1989-09-20September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 20, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Auditorium, County
Office Building, 401McIntire 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.
BOARDMEMBERS 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
7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and
seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve Item 4.1 and to accept the remaining items on
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. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff's
Office, Commonwealth's Attorney and the Regional Jail for the Month of August,
1989, approved as presented by the vote shown above.
Item 4.2. Planning Commission Minutes f~r September 7 and September 12,
1989, received as information.
Item 4.3. Notice dated September 6, 1989, from the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Department of Historic Resources, noting that Cocke's Mill has been
placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register andhas been nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places, received as information.
Item 4.4. Notice of public hearing scheduled on Thursday, September 28,
1989, at Crozet Elementary School at 7:30 P.M~, concerning the Route 671
(Moorman's River Bridge) Project, received as information.
Item 4.5. Copy of letter dated September 12, 1989, from Mr. Walter J.
Kucharski, Auditor of Public Accounts, noting that the audited financial
statements of the County for the year ended June 30, 1988, have been accepted
by that office, received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-89-28. Richard & Geraldine Muller. To allow five
additional development rights on an adjacent Parcel while restricting develop-
ment of the property known as The Riggory (Parcel 16A). The parcel proposed
for additional division (Parcel 16) will also ~luster two, 21-acre rights for
a total of 12 small lot development rights. PZoperty on east side of Route 20
North about one-half mile north of intersection with Route 610. Tax Map 47,
Parcels 16 & 16A. Rivanna District (Deferred from August 2, 1989).
(Readvertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
2O
"Character of the Area: The property to receive the additional
development rights is Parcel 16, a 70.6 acre tract of land. This
property is moderately to gently sloPed with limited area of critical
slope. Small streams bisect the property to the south and southeast.
The property is mostly open pasture land, with a stand of trees
existing on the parcel's northwestern corner. In addition, there is a
moderate amount of trees existing on the periphery of this property.
The surrounding area is typically ruralwith limited low density resi-
dential development. The Riggory, a property recognized for its
historical significance, exists adjacent to the north.
Route 20 North is designated as a Virginia Byway. A Virginia Byway is
defined as an existing road with relatiVely significant aesthetic and
cultural values, leading to or lying within an area of historic,
natural or recreational significance. This designation does not place
any restrictions or regulations upon a Byway corridor.
History:
SP-89-21 Richard Muller (Cold Springs Hill) A request for 27 lots
with an average lot size of 2.61 acres, i~located on Parcel 16, was
denied by the Planning Commission on Ma~ch 17, 1981, and by the Board
of Supervisors on May 20, 1981. ~
SP-85-42 James K. Barr Estate (in vicinity) A request to divide 241
acres into 28 lots with an average lot Size of 8.6 acres was denied by
the Planning Commission on July 16, 1985, and by the Board of Supervi-
sors on September 4, 1985. This proper~y is located southeast of the
current proposal.
Applicant's Justification for the Reque~t: The applicant is re-
questing a special use permit which wou~d allow a subdivision of
twelve lots on Parcel 16. 'Proffered as part of this special use
permit application, and in an effort to ~maintain the historical
integrity of this property, the applicar~t would forego all future
development of Parcel 16A (if granted fi~e additional small lot
division rights on Parcel 16. )' In addiltion to the perpetual historic
preservation of the Riggory, the applic~t also proposes the dedi-
cation of conservation easements in all ~nvironmentally sensitive
areas, and a buffer strip along Route 20?iNorth as indicated on the
application plan. The subdivision plan as proposed would concentrate
all development on the larger of the twoijtracts while perpetually
maintaining the character of the histori~ Riggory property. We
believe that this development approach i~ in keeping with the County's
goals for the rural area as set forth th~ Comprehensive Plan.'
Special Use Permit Criteria: The following is a review of the pro-
posed Riggory Subdivision for appropriateness of development as set
forth in the eight criteria noted under Section 10.5.2.1, Rural Areas
District (the applicant has responded toicriteria 1, 2 and 3).
1) The size, topography and existing v~getation of the property in
relation to its suitability .... ;
The 70.65 acres of The Riggory Subd{vision presents a variety of
vegetation and topography. The property is divided by an all
weather creek flowing from northeas~ to southwest. The area
northwest of this creek is comprised of open, grassy and gently
sloping terrain, with a few moderately sloping areas. The area
south of the creek, which comprises !only an approximate 21
percent of the total site, is wooded with pines and cedars.
2) The actual suitability of the soil ~br agricultural or forestal
production .... ~
The following soils are found on thi~ property: Fauquier Silt
Loam, Rabun Clay Loam, Starr Silt Lo~m, Myersville Silt Loam, and
Rabun Clay. Of these, Rabun ~ '
Clay Lo~m and Starr Szlt Loam are
classified prime farmland by the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Servic~ when their slopes are less
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
21
than seven percent. These soils are well suited for grain and
seed crops, grasses and legumes, hardwood trees and coniferous
plants. Prime farming soils are not contiguous throughout the
site, dispersed in small areas of 5.53 and 1.98 acres (7.8
percent and 2.8 percent of the 70.65 acres on Parcel 16). At
present, farming uses are minimal and confined to Parcel 16A.
Approximately 35 percent of the property exhibits slopes of seven
to 15 percent. Most of the soils in this moderately sloping
terrain are considered important agricultural lands, moderately
well suited for some grain and seed crops, grazing and pasture.'
The remaining terrain presents 15 t~o 25 percent slopes, with poor
potential for grain and seed crops, and fair to good potential
for forestry use.
3)
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the
property since 1950 ....
This property has been under preferential land use taxation based
on agricultural use since 1975.
4)
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development .....
5)
The majority of land within a one mile radius of this property
(Parcel 16) currently receives preferential assessment for either
agricultural of forestal usage. Ofi'-the 2974 acres in this area,
2063 acres or 69.3 percent enjoy preferential assessment.
Therefore, staff's opinion is that ~his property is in an active
~ .
agricultural or forestal area. Additionally, of the 2063 acres
that received preferential assessment, 531 acres or 17.8 percent
are in the Eastham and Keswick AgriCultural Forestal Districts.
(It should be noted that these figures take into consideration
Parcel 16 and 16A, both which have received preferential assess-
ment since the land use taxation pr~gramwas initiated by the
County in 1975.) ~
In regard to the effect of development on character of the area,
staff offers the following:
Development in an agricultural and £0restal area can change the
character of the area, not only in the immediate vicinity but in
remote areas. Increased residentia%'i traffic on rural roads can
result in hazardous conflicts with ~lower moving tractors, fruit
trucks and logging trucks. New or e~panded utility corridors
through active farms may be requiredito serve new developments.
