1990-02-07February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
122
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 7, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman,
F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T.
Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bainand
seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve Items 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the
remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
Item 4.la. Street Name Sign Maintenance Resolution for Garthfield
Subdivision for one sign to identify Garthfield Lane. Request received from
Mr. Ronald D. Carter. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown
above.
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following road:
Garthfield Lane (State Route 1021) at its intersection
with State Route 658; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned street sign.
Item 4.lb. Street Name Sign Maintenance Resolution for Squire Hill Apart
ments for five signs at three locations. Request received from Mr. Bob Niehaus
The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above.
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Hillsdale Drive (State Route 1427) and Rio Road (State
Route 631) at its intersection;
Hillsdale Drive (State Route 1427) and Mall Drive (State
Route 1695) at its intersection;
Mall Drive (State Route 1695), 0.07 mile north of its
intersection with State Route 1427, at its point of
beginning; and
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
123
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.2. Superintendent's Memo dated January 10, 1990, from the State
Department of Education, re: 1990-92 Biennium Budget, received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.3. Superintendent's Memo dated January 22, 1990, from the State
Department of Education re: Amendments to the 1990-92 Budget, received as
information.
Item 4.4. Minutes of the Planning Commission for January 9, January 16
and January 23, 1990, received as information.
Item 4.5. Copy of Letter dated January 24, 1990, from Ms. Ellie Irons,
Council on the Environment, stating that the Council is discontinuing the
review of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Department of Forestry's
proposal to construct its headquarters at the Blue Ridge Hospital site located
on the north side of Route 53 where it intersects Route 20. The Department
informed the Council that the University of Virginia, current owner of the
site in question, has withdrawn its offer to make the site available for this
project. The letter was received as information.
Item 4.6. Copy of letters from the Virginia Department of Human
Resources in which they note an interest in including the following properties
on the Virginia Landmarks Register: 1) Walker House, 2) Blue Ridge Farm, and
3) Gallison Hall, received as information.
Item 4.7. Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of
Transportation, dated January 18, 1990, noted that the annual preallocation
hearings to receive requests for improvements to the primary and urban road
system will be in the Culpeper District Office on April 16, 1990, at 10:00
a.m., received as information.
Item 4.8. Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of
Transportation, dated January 17, 1990, re: Route 660 project. Mr. Roosevelt
said the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the location and
design for this project. The speed limit design is for 40 mph and not 30 mph
as requested. The rail on the bridge will be a "Kansas Corral" and not the
three rail aluminum railing requested, received as information.
Item 4.9. Memorandum from N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent,
dated January 22, 1990, entitled "Binding Arbitration for School Employees",
received as information. Mr. Bowie said he would like to discuss this item
along with Item 12, Legislative Review.
Item 4.10. Memorandum from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development, dated January 31, 1990, re: Westminster-Canterbury
Landscape Plan stating that the revised plan adequately addresses the Board's
concerns regarding the view from Route 250 up to the cottages. The letter was
received as information.
Item 4.11. Letter dated January 29, 1990, from J. S. Hodge, Chief
Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that aerial
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
124
photography will be taking place in the near future for the ongoing study of
the proposed Charlottesville Bypass and Route 29 Corridor, received as infor-
mation. Mrs. Humprhis noted that heretofore, this study has been referred to
as the Route 29 North Corridor Study. She asked that staff inquire of Mr.
Hodge whether the term, "Charlottesville Bypass and Route 29 Corridor", is
significant.
Item 4.12. Letter dated February 1, 1990, from Delegate Lewis F. Payne,
Jr., House of Representatives, concerning the Ground Wave Emergency Network
relay node proposed for Nelson County. Delegate Payne has requested input
relating to the GWEN project from a panel of scientists from the Air Force
Systems Command; from defense planners, including the President and the
Secretary of Defense; and from the Council on the Environment. The letter was
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: AN ORDINANCE to require that INOPER-
ABLE VEHICLES be kept enclosed in buildings, with the exception that no more
than two inoperable vehicles may be kept outside of buildings on any one
parcel of land provided such vehicles are invisible from public or nearby
private property; authorizing removal of vehicles in violation at owner's
expense; and providing for disposition or demolition of inoperable vehicles.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 5 and December 12, 1989.)
Mr. St. John said this ordinance provides that two inoperable vehicles
can be kept outside provided they are screened. He noted that covers such as
tarpaulins are considered to be screening. This ordinance also provides a
mechanism for collecting a bounty as regulated by the Division of Motor
Vehicles if such vehicles fit the definition of an abandoned or inoperative
motor vehicle. He said this is the only new portion of the ordinance. This
provision will allow a property owner to voluntarily get rid of inoperative
vehicles without cost. Mr. St. John pointed out that this ordinance contains
the same prohibitions as the existing ordinance. He said the inoperable
vehicle ordinance is procedurally being made a part of the Albemarle County
Code because enabling State legislation does not apply to zoning and because
enabling legislation does not grandfather inoperative vehicles, which would be
the case in the Zoning Ordinance. He reiterated that this law is already part
of Albemarle County law with the exception of the collection of a $50 bounty.
Mr. Bowie asked if the existing ordinance contains a provision that the
County could move cars and bill the owner. Mr. St. John said that is already
in the existing ordinance, although it has never been invoked and would not be
invoked without a court order. He said if an owner has an inoperative vehicle
and does not want it, the vehicle can be removed at no expense to the owner.
If the owner wants to keep an inoperative vehicle but is in violation of the
ordinance, then the County could haul away the vehicle and force the owner to
pay for it, after obtaining a court order. Mr. St. John emphasized that the
County would not send anyone to remove an inoperable vehicle in such a case
without a court order.
Mr. Bowerman asked where the $50 bounty is referenced in the ordinance.
Mr. St. John said the bounty is referenced in Chapter 12, Title 46.2, which is
referred to in the ordinance. He said that section contains the regulations
from the Division of Motor Vehicles by which the County certifies that an
inoperative vehicle comes from this County and fits the DMV definition.
Mr. St. John explained that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community
Commission has volunteered to be involved in coordinating landowners with
contractors who would haul away inoperable vehicles and see to their demoli-
tion in a manner that will comply with the DMV regulations.
Mr. Way asked whether the term, "screened or shielded from public view",
meant tarpaulins only, or could it mean trees as well. Mr. St. John said if
the inoperable vehicles are invisible from public view in winter and in
summer, they would be considered as screened. Trees and fences which make
inoperative vehicles invisible to public view would constitute screening. He
said public view means from adjacent land as well. Without trees or fences, a
tarpaulin would constitute screening. He pointed out that this outside
screening is limited to only two cars, however.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
125
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Harold Pillar, a resident of Scottsville, said the original ordinance
is not well thought out and should be changed. If in Eastern Europe people
are making changes in their laws after 45 years, it can be done in Albemarle
County as well. He apologized for statements in the Daily Progress quoting
him as saying that "junk cars are un-American". The method of enforcement of
this ordinance is what he disagrees with. Mr. Pillar said he does not have
junk cars; he has collectible cars, trucks and buses. His specialty is
Corvairs, Falcons, Chryslers, Oldsmobiles, International trucks, and GMC
buses. He said there should be some differentiation in the ordinance between
collectible cars and abandoned, junk vehicles. He does not say that behind
every farm house in Albemarle County there should be cars four or five deep.
