doubtful whether the two story brick residence can be
preserved due to extensive deterioration of the structure over
the ensuing years. The house has been modified, enlarged and
changed significantly over the years to render it not histor-
ically significant. However, it is staff.opinion that major
natural vegetation resources abound on the site and that these
should be preserved. There are several large trees and boxwoods
dating back 75 to 300 years. This major amenity should not be
destroyed or significantly disturbed.
Comments from the City of Charlottesville dated October 6, 1989, state
'proposed development demolishes the existing house which is contrary
to the Three Party Agreement as outlined in the Lewis Mountain Neigh-
borhood Study which called for preservation of the historic site'
Traffic Impact: Development under existing R-1 zoning would
typically produce approximately 60 vehicle trips per day. The
proposed development of 26 residential housing units could
produce a total of 260 vehicle trips per day. Although traffic
counts for Midmont Lane are unavailable, the current average
daily traffic on Alderman Road is 8230 trips per day.
The intersection of Alderman Road, Kent Road and Midmont Lane is a
major traffic problem due to such factors as minimal sight distance
caused by the curve at the hilltop on Alderman Road in the direction
of Ivy Road. Toward the University, sight distance is hampered by the
parallel parking allowed in front of St. Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic
Church. No traffic study has been provided as to existing conditions
or the impact of this development on the intersection.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
13
Comments from the City of Charlottesville dated October 6, 1989, state
'the proposed zoning of 26 units will generate a significant amount of
traffic on Alderman Road where visibility is minimal due to the
curvature of the road. We think it will be necessary to have a
traffic light on this intersection, which should be proffered by the
applicant if the County decides to approve the application'
The Virginia Department of Transportation states: 'This request would
result in an increase in traffic from that anticipated under the
current zoning. The direct access to this property is to roads within
the City of Charlottesville. There should be no direct impact on any
State maintained roads from this request'
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: Although the residential
neighborhood is not an immediate or abutting land use, the
development of this site would not have a direct impact on the
residential area. Access to the surrounding residential neighbor-
hood is provided by Alderman Road, not Midmont Lane. The develop-
ment of Midmont will be an 'internal' as opposed to an 'external'
development.
Availability of Utilities: Planned public water improvements
(1989) will provide adequate domestic and fireflow water. Public
sewer is available, but the exact capacity is currently unknown.
Impact on Schools: The proposed development could increase the
public school system enrollment by five elementary, three middle
and four high school students.
Additional Comments from the City of Charlottesville and Mr.
Hartwell Gary.
From the City of Charlottesville
Natural Environment: The proposed development is contrary to the
Three Party Agreement if the natural characteristics of the land
are not preserved as called for in the Lewis Mountain
Neighborhood Study recommendations.
Neighborhood View: Meetings with the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood
residents indicate that they would support the position stated in
the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study which calls for four units
per acre, and preservation of existing historic sites and the
natural characteristics. They are also concerned about the
traffic on Alderman Road.
From Mr. Hartwell Gary
A letter from Mr. Hartwell G. Gary, III, to staff, dated Octo-
ber 6, 1989, raised concerns relative to ownership of the pro-
perty relating to the applicant, the intensity of the proposed
development, preservation of the residence, and concerns relative
to the number of bedrooms per unit and the number of unrelated
individuals residing in each unit.
Applicant's Proffers: The applicant has proffered the following
conditions with the petition, in accordance with Section 15.2.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
Section 15.2.1.4 - The applicant proffers that the housing
density on the project will not exceed 26 single-family attached
cluster residential units of not more than three bedrooms in each
unit.
The applicant proffers that the general character of the site and
specimen trees of eight inches caliper or greater, four inches or
greater caliper boxwood trees, and those additional areas identi-
fied as natural protection zones on the attached plan will be
preserved.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
The applicant proffers to participate with Albemarle County and
the City of Charlottesville in the necessary traffic study and
traffic improvements to the Midmont Lane/Alderman Road inter-
section, including the installation of a traffic light at that
intersection if it is deemed appropriate by the study and the
authorities having jurisdiction. The applicant proffers to
contribute to the cost of the study and traffic improvements on a
pro rata basis using relative traffic volUmes and for an amount
not to exceed $25,000.
The public benefit derived from the applicant's proffers restrict the
site to 26 single-family attached cluster dwellings of not more than
three bedrooms each. This proffer conforms to the Lewis Mountain
Study recommendation of medium density residential.
The second proffer provides for the preservation of specimen trees and
boxwoods and an area designated as a natural protection zone. This
not only enhances the site itself, but also the surrounding neighbor-
hood and protects a part of the natural environment that may otherwise
be lost.
The proffer relating to the applicant's pro rata contribution toward a
traffic study and possible signalization of the intersection of
Midmont Lane/Kent Road/Alderman Road aids in the protection against
possible traffic accidents by those traversing Alderman Road.
Item Not Proffered: The uncertain preservation relating to the
historic residence is a matter yet to be resolved. The applicant
states that the property exhibits serious structural defects which may
prevent preservation of the structure. Until and unless the structur-
al analysis of the building is prepared, staff cannot speak to the
preservation of the building.
Conclusion: While the proposed rezoning increases the overall density
of the site over present zoning allowances, staff is of the opinion
that the proposed development conforms to the County's Comprehensive
Plan, and recommendations of the Lewis Mountain/University Heights
Neighborhood Study.
Despite the lack of definitive data relating to the preservation of
the historic building, staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-17."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9,
1989, unanimously recommended approval subject to ~the three proffers set out
in the staff's report and a fourth reading: "The applicant proffers that the
1700's section of the house will be submitted to the State Architectural
Historian and will work with him to determine a suitable plan for preservation
of the house section. The applicant proffers to follow these guidelines and
preservation plan, if any."
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has received a letter from Mr. Jeff O'Dell,
Architectural Historian for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
dated December 8, 1989. Mr. O'Dell stated in the letter that the entire
structure of Midmont, not just the portion built in the eighteenth century, is
historically and architecturally significant and should be preserved. Accord-
ing to the letter, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources believes "it
would be a mistake to preserve only the original unit ... the house represents
a 150-year historical and architectural continuUm. The north wing has his-
toric associations of its own; for example, it was standing when a detachment
of Sheridan's troops raided the farm in 1864". Mr. Cilimberg said he believes
that Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, who represents the applicant, is prepared to amend
the last proffer to reflect the State's concern with the entire structure.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the locations of the structures planned by the
applicant will have to change from what is shown on the site plan, if the
applicant plans to preserve the entire Midmont buildings. Mr. Cilimberg
agreed.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page t5)
Mr. Bain asked if there is enough space at the intersection of Alderman
Road and Midmont Lane to build both a right- and a left-turn lane. Mr.