Staff is not suggesting that the pr6~osed Riggory Subdivision
would generate all negative effects.!~ The above-noted effects
simply states the potential effects !0f residential development in
the rural areas, i~:
The relationship of the property in %egard to developed rural
areas. ~
6)
7)
This property is considered to be anlundeveloped rural area
because approximately 51.6 acres or ~.73 percent of land within a
one mile radius were in parcels of f%ve acres or less prior to
th~ adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.in 1980. The majority of
developed land is found north of thiJ: property along Route 20.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers ....
This property is located approximately 3.5 miles from the Urban
Area and approximately one mile from the Village of Stony Point.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements programming ....
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
22
There is not an anticipated need for the increased provision of
services compared with by-right development. Since the applicant
proposes to restrict all development of the Riggory, the total
number of achievable lots would remain the same.
The traffic generated from the proPosed development ....
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that since
this is not a request to increase the number of lots, no addi-
tional traffic will result if approval is granted. This section
of Route 20 is currently tolerable.
Staff Comment: The analysis of the eight criteria indicates that the
reques.t does not meet all the criteria requirements for the proposed
development in the Rural Areas District~ However, this request does
reflect, to an extent, some of the design standards of the Comprehen-
sive Plan and the Rural Areas zoning goal.
Historical Significance of the Riggory: J~i In an effort to determine the
historical significance of the Riggory, ?staff requested a written
'historical analysis' of the Riggory property from the State Depart-
ment of Conservation and Historic Resources, Division of Historic
Landmarks. The Division of Historic Landmarks staff discussed this
property at their Site Evaluation Committee, concluding that: 'The
property seemed to meet all the criteri~ necessary for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places as i~la Contributing element in the
proposed Southwest Mountains Rural HistOric District'. The Division
further determined that 'located along ~he historic Route 20 corridor
between Montpelier and Monticello, the ~iggory is an antebellum
farmstead featuring a largely unaltered !.main dwelling and a number of
interesting out buildings and farm strudtures. The original half-
story section of the house was built ini'.~the early 19th century, and
the two-story front section dates to th~ 1840's or 1850's. A good
representative example of the region's dOmestic architecture, the
house retains its rural setting and man~~ of its later out buildings.
The property was the site of a classica!!~ school for boys in the second
quarter of the 19th century, and is said to have served as an over-
night campground for General Sherman du~!ing the Civil War.'
Staff opinion is that the Riggory is considered historically signifi-
cant, and there is public benefit to maintaining its existing, unal-
tered setting.
DesiKn Issue: The applicant proposes Q~ design the subdivision such
that four of the twelve lots will share a common boundary with the
Riggory. Staff suggested a redesign of ?the subdivision, with all the
lots being located on the south side of the natural ridge that extends
through the property (Parcel 16). Such a design would mitigate the
potential negative impact that subdiVision activity may have on the
rural and historic setting of the Riggor.y (i.e., visual impact of
accessory structures, play sets, driveways and exposure to fewer
dwellings). Staff recommended that all .~he property north of the
ridge be added to the Riggory to act as A natural buffer under control
of the Riggory, maintain more land available for historic agricultural
use, and possibly make the Riggory more Marketable as an historic
estate. '~
The applicant investigated the staff's d~sign suggestion and sub-
mitted, what staff considered, a feasiblA design. At this time, it is
the applicant's wish not to proceed withistaff's suggestion, citing
that screening measures will be used on ~he original plan to accom-
plish the visual objective, i
Conclusion: As noted earlier, staff haslrecognized the Riggory for
i--~s~cal significance. The draft ~omprehensive Plan states in
relation to historic sites that 'Albemar!e's historic resources are
important to the community's heritage an~ culture, quality of life,
and tourism economy. Historic resources are especially important
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
23
because they are not renewable, like many natural resources. They can
either be preserved and passed on for future generations to experience
and enjoy or they can be neglected, altered and gradually destroyed'.
The applicant proposes to restrict development of the Riggory proper
as part of this request. While staff recognizes the public benefit to
be gained from the preservation of the Riggory, staff opinion is that
the applicant's proposed subdivision (on Parcel 16) is not as sensi-
tive to the rural and unaltered setting of the Riggory as could be
achieved by alternate design. Staff has recommended in the draft
Comprehensive Plan that certain regulatory measures are necessary to
insure an effective historic preservation program. Among recommended
measures is 'protecting the setting of the historic structures from
incongruous uses for the benefit of the historic property owner as
well as the public'.
In staff's opinion, the proposed development scheme does not ade-
quately protect the historical setting Of the Riggory. Staff would
reiterate that the applicant has designed a development scheme, that
in staff's opinion, would better preserve the setting of the Riggory
and was looked upon as a supportable concept.
Staff Recommendation: ~il
Staff recommends denial of SP-89-29 based on the charge to recommend a
development scheme which best reflects ~he public interest. Should
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine that the
applicant's proposal satisfies the publ~ interest and choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends~the following conditions:
Development to be served by a publlg road aligned to intersect
Route 20 across from Route 649;
Prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat, County
Attorney approval of documents to ~ffectuate perpetual historic
preservation of The Riggory, conse{vation easements, and appro-
priate buffer strips;
Prior to Planning Commission review, agent approval of screening
measures in accordance with Section 32.7.9.4(c) and 32.7.9.8(c)
of the Zoning Ordinance."
Since the staff's report was written, Mri Cilimberg said, the applicant
submitted a revised plat which staff feels is sensitive to the rural setting
and historical value of the Riggory. Based on the newly designed plat, the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6~ 1989, unanimously recommended
approval of the application, subject to the following three conditions recom-
mended by staff:
Development to be served by a public road aligned to intersection
Route 20 across from Route 649.
Prior to Planning Commission reviewiof the final plat, County
Attorney approval of documents to effectuate perpetual historic
preservation of The Riggory and significant outbuildings, conserva-
tions easements, and appropriate buffer strips;
Prior to Planning Commission review~i agent approval of screening
measures. ~
Mr. Cilimberg distributed copies of two easements to the Board. The
first is a historic easement granted from the i~ullers to the County and
provides for the preservation of the Riggory house and its setting and states
that no further development or subdivision wi~ take place on the residue
parcel. The second easement, a conservation easement between the Mullers and
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, further safeguards the integrity of the
residue parcel. Mr. Cilimberg said the County~Attorney has reviewed these
easements and found them to be satisfactory.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
24
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the historic easement was not deeded to the
Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks. Mr~ Cilimberg said that agency could
not accept the easement because The Riggory is not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Landmarks.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Virginia Outdoors Foundation will accept the
conservation easement. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", because of the proximity of
the project to a potential rural historic district and its location on a
Virginia Byway.