However, there are people in this County who love old cars. Mr. Pillar said
that old cars are an American heritage, and he did not think that heritage
should be abandoned. Mr. Pillar said he drove an "inoperable" 1966 Corvair to
this building. It is inoperable because it does not have insurance coverage
except for trips to antique shows or to a garage for repair. According to the
County's ordinance, the car Mr. Pillar drove to the Board meeting tonight
would be considered a junk car and should be towed away. He said that is not
reasonable. Mr. Pillar said the Zoning Department is being paid to come up
with a law that is workable to collectors of old cars as well as solves the
problem of junk cars. He thinks that 2,000 pine trees in front of 40 to 50
cars is not offending anyone other than an enemy who wants to get even.
Mr. Mac Woodward, a resident of Albemarle County, said he read the
proposed ordinance, and feels that the Board should table this or refuse it as
it is currently written. He realizes that the issue of screening from public
view is a strong one and should be addressed. However, he felt that due
process and notification is not well expressed in this ordinance. He said he
had not considered the provision for a bounty until this evening, but feels
that would be constructive in gaining the removal of many inoperable vehicles.
He said that collectors like Mr. Pillar have rights which should be consid-
ered. If the present Zoning Ordinance has protection for the County, that may
be sufficient at this time until the Board considers the proposed ordinance
further. He said as it is written now, it is not acceptable to the public.
Mr. Charles Steen addressed the Board. He said he owns a 1964 Oldsmobile
Cutlass. He said he has toured this car all over Europe, and it is just about
his favorite thing. He realizes that it does not fit into the inoperable
vehicle definition of this ordinance. But looking at it in its current state,
one might think it belonged in that category. Mr. Steen said the hobby of
collecting old cars is a family and community activity which enjoys a special
position under Virginia law. He feels the controversy is about property
interests. Therefore, great care must be taken before exercising a public
taking unless the public is genuinely benefited by it. It can be argued that
this is about personal grievances. Some people do not like old cars while
some others do. He feels that before property rights are rearranged, it is
necessary to know if a change is merited. He said, ordinarily, people who do
not like old cars can plant their own cedar rows, or scotch pines, or cooper-
ate with the neighbor regarding screening devices. Mr. Steen said intolerant
people will not do that. Rather, they will use public resources to achieve
private preferences, regardless of the pleasure sacrificed by the collector of
old cars. Mr. Steen said he felt the people involved should be expected to
find private solutions. He said cars from the 1950's and 1960's are becoming
very scare. To collectors, it is a significant loss when they are destroyed
because others lack an appreciation for them. He said it is especially sad
when a collection is destroyed because of narrow-minded modernists who refuse
to live and let live. Mr. Steen pointed out that the law already provides
remedies to private individuals who are annoyed by these old cars. He con-
cluded by saying the public's resources should not be used to settle private
differences. He assured the Board that he is not a car "nut". He is offended
by the same public ills as other people, such as drug use in the schools and
the mistreatment of children. He is not, however, offended by a 1957
Chevrolet Coupe loaded with all the original options, or a 1932 Studebaker or
a 1929 Nash. Mr. Steen said he is afraid of a world where people must deal
with the AIDS virus; he is not afraid of a 1948 Caddy that once belonged to a
local moonshiner. He is offended by people who seek to impose their own
values on others who are truly minding their own business. He urged the
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
126
Board to rethink the proposed ordinance and respect friends of the old car
hobby.
Mr. Roger Stevens, resident and property owner in Albemarle County, said
he basically supports the proposed ordinance. He requests that a safeguard be
included for collector vehicles. He understands that Judge Helvin will
differentiate between abandoned vehicles and provable collector vehicles. He
said it would be fair to have a reasonable succinct regulation that would put
the burden on the owner to document that it is a special interest vehicle. He
said his collectible vehicles cost money for storage. In Fluvanna County, for
example, there is a $10.00 fee for an inoperable vehicle, with a limit on the
number. He suggested that a yearly fee be considered to cover administrative
expense to validate that an owner is legitimately a collector. Mr. Stevens
said his hobby is offensive to others because he is good at recycling. He
agrees that adjoining properties should be able to enjoy their property
without the offense of unsightly adjoining property. He said he has been, and
currently is, guilty of that. Mr. Stevens explained that he is constrained by
financial problems in improving the structure on his property, paying for
storage of old vehicles, trying to prevent vandalism and pay for vandalism
damage, and maintaining a cosmetic appeal to the public. He pointed out that
the County Police have never been able to recover-any items stolen from his
property, even though he sent them to a home where his property was in public
view and which property he identified. Mr. Stevens said going one mile in any
direction from his garage, there are nine properties with at least one inoper-
able vehicle. While he agrees that neighbors should not have to suffer
because of his hobby, he feels that valid collectible vehicles should be
allowed to be screened and not have a limit of two. He has no problem with
inspections for infestation in upholstery, or fluids going into the ground and
damaging groundwater.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that antique cars used in parades or driven to this
meeting tonight, are not covered by this ordinance. He asked that the speak-
ers confine their comments to the ordinance.
Mr. William Taskey said he has been involved in the restoration of
antique automobiles professionally for a number of years. He said his in-
volvement began as a hobby restoring a 1932 Chevrolet. He said many of the
parts come from individual farmers who have an old car on their property. It
is very disheartening to look for parts for old cars and discover that they
are being crushed. He said antique automobile restoration is a multi-million
dollar a year operation. Sometimes it takes as many as four cars to get the
parts together to restore one. I~nat is what many of these people are con-
cerned about, and why they want to hold on to these older cars. He said there
are old junk cars that need to be cleared away. However, folks who have three
or four cars to use for parts cannot afford to license them because they are
not road worthy. They are only valuable for parts. He asked the Board to
keep that in mind and give consideration to the individuals who want to keep
cars as a hobby.
Mrs. Rosemary Sheuchenko, Director of CAC3, said there are some points
that need to be clarified. She said in no way is this program intended to
have citizens sneaking on other people. She said the assistance that her
organization has offered is to help Albemarle County clear abandoned, rusty,
junk cars. She said there is no intention to get involved in antique cars as
these gentlemen have described this evening. She said the State Department of
Waste Management and the Department of Motor Vehicles are talking about
rusting, dismantled cars which are an eyesore and a source of litter, and are
cluttering up the countryside. She said those are the cars CAC3 is trying to
remove. Mrs. Sheuchenko then described the program she set into motion to aid
the County in removing such vehicles. She said if an owner has an inoperable
vehicle which he does not want anymore and can't afford to have it towed away,
there is a phone number which can be called. Mrs. Sheuchenko will then
forward a form which indicates that inoperable cars can be removed free of
charge with the owner's permission. The form asks for a name, address, phone
number, location of the car, etc. The form is returned to CAC3 by the owner.
Mrs. Sheuchenko would send one copy to the Zoning Department to begin the
process of removal. She said this form is prepared by the DMV in Richmond to
make this a workable and foolproof program. A representative of the Zoning
Department would contact the property owner who would sign the form giving
permission for removal of the car. One of the two contractors who have agreed
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
127
to remove inoperable cars for crushing would receive the form next. That man
would pick up the car and complete the next portion of the form. When the car
is actually demolished, the demolisher himself would sign the final portion to
verify demolition. The whole process takes place only with the property
owner's consent. Mrs. Sheuchenko said that is the only part her organization
intends to play.
Mr. Fred Gerke, a member of the Proffit Neighborhood Association, said
his neighborhood is the recipient of an unwanted and unauthorized junk yard.