Cilimberg said he does not know. He said the intersection lies in the City,
and City officials have not yet indicated whether these turns lanes could be
incorporated or would be desirable. Mr. Bain said this area has major traffic
problems.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Kurt Wassenaar came forward to
speak. He submitted documents to Mr. St. John concerning the issue of stand-
ing. Mr. Wassenaar said he and the applicant have developed a proposal they
believe is in keeping with the recommendations of the Lewis Mountain Study and
the City. In fact, he said, this proposal would result in a lower density
than called for in the Lewis Mountain Study.
Mr. Wassenaar said one of the partners in the Midmont Limited Partnership
is the daughter of the late owner of Midmont. He said the Partnership there-
fore feels a commitment to preserve the historical integrity of whatever parts
of the property are deemed historically valuable. Mr. Wassenaar said the
Partnership considers that the landscape with its boxwoods and trees is
essential to the character of the site, and this landscape will be preserved.
The Partnership will consult with the State's Architectural Historian to
develop a plan for the preservation of the building. Since the Architectural
Historian has determined that the entire structure should be preserved, Mr.
Wassenaar said, the Partnership has no objection to amending the final proffer
to eliminate the words "1700's section of the". Mr. Wassenaar said the
Partnership does not yet have a plan for the preservation of this house and
anticipates there will be many questions about the details, which can be
handled by the State Architectural Historian without burdening the County.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that Mr. O'Dell's letter states that the landscaped
setting of the house is also historically significant. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the applicant intends to incorporate into the proffer just amended, language
stating that the landscape, setting and the house will be preserved as part of
the preservation plan. Mr. Wassenaar said he would be happy to make this
change.
Mr. Bowie said the use of the word "house" in the final proffer seems
vague. He suggested using more specific language to make it clear that the
Midmont residence is the structure that will be preserved. Mr. Wassenaar
agreed. Mr. Bowie asked if this proffer meant that the Midmont residence
would be preserved, no matter what the cost. Mr. Wassenaar said "yes". He
said his understanding of the proffer is that the Partnership would submit the
project to the State Architectural Historian, who would determine what was
appropriate to preserve and how best to preserve it. Mr. Wassenaar said that
Mr. O'Dell has decided that some form of preservation is desirable for the
entire structure and the site. Mr. Wassenaur said that "preservation" is a
rather broad term; the Partnership will attempt to preserve the house and its
architectural character. He said the details of this preservation are techni-
cal and in some cases, unknown at this early pointI in the venture.
Mr. Cilimberg said the members of the Site Plan Review Committee will
carefully examine the site plan to determine whether it adheres to the recom-
mendations of the State Architectural Historian and the intent of the proffer.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant will agree to the following revision
of Proffer #4: "The applicant proffers that the Midmont residence will be
submitted to the Architectural Historian and will work with him to determine a
suitable plan for the preservation of the house and yard and large shade trees
immediately surrounding the house. The applicant proffers to follow these
guidelines and preservation plan, if any." The applicant indicated "yes"
Mr. David Westby of the University Real Estate Foundation came forward to
speak. He said the Real Estate Foundation has a half-interest in the property
and has exercised its option on the property. He said the Real Estate Founda-
tion does not support the request for rezoning and, if the Foundation becomes
the sole owner, it would prefer that the requested ~oning not be in effect.
The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Bain referred to the proffer concerning road improvements and asked
if the proffer would stand if the City decided not to participate in a traffic
study of and improvements to the Midmont Lane/Alderman Road intersection. Mr.
St. John said the proffer would be impossible to Perform if the City did not
participate in the traffic study and improvements. He said the Board would
have to decide whether such an impossibility would render the rezoning
invalid. Mr. St. John suggested that the Board state its intent concerning
the rezoning if this proffer proved to be impossible to perform. Unless the
Board states its intent, Mr. St. John said, and the City does not participate
as planned, he thinks the applicant would be discharged of any obligation to
carry out the proffer, and the rezoning would stand as approved.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Bain believes that the project should go ahead
if this particular proffer cannot be fulfilled. Mr. Bain said "yes". Mr. St.
John said he thinks this would be the result unless the Board stated other-
wise.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
ZMA-89-17 with the four proffers, including the amendment to No. 4 offered by
the applicant tonight.
Mr. Bain said he thinks this proposal accords with the Lewis Mountain
Neighborhood Study and will preserve the Midmont residence and the landscape
of the site. Nor does he think this proposal will have a negative impact on
the City.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not sure how the legal dispute over the property
will be resolved. If the use of this parcel must be intensified, he said, he
thinks this proposal is an appropriate use. Mr. Lindstrom thinks this pro-
posal calls for the most intensive use possible that is also consistent with
the nature and location of the property.
Mr. Bowie agreed with the comments made by Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there were verbal proffers to eliminate
certain uses.
Mr. Lindstrom amended his motion to approve ZMA-89-17 with the proffers
described in the letters dated October 30 and November 2, 1989, addressed to
Mr. James C. Bosworth, Jr., Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Commu-
nity Development, from Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, General Partner, Midmont Limited
Partnership, Agent, Ms. Elsie Chamberlain Larsen; and as proffered by Mr.
Wassenaar at the Planning Commission on November 9, 1989; and proffers ver-
bally amended and clarified by Mr. Wassenaar, at the December 20, 1989, Board
of Supervisors meeting, as set out below. Mr. Bowie seconded the amended
motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
1. Section 15.2.1.1. Proffer Out;
2. Section 15.2.1.2 Proffer Out;
Section 15.2.1.4. The applicant proffers that the housing
density on the project will not exceed 26 single family attached
cluster residential units of not more than three bedrooms in each
unit;
4. Section 15.2.1.12 Proffer Out;
The applicant proffers that the general character of the site and
specimen trees of eight inch caliper or greater, four inch or
greater caliper boxwood trees, and those additional areas identi-
fied as natural protection zones on the attached plan wilt be
preserved;
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
The applicant proffers to participate with Albemarle County and
the City of Charlottesville in the necessary traffic study and
traffic improvements to the Midmont Lane/Alderman Road
intersection, including the installation of a traffic light at
that intersection if it is deemed appropriate by the study and
the authorities having jurisdiction. The applicant proffers to
contribute to the cost of the study and traffic improvements on a
pro rata basis using relative traffic v61umes and for an amount
not to exceed $25,000;
The applicant proffers that the Midmont residence will be submit-
ted to the State Architectural Historian and will work with him
to determine a suitable plan for preservation of the house
section and preservation of the yard and large shade trees
immediately surrounding the house. The applicant proffers to
follow these guidelines and preservation plan, if any.