Mr. Cilimberg said that questions have been raised during the past few
days concerning the number of dwelling units currently on the Riggory pro-
perty. In addition to the main house, there are two or three outbuildings
rented for residential use. Mr. Cilimberg said the Mullers do not intend to
continue this residential use when the property is subdivided. If the Board
approves this request, he said, the Board may wish to add a condition limiting
the number of dwellings on the entire area, ~he subdivided area and the
Riggory property, to 13 units, the units on the 12 subdivided lots and the
Riggory house. He also suggested that the Zoning Administrator confirm the
number of existing dwelling units.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the lots were ~igger in the revised plat submit-
ted to the Planning Commission than the lots ~shown in the two alternatives
presented to the staff. He said that one of ithe objectives of the Comprehen-
sive Plan is to minimize the size of rural 16ts. He asked if there were any
advantage to the revised plat over the first ~lternative, which staff had
preferred.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said ~he road in Alternative 1 was
further down the slope, requiring steep driveways from the road up the slope.
Mr. Lindstrom asked where the good agricultural soils were located on the
property. Mr. Cilimberg said most of these soils were located on parcel 16A.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert McKee, legal representative for Mr. and Mrs. Muller, addressed
the Board. He said the applicants intend to live in the Riggory and oversee
the development of the property. He presented maps showing the slopes and
soils on the property. He said the applicants did not like Alternative 1,
because lots nine, ten and eleven were unmarketable. In order to have good
building sites for all 12 lots, he said, the 9pplicants felt that the road had
to be moved higher up on the ridge than shown in Alternative 1.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for the width of the~'easement between the Riggory
property and the twelve lots. Mr. McKee said~!this easement is roughly 250
feet wide.
Since no one else present wished to spea~ to this application, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked why there was no mention ~of an easement or screening
along Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg said that Alternative 1 showed a 50-foot
conservation easement for landscaping along R~ute 20. He said that staff then
determined that the trees already along this segment of Route 20 provided a
natural buffer and staff decided that the conservation easement should be
placed along the stream, the part of the property that was most vulnerable to
the impact of development.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board co~sider adding a condition to
protect the natural buffer of trees screening ithe property from Route 20. He
said he also wants to know what kind of trees'~ill be planted in the buffer
between the Riggory and the development. Mr. ~ilimberg said the applicant
proposes to plant Eastern White Pines, which g~ow to be 75 to 100 feet tall,
in this area. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that ~he trees will not be 75 feet
tall when they are planted and complained thati plats often show landscaping
features that will not exist for at least 20 y~ars. He said he is concerned
that the trees will not provide a significant ;buffer until they are mature.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
25
Mr. Bowie said he also wants to add a condition specifying that the
number of dwellings will not exceed 13.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the plat and the house sites shown should be
part of the conditions for the special use permit, and a 50-foot wide, undis-
turbed buffer along Route 20, measured from the right-of-way.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve
SP-89-28 with the conditions 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.
Development to be served by a publ{c road aligned to intersect
Route 20 across from Route 649;
Prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat, County
Attorney approval of documents to Effectuate perpetual historic
preservation of The Riggory and significant outbuildings, conser-
vation easements, and appropriate buffer strips;
Prior to Planning Commission review.~ agent approval of screening
measures; ~
The number of dwelling units on theientire estate, including
subdivided lots and The Riggory houAe, shall not exceed 13.
Before final plat approval, determination shall be made by the
Zoning Administrator of the number iPf dwelling units currently
existing at that time; ~'
Existing trees along Route 20 shal~!remain as an undisturbed
buffer; "
The preliminary plat approved by the Board is to be identified by
the initials of the Director of Planning and Community Develop-
ment and dated September 20, 1989;
o
Trees and vegetation as outlined on the initialed plat shall be
maintained and replaced if they should die.
Agenda Item No. 6. Pursuant to VirginialilCode Section 15.1-262, notice is
hereby given that the Board will receive public comments at this meeting
regarding the disposition of the old Crozet Elementary School upon completion
of the new school. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and
September 12, 1989.)
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Joanne Perkins, Secretary of the Crdzet Community Association,
addressed the Board. She read a letter from ~he President of the Association,
Mr. Emery Taylor, urging the Board not to demq!ish the old Crozet Elementary
School. Mr. Taylor wrote that the Association would like to see the building
occupied within a year and suggested the foll6wing ways the building could be
used: as a post office, satellite police station, social services office,
School Board office, day care center for either children or the elderly,
business and professional offices or lodging. If the building is sold, Mr.
Taylor also asked that the Board require the buyer to keep intact the archi-
tectural integrity of the building. Mr. Taylo'r suggested the following
possible uses of the acreage: recreational us~s under the aegis of the Parks
and Recreation Department, housing for the elderly similar to that at the
Meadows, a park under the joint control of the Parks and Recreation Department
and the Claudius Crozet Park Board of Directors. Mrs. Perkins said it is up
to the Board to make sure that the old Crozet '~lementary School is used in a
way that is compatible with the Crozet area. ~
Mr. Harold Pillar, a resident of Scottsville, asked that the Board act
quickly in deciding what to do about the old Crozet Elementary School. He
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
26
said the old Scottsville School has been abandoned for nine years and nothing
has been done about it.
Mr. Michael Griffin, a resident of the Laurel Hills subdivision whose
property adjoins that of the old Crozet Elementary School, addressed the
Board. He thinks it would be a big mistake if the land were left idle and
asked that the adjoining landowners be given the right of first refusal in
purchasing the property.
Mr. Thomas Friend, a resident of Crozet and a member of the Jaycees,
suggested that the old school be used as a meeting place for the Jaycees, Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts and such groups. He also suggested that the playground be
expanded so Crozet residents could use this site for recreation instead of
driving to Charlottesville.
Since no one else wished to speak to this matter, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Perkins asked if all the residents of Crozet interested in the
disposal of the school property would stand. About 30 people stood.
There was no further discussion of this agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-89-58. Wanda Bra~e. To locate a single-wide
mobile home on property zoned Rural Areas. P~operty located on the northwest
side of Route 631 approximately one mile sou6~west of its intersection with
Route 708. Tax Map 100, Parcel 20B. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised on
September 5 and September 12, 1989.) ~
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as f~llows:
"Staff Comment: The proposed mobile hom~ is to be located in what is
currently an open field. The mobile hom~ will be visible from two
adjacent properties but will not be visible from the state road.