He said the point of the ordinance is removal from the community of inoperable
vehicles. He is sympathetic to collectors of classic cars. However, he
encourages the Board to pass this ordinance for the removal of unwanted
vehicles.
Mr. Alvin Lanaham, a resident of Albemarle County, said he has just
junked between 250 and 275 cars in the past two weeks. He kept about 50 on
his property. He said his land has been in his family since 1948, and has had
inoperable vehicles on it all that time. He feels they should be allowed to
remain for that reason. Mr. Lanaham said his old cars are 1928 to 1957
models. He said people come to him wanting parts for their cars. He helps
poor people by giving them parts to keep their cars on the road. He feels
that you have to get along with people to get along in this life.
Mr. Albert Morris from Free Union, said he owns land and pays taxes on
it, and has had cars on his property for years. He runs a 1959 Dodge dump
truck and 1959 Ford pick-up. He keeps other old vehicles to get parts for the
two he operates. He said he could not afford to put insurance and licenses on
these vehicles. He wonders what will happen to people who operate older
vehicles if all the older ones are crushed.
Mr. David Spradlin said he has been in the junk car business for .12
years. He said he agrees with all of the speakers tonight. People come to
him to find parts for classical cars as well as other vehicles. He said he is
speaking for the community when he says that such an operation is needed in
the County. Regarding cars contaminating the ground, he has had his property
tested by Tappan Water Company and found no contamination. He said people who
cannot afford to have their cars removed and want them to be removed, the CAC3
program will help. However, he feels that people who are willing to screen
cars or put them inside, should be able to keep them.
Mr. Junior Morris, operator of a logging business in Free Union, said he
is a neighbor of Albert Morris who spoke earlier. He said his neighbor's
vehicles pose no problem to him. In his operation, it is sometimes necessary
to keep several trucks for parts for his older trucks. He feels that if
owners pay taxes on property, they should have some rights. If the ordinance
already says that old vehicles cannot be on the property, it should be
changed. He agrees that sometimes there are problems because of likes and
dislikes between neighbors.
Mr. Mike Morris, school bus driver for the Albemarle County School
System, said he goes into nice subdivisions on his bus route and does not see
inoperable vehicles there. He feels that a person who owns a certain amount
of land should be able to keep inoperable vehicles because parts for cars are
hard to find. He said he likes to tinker with old vehicles as a hobby, and he
should have the right to keep them if he needs them for parts.
Mr. James Bishop, a resident of Southern Albemarle, said he has collected
classic cars since 1967, a few at a time. These cars are sometimes restored,
sold for parts or sold as is. What is a collector item to one person may be
considered junk to another. He said restoring old vehicles is a world-wide
industry. Inoperable vehicles are used for parts and for that reason they are
valuable in keeping collectible cars running. Eventually, the old, collect-
ible cars will be found only in museums. Mr. Bishop said that the only
vehicle that is truly inoperable would be a crushed car. Any other car is
rebuildable from the ground up or is good for parts.
The public hearing was closed at 8:30 P.M., and the matter placed before
the Board.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
128
Mr. Bowie said his favorite car is a 1966 Corvair convertible, which he
used to have. He said he sympathizes completely with people who like the old
cars, and many of the comments were directed toward antique cars. He asked
the County Attorney what happens when there is a dispute between a landowner
and the Zoning Department as to whether a car is antique or junk. Mr. St.
John said the words, "antique" and "junk", were not used in either the State
Code or the proposed ordinance. He said the term, "inoperable vehicle", is
used and defined as any car that cannot be operated or for a period of 60 days
has not been operated and does not have licenses or registration. He said the
ordinance does not distinguish between genuine collectible cars and other
inoperable motor vehicles. Mr. St. John said neither does the enabling
legislation make the distinction between junk cars and collectible cars. He
is not aware that the court has ever been called on to deal with such a
distinction.
Mr. St. John said the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance do
not differ one bit as to these concerns. They are problems under the existing
ordinance and will continue to be problems under the proposed ordinance. He
questions whether the distinction between junk and collectible cars can be
solved by amending the proposed ordinance. Mr. St. John said he thinks the
problem could be solved through administrative discretion rather than through
establishing standards in an ordinance.
Mr. Bain wondered if it would be better to try to get enabling legisla-
tion changed. Mr. St. John said the problem is not enabling legislation.
Even if legislation is amended, somebody will have to make a case-by-case
judgement on a given car as to whether it is a genuine collectible item.
Mr. Bowie said the only change is the provision that inoperable vehicles
can be removed at the owner's request at no expense to the owner. Mr. St.
John said that is correct.
Mr. St. John added that some of the comments made tonight refer to an
issue not before the Board tonight. He said people who are engaging in the
business of a salvage or a junk yard are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
It is already illegal to take in cars and sell parts, or collect old cars and
restore and sell them. That is a business which, regardless of this inopera-
ble vehicle ordinance, is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance if it occurs in
a residential or agricultural area.
Mr. Way said the easiest thing to do is to keep the current ordinance
which simply says two vehicles. He feels the key to the issue is what is a
reasonable number of cars that should be allowed. It seems the majority of
the people who spoke referred to several cars they are keeping for parts. The
keeping of large numbers of cars in the County is a separate issue. He feels
a reasonable number of cars can be defined. Also, the fact that the inopera-
ble vehicles are screened makes a great deal of difference. He said if
someone has four or five cars on 75 acres of land which no one can see, that
does not bother him at all. Therefore, screening is something that the Zoning
Administrator can determine. He has always thought that a limit of two
inoperable vehicles is unreasonable, especially if they are properly screened.
He suggested that the County Attorney and the Planning Department make a
suggestion to the Board for a reasonable limit on inoperable cars with a
stipulation of screening. He concluded by saying he is not satisfied with the
ordinance as it is proposed.
Mr. Bain asked if there is any difference between the existing ordinance
and the proposed ordinance with regard to what recourse an adjacent property
owner has. Mr. St. John said the proposed ordinance is more permissive to the
keeper of cars than the existing ordinance. The existing ordinance says that
no more than two cars can be kept on a parcel. He said the restriction on the
limit of two has never been enforced because the County does not go around
peeping in buildings to see how many inoperable vehicles are there.
Mr. Bowie said this proposal has been considered by staff and the County
Attorney extensively, and is based on State enabling legislation. The Board
may either send it back for more study, or adopt it. Mr. Bain said he agrees
with Mr. Way. There are certain instances where people should be able to keep
additional vehicles on their property, although he is not sure how many would
be appropriate. Mr. Bain said on the other hand if there is only one rusted,
inoperable vehicle which is serving no purpose, it should be removed.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
129
Mr. Way said the advantage of the proposed ordinance is that for the
first time there is a way to get rid of unwanted vehicles. He said that
program should be tried to see how many inoperable vehicles can be voluntarily
removed, and at the same time allow others to keep a reasonable number of cars
if properly screened.
Mr. St. John said it is possible for the Board to adopt this ordinance in
order to begin the bounty program, but to make the enforcement effective six
months from now. That would give time to see how the program works. Mr.
Bowie said the same ordinance is effective right now, with the exception of
the bounty. He said he did not see the purpose of having an ordinance and not
enforcing it. Mr. St. John said the existing ordinance would continue to be
enforced. The new ordinance would not be enforced through the courts for a
period of six months.