(The Board recessed at 9:35 P.M. and reconvened at 9:52 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-75. Astec. Public hearing on a request to
allow for production and testing of liquid chromatography columns. Property
located at intersection of Routes 1101 and 742 on the northwest corner. Tax
Map 77E2, Parcel 4. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on December 5 and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Staff Con~nent
Past History: On February 6, 1985, the Board of Supervisors unani-
mously approved Astec's request (SP-85-01), to locate a pharmaceutical
laboratory and product facility in a 10,000 square foot building. The
request was approved with five conditions.
Current Status: Unogen, the company for which the original special
use permit was issued, is moving its operation to another site.
Biotage, Inc. would utilize the space being vacated by Unogen, Inc.
with a similar laboratory use. The request by Biotage, Inc. would
allow for the production and testing of liquid chromatography
columns. Production will consist of packing alumina products in 25
cm stainless steel chromatographic columns. Testing will involve
the use of small .pumps and solvents in standard analytical
laboratory procedures.
The Certified Engineer's Report on Performance Standards dated Octo-
ber 5,1989 has been endorsed by the County Engineering Department.
Staff recommends that, with appropriate conditions of approval, the
criteria for issuance of a special use permit can be satisfied (Sec-
tion 31.2.4.1). Staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
This special use permit is issued to thelapplicant for Biotage,
Inc. Any change in occupancy subject to Section 27.2.2.1 shall
require amendment of this special use permit;
Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority approval prior to discharge to sanitary sewer system;
Ail chemicals listed in Appendix A of the Certified Engineer's
report on Performance Standards shall be secured in a manner to
prohibit vandalism; and
Approval is based on compliance with performance standards as
submitted by Biotage, Inc., prepared by Pleasants Associates,
Inc. dated October 5, 1989. Any changes or modifications gov-
erned by these standards shall be approved by the County Engineer
who, at his discretion, may defer such approval to the Board of
Supervisors.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 5,
1989, had unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the
four conditions recommended by staff and adding a fifth condition to read:
"An erosion control bond shall be posted to insure the seeding of Crown Vetch
in accordance with the site plan amendment dated November 28, 1989. The bond
shall be posted prior to occupancy of Biotage, Incorporated and the seeding
shall be completed by May 15, 1990."
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Christine Connery, representing the applicant, came forward to speak.
She said Biotage, Inc. packages products used to separate and purify certain
compounds. Hospitals, and other clients, use these products to test for drugs
in blood and fluid. She said Biotage, Inc. will not manufacture these prod-
ucts on site, merely test and package them.
Since no one else wished to speak to this apPlication, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve
SP-89-75 with the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission in a
letter of December 14, 1989, to Astec, and set out in full below. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:
This special use permit is issued to the applicant for Biotage,
Inc. Any change in occupancy subject to Section 27.2.2.1 shall
require amendment of this special use permit;
me
Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority approval prior to discharge to sanitary sewer system;
Ail chemicals listed in Appendix A of the Certified Engineer's
report on Performance Standards shall be secured in a manner to
prohibit vandalism; and
Approval is based on compliance with performance standards as
submitted by Biotage, Inc., prepared by Pleasants Associates,
Inc. dated October 5, 1989. Any changes or modifications gov-
erned by these standards shall be approved by the County
Engineer who, at his discretion, may defer such approval to the
Board of Supervisors.
An erosion control bond shall be posted to insure the seeding
of Crown Vetch in accordance with the site plan amendment dated
November 28, 1989. The bond shall be posted prior to occupancy
of Biotage, Incorporated and the seeding shall be completed by
May 15, 1990."
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-85. Burger Busters, Inc. Public hearing on a
request for a fast food restaurant with a drive through window. Property on
east side of Rt 29 N between Albemarle Square and Woodbrook Village. Tax Map
45, Parcels 104 & 104B. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 5 and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as followB:
"Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a fast
food restaurant with a drive-through window facility. The applicant
states as justification for this request 'the use is compatible with
adjacent uses, and concerns relating to access have been satisfied
in previous special use permits (i.e., SP-87-93)'
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
19
Staff Comment: In 1984, staff proposed an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance requiring any use proposing a drive-through window facili-
ty to be permitted only by special permit. The amendment was
prompted by concerns of internal traffic circulation and high
traffic volumes generated by drive-through facilities.
The original site design submitted with the special use permit
application was discussed with the applicant. In staff's opinion,
the traffic circulation pattern could be improved with minor adjust-
ment to the site plan. A meeting was held with the applicant and
staff to discuss these items in order to assist in making the
special use permit acceptable. The applicant agreed to redesign the
original submittal (site plan) as requested by staff.
It is staff's opinion that this petition is in general harmony with
the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, it is
recommended that approval be granted, subject to the following
conditions:
The applicant shall submit a site plan which is in general
accord with the attached conceptual design which shall include:
A defined traffic circulation plan showing points of
ingress, egress and directional traffic flow; and
Landscaping to include one additional interior tree (a
total of 11) and additional screening along Route 29 North
to include either a double row of screening shrubs planted
ten feet on center or a double row 'of street shrubs
planted five feet on center. The Variety should be
evergreens such as azaleas or boxwood, not low spreading
varieties such as yews. If street shrubs are used, they
should be 18 inches to 30 inches in height when planted."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9,
1989, unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to the condi-
tions set out in the staff's report:
Mr. Bain noted that the site plan shows the parking lot lying ten feet
from the property line. He asked if this means the edge of the pavement for
the parking lot will be ten feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Cilimberg said
"yes". Mr. Bain said parked cars could overhang the parking lot and be closer
than ten feet to the property line. Mr. Cilimberg said barriers could be
built around the parking lot to insure that vehicles were ten feet from the
property line.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of a corridor protection plan. Mr.
Cilimberg reported that work is being done between the City and the County in
order to jointly adopt a protection plan. He said that design analysis
regarding architecture and the lay-out of development along corridors requires
expertise that staff does not have.
Mrs. Cooke said she assumes the corridor protection plan will establish a
landscape review committee to study shrubs suitable for landscaping busi-
nesses, rather than screening them. Mr. Cilimberg said this could be part of
the plan.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Green, representing the applicant, came forward to speak. He
said that Burger Busters, Inc. has complied with the staff's recommendations
and he asked the approval of the Board.