Currently, five mobile homes are located!~within one mile of this
property. The applicant is the niece ofi~iCharles P. Hudson who is the
owner of the property.
One letter has been received concerning ~his petition. This letter
raises concerns of road maintenance, but ~does not object to the
location of the mobile home. In previous special use permit requests
where access has been discussed, the ComMission has stated that it is
the applicant's risk as to whether they can locate on the site. No
letters have been received from adjacent ~property owners.
Should the Planning Commission and the B~ard of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends Che following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Albemarle County Building Official ~pproval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;i
Skirting around mobile home from grohnd level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply anh sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintai~md in good condition and
replaced if it should die; ~
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Special use permit is issued for the use of Wanda H. Brake's
family only."
27
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
September 7, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject
to the conditions in the staff's report.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. Wanda Brake, the applicant,
addressed the Board and offered to answer any questions. Since no one else
present wished to speak to this matter, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and
placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approval
SP-89-58 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.
(Note: The conditions as approved are set out in full below:)
1. Albemarle County Building Official' approval;
Conformance to all area., bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed withih thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply?and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Admini~irator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
Maintenance of existing vegetation'· Landscaping and/or screen-
ing to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Adminis-
trator. Required screening shall~be maintained in good condi-
tion and replaced if it should di~}
Mobile home is not to be rented; ?
Special use permit is issued for the use of Wanda H. Brake's
family only.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-61. David W. Cunningham (contract purchaser),
to conduct a Home Occupation Class B for a photography studio on property
zoned Rural Areas in Terrybrook Subdivision. Tax Map 32F, Parcel 01-B26,
Block B, Section 1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 5 and September 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as f611ows:
Location: Property is a wooded lot of Slightly less than one acre on
the cul-de-sac of Crestfield Court. Other residential lots in the
Terrybrook Subdivision are of the same dr larger size, but most are
less than one acre. Although the land iS in the Rural Areas District,
all lots in this subdivision are of comparable size.
Staff Comment: The proposal would allowi~the owner to operate a
photography studio and office in the basement of an existing single-
family dwelling. The applicant envisions a total of two employees
besides himself.
There will be no changes to the exterior of the house and no signs are
planned or will be placed on the property indicating the presence of a
business.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
28
Three letters of objection have been received concerning this peti-
tion. Two individuals have requested that they be heard at a public
hearing and one individual, an adjoining property owner, has stated
objections to any business sign, advertisements or any visible indica-
tions that the property is being used other than as a private resi-
dence.
A telephone conversation between the applicant, David Cunningham, and
staff representative, James Bosworth, on Monday, August 21, 1989,
clarified two areas of concern regarding this application for a home
occupation. The first concern had to do with the taking of senior
high school pictures. Mr. Cunningham informed staff that he does not
have a contract with the area schools. If and when he takes senior
pictures, they are of individuals who c6me for a one to two hour
sitting. The second area of concern had to do with processing and
developing portraits. Mr. Cunningham stated that all of the pro-
cessing is done off-site and would continue to be so.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Sections 5.2 and
31.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and find~ that the use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent properties and that the character of
the district will not be changed.
Should the Planning Commission and Boar~ decide favorably on the
applicant's request to operate a home o~cupation, the following
conditions should apply: i~
1) Such occupation may be conducted w{~hin the dwelling, provided
that no more than twenty-five percent of the floor area of the
dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation;
2) There shall be no change in the outward appearance of the build-
ing or premises or other visible ewidence of such home occupa-
tion; '~
3)
There shall be no sales transaction~ on the premises except those
involving professional photography;i~'
4)
No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater
volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neigh-
borhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of
such home occupation shall be accommodated on-site; and
s)
The home occupation shall comply wigh performance standards as
set forth in Section 4.14 of the ~'
Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commissipn, at its meeting on Septem-
ber 7, 1989, unanimously recommended approvallsubject to the five conditions
listed in the staff's report, and two additional conditions reading:
"6. Special permit is issued to the applicant only and is
non- trans ferab le;
7. No film processing or developing sh~ll take place on the premises."
Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with the ?~hird condition which limits
sales transactions on the premises to those iJ~olving professional photogra-
phy. He said that professional photography m~ght also involve selling cam-
eras. He said he is also concerned that the fourth condition, which requires
the applicant to accommodate on-site any parking required by the business,
might allow the applicant to expand his parking area.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned that th& term "professional photography"
might encompass the sale of many things, such~as picture frames, cameras and
photograph albums.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. The ~pplicant, Mr. David W.
Cunningham, addressed the Board. He said theBe was very little room on the
property to expand the parking lot. He said t{e thinks he could expand the
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
29
parking lot by about ten or eleven feet, which he may do to make it easier to
turn vehicles around in the driveway. He said most of his work is done
off-site, at weddings and ball games, for example. He said he intends to sell
only those things which are produced by photographers. He said he has no
intentions of becoming a camera dealer. He said he will not develop his
photographs on-site. Mr. Cunningham said he has met with his neighbors and
addressed their concerns.
Since no one else present wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked if the concerns brought by neighboring landowners to the
Planning Commission have been resolved. Mr.~Cilimberg said the concerns were
addressed in both the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and a
written agreement between the applicant and the adjoining landowners.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the request, but he would like to change
several of the conditions. He said he would like the words "including signs"
added to the end of the second condition. In the third condition, he would
like to replace "professional photography" with "portrait photography". In
the fourth condition, he suggested adding "E~isting parking area may not be
expanded". ·
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Bowie intended that his revision of the third
condition would prevent the applicant from s~lling picture frames and photo-
graph albums. Mr. Bowie said "no"; he only ~ished to keep the applicant from
selling cameras.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the third ~ondition be reworded as follows:
"There shall be no sales transactions on the~ipremises except those involving
portrait photography and accessories associated with portrait photography."
Mr. Bowie said this wording was acceptable.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seco~nded by Mr. Perkins to approve
SP-89-69 subject to the following conditionso! Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messt~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None. ~
(Note:
1.
The conditions of approval are Set out in full below:)
Such occupation may be conducted w£thin the dwelling, provided
that no more than 25 percent of th~ floor area of the dwelling
shall be used in the conduct of thelhome occupation;
There shall be no change in the outward appearance of the build-
ing or premises or other visible e~idence of such home occupa-
tion, including signs; ~
There shall be no sales transactions on the premises except those
involving portrait photography and~accessories associated with
portrait photography; ~I~
No traffic shall be generated by s~eh home occupation in greater
volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neigh-
borhood, and any need for parking g~nerated by the conduct of
such home occupation shall be acco~odated on-site, and the
existing parking area may not be e~anded;
The home occupation shall comply with performance standards as
set forth in Section 4.14 of the Zo'~ng Ordinance;
Special permit is issued to the applicant only and is non-
transferable;
No film processing or developing sh~ll take place on the
premises. ~
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-69. Robert Hatcher. To allow for the con-
struction of a stream crossing through the one hundred year floodway fringe.