Mr. Bowerman said he must be in the minority because he thinks the
ordinance is well written and will accomplish what is needed. It offers an
opportunity to have vehicles voluntarily removed. He said two inoperative
vehicles on a parcel is reasonable. After ten years on the Planning Commis-
sion and dealing with this problem repeatedly, he thinks this ordinance is
supportable.
Mr. Bowerman then offered a motion to adopt the ordinance entitled
"Inoperable Vehicles" as written and advertised. Mrs. Humprhis seconded the
motion. She said that the rationale behind the need of such an ordinance has
been lost during the discussion tonight. She said the health and safety and
groundwater factors are overriding benefits to the majority of the citizens in
Albemarle County. Given the explosion of inoperable vehicles, she feels this
is a necessary bit of legislation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
(The full text of the ordinance is set out below:)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County:
That the following ordinance designated Article VI, Inoperable
Vehicles, Section 12-34 of the County Code of Albemarle County be, and
it is hereby enacted:
It shall be unlawful for any persons, firm or corporation to
keep, except within a fully enclosed building or structure or other-
wise shielded or screened from public view, on any property zoned for
residential or commercial or agricultural purposes any motor vehicle,
trailer or semi-trailer, as such are defined in Virginia Code Section
46.1-1, which is inoperative.
The number of inoperative motor vehicles which any person, firm
or corporation may keep outside of a fully enclosed building or
structure, but which are shielded or screened from view by covers,
shall be limited to two. As used in this section an "inoperative
motor vehicle" shall mean any motor vehicle which is not in operating
condition; or which for a period of sixty days or longer has been
partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and wheels,
the engine or other essential parts required for operation of the
vehicle or on which there are displayed neither valid license plates
nor a valid inspection decal.
However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to a
licensed business regularly engaged in business as an automobile
dealer, salvage dealer, scrap processor, or public garage, and oper-
ated in conformity with the zoning laws of this County.
The owners of property zoned for residential or commercial or
agricultural purposes shall, at such time or times as the governing
body may prescribe, remove therefrom any such inoperative motor
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page g)
130
vehicles, trailers or semi-trailers that are not kept within a fully
enclosed building or structure.
The governing body or its agent may remove any such inoperative
motor vehicles, trailers or semi-trailers, whenever the owner of the
premises, after reasonable notice, has failed to do so and may dispose
of such motor vehicles, trailers or semi-trailers after giving addi-
tional notice to the owner of the vehicle; in which case the cost of
any such removal and disposal shall be chargeable to the owner of the
vehicle or premises and may be collected by the County, as taxes and
levies are collected; and such cost shall constitute a lien against
the property from which the vehicle was removed, the lien to continue
until actual payment of such costs have been made to the County.
Disposition of inoperable abandoned vehicles shall be accom-
plished in accordance with Chapter 12 of Title 46.2 of the Code of
Virginia, and any regulations promulgated thereunder by the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles. The Zoning Administrator is hereby
designated as the official authorized to carry out the provisions of
this ordinance, and the County Executive with the approval of the
governing body shall be empowered to enter into such contract or
contracts with private persons or agencies, as shall be feasible for
carrying out the provisions hereof.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-92. Percy Maupin. To locate a permanent
mobile home on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map
100, Parcel 7C is located on the north side of Rt. 631 approximately one mile
north of Rt. 712. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on January 1 and January 8, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said it did not appear that the applicant or a representa-
tive was present. Mr. Bowie asked him to give the staff report in the event
the applicant did appear.
Mr. Cilimberg then gave the staff report as follows:
History:
On May 18, 1988, a temporary mobile home permit (M}{P-88-06) was issued
to the applicant. The mobile home was to be used as interim housing
during the time that renovations to the existing house on the site
were performed.
On August 12, 1988, the applicant notified that the mobile home was
located on-site without the issuance of building permits.
On August 18, 1989, MHP-88-06 was revoked due to suspension of con-
struction activities.
On November 14, 1989, the Board of Zoning Appeals dismissed variance
89-94 which was a request to reduce setbacks to allow a mobile home to
be located on the property.
On November 29, 1989, the applicant was notified that the existing
mobile home was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
has not responded to that notification.
Staff Comment: Staff has attempted to contact the applicant on
several occasions and has been unsuccessful. The mobile home is
currently located on the property. Neither the mobile home nor
dwelling are currently inhabited. The applicant has stated verbally
to the Zoning Department that the mobile home is to be used as storage
while the house is under renovation. There is no provision in the
Zoning Ordinance for the use of a mobile home as storage.
The mobile home will be visible from all adjacent parcels and the
public road. One letter from an adjacent owner has been received
concerning this petition. This letter states a general objection.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
131
As stated earlier, the last representation of County staff by the
applicant was that the mobile home was to be used for storage. The
Zoning Ordinance has no provision for this intended usage and there-
fore this petition should be dismissed accordingly.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition staff recommends the following conditions of
approval:
Mobile home is to be used as a residence only and is not to be
used as storage;
2. Mobile home is for the use of Percy Maupin's family only;
3. Albemarle County building official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile
home to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a certifi-
cate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department~of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 16,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of the petition.
Mr. Bowie said since there were citizens present to speak to this re-
quest, he would open the public hearing.
Mr. Woodrow Campbell, an adjacent landowner, said he is opposed to the
special use permit. He said if this trailer is allowed with septic fields,
they will be no more than 70 feet from his well. He said Mr. Maupin is a
building contractor and thought he could remodel the structure in three years.
Mr. Campbell said the County Inspections Department had reported that the
building could not be remodeled because it is too far gone. He said he
offered Mr. Maupin several weeks of his time to help him build a new house,
but Mr. Maupin wants to use the trailer.
Mr. Jeff Kahn said he feels this is a case of abuse of administrative
approval. He said he opposes this because the trailer is so near to his
property line and has been for a long time.
The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to
deny SP-89-92. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-89-15. First Virginia Bank-Central. To allow for
a bank with drive-in window on 1.4365 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 32A, Parcel 02-1, is located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 29N and Rt. 649 (Proffit Road). Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 1 and January 8,
1990.)
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
132
Mr. Bowie said there has been a request from the applicant dated February
2, 1990, to withdraw because they are revising their plans.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris
to refer this item back to the Planning Commission for further consideration
in accordance with the applicant's letter of February 2, 1990.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
(The Board recessed at 8:59 P.M. and reconvened at 9:15 P.M. without Mr.
Perkins.)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-88-19. Bill Robertson. To rezone 2.330 acres
from C-1 Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial, to allow for the expansion of
Robertson Electric Company. Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12,
Parcel 1M; Tax Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1K; and Tax Map 61U, Section 1,
Parcel 8A, is located on the west side of Berkmar Drive approximately 1,000
feet from its intersection with U.S. Rt. 29. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 1 and January 8, 1990.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-79. Bill Robertson. To allow for a contrac-
tor's office and equipment storage yard located on property zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1M; Tax
Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1K; and Tax Map 61U, Section 1, Parcel SA, is
located on the west side of Berkmar Drive approximately 1,000 feet from its
intersection with U.S. Rt. 29. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 1 and January 8, 1990.)
(Mr. Perkins returned to the meeting at 9:19 P.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report for Agenda Items 8 and 9 together as
follows:
"Summary: Staff has reviewed the special use permit petition for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recom-
mends approval subject to conditions. Staff has reviewed the rezoning
for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval of the rezoning, and recommends
approval subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers with
the exception of Proffers 1 and 2 found on Sheet 5 of Attachment B.