The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mrs. Cooke asked if any members of the Woodbrook Homeowners' Association
or other residents of the area have objected to this application. Mr.
Cilimberg said "no".
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
2O
Motion was offered by Mrs. ~Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve
SP-89-85 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and set
out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The applicant shall submit a site plan which is in general
accord with the attached conceptual design which shall include:
mo
A defined traffic circulation plan showing points of
ingress, egress and directional traffic flow; and
Landscaping to include one additional interior tree (a
total of 11) and additional screening along Route 29 North
to include either a double row of screening shrubs planted
ten feet on center or a double row of street shrubs
planted five feet on center. The variety should be
evergreens such as azaleas or boxwdod, not low spreading
varieties such as yews. If street shrubs are used, they
should be 18 inches to 30 inches in height when planted.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-89-17. Public hearing on an amendment to
Section 36.1., Violations, of the Zoning Ordinance. Add violations of condi-
tions of approval of site plans as unlawful and subject to appropriate action
by the Zoning Administrator. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 5
and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Board had passed.a resolution of intent to
amend Section 36.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to make violations of conditions of
conditional rezonings, special use permits or site plans a misdemeanor. He
said staff recommends adoption of this amendment in order to enforce the
Zoning Ordinance more effectively.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Novem-
ber 28, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of this amendment as submitted.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public
present to speak concerning this matter, the public hearing was immediately
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt
ZTA-89-17 by adopting the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
ARTICLE V, VIOLATION AND PENALTY
SECTION 36.0, VIOLATIONS,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article V, Violation and Penalty, Section 36.0,
Violations, of the Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted
in Subsection 36.1 as follows:
36.1 Violations Generally
Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions of
this ordinance or contrary to any condition imposed upon
any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use permit
or approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or
land which is conducted, operated or maintained contrary
to any of the provisions of this ordinance or any condi-
tion imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
special use permit or approval of a site plan, shall be a
violation of this ordinance and the same is hereby de-
clared to be unlawful. The zoning administrator may
initiate injunction, mandamus, abatement, criminal warrant
or any other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate
or remove such erection or use in violation of any provi-
sion of this ordinance.
21
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-89-96. Christian Retreats. Public hearing to
mllow a private school and church building on 13.356 acres. Property,
described as Tax Map 70, Parcel 22, is located on the north side of Rt. 692,
approximately three-fourths of a mile from the intersection of Route 691 and
Route 692. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 5 and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The area immediately surrounding the site
consists of larger residential sites and farms. Although some
portions of the surrounding areas are in the Yellow Mountain Agri~
cultural/Forestal classification, this site and surrounding proper-
ties are not. The site contains the main dwelling and out-
buildings.
Staff Comment: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires
the Board of Supervisors to make findings that the proposed use will
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property; will not
change the character of the district; and will be in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
As to zoning, staff views certain uses as beneficial to the social
fabric of the community. The Zoning Ordinance provides for a
category of such uses by special use permit in the Rural Areas zone
and all residential zoning districts. This category includes day
care/nursery school facilities, churches, and private schools. Such
uses are reviewed by staff in terms of physical impact on the area.
The Health Department will require a new welt and septic system to
be installed for the new building. With a student population of up
to thirty pupils, utility demand will be less than for a standard
three bedroom dwelling. The Inspections Department will require
that buildings employed for school usage shall be made to conform to
all current codes.
Two primary physical impacts caused by this use will be increased
traffic and outdoor recreational activities. The location and
extent of outdoor recreational facilities can be reviewed by staff
at the time of site plan approval. There appears to be ample
acreage for some outdoor facilities.
With 30 students and anticipated staff, maximum traffic would be 140
vehicle trips per day. Secondary count showed traffic on Route 692
is 344 vehicle trips per day. While this use would increase daily
traffic, such increase is inherent in the nature of day care,
church, and private school use. This section' of Route 692 is
currently tolerable. Virginia Department of Transportation has
recommended the widening and upgrading of these two entrances as
they do not have sufficient width to accommodate two-way traffic and
do not have adequate radii for commercial entrances.
Staff Summary and Recommendation: It is staff's opinion that this
petition will not Significantly alter the general character of the
area, that the request for a special use permit is in general
harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, and the
public benefit derived will be of a positive nature. Therefore,
staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
not transferable;
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
2. Enrollment limited to 30 students;
3. Administrative approval of site plan approval to include:
a. County Engineer approval under Runoff Control Ordi-
nance to include all impervious coverage on site;
b. Health Department approval;
c. Fire Official approval; and
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
commercial entrance.
4. Building shall be constructed with brick face in accor-
dance with the schematic side elevation sketch submitted
October 27, 1989.
22
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 5,
1989, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-96 subject to the conditions
set out in the staff's report:
Mr. Bain asked if staff or VDoT considered the possibility of building a
left-turn lane from Route 692 to the entrance of the Retreat. Mr. Cilimberg
said that VDoT investigated the site and the traffic count and did not suggest
adding a turn lane. Mr. Bain pointed out that this proposal would increase
traffic on Route 692 by 40 percent and he does not think this is a good
section of roadway. Mr. Bain said he would like to know how much traffic
there would have to be before VDoT considered a left-turn lane necessary.
The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Bob French, President of
Christian Retreats and Pastor of Oakleigh Church, came forward to speak. Mr.
French said he does not understand how VDoT arrived at the figure of 140 trips
a day. At the moment, he said, there are only six children attending the
school and four teachers and he does not think they generate 140 vehicle trips
per day. Mr. French calculated that the school would generate about 40
vehicle trips per day. He said he agreed that the school and church building
would need one commercial entrance, but adding a second commercial entrance
would involve moving a stone wall and cutting down several stately pine trees.
He questioned the need for two commercial entrances. He proposed that one
entrance remain a private entrance and retain its iron gates and country-
estate character. Nor does he wish to close the gates and shut off the second
entrance. He asked that the Board not require two commercial entrances until
he has met with representatives from VDoT, studied their data and seen for
himself that two commercial entrances are needed.
Mr. Bain noted that the proposed conditions to the special use permit
limit the school's enrollment to 30 students. He asked Mr. French if there
would eventually be this many students at the school. Mr. French said this
was probably a high figure for what will be a low-key school with no paid
staff. He said he does not anticipate this school becoming a St. Anne's-
Belfield.