Property is located on the southwest side of .Route 600 approximately 1.25
miles south of its intersection with Route 20 near Stony Point. Tax Map 48,
Parcels 30 and 49. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 5 and September 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as {ollows:
"Proposal: Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a stream crossing
through the floodway of Flannigan BrancH. Property, described as Tax
Map 48, Parcels 30, 48, and 49 is located on the southwest side of
Route 600, approximately 1.25 miles south of its intersection with
Route 20 near Stony Point in the Rivann~ Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: Rolling hills with some areas of steep slopes.
The flood plain is located towards the front of the property along
Route 600. The property is not in the water supply watershed.
Staff Comment: In January, 1989, an exempt subdivision was approved
for this property creating eight lots with an average of 56.8 acres.
The proposed stream crossing will servelTracts 7 and 8, An existing
stream crossing serves Tracts 2, 3 and 6..
The applicant has stated that the desigj of the stream crossing 'using
three, 60-inch diameter corrugated metal pipes will pass the ten year
storm and not raise the flood level from the one hundred year storm on
adjacent properties.'
The Engineering Department has recommended approval of this special
use permit and commented: ;The calculat!ions submitted in support of
the above referenced special use permit ~indicate that backwater
effects caused by the proposed crossing will reach approximately 300
feet upstream. Since this will encroach.' on Tract 6, a permanent flood
easement on Tract 6 will need to be platted.'
Staff recommends approval of SP-89-69 with the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering approval iof grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
Department of Engineering issuance .of an erosion control permit;
Compliance with all Federal, State,~iand local permit requirements
pertaining to the disturbance of a perennial stream;
6
The revised plat shall include a no~e to the effect that no
further stream crossings will be aliowed;
The revised plat shall clearly identify and dimension 30 foot
joint access easements, and that access to Tracts 7 and 8 shall
be limited to the joint access easegent over the proposed stream
crossing;
6. The revised plat shall delineate a flood easement on Tract 6."
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 12, 1989, unanimous-
ly recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Bowie asked if Tracts 7 and 8 carried any additional development
rights, and whether approving this stream crossing would open up these tracts
to further development. Mr. Cilimberg said that Tract 7 has two remaining
small-lot development rights, Tract 8 could b~ divided into three parcels of
less than 21 acres, and the residue of both tracts then subdivided into
parcels of 21 acres or more.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that 11 lots could r~sult from a by-right division of
these tracts. Mr. Cilimberg said that the narrowness of the travelway across
the stream would disallow further subdivision~of Tracts 7 or 8. He said this
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
access could not be widened, nor any other point along the stream used for
access, without the applicant returning to the Board for an amendment to the
special use permit.
Mr. Lindstrom said that if the travelway could not support any further
subdivision of Tracts 7 and 8, then he thinks a condition should be added to
the special use permit which states that "No further division of lots 7 and 8
shall be permitted as a result of stream crossing".
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Sam Saunders, a Civil Engineer
with Glockner and Osborne, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He
said the proposal calls for a roadway ten feet wide over three, 60-inch pipes
laid in the stream. He said this travelway has not been planned to accommo-
date a road acceptable to YDoT's standards, or even the County's private road
standards. He said the applicant does not intend to subdivide Tracts 7 and 8
any further.
Since no one else wished to speak to this request, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said he supported adding the condition, mentioned by Mr.
Lindstrom, that prohibited further subdivision as a result of the stream
crossing. Mr. Keeler asked if this condition was intended to also prohibit
family division rights. Mr. Bowie said "yes'!~'.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
SP-89-69 subject to the following conditions~ Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None. ~
(Note: The conditions of approval are s~t out in full below:)
1. Department of Engineering approval !0f grading and drainage plans
and calculations; ~
2. Department of Engineering issuancepf an erosion control permit;
Compliance with all Federal, State,~and local permit requirements
pertaining to the disturbance of a perennial stream;
The revised plat shall include a note to the effect that no
further stream crossings will be allowed;
The revised plat shall clearly identify and dimension 30' joint
access easements, and that access to Tracts 7 and 8 shall be
limited to the joint access easement over the proposed stream
crossing;
6. The revised plat shall delineate a flood easement on Tract 6.
No further development of Lots 7 and 8 shall be permitted as a
result of stream crossing.
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:02 P.M..and reconvened at 9:15 P.M.)
-;
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-89-8. J. W. W~ight. To rezone 11.4 acres of
48.13 acres from LI, Light Industrial, to C-l= Commercial with a proffered plan
of development as to uses within the area proposed for C-1 Commercial, and a
more general plan of development for acreage to remain LI, Light Industrial
(subject also to prior proffers). Additionally, the 11.4 acres fronting on
U.S. Route 29 North and proposed for C-1 Commercial zoning is subject to the
following special use permit petitions. Property described as Tax Map 32,
Parcel 4ID, is located on the west side of Route 29 approximately 1/4 mile
south of intersection with Route 649. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 5 and September 1~, 1989.)
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
32
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-89-71. J. W. Wright, for the location of a
skating rink in accordance with Section 22.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1989.)
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-89-72. J. W. Wright, for the location of a motel
in accordance with Section 22.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1989.)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-89-73. J. W. Wright, for the location of a
drive-through bank in accordance with Section~22.2.2.10. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave one staff report for Agenda Items No. 10, 11, 12 & 13.
"Petition: J. W. Wright petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone
11.4 acres of 48.13 acres from LI Light Industrial to C-1 Commercial
with a proffered plan of development as to uses within the area
proposed for C-1 Commercial and a more general plan of development
for acreage to remain LI, Light Industrial. (These proffers are in
addition to prior proffers under ZMA-86-02.)
Additionally, the 11.4 acres fronting an~iU. S. Route 29 North and
proposed for C-1 Commercial zoning is subject to several special use
permit petitions.
Character of the Area: This property is"!'.'L' shaped with frontage on
Airport road and Route 29 North. Team T~re, Maupin's Grocery, and
other commercial uses are located in the~!intersection quadrant and
are surrounded by this tract. The Laure~ Hill Baptist Church is
adjacent to the west. Other properties ~n the area are zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Portions of this tract adjacent to Route 29 North and
Airport Road are open; less than one-half~ of the property is wooded.
The property is gently sloping with few Areas of critical slope.