Staff Comment: Since the Comprehensive Plan recommends community
service commercial uses in this area, the character of commercial
zoningwill be the primary focus of this review. Staff will address
matters of: intensity of uses; locational requirements; and access.
Intensity of Uses: Current C-1 zoning specifically lists 23 uses by
right and 11 uses by special use permit. Under the applicant's
proffer, 18 uses would be allowed by right and eight uses would be
allowed by special use permit. Of the 18 uses included in the appli-
cant's proffers, 15 uses are permitted in like fashion in the C-1
district. Of the eight uses allowed by special use permit included in
the applicant's proffer, seven are allowed in like fashion in the C-1
zone.
As regards the three remaining by-right uses, staff opinion is that,
as a group, these uses are not substantially different from the
general C-1 zoning in terms of intensity of site development, visual
character, and compatibility to the area. The applicant has submitted
his justification for these new uses. The three remaining by-right
uses are: New automotive parts sales, newspaper publishing, and
office and business machine sales and services. The only additional
use included by special use permit is contractor's office and equip-
ment storage yard.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
133
In summary, under the applicant's proposal the character of the
commercial rezoning would remain primarily retail/service/office in
nature. However, the inclusion of contractor's office and equipment
storage yard would introduce a use involving extensive outdoor stor-
age. Adequate protection should be provided to adjoining residential
areas and the public road to maintain the intended zoning character of
the area.
Locational Requirements: The HC, Highway Commercial, district is
intended for location along major highways in the urban area and
communities. The C-l, Commercial, is intended for central business
locations and in major growth areas, as well as villages. Generally,
the HC district requires heavier trucking than the C-1 district and
has uses more oriented to the travelling public. Staff opinion is
that the applicant's proffer generally maintains the locational
requirements of the C-1 district and avoids uses involving heavy
trucking and uses requiring 'highway exposure'.
Access: Currently the site has two entrances onto Berkmar Drive. The
Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that 'the two exist-
ing entrances do not have adequate sight distance'. The eastern
entrance cannot obtain adequate sight distance due to the vertical and
horizontal alignment of Berkmar Drive. The western entrance can
obtain adequate sight distance with 'clearing of vegetation and
platting a sight easement on the property' The Virginia Department
of Transportation is recommending that all the access to the property
be consolidated into a single entrance. Staff is recommending that
the eastern entrance be closed and that the western entrance be
improved so that adequate sight distance may be obtained.
Special Use Permit Review: The applicant has agreed to the following
proposals in regard to landscaping;
We offer to plant a twenty-foot wide staggered row of evergreens,
spaced fifteen feet on center.
We propose to have a minimum tree height of six to eight feet at
planting, thus exceeding the minimum requirements.
Be
If the adjacent Berkeley property owners agree, we propose this
planting to be on the rear of their property. This is the higher
ground and would make the screening more effective from the
Berkeley owners point of view.
e
If the adjacent Berkeley owners do not agree to the planting on
their property, we then offer to place the plantings on our own
property.
Staff Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the special use permit
petition for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and is of the opinion that the special use permit and rezoning are in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance; the use will not
be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the charac-
ter of the district will not be changed. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of ZMA-88-19 for Bill Robertson, subject to the applicant's
proffers found in Attachments A and B with the deletion of items 1 and
2 found on Sheet 5, Attachment B.
The proffers attached to ZMA-88-19 and recommended for acceptance are
as follows:
There is a sight easement requirement across the front of Lot
12-1M. We propose to grade and smooth this area. Grass will be
planted and will be maintained and mowed. We propose to plant
shrubbery and landscape a strip of ground along the frontage of
the property up to this sight easement, The landscaping and
plantings would be at least equal to, and compatible with the
present Robertson Electric and Berkmar Park landscaping.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
e
134
We offer to plant a twenty-foot wide staggered row of evergreens,
spaced fifteen feet on center.
We propose to have a minimum tree height of six to eight feet at
planting, thus exceeding the minimum requirements.
If the adjacent Berkeley property owners agree, we propose this
planting to be on the rear of their property. This is the higher
ground and would make the screening more effective from the
Berkeley owners point of view.
If the adjacent Berkeley owners do not agree to the planting on
their property, we then offer to place the plantings on our own
property.
Staff recommends approval of SP 89-79 for Bill Robertson subject to
conditions:
Staff approval of site plan showing closure of the existing
eastern entrance, opaque fence and/or landscaping adjacent to
vehicle/equipment storage areas, and landscaping as described in
the applicant's proffers;
Required site improvements shall be completed within six months
of the issuance of the special use permit. This permit shall
expire six months from the date of approval if required improve-
ments have not been completed;
3. Staff approval of sight easement plats.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 16,
1990, unanimously recommended approval ZMA-88-19 subject to the proffers
listed in the staff report and SP-88-79 subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan;
me
Required site improvements shall be completed within eight
months of the issuance of the special use permit. This permit
shall expire eight months from the date of approval if required
improvements have not been completed;
3. Staff approval of sight easement plats.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had not included in the list of proffers for
ZMA-88-19 the various uses which the applicant had proffered not to use under
the HC zoning. These proffers are found in letters dated July 20, 1989,
signed by Mr. William Robertson, III, and December 18, 1989, signed by Mr.
Robert W. Jackson.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Robert Jackson, Attorney with Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen &
Tweel, said he concurs with the staff report and the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Bill Robertson, sole owner and operator of Robertson Electric, said
he has been located on Berkmar Drive since 1970. He said as a result of the
zoning change from industrial to C-i, his business has become a non-conforming
use. He is attempting to conform to the zoning laws and to continue operating
in the same manner as he has all along and with the ability to expand. He
said he is out of space without this rezoning. Mr. Robertson said he met with
his neighbors, including adjacent commercial neighbors, and there are no
objections to his rezoning request. He also met with the Berkeley Homeowners
Association, with no objection from them as well.
Mr. Tom Underwood, a resident of Berkeley, said he is not representing
the Berkeley Homeowner's Association. He said he does not want any more
commercial property in the area, but he realizes that is unrealistic. If it
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
135
must be, then Robertson Electric is welcome because they are outstanding
neighbors.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve
ZMA-88-19 subject to the five proffers in the staff report and adding the
proffers referred to as Attachments A and B, which are from letters dated July
20, 1989, and December 18, 1989, and set out below.
Mr. Perkins said regarding proffer No. 4 that it makes more sense and
would provide the best screening to plant these trees on Robertson Electric's
property as well as on the Berkeley property. Mr. Robertson said his property
is lower than that in Berkeley, so the lay of the land with a creek between
the two properties causes the screening to be ineffective from his property.
It would enhance the screening effect much more if the trees are planted on
the higher ground which is the Berkeley property.