The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks the difficulty with the entrances can
probably be worked out during site plan review. Mr. Cilimberg said any
entrance to this facility will have to be a commercial entrance, but he thinks
it may be possible to have just one entrance. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the
number of students would affect the need for a commercial entrance. Mr.
Cilimberg said "no".
Mr. Bain said he believes thirty students may be too many for a small
school in the rural areas. However, he said, it may be a long time before the
school's enrollment approaches this figure.
Mr. Lindstrom said he will support the motion, because this use is
adjunct to an existing use.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 23
(Page 23)
Motion was then offered by Mr, Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
SP-89-96 with the four conditions and recommended by the Planning Commission,
as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
1. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is not
transferable;
2. Enrollment limited to 30 students;
3. Administrative approval of site plan approval to include:
a. County Engineer approval under Runoff Control Ordinance to
include all impervious coverage on site;
b. Health Department approval;
c. Fire Official approval; and
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance.
4. Building shall be constructed with brick face in accordance with the
schematic side elevation sketch submitted October 27, 1989.
Agenda Item No. 12. Southside Health Center. Moved to Agenda Item No.
4a.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adopt Resolution to Support Use of Section 8 Moder-
ate Rehabilitation Financing for Housing Project in Scottsville.
Mr. Tucker said the Code of Virginia requires that the Virginia Housing
Development Authority seek approval from the Board for the Jordan Development
Foundation's proposal for the 01d Scottsville School. Mr. Tucker recommended
that the Board approve by resolution the housing project for the elderly.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
Jordan Development Foundation's proposal as set out in the following resolu-
tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, Jordan Development Corporation has proposed a multi-
family residential housing development for the elderly located at
the southwest intersection of Page Street and Bird Street (01d
Scottsville School); and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Housing Development Authority is consid-
ering the financing of the project;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereby certifies its support of this
development project.
Agenda Item No. 14. Lickinghole Creek Basin
Development.
Fee Schedule for
Mr. Tucker said this item had been deferred from December 13, 1989 so
that staff could answer questions posed by Mr. Bowie and Mr. Perkins regarding
concerns over the Lickinghole Creek Basin. He said those answers were dis-
tributed to the Board, and staff is available to answer any further questions
the Board might have. The following is excerpted from a special report
prepared by Mr. J. W. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, dated
December 15, 1989, which is on file in the Clerk's office.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
24
Several questions concerned the cost and efficiency of the proposed
basin. Information from a subsurface geologic survey will be required before
staff can estimate the cost of the final design. E. O. Gooch has been con-
tracted to obtain the necessary subsurface information; this survey should be
complete by the end of December. The cost of the project can then be estimat-
ed by early 1990. The County's share of the Lickinghole project is currently
listed in the CIP as $1.97 million. Gloeckner and Osborne, who have been
retained to design the facility, estimated a cost of $1,180,327 in April,
1988, for a concrete ogee overflow dam. Further delays will jeopardize the
$300,000 available in grant funds from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and will also increase the costs for constr~ction. Information on funds
expended to date indicates that $7506 has been spent on engineering and design
of the facility.
The cost of maintaining the detention basin is estimated to be between
$300 and $500 per acre. Given a pond acreage of 28.88 acres for a dam loca-
tion at site "C" and normal pool elevation of 522 feet, this translates to
$8644 to $14,000 annually.
Mr. Bowie had asked why of three sites "A", "B", and "C", the most
expensive site was chosen. Site "C" was chosen because dams at sites "A" and
"B" would have encroached onto the railroad embankment. Site "B" was favored
over "A" because "B" offered a larger storage volume. Site "B" was then
eliminated due to the strike of rock at that location, which presented geolog-
ical problems.
Two different studies were applied to estimate the efficiency of the
proposed Lickinghole impoundment. The Driscoll study concluded that the basin
would retain 71 percent of the Total Suspended So~ids (TSS) and 45 percent of
the Total Phosphorus (TP). According to the Brune study, the basin would
retain 52 percent of the TSS and 11 percent of the TP. Both of these studies
assume the basin would lie at an elevation of 522 feet. The County Engineer-
ing Department concluded: "Empirical data suggest that an impoundment with a
29-acre pool (elevation 522 feet at Site "C") could remove up to 45 percent of
the total phosphorous on a long term basis".
Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowie had asked staff to compare the efficiency of
the proposed Lickinghole impoundment with that of individual, on-site deten-
tion basins. F. X. Browne Associates, Inc., analyzed four subregional basins
in comparison with the Lickinghole impoundment and demonstrated that the
Lickinghole basin reduced loadings of phosphorous and sediment more so than
did the four subregional basins. On-site basins may be more efficient in
terms of trap efficiency, but the net reduction in loadings is not as great.
An analysis of the Lickinghole basin coupled with on-site facilities has not
been completed. Maintaining and inspecting a regional facility is administra-
tively much simpler than numerous basins.
Mr. Lindstrom said there were several points in the report he wishes to
discuss concerning the efficiency of the impoundment. He noted that the
Lickinghole Creek basin would provide an annual load reduction of three
percent for TP and six percent for TSS from the entire watershed of the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The Lickinghole drainage area represents 5.2 percent
of the total watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom
said this data suggests to him that the Lickinghole impoundment would be
extremely efficient. Mr. Robertson agreed with Mr~ Lindstrom's analysis of
the data.
Mr. Perkins asked if the quality of the water in Lickinghole Creek after
the completion of the interceptor line has been compared with the quality
before the line was completed. Mr. Robertson said "no"; however, Mr. Brown
estimated that the Lickinghole basin would further reduce the levels of
phosphorous and sediment already lowered by the interceptor.
Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, pointed out that the figures for
reducing the levels of phosphorous and sediment are based on a "design storm",
two acres of rainfall in 24 hours, which occurs once or twice a year. The
less water that falls within a given period of time, the more efficient the
stormwater detention basin is. Mr. Moring said the figures cited reflect how
much phosphorous and sediment would be reduced during one of these major
storms. During normal storms, the efficiency rating would be much higher.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
25
Mr. Robertson said that Fairfax County officials favor the use of
regional detention basins. He quoted the following from Fairfax County's
implementation procedures for regional stormwater management: "To control
stormwater runoff on a watershed basis, a system of regional stormwater
management facilities is superior to a large number of smaller, on-site
facilities. The regional facilities function as a system to more effectively
control the quantity and quality of runoff which results in better watershed
protection and less environmental degradation to the stream network as devel-
opment occurs. Regional facilities can be located so as to be more compatible
with the adjoining land uses because there are fewer facilities. They are
economically advantageous because they are cost-effective to construct and
maintain than a system of numerous, on-site facilities".