Backsround: This property was rezoned t~ LI in 1986 under ZMA-86-02,
which carried the following proffers:
1) Access to U. S. Route 29 will be limited to one point, at a
proposed crossover, the approximate]location as shown on the
sketch submitted with my zoning application prepared by
Roudabush, Greene & Gale, Inc., dat.~d May 27, 1986. This
location will be coordinated with H611ymead Land Trust and
Virginia Department of Highways & T~ansportation. This con-
nection will not be made until the Proposed cross-over has been
constructed.
2) Sanitary sewer will be extended to this tract prior to such time
that the cumulative total need for ~astewater disposal exceeds
the quantity of wastewater that woul~d have been generated by the
total development of this tract into~ two acre residential lots
(i.e., 27 lots of 300 gallons per da~, or 8000 gpd). The
Planning Commission may require the ~xtension of sanitary sewer
to this property at any time they de~m access to public sewer to
be reasonably available.
Since that time, the new crossover locatfon to serve Forest Lakes has
been established. As in the case of Forest Lakes, substantial fill
on this site will be required to bring a~¢ess to grade at the cross-
over location. Staff opinion is that th~area of critical slopes in-
volved is insignificant and therefore do~$ not require waiver of
Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Add~itionally, public sewer has
been extended into the area. The applicant currently proposes to
extend a sewer line under Route 29 North ~o this site with initial
development of the property.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
33
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted a proffered plan
of development which is specific as to the area to be rezoned to C-I,
Commercial and general as to the area to remain LI, Light Industrial.
Ail development would have access restricted to an internal public
road which would intersect Route 29 North and Route 649 (Airport
Road). Virginia Department of Transportation recommended a transpor-
tation study be submitted in order to determine road category.
A general land use summary follows:
Use Approximate Acreage
Industrial/Office (10 parcels) 33.5
Commercial 11.4
Public Road 3.1
Total 48.0
As to the specific plan for development!of the commercial area, the
following land use summary is offered:
Use
Buildings
Paved Parking
Landscaped, Open
Future Building Expansion
Total
tArea
!~74 Square Feet
246,170
166,789
i19,250
496,584 Square Feet
(11.4 acres)
Uses within the proposed C-1 zoning inct!Ude:
Skating Rink
Drive through-bank
Restaurant
Unspecified Retail/Service
Motel
31,4Q0 Square Feet
4,0~0 Square Feet
7,235 Square Feet
9,4Q0 Square Feet
1~8 Units (expansion 36 units)
Staff Comment: Though rezoned to LI in~!1986 (about time of initi-
ation of Comprehensive Plan review), th~s property is currently shown
with three designations in the Comprehensive Plan - Office Service,
Industrial Service, and Regional Service. The LI District contains
uses appropriate to Industrial Service/Office Service designations.
As to the area currently proposed for C~i zoning, roughly seven acres
is shown for Regional Service while the ~Jsouthern four acres is shown
for Industrial Service in the Comprehens~ive Plan. In recent years,
staff has repeatedly cautioned that subs~tantial pressure will be
exercised for significant commercial development in the Hollymead
area. Staff opinion is that this particular case can be adequately
distinguished so as not to be viewed as ~precedentia!:
1)
2)
The skating rink, bank, and retail/~ervice uses are physically
located within the area shown for Regional Service and are
consistent with Regional Service designation.
The
Motel
and
Restaurant
are physically located within the area
shown for Industrial Service. The ~estaurant can be viewed as
consistent with 'supporting commercial' which is a secondary
usage within the Industrial Servic~.designation. The Motel is
consistent with both Office Service~designations, though not
physically located within those areas as depicted by the Compre-
hensive Plan. The Motel and Restaurant would provide service to
the Office and Industrial Service areas, but with orientation
and location adjacent to Route 29 North would likely provide
greater service to the Regional aspect and airport, as well as
the Hollymead Community (the title ~f the proffered plan is
'Shoney Park' and the Motel and Restaurant would be operated by
the Shoney chain. Few family-oriented, sit-down restaurants
have been proposed in recent years)~
3)
Staff opinion is that there is adequate flexibility in the
Comprehensive Plan to allow physical relocation of intended uses
within a parcel provided the publicipurpose is not compromised.
In this case, the various uses coul~ be arranged in strict
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
34
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, such arrange-
ment would result in an undesirable development scheme from a
physical standpoint. Staff opinion is that the proposed layout
is responsive to physical constraints to development:
a)
The intersection with Route 29 North is at a fixed loca-
tion. The internal roadway is aligned so as to avoid areas
of maximum fill;
b)
c)
Larger buildings (motel, skating rink) are located to take
advantage of cut and minimum fill. Smaller buildings are
located in areas of greater fill;
Larger buildings are located farthest from Route 29 North,
an aesthetic consideration;
4)
d)
The internal public road consiunes about an acre of area
shown for Regional Service, which should arguably be added
to an area not shown for Regional Service.
The proposal is consistent with th~ Comprehensive Plan's desire
to orient development internally along U.S. 29 North with joint
access and side streets.
Staff opinion is that the proffered plah of development is in general
accord with the recommendations of the ~omprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends acceptance of the applicant'M proffer in addition to
proffers accepted under ZMA-86-02 and a~proval of ZMA-89-08.
In regard to the various special use permits accompanying this
rezoning petition, staff offers the following recommendations:
1)
2)
3)
Approval of SP-89-71 for location ~f a skating rink (this is a
Regional use consistent with reco~endations of the Compre-
hensive Plan and criteria for issuance of a special use permit,
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) ~ubject to "a) Location and
size are subject to ZMA-89-08."
Approval of SP-89-72 for location Jf a motel (this is a Regional
and Office Service use as well as a service use to the Airport,
viewed as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) ~ubject to: "a) Maximum of
144 units in location consistent with ZMA-89-08."
Approval of SP-89-73 for location ~f a drive-through bank
(internal circulation patterns are!~reflective of past recommen-
dations. This is a Regional use cQnsistent with the Comprehen-
sive Plan and Section 31.2.4.1) subject to: "a) Location and
size are subject to ZMA-89-08."
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
August 15, 1989, unanimously recommended approval of all of the petitions
subject to the conditions noted in the staff,s report.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what uses the appliCant is considering for the
Retail Services district. Mr. Cilimberg sai~ the applicant did not identify
these uses, but they would be drawn from theilist of uses allowed by-right in
areas zoned C-1. Mr. Lindstrom asked if thi~ list included service stations.