Mr. Perkins said he thought the double row of trees would help with noise
absorption as well as the visual impact. Mr. Robertson said noise is not a
factor in his business. The work is all done away from this location. He
feels one strip of trees is reasonable and the best use of the land.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
There is a sight easement requirement across the front of Lots
12-1M. We propose to grade and smooth this area. Grass will be
planted and will be maintained and mowed. We propose to plant
shrubbery and landscape a strip of ground along the frontage of
the property up to this sight easement. The landscaping and
plantings would be at least equal to, and compatible with the
present Robertson Electric and Berkmar Park landscaping;
We offer to plant a twenty-foot wide staggered row of evergreens,
spaced fifteen feet on center;
We propose to have a minimum tree height of six to eight feet at
planting, thus exceeding the minimum requirements;
If the adjacent Berkeley property owners agree, we propose this
planting to be on the rear of their property. This is the higher
ground and would make the screening more effective from the
Berkeley owners' point of view;
If the adjacent Berkeley owners do not agree to the planting on
their property, we then offer to place the plantings on our own
property; and
Proffers contained in letters dated July 20, 1989, and December
18, 1989, eliminating various uses under HC zoning as follows:
"The following is a list of the Zoning Ordinance permitted uses in
HC. We request to be allowed all the uses except the uses noted
"Proffer Out" in the left margin. Many uses are commonly allowed
in C-l, as well as HC.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
24.2 PERMITTED USES
136
24.2.1 BY RIGHT
PROFFER OI~
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER 0I~
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER OUT
PROI~'ER OUT
1. Automobile laundries.
2. Automobile, truck repair shops.
3. Automobile service stations.
4. Building materials sales.
5. Churches, cemeteries.
6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic.
7. Convenience stores.
8. Educational, technical and trade schools.
9. Factory outlet sales-clothing and fabric.
10. Feed and seed stores.
11. Financial institutions.
12. Fire extinguisher and security products,
sales and service.
13. Fire and rescue squad stations.
14. Funeral homes.
15. Furniture stores.
16. Food and grocery stores including such
specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk
dispensary, and wine and cheese shops.
17. Home and business services such as grounds
care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping
and other repair and maintenance services.
18. Hardware.
19. (Repealed 6-3-81).
20. Hotels, motels and inns.
21. Light warehousing.
22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and
rental.
23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service.
24. Modular building sales.
25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental.
26. New automotive parts sales.
27. Newspaper publishing.
28. Administrative, business and professional
offices.
29. Office and business machines sales and
service.
30. Eating establishments; fast food restaurants.
31. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
32. Sale of major recreational equipment and
vehicles.
33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural
produce.
34. Wholesale distribution.
35. Electric, gas, oil and communication
facilities excluding multi-legged tower
structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related
facilities for distribution of local service
and owned and operated by a public utility.
Water distribution and sewerage collection
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County
Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies
and central sewerage systems in conformance
with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and
all other applicable law.
36. Public uses and buildings such as schools,
offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded,
owned or operated by local, state or federal
agencies (reference 31~2.5); public water and
sewer transmission, main or trunk lines,
treatment facilities, pumping stations and the
like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (Reference 31.2.5;
5.1.12).
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
137
PROFFI~ROI~
PROFIrI~RO~
37. Temporary construction uses.
38. Indoor theaters.
39. Heating oil sales and distribution.
40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes.
24.2.2
BY SPECIAL USE PF2LMIT
PROFFER OI3T
PROFFER OUT
PROFFER OUT
PROFFI~R OUT
PROFfER OUT
1. Commercial recreation establishment including
but not limited to amusement centers, bowling
alleys, pool halls and dance halls.
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Livestock sales.
4. Veterinary office and hospital.
5. Drive-in theaters
6. Electrical power substations, transmission
lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange
centers, micro-wave and radio-wave
transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances.
7. Hospitals; nursing homes, convalescent homes.
8. Contractor's office and equipment storage
yard.
9. Auction houses.
10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in
this section, uses permitted in Section 18.0
residential - R-15, in compliance with
regulations set forth therein, and such
conditions as may be imposed pursuant to
Section 31.2.4.
11. Commercial kennels - indoor only.
12. Parking structures located wholly or partly
above grade.
13. Commercial uses otherwise permitted having
drive-in windows.
24.2
24.2.2
PERMITTED USES
1. Automobile Laundries;
4. Building Material Sales;
8. Educational, Technical, and Trade Schools;
12. Fire Extinguisher and Security Products,
Sales and Service;
17. Home and Business Services ...;
21. Light Warehousing;
22. Machinery and Equipment Sales, Service and
Rental;
34. Wholesale Distribution;
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
2. Septic tank sales and related services."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
approve SP-89-79 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:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan;
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
138
me
Required site improvements shall be completed within eight months
of the issuance of the special use permit. This permit shall
expire eight months from the date of approval, if required im-
provements have not been completed; and
3. Staff approval of sight easement plats.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: Lakeland at Reynovia Preliminary Plat, Tax
Map 90, Parcel 36.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a clerical error had been made in describing
this as a preliminary plat. He said the Planning Commission has approved the
final plat for this section. This was advertised as a preliminary plat in the
notification procedure. However, the County Attorney did not think that would
jeopardize the proceedings. Mr. Cilimberg then gave the staff report as
follows:
"Staff Comment: The applicant has revised the plat in general accor-
dance with the comments of the site review committee. The plat
reflects the conditions of ZMA-88-11 and staff recommends approval of
the Lakeland at Reynovia Final Plat subject to the following condi-
tions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The Final Plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
Planning Staff approval of revised plat noting 25-foot
setbacks from all rights of way for lots 58, 67 and 77;
Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit."
Mr. Cilimberg said at its meeting on January 9, 1990, the Planning
Commission had unanimously approved the final plat subject to the same condi-
tions noted in the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg said the Mill Creek Homeown-
ers' Association in Mill Creek Subdivision is appealing the Planning Commis-
sion's decision.
Mr. John Mason, a resident of 65 Mill Creek Court, and President of the
Homeowners Association at Mill Creek came forward to speak. He said he had
thought the lots would be larger than those shown on the preliminary plan in
1989, but that is not a big issue. He said the Association knew there would
be a development and is not objecting to that. They are concerned that this
development complement the Mill Creek neighborhood. Specific concerns involve
restrictions on animals roaming at large and the number of unlicensed vehicles
that would be allowed. He said another concern which has not been addressed
is replanting in the area where the public sewer line will be installed. He
also is concerned about the movement of earth from one area to other low-lying
area. He said they have a question about the internal roads because Mill
Creek residents feel it would not be appropriate to use the roads between the
subdivisions and not build the approved roads for Lakeland. He said there
were other residents of Mill Creek present to express their concerns.
(Mr. Way left the meeting at 9:50 P.M.)
Mr. Jerry Hollins, member of the Board of Directors for the Mill Creek
Homeowners Association, said he had initiated this appeal because his house is
adjacent to some of the land to be developed. He knows the County has had a
plat since 1986 for this project, but the residents of Mill Creek have only
received some information recently. Mr. Hollins said he has lived in Mill
Creek since 1988, and did not receive any notification about any meetings
until December, 1989. Mr. Hollins said the residents knew there would be a
development at Reynovia; he did not think it would be 10 feet from his proper-
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
139
ty line, however. He said he was told there would be a buffer area. Since
there has been a development planned since 1986 for Reynovia, he said homeown-
ers would have felt better if they had been able to access information about
the plat. He said there has been confusion in the County all along, and he
cited the example of whether it is a preliminary or a final plat already
mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg. He said the Homeowners have tried to meet with
all parties to work out something equitable. There is a responsibility to the
people purchasing homes in Mill Creek to maintain the life style currently in
that subdivision. He feels that a natural buffered area between the two
subdivisions would be beneficial to both. He does not think it is unfair to
ask that trees be planted as a border where the property lines meet. For the
safety of children, there should be a leash law. He said the Mill Creek
Homeowners had submitted copies of the covenants of their subdivision to the
developers of Reynovia. He said this is a question of protecting communities
and neighborhoods, not just of allowing development.