Mr. Lindstrom asked staff for its recommendation concerning fee sched-
ules. Mr. Cilimberg said he is recommending that the rates depend on the
number of square feet of impervious coverage brought into being by each
development, to be evaluated at the time of site plan approval and collected
with the issuance of building permits. Mr. Cilimberg estimated that the fee
would be 16.2 cents per square foot of impervious cover. The rate can be
adjusted later, if the cost of the basin proves higher or lower.
Mr. Perkins asked if staff has estimated the revenues that will be
realized by these fees. Mr. Cilimberg said "no", but the fees collected from
12.375 million square feet of impervious coverage~would pay for the $1.97
million listed in the CIP, at 16.2 cents per square foot. Mr. Perkins asked
if staff had considered interest to be paid on the funds needed to build the
basin. Mr. Cilimberg said "no".
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is true that~the public will have to pay
for a portion of this basin, but this project will benefit the general public
as well as the developer. He said the County hopes to recover the capital
costs, but it may not recover all of the interest.
Mr. Bain asked if the fee schedule needed to be decided on tonight. Mr.
Cilimberg indicated that a decision is needed as soon as possible.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve
the development of a rate structure based on the square foot parameters recom-
mended by staff in a memorandum dated December 8, 1989 from V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development (on file).
Mr. Bowie said the issue of whether the Lickinghole Creek basin should be
funded must still be decided. He said he will support the motion because he
thinks if the project is to be funded at all, this is how it should be done.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adopt 1989-1995 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
and Appropriate Funds for January 1990 through June 1990. (Deferred from
December 13, 1989).
Mr. Tucker said the Board had indicated last week that it would consider
the adoption of the 1989-95 CIP on January 10, 1989. Mr. Tucker said the
staff recommends approval of the appropriation for the next six months of the
CIP to allow work to begin on some of these projects.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the action taken by the Board tonight, with regard
to appropriating funds for January 1990 through June 1990, meant that the
projects listed would proceed as scheduled, not returning to the Board for
consideration unless the price threatened to exceed that estimated in the CIP.
Mr. Tucker said "yes".
Mr. Bowie said he thought the County was to have allocated money to
expanding the Jail during the next six months of the CIP. Mr. Tucker said the
Board moved $124,780 of the appropriation for the Jail to the 1990-91 year.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
26
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Alan Rasmussen, the Chairman of the Jail Board, sent
him a memorandum, which Mr. Bowie distributed to members of the Board. The
memorandum stated that members of the Jail Board unanimously agree to the
modular concept, with the County's contribution of $124,780 for the first
module scheduled for the 1990-91CIP; and funds for the intake and support
space ($675,000) slated for the 1991-92 year of the CIP. These funds would
provide about 80 additional cells and support facilities for the Jail's staff.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded,by Mr. Lindstrom to change
the Jail Expansion and Renovation project in the "Current Request" column to
$800,000 to be phased in over a two-year period, with no appropriation for the
period January to June, 1990.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Tucker to address the projects listed under "Education"
in the CIP for January 1 to June 30, 1990. Mr. Tucker said members of the
Board raised questions about the renovations at the Rose Hill Alternative High
School, a project that was slated for $70,000 for design and planning during
the next six months of the CIP. Mr. Tucker said some members of the Board
suggested that the school remain an elementary school. Mr. Tucker said it
would be difficult to have Rose Hill remain an elementary school for any
length of time, because of the size of the site and the difficulty of achiev-
ing parity with other elementary schools. For example, he said, the topogra-
phy of the site would make adding a gymnasium difficult.
Mr. Way said he has no problem with appropriating funds for redesigning a
school for alternative education, but he would rather appropriate the money
without specifying which school is to be renovated for this purpose. Mr.
Tucker said the funds could be appropriated next year, if the Board wished.
Mr. Bowie said he will not support appropriations for the new urban
elementary school, renovations at Rose Hill Elementary, and the expansion and
renovation of Albemarle High School until the Board has resolved other issues
connected to these projects in a work session scheduled for January 10, 1990.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and secondedlby Mr. Lindstrom to delete
the following from the January to June, 1990 apprQpriation: $135,000 for the
Urban Area Elementary School (new facility); $70,Q00 for Rose Hill Alternative
High School Renovations; and $100,000 for Albemarle High School, Phase I,
Expansion and Renovation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Under the "Highway and Transportation" category, Mr. Lindstrom said he
would like to bring up a related issue. He asked that the resolution the
Board passed concerning the bridge on Route 660 be sent to VDoT, to all
elected officials representing the County, and to all members of the Common-
wealth Transportation Board.
The next category discussed was "Libraries". Mr. Lindstrom said he is
concerned about the amount of money required for the North County Branch
Library to move into a rented facility. Mr. Tucker said the staff is working
with the Library Board to rent a facility under a lease-purchase program,
where some of the rent would go toward buying the facility. Mr. Lindstrom
said he thinks the Board should know the details of any such arrangement
before appropriating the $600,000 requested for leasing a facility.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to delete
$600,000 from the January to June, 1990 appropriation for the North County
Branch Library-Leased Facility.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
27
Mr. Balm said much of the money requested was not just to rent the space,
but to purchase the books and equipment needed for the branch library. He
thinks the Library must act quickly to rent a facility; nevertheless, he
seconded the motion with the understanding that the Board could appropriate
the funds when it has the information it needs.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Under the category "Parks and Recreation", Mr. Bain stated his objection
to an appropriation of $55,000 scheduled for the 1990-91 year of the CIP.
This appropriation would be used to fill in Chris Greene Lake, reducing its
depth in the swiming area to five feet. Mr. Tucker said that staff is
concerned about the issue of liability. Mr. St. John said liability is not an
issue in this matter, because the State code absolves the County of liability
on park grounds. He said filling in the lake is more an issue of safety.
Under the category "Utilities", Mr. Bowie said he still has the same
problems with the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin that he has
already stated. He thinks the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and not the
County, should take on this project.
Mr. Way said there has been a change on the City Council since the Board
last asked Council to share in the cost of the Lickinghole Creek project, and
was turned down. Mr. Way said he does not object to deleting the project and
asking City Council again for funds, but he does not believe the project
should be permanently removed from the CIP.
Mr. Bowie said he believes there is a need for the Lickinghole Creek
basin, but he thinks the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority should pay for it.