Mr. Cilimberg said "yes" i
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant's ~lan included only the minimum
number of parking spaces needed for such a development. He said he is tired
of seeing huge parking lots built that are f~lled only one day out of an
entire year. He noted that the applicant proposes to build 246,000 square
feet of parking lot and asked if this amount ~was required by the County's
ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has not evaluated the amount of
parking space according to the uses to be on 'ithe property. In two instances,
he continued, the uses themselves have not been specified and these uses may
dictate in part the amount of parking necessary for the proposal.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
35
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the parking is part of the proffer. If the
Board approves this request and staff later determines that fewer spaces
could serve the uses on the property, he said, he wants to know what latitude
the staff will have to require that the applicant build fewer parking spaces
than shown on this plat. Mr. Cilimberg said ithe staff could address this
issue during the review of the site plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned
that if the Board approves this proffer, which precisely describes the
building area, the parking area and the number of lots, should the staff
later determine that some different configuration of building or parking is
required, the staff may not then have the power to require the changes. He
asked the County Attorney to address this issue.
Mr. St. John said he believes that the dumber of parking spaces will be
determined by the uses occupying the buildings. If the applicant chooses
businesses or commercial uses that require mdre parking spaces than shown on
the plat, staff could tell him that he wouldlhave to pick another use that
conformed with the amount of parking space s~t out on the plat.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is still concerne~ that approving this very
specific request will form a legal bond, and ~take precedence over the power
granted to the staff during site plan reviewi~ Mr. St. John agreed that the
applicant could make this argument. Mr. LinHstrom said he thinks the staff
should then be more specific when it reviews:?such proposals. He said it
worries him when Mr. Cilimberg tells him he ~as not reviewed the need for the
parking spaces shown on the plat, when this dgvelopment proposal is tanta-
mount to a site plan. ~
Mr. Keeler said the Site Review Committee has reviewed this plan and the
Zoning Administrator commented that the number of parking spaces could not be
determined until staff knows to what businesJ~es and commercial uses the
applicant will put his property. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said that part of the approval should be that the applica-
tion must comply with the site plan review and the site plan ordinance,
regardless of what is shown on the plat. He i~aid this should be explicitly
understood by the property owner in every case similar to this one.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Roudabush addressed the Board O~ behalf of the applicant. He
said the applicant has determined several specific uses for this site, but
this is an application plan only and is not ilntended to be specific in every
detail. He said the parking configuration shown on the plat is intended to
show that the requirements for parking can be~ met on the site. He said he
believes that more parking spaces are shown than are needed, particularly for
the skating rink.
Mr. Roudabush said he believes that the 6ses shown on the plat are
defined as industrial support services and wfll be compatible with the rest
of the area, which is zoned and will be devel~ped as Light Industrial. He
said this site lies across Route 29 North fro~ a proposed shopping center.
He said the uses in this plan will not compet~ with the businesses in the
shopping center, but will complement the shopping center and the surrounding
growth area. ~
Mr. Roudabush said the system of roads shown on this application plan is
the same system presented to the Board when zQning to Light Industrial was
requested several years ago. He said he and ~he applicant will work with
VDoT to make sure that the entrances from .Airport Road into this site work
safely with the entrance into the industrial park proposed by the University
Real Estate Foundation. He said the parking Iiot proposed along Route 29
North has been set back between 30 and 35 fee~i from the right-of-way of Route
29, which means that the parking spaces will Iie between 55 and 65 feet from
the edge of the pavement of the southbound l~e of Route 29. He said the
parking area along the proposed street betweeni Route 29 North and Airport
Road lies within ten feet of the right-of-way'!of that road, leaving some room
for landscaping. He said the developer plans ito construct the entire road
from Route 29 North to Airport Road. He said!ithat VDoT has requested that 55
feet from the centerline of Airport Road be r~served for future widening of
this road. ~
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
36
Mr. Roudabush said the sewer line proffered in the first request for
rezoning is now in place, .with part of the costs having been paid by Mr.
Wright. The crossover, right-turn and left-turn lanes proffered in the first
request have also been constructed.
Mr. Wright addressed the Board and said that his proposal will reduce
traffic on Route 29, as area residents and employees enjoy the services in
his development, rather than driving further south for the same services. He
said that approving his request for rezoning would enable him to build a more
attractive development. He said that a nicely done commercial entrance onto
Route 29 would be more attractive than an industrial entrance. Approving the
request would also allow him to attract a more up-scale, industrial client
for the property still zoned industrial. He said he appreciates the Board's
concern for aesthetics along Route 29 North and said he will work with the
Planning staff on landscaping the project to'~make the development as attrac-
tive as possible. He said there will be no service station on the piece of
property mentioned by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Wright said he has not yet decided
how to use the two out-parcels, but he is considering uses that will support
the area and/or the industrial park, such as a health club.
Mr. Bowie said he assumed the applicant iwas proffering a 35-foot, land-
scaped setback from Route 29 North and that the applicant will work with
staff during the development of the landscaping. Mr. Wright agreed.
Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the first of tlSe Planning Commission's recom-
mended conditions of approval should be revi~ed to read: "ZMA-89-08 - Accep-
tance of applicant's proffer (outlined in th~ attached staff report, page 1,
Petition) in addition to proffers accepted u~der ZMA-86-02, subject to site
review and parking provisions of the Zoning ~rdinance".~ Mr. Bowie said the
conditions should also state the Board's acceptance of the applicant's prof-
fers of the 35-foot, landscaped setback from ~Route 29 North, his working with
the Planning staff in developing a landscaping plan.
Mr. Bowie then moved approval of ZMA-89~08 with the proffers as amended
above. ~ ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he is interested in ~eeing if the applicant can
internalize the front row of parking spaces, .even if it means moving some of
the buildings closer to the front of the lot.. He added that the Board has
recently required an applicant requesting a ~ezoning to develop both a
20-foot buffer and a berm of 16 to 22 inches ~/.between the applicant's property
and Route 29 North. He said he is not sure that the wording of the condi-
tions suggested by Mr. Bowie would allow the ,~staff and the applicant the
flexibility necessary to consider changes sudh as these to the proposal.
Mr. Bowie said the applicant has agreed ilto screen his property from
Route 29 North. Mr. Bowie said he does not ~hink it matters whether the
applicant is screening a building or a parking lot. He said the applicant
has already proffered a 35-foot, landscaped buffer along Route 29 North and
to work with staff to develop a landscaping Plan for the property. He thinks
that the applicant and the staff will be abl~ to work out a plan that is best
for the property and Route 29 North.
Mr. Wright said that moving a building ~o the front of the property and
placing more parking behind the building would not be a problem.