Mr. Cliff Risso, a homeowner in Mill Creek, said his property borders on
this development. He said he is concerned about a buffer between developments
and about the sewer line. He said the installation of the sewer line will
remove trees which now act as a buffer to his property. He wants to make sure
the land is restored.
Mr. Brian Lambert said he supports the remarks of his other neighbors.
He wants to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and be a good neighbor
as well. He asked all those in the audience to stand who felt the same way.
A number of people stood in agreement.
Mr. Arthur Hill of 1436 Greystone Court, came forward to speak. He said
he moved to Mill Creek from Virginia Beach where he saw massive subdivisions
being developed. He said one thing that attracted him to Mill Creek was the
seclusion and ease of getting into town. He enjoys the relaxed life style
with the natural beauty around the Mill Creek development. If the developers
of Mill Creek could plan borders to protect the natural look, even though they
were only ten feet, certainly another developer could have the same respect
for the Mill Creek Subdivision and have a buffered area.
With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the
matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked how the Board wished to proceed.
Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission's action stands unless there is
a majority vote to revise the plat or an amendment is made to the plat. If
the Board takes no action, the Planning Commission recommendation stands as
final. He said the Board could also vote to affirm the Planning Commission's
decision.
(Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 10:05 P.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Albemarle County Service Authority will not
replant in the area where the sewer line is installed in case there is ever a
need to get to the sewer line in the future. He said this is a matter of a
difference of design between two subdivisions. In the Mill Creek Subdivision
the design included open space on the perimeter of the lots. The Reynovia
development has open space areas internal to the development. He said there
is nothing in the County's Subdivision Ordinance that requires buffering of
like residential uses.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are setback requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said
the setback requirements are for R-4 zoning.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this can be resolved satisfactorily. Mr.
Cilimberg said the homeowners could get together with the developers and try
to work out a solution.
Mr. St. John said the question is whether the Planning Commission did
something they should not have done in approving the final plat or failed to
do something. If the question is whether the Board has the power to impose
another condition on the developer or to require Lakeland to provide covenants
similar to those in Mill Creek, the answer is "no".
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
140
Mrs. Humphris asked how wide a swath the sewer line would cut. Mr.
Cilimberg said about 20 feet wide.
Mr. Bowerman said some of these concerns were expressed at the Planning
Commission meeting. It was hoped that the adjacent property owners would work
together to resolve their differences.
Mr. Cilimberg said, for the benefit of the homeowners from Mill Creek,
the notification process for rezoning applications is unfortunately at the
mercy of the records of the County's Real Estate Department. In the case of
Mill Creek, many of the landowners were new homeowners, and the records were
not up to date on the newer closings.
Mr. Bowerman said, while he is sympathetic to the homeowners of Mill
Creek, he feels the Board should uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
He immediately made a motion to that effect which was seconded by Mr. Bain.
Mr. Bain said he did not really think the Board needed to act at all. Mr. St.
John said he felt it would be easier to keep track of the paperwork on this
matter if the Board took an action, although there is not a legal requirement
for a motion from the Board.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Way.
Mr. Cilimberg then asked the Board for direction regarding the borrow
area in the Lakeland Development. He said the Planning Staff does not feel
comfortable authorizing a borrow permit.
Mr. Bowerman asked what standards would have to be met. Mr. Cilimberg
said Soil and Erosion Control standards would have to be met. The Engineering
Department handles the permit process. A plan has to be submitted including
how to get in and out of the area. The big concern is that the Mill Creek
roads will be used. He said that could be handled through the permit process.
Mr. Bowie asked exactly what Mr. Cilimberg wanted from the Board. Mr.
Cilimberg said he would like to get the Board's feeling on whether such a
permit should be issued. He said there is no precedent for this. Mr. Agnor
said there are regulations which have to be met for a permit to be issued.
Mr. St. John said the borrow activities require special use permit.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request from Dogwood Festival Committee to use the
Rivanna Park for its 41st Annual Dogwood Festival in April.
Mr. Agnor said the President of the Annual Dogwood Festival has requested
the use of Rivanna Park for amusement rides, fireworks display, etc. while
McIntire Park is under reconstruction. The request is for April 10-22 for the
hours of 6:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. on week days and from 1:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.
on the weekend. There is also a request for a waiver of all licenses and
fees. Mr. Agnor said staff has reviewed the request and feels the space can
be used as requested without damage to the playing areas. The fees are
approximately $800, which are annually waived by the City for the use of
McIntire Park. One-half the cost of two police officers to patrol the grounds
is also provided by the City at an estimated cost of $750. Mr. Agnor ex-
plained that this request is for interim use until McIntire Park reconstruc-
tion is complete. Mr. Agnor said the County has not waived fees in the past,
although there is no specific policy in this regard. Staff's recommendation
is that approval of the use of the park be granted until 10:00 P.M. nightly
since this is a long-standing community event and an interim request only. As
to the waiver of fees and expenses, staff recommends denial of the request.
Mr. Bill Londeree, President of the Dogwood Festival, said this request
is being made because the usual location, McIntire Park, is closed. He said
amusement rides are a large portion of their income. Therefore, they are
limited in the size of the location they can use. Mr. Londeree promised that
the Dogwood Festival would not destroy or mess up any property. They simply
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
141
are asking to be allowed to use Rivanna Park on a one-time basis while
McIntire undergoes renovations. They would return to McIntire Park next year.
Mr. Dan Parks, Vice President of the Dogwood Festival, added that they
are in a predicament not of their own making. The Festival is scheduled to
start in 62 days from this date, with no place to locate the carnival.
Ms. Judy Vermillion, owner of historic "Franklin" adjacent to the Rivanna
Park, said there are practical reasons not to allow this request. The Rivanna
Park is not yet open, and the grass is not established. This activity would
tear up the fields if it rains, making them unusable for their intended
purposes for some time. The noise, traffic congestion, and trash along the
roads are all practical reasons not to allow this request. Ms. Vermillion
said none of these are her main concern. She said when the Rivanna Park was
being developed, residents in the area were promised that the Park would be
gated and closed at dusk. There would be no lights other than for security
and safety. Ms. Vermillion said she is not against the Dogwood Festival. She
is for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors keeping its promise to its
citizens. She said if time had allowed, she could have probably presented a
petition with hundreds of names. However, based on the promise of no after-
dark activities, she asked that the Board deny all requests that would violate
that agreement. She asked that the Board not set a precedent in this case
which would be difficult to deny in the future. She said the residents in
that area were promised green space and day time activities, and she is asking
that the Board keep that promise.
Mr. Ken Boyd, a resident of Key West and President of the Homeowners
Association, said he concurs with Ms. Vermillion'S statements. The Homeowners
Association is opposed to after-dark activities and hopes that the Board will
adhere to its promise.
Mr. Tom Underwood from the Charlottesville Elk's Lodge, representing 850
members who have facilities across from the Rivanna Park, said he has nothing
against the Dogwood Festival. However, the Elk's Lodge membership feels that
the carnival noise and fireworks and the additional traffic problems that will
be created will only serve as a detriment to the residents of the area.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, former Board member, said he has two perspec-
tives on this issue. One perspective is as a property owner who will be
travelling by this area, and he has concerns from that perspective. Mr.
Lindstrom said he understands the staff's perception that a temporary event is
something that might outweigh the temporary inconvenience. However, he feels
that something more important is at stake. He feels that the public's percep-
tion of the Board's willingness to follow through with a promise is more
important than the Dogwood Festival. He said he was on the Board when this
agreement was made to allow no after-dark activities. He would like to see
that honored.