He said he would support retaining this item in the five-year CIP, but delet-
ing the appropriation slated for the January 1 th=ough June 30, 1990, period
of the CIP, to allow the Board to explore the possibility of the Rivanna
Authority funding the project.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has supported this approach for other projects, but
he thinks the Board has thoroughly investigated the chances of the Rivanna
Authority funding the Lickinghole Creek basin. Delaying this project much
longer will jeopardize the availability of federal funds for the project. He
said he thinks it is clear, from the report offered by Mr. Robertson and Mr.
Moring, that the County should proceed with the project. Mr. Lindstrom said
he thinks it significant that Fairfax County has decided to use regional
basins. He thinks the Board should approach the City once again for funds,
but proceed with the project regardless of the answer.
Mr. Bowie asked if delaying the appropriation until January would jeopar-
dize either the construction schedule or the federal grant. Mr. Tucker said
"no".
Mr. Lindstrom said the County has planned this project for a long time;
he thinks the Board should appropriate the funds and be done with it. He said
he has spent 12 years working to protect the watershed and the Lickinghole
Creek basin is the centerpiece of his efforts. He said he will be very
disappointed if this project is deferred until January. He said the Board has
learned all it needs to learn about this project; now it is time to act.
Mr. Perkins said he is not sure whether the Lickinghole Creek basin is
needed. He said he has received phone calls from two citizens who are knowl-
edgeable about detention basins. These citizens questioned the need for the
basin and the need for a concrete dam. He said things have changed in Crozet
since plans began for the sedimentation basin and what may have worked then
may not be the best approach now. If the County wishes to build a regional
basin, he said, perhaps the Board should consider a basin for the Mechums
River, instead of Lickinghole Creek.
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
28
Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that several developers with proposals
for the Crozet area have run into problems with the way they want to do
business in this area. He said they oppose the Lickinghole Creek project
because the sedimentation basin would restrict where development can take
place. Mr. Lindstrom said the information presented to the Board for the past
four years has demonstrated the economic viability, the administrative effi-
ciency and the legal defensability of the basin.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to leave
funds for the Lickinghole Creek Basin in the period January to June, 1990.
Mr. Bain said he would not have supported increasing the size of the
growth area in Crozet if he had thought there would be any question of pro-
ceeding with the Lickinghole Creek project. He said he will not support
extending water and sewer service to portions of the Crozet Community, unless
this project is approved. He said that construction will soon begin on a
large development in this area; he thinks the County should keep apace with
growth by proceeding with the sedimentation basin.
Mr. Way asked what would happen if the County appropriated the money and
then discovered that the Rivanna Authority would pay for the project. Mr.
Lindstrom said that under the terms of the Four Party Agreement, the Rivanna
Authority cannot fund the project unless the City Council agrees. He said the
Council has made it clear that it will not share in the cost of the project.
If City Council does fund part of the project, Mr. Lindstrom continued, the
County can apply some of its appropriation to the balance remaining on the
project. However, representatives of the City believe that the Lickinghole
Creek impoundment is needed because the County decided to encourage develop-
ment in the Community of Crozet; therefore, the County should bear the respon-
sibility of paying for the project.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Perkins.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appro-
priate the total funding for the projects identified for the period January
through June, 1990, on the Capitol Improvements Program.
Mr. Bowie said he has a question he would like answered when the Library
Board furnishes the other details requested by the Board. He wants to know
how long the Library plans to lease a facility for the North County Branch.
Mr. Tucker said the Library hopes to begin construction on a permanent facil-
ity in the 1992-93 year of the CIP, so the temporary facility would be leased
for about three years.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1989/90
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
SECOND HALF OF FY 89-90
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1900012200800700
1900032010800520
1900041000700006
1900041000800961
1900041000800962
1900041000950038
1900041000950049
1900041000950056
1900041000950057
1900041000950058
INFORMATION SERVICES
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL VEHICLE
IVY LANDFILL IMPROVEMENTS
STREET LIGHTS-HYDRAULIC/COMMONWEALTH
STREET LIGHTS-HYDRAULIC/GEORGETOWN
SIDEWALK-RIO ROAD
SIDEWALK-GEORGETOWN ROAD
ROADS-MEYERS DRIVE
ROADS-ROUTE 620, BRIDGE
ROADS-654/656 INTERSECTION
$15,000.00
50,000.00
225,000.00
16,000.00
16,000.00
37,800.00
3,545.00
22,000.00
113,000.00
40,000.00
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
1900041000950059
1900041000950064
1900043100312702
1900060201312350
1900060251800675
1900060303312350
1900060500800650
1900071000950003
1900071000950027
1900071000950042
1900071000950060
1900071000950061
1900071000950063
1900072020950062
1900093010930202
KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE
ROADS-708/631 INTERSECTION
TELEPHONE STUDY-COB
BROADUS WOOD ELEM-P&D
BURLEY MIDDLE SCH-PAVEMENT
MURRAY ELEMENTARY-P&D
MAINTENANCE SHOP-STORAGE
P&R-CROZET PARK-IMPROVEMENTS
P&R-GREENWOOD-BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
P&R-STORAGE TANK REMOVAL
P&R-GREENWOOD-RECREATION IMP
P&R-MELBOURNE FIELD
P&R-IVY CREEK-HANDICAPPED
LIBRARY
TRANSFER TO STORM DRAINAGE
TOTAL
1910041031800975
1910041033800975
1910041038800975
1910041039800975
1910041046800975
STORM DRAINAGE
WINDHAM/JARMAN'S GAP ROAD
SMITHFIELD ROAD
BERKELEY
LICKINGHOLE CREEK
BERKSHIRE ROAD
TOTAL
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
29
116,250.00
10,000.00
20,000.00
150,000.00
8,500.00
150,000.00
23,500.00
13,000.00
7,000.00
25,000.00
5,000.00
3,600.00
3,500.00
37,500.00
534~308.00
$1,645,503.00
$ 15,000.00
3,438.00
13,870.00
500,000.00
2~000.00
$ 534,308.00
AMOUNT
2900051000510100
2900015000150210
2900015000150101
2910051000512000
CIP FUND BALANCE
SALE OF COUNTY PROPERTY
EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTS
TRANSFER FROM CIP
TOTAL
TOTAL
$1,502,503.00
18,000.00
125~000.00
$1,645,503.00
534~308.00
534,308.00
Agenda Item No. 16. Appropriation: Joint Dispatch Center.
Mr. Tucker said there is a need for three additional communications
officers due to the increase in work load from cails for service. Service
calls have increased by 171 percent since 1985 in Albemarle County. The
addition of Rescue Squad calls has also impacted the communications staff.