Mr. Marshall Pryor, a representative of the Dogwood Festival, said the
organization has tried to be good neighbors by bringing good will to the
community through activities during the Festival. He said they are asking for
28 hours of light in 12 days. Mr. Pryor said he realizes this will be an
inconvenience to nearby property owners. However, he said they would try keep
the inconvenience to a minimum. He said they would be operating at reduced
hours. He said this request is for one time only due to weather circumstances
beyond their control for renovations at McIntire Park.
Mr. Jim Stein said he has six children who would love to see the carnival
across the street. However, he has a similar concern as Mr. Lindstrom. This
decision will be viewed by the public as a precedent affecting the credibility
of this Board.
Mr. Bowie said he participated in the meetings where the citizens were
promised no lights. He said he enjoys the Dogwood Festival. However, he had
repeatedly stated there would be no night activities in Rivanna Park. He made
that statement several times in public, to citizens and to the media. He said
he hopes the Dogwood Festival can find another location, but he cannot support
their using Rivanna Park.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
142
Mrs. Humphris asked what other alternatives had been considered. Mr.
Londeree said the Festival is only two months away, and his organization was
under the impression that they would be able to use Rivanna Park.
Mr. Way said he had spoken with the Deputy County Executive, Mr. Tucker,
and asked about other alternatives. He had suggested Crozet Park, or the
location used for the County Fair, which would require a special use permit.
From the County's perspective, there are no other alternatives. Mr. Way
suggested the area where the circus is held, although it is a low-lying area.
At this point, the meeting was interrupted when Mr. Way felt ill and
experienced shortness of breath and chest pains. At 10:47, after Mr. Way was
attended by the Rescue Squad and transported to the hospital, the meeting
resumed.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, said use of the
Crozet Park would have to be approved by the Crozet Park Board. He suggested
that Pen Park might be a possibility, although there is a concern about
limited parking. He also mentioned Bagby Field and the County Fair location.
He felt Pen Park was the next best alternative.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a difficult decision. He has had numerous
calls strongly requesting the use of the Rivanna Park. Although, he was not
on the Board when the Rivanna Park was developed, he does not feel that he can
justify going back on the Board's cox~itment. He plans to attend the Dogwood
Festival and hopes they can final an alternative location. Mr. Bowerman feels
that it is more important to keep the credibility of the Board with the
public, and that is the overriding concern. He then offered a motion to deny
the request. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain said he concurs with Mr. Bowie and Mr. Bowerman that the Board
has a commitment to live up to what it says.
Mrs. Humprhis said she has a history of caring about the Dogwood Festi-
val. Her heart tells her it would be wonderful to support their request, but
her head tells her to maintain the integrity of this Board. She will have to
concur with the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Legislative Review: "Vesting" Bills, HB 721, 1121,
1122, 708.
Mr. Lindstrom briefed the Board on the status of pending legislation.
said the subcommittee has reported an amended version of HB721 which deals
with conditional zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said in his opinion the amended
version is not too bad.
He
HBll21 has not been acted on. If no action is taken by the committee by
Friday, Mr. Lindstrom said the bill will be dead. He thinks that HB721 will
be a substitute for this bill.
Mr. Lindstrom said that HBl122 is the broad vesting bill. He was told it
has been modified this evening and does not look good, although it is not as
much of a problem for Albemarle County as for some localities. He said this
law will modify what the Supreme Court said and even go beyond that.
Mr. Lindstrom said that HB708 is really bad. This bill has been reported
out favorably with the deletion of some material about substantive and proba-
tive evidence.
Mr. Lindstrom reported that there would be a meeting of the full commit-
tee on Friday morning at 9:00 A.M. Mrs. Marshall, Committee Chairman, had
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
143
said that was when all bills would be heard. However, there is a move to have
some bills heard tomorrow night at 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Bowie said the Board had opposed all of these bills. He said he
would FAX the Board's position to the legislative liaison to have hand deliv-
ered to every committee member before the 8:00 P.M. meeting.
Agenda Item No. 12b. SB 214, Single Liner for Landfill Cells. Mr. Bowie
reported that this bill has been passed by indefinitely.
Agenda Item No. 12c. HBlll5, Drinking Water Protection Fund.
said this bill was deferred until next year.
Mr. Bowie
Agenda Item No. 12d. HB677, Residential Density. Mr. Bowie said he is
strongly opposed to this bill because it negates the Comprehensive Plan for
protection of the Rural Areas. There was no objection from Board members.
Agenda Item No. 12e. Lottery Profits Distribution Resolution. Mr. Bowie
said he had prepared a resolution supporting the return of lottery profits for
the Board's action. He said Delegate George Allen will'attempt to expand this
bill to include funds for roads, schools and landfills. Mr. Bowie said this
resolution needs to be forwarded to the legislative representatives and to
other counties. He said there seems to be a swing toward the return of
lottery monies to the localities.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Bain
to adopt the resolution as set out below. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
WHEREAS, the Governor, the General Assembly and State regulatory
agencies have stipulated, mandated and legislated many programs,
projects and standards on Albemarle County and all other local govern-
ment; and
WHEREAS, funds for the accomplishment of said levies were not
forthcoming from the Commonwealth. For example:
me
Since 1985, State mandated teacher salary increases
have increased Albemarle's cost by $11.5 million
annually. The total annual increase in State funding
for education during the same period has been only
$7.4 million. The additional $4.1 million must be
made up from local property taxes; and
Be
The December, 1988, Solid Waste Management regulations,
which exceed both State and Federal requirements,
will cost Albemarle County an additional $924,000
for each landfill cell; and
WHEREAS, the only source for funding these requirements will be
increased personal property and real estate taxes; and
WHEREAS, the report from the House Finance Subcommittee studying
real estate tax assessments proposes limiting real estate tax
increases;
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, that the lottery profits now generated
be returned in total to the local governments whence derived.
Agenda Item No. 12f. Other Legislative Matters. Mr. Bowie reported that
late this afternoon he heard that Delegate Allen has enough votes to keep the
recordation tax.
February 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
144
Mr. Bowie said if there is no objection from the Board he would write a
letter stating the Board's objection to the vesting bills. The Board also
agreed to oppose binding arbitration for School employees as being the first
step toward collective bargaining.
Agenda Item No. 13. Minutes: June 7(A), June 14, July 5(A), July 5(N),
July 12, July 19, August 2, September 6(A), October 18(N), November 6 and
December 6(A), 1989.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for June 14, 1989, Page 40, Item 20 to
Page 53, Item 26; July 5, 1989(A), Pages 10, Item 4 to End; and July 12, 1989,
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for June 14, 1989, Pages 53, Item 26 to
End, and November 6, 1989, and found them to be in order with two minor
typographical corrections. Mr. Bowie had also read the minutes for July 5(N),
1989, and made the following minute book correction:
Page 14, paragraph three, sentence seven should read, "Mr. Bain said when
he was on the School Board and even before he was on the School Board, some of
the people on this list were never considered as administrators."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve the
minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board Members.
Mr. Marvin Edwards presented a proposal to the Board whereby school
textbook fees could be eliminated if the real estate tax rate is raised by one
cent. He pointed out that the State contributes toward the cost of textbooks,
and that contribution is doubled for localities which provide free textbook
programs. He called his proposal, "A Penny for Textbooks".
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. At 11:25 P.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.