The total appropriation needed for the three positions is $28,310, with
Albemarle's share being $10,230. Mr. Tucker said ~staff recommends approval,
subject to appropriate shares from the City and the University of Virginia.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
the following appropriation as requested, subject to funding from the City and
the University.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1989/90
FUND: JOINT DISPATCH
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF ADDITIONAL OFFICERS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1410031040110000
1410031040210000
1410031040221000
1410031040231000
1410031040232000
1100031040700001
1100095000999990
SALARIES-REGULAR
FICA
VSRS
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
JOINT DISPATCH
CONTINGENCY FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL
$22,610.00
1,730.00
2,500.00
1,350.00
120.00
10,230.00
(10,230.00)
$28,310.00
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
30
2410016000160503
2410016000160502
2410016000160512
COUNTY SHARE 36.14%
CITY SHARE 49.77%
UNIVERSITY SHARE 14.09%
TOTAL
$10,230.00
14,090.00
3,990.00
$28,310.00
Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Route 629.
(Mr. Bain abstained from this discussion and left the room at 11:37 P.M.)
Mr. St. John said he has received a letter from Mr. Fred Payne, attorney
for Mr. Edward Ripper, the property owner who has gated a portion of Route
629, stating that he disagreed with Mr. St. John's reasons for removing the
gate. Mr. St. John said he would act in accordance with the Board's instruc-
tions at the last meeting and file a suit against Mr. and Mrs. Ripper to have
the gate removed. However, Mr. St. John said, he sees no utility in taking
such an action. He said Mr. Ripper does not live on the property, but in
Washington, D.C., and it would take a long time to serve an injunction on him.
Mr. St. John suggested that the Board not file a suit against Mr. Ripper until
it has taken action on the request to abandon this road, which is scheduled
for January 10, 1990. If the Board abandons the road, then there would be no
need for a lawsuit. If the Board does not abandon the road and Mr. Ripper
leaves the gate where it is now, then the County should file a suit immediate-
ly. Mr. St. John said he thinks the gate is illegal and violates public
rights, but he does not think the Board will accomplish anything by filing a
suit before it decides whether to abandon the roadway.
Mr. St. John recommended that the Board take no action at this time.
There was no objection by Board members.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 11:41 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: May 3(N), May 17, June 7(N),
June 21(N), August 9, October 18(N), November I(A)and November 15,(N), 1989..
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for October 18, 1989, Page 14 to End. He
noted that on Page 14, Mr. Bain had asked some questions concerning the urban
school, and the answers were never received. Mr..Bowie requested that the
answers be prepared for the January 10 work session. Mr. Bowie also noted
that on Page 21 there was a discussion regarding Peyton Drive which was not
resolved. He would like to know the outcome of the discussion.
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for May 3(N), 1989, Page 13 to End; Au-
gust 9, 1989, Pages 10 to 18; and November i(A), 1989, Page 13 to Page 25 and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for October 18(N), 1989, Pages 7 to 14,
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for August 9, 1989, Page 19 to the End
and found them to be in order.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie 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. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Way said there are some streets in the Woolen Mills area which he
felt should be declared a disaster area due to the icy conditions. He
explained that the street he is concerned about is not owned by the City or
the County. Mr. Way said he had been out to the area twice, and the residents
are unable to get in or out of this street because of ice. He requested that
I I i i
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
31
the Board authorize the County Engineer to contract with a private company to
have chemicals applied so that an elderly resident in particular could get out
to have dialysis.
Mr. Lindstrom offered a motion to approve Mr. Way's request and Mr. Bain
seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he had also visited the road and agrees that it is in a
critical condition. However, he could not support the motion because of the
precedent it would set. He suggested that the County Engineer have the
chemicals applied with the proviso that staff is to assist the residents there
to form an association and collect money so this does not happen again. He
said the County should be reimbursed for the chemicals by such an association.
He said he does not want to set a precedent for the County to clear private
roads.
Mr. Lindstrom withdrew his motion and seconded Mr. Bowie's suggestion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bain pointed out that a similar situation exists in the Southwood
Mobile Home Park according to a letter Board members received today. Mr.
Lindstrom said this situation is different: that road is privately owned and
its owners, in the interests of public safety, should clear the road.
Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to prepare a report on what can be done to
solve the problem of clearing roads in trailer parks or subdivisions. There
was no objection from other Board members.
Mr. Tucker said the Criminal Justice Service Board had awarded a grant to
the Albemarle County Police Department for 38 radios and two fixed repeaters
for a total of $41,434.00. He said an appropriation of $5,650.00 would be
requested from the Public Safety Reserve for Police and Fire in January. For
now, the request is to authorize staff to accept the grant and purchase the
radios. ~
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
authorize the County Executive to accept a grant for the purchase of 38 radios
for the Police Department.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lihdstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to inform the Board regarding the Department
of Forestry project on Route 20 that a document has been filed with the
Council on the Environment and it appears to be on the "fast track". Mr.
Lindstrom suggested that the Clerk forward a copy of the resolution adopted by
the Board in opposition to this project to the Architectural Review Board, the
Division of Historical Resources, and to Ms. Ellie Irons at the Council on the
Environment.
Mr. St. John said he talked with Ms. Irons. The County will receive
copies of the document filed with the Council on the Environment and will be
able to respond in writing. There will be no public hearing or judicial
review of the documentation and the final decision will be made by the Gover-
nor. Mr. St. John said staff has also brought up the question of how utili-
ties will be supplied to the proposed buildings on the site.
Mr. Lindstrom said a petition has been filed to raze the barn and silo on
the Blue Ridge Hospital site. The barn and silo were part of the original
sanatorium for patients with tuberculosis, providing milk and a a therapeutic
December 20, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 32
(Page 32)
outlet for the patients. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it would be worthwhile
to document the historical significance of the barn and silo for the Council
on the Environment.
Mr. Lindstrom said it has been a real pleasure to serve on the Board of
Supervisors. He said he has not always been a delight to work with, but he
felt this was a privilege which God has given him; He said he is pleased with
the membership of the new Board.
Not Docketed: At 12:05 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of
discussing the disposal of public property in accordance with Section
2.1-344.A.3 of the Virginia Code.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
At 12:26 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to
certify that the Executive Session was in accordance with Virginia State Code
as set out below.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative record-
ed vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the.Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies,
and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,
Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the' following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
immediately adjourned at 12:30 A.M.
CHAIRMAN