Mr~ Lindstrom said he is concerned abou~ treating applicants equally,
pointing out that the Board did require a be=m and limit the number of struc-
tures near the front of the property when Mr~ Tom Batchelor presented his
request for a mobile home remanufacturing business. As long as it is under-
stood between the applicant and the Board that the staff has the flexibility
to require that a berm be built and/or some ~arking spaces shifted further
back on the property, he said he will suppor~ the motion.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
37
Mr. Bain asked that, during the site plan review, staff allow the appli-
cant to construct only the number of parking spaces needed for the uses
assembled on this property. He said he is concerned that parking lots are
often twice as big as they need to be for the business they serve.
Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to review the County's parking requirements.
There was no further discussion. 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:)
Acceptance of the applicant's proffer (outlined in the staff
report dated August 15, 1989, Page 1, Petition) in addition to
proffers accepted under ZMA-86-02,1subject to site review and
parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance;
Acceptance of the applicant's proffer of a 35-foot setback from
Route 29 with landscaping;
Acceptance of the applicant's proffer to work with staff in
developing a landscaping plan.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke
to approve SP-89-71 subject to a condition r~ading: "1. Location and size
are subject to ZMA-89-08." Roll was called And the motion carried by the
following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messr~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. BoWie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke
to approve SP-89-72 subject to a condition reading: "1. Maximum of 144
units in location consistent with ZMA-89-08.'!~ Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~S. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to
approve SP-89-73 subject to a condition readfng: "1. Location and size are
subject to ZMA-89-08. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote: -
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
At this point in the meeting, motion was~offered by Mr. Bain and second-
ed by Mr. Perkins to certify the Board out of.lthe Executive Session held in
the afternoon as follows:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTI~ M~TING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board~of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative
recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Boa'rd of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
38
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, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-89-32. David Li & Mary Jean Spradlin. Request
in accordance with Section 28.2.2(8) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance
of a special use permit to allow for a motor~'.vehicle salvage yard on property
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is located 6n the east side Route 620 about
2.5 miles north of Woodridge. Tax Map 104, P~arcel 14Fl. Scottsville Dist-
rict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12,
1989.)
Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-88-27. David R Mary Spradlin. Request in
accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning:~lOrdinance to rezone seven acres
from RA, Rural Areas, to HI, Heavy Industry.~ Property is located on east
side of Route 620 near Woodridge. Tax Map 1~4, Parcel 14Fl. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress~=!on September 5 and September 12,
1989. )
Mr. Clllmberg gave the staff report as ~ollows:
"Staff Report for Davld Spradlln~ ZMA-8~-20 and SP-89-32:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning ~f seven acres from RA, Rural
Areas, to HI, Heavy Industry, in conjundtion with a special use permit
to allow operation of a salvage yard. The Planning Commission recom-
mended disapproval of ZMA-88-20, on FebCuary 28, 1989. Subsequently,
on April 5, 1989, the Board of SupervisOrs referred ZMA-88-20 back to
the Planning Commission for consideratiQn of the applicant's proffers.
The purpose of this memorandum is to address the concerns of the Board
as to whether or not this rezoning would~,~il set an unacceptable precedent
or depart from good zoning practice. S~affts opinion remains that a
rezoning to Heavy .Industry is not appropriate in this particular
location.
This supplemental report is structured ~0 address the following
issues:
1. Spot Zoning;
2. Applicant's Proffers;
3. Comprehensive Plan;
Violations; and
5. Environmental Concerns.
Spot Zoning: A question has been raisediby the Board of Supervisors
as to whether or not this application will set an unacceptable prece-
dent or constitute 'spot zoning' Black!s Law Dictionary defines spot
zoning as: 'Granting of a zoning classification to a piece of land
that differs from that of the other land in the immediate area. Term
refers to zoning which singles out an area for treatment different
from that of similar surrounding land and which cannot be justified on
the basis of health, safety, morals or general welfare of the com-
munity and which is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.'
The County Attorney has addressed this issue by stating, 'If this
rezoning is approved primarily for the p~rpose of providing a place
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
39
for gathering and disposal of junk cars which would otherwise remain
scattered through the area because the owners have no convenient means
to dispose of them, then this approval would be primarily for a public
purpose and not for the benefit of the owner or operator, and thus not
spot zoning. The Board must be assured that this salvage yard will
provide a public benefit by alleviating the proliferation of junk cars
within the County. This salvage yard should not be allowed to collect
vehicles which are of value to the proprietor because of resale or
parts value, and reject junk cars from within the County which have no
value and which may in fact cost more to dispose of than the parts are
worth. If the operation is conducted under those conditions, then it
is being operated solely for the benefit of the proprietor and not of
the public and then both the rezoning and the special use permit would
constitute spot zoning."
The County Attorney has stated that the ipositive findings the Board of
Supervisors must make to justify approval of this special use permit
are to include:
1. The operation will be in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the general public
welfare. The Board in revoking the two special use permits
made determination that the business was operated in willful
noncompliance with zoning regulations.
2. There is a public need for thii~ operation and that this par-
ticular operation will satisfy~that need.
3. The !ack of this operation is~etrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare ....
4. The satisfaction of this public need outweighs the nuisance
potential of the operation itself.
Applicant's Proffers: The applicant haSiproffered the following
conditions with their petition which are~listed verbatim:
No use shall occur on the property other than the existing
uses within the proffered zone~ (In other words, the
Spradlins agree to waive all 6%her uses of the granted
proffered zone.) Present uses~are the public garage that
includes a body workshop, salvage of motor vehicles and sale
of parts relative to the public garage existing and agricul-
tural uses.
Tappin Water Treatment Company'ishall provide to the Zoning
Administrator an annual water/well inspection report on
wells on and around the property. If traces of pollutants
are discovered, the Board of Supervisors, after notice by
the Zoning Administrator, can immediately call for a hearing
to discuss the same, seek redress, and if necessary termi-
nate the zoning for good cause~;shown.
There shall be no ground disposal of gasoline, oil, anti-
freeze, or other lubricants associated with cars. (Nor has
there ever been such disposal.~
Receipt and disposal of all discarded, abandoned or wrecked
cars will be completed pursuan~ to a state salvage and
licensing procedure issued by the state.
No junk yard refuse will be aliowed or accepted by the
Spradlins. Only motor vehicle~ shall be allowed or accept-
ed.
Hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday, (the existing business days and hours).
For emergency only other than ~ormal working hours, the
business will pick up by wrecker on call vehicles as re-
quested by County or State Police.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
4O
The reservoir of car storage shall not exceed 400 cars
located only in the area shown for storage on the site plan.
The storage area will keep all cars in an orderly manner.
The Spradlins are agreeable to work with neighbors on
reasonable screening or fenced confinememt of the storage
area if the same be desired.
The business use and proffered zone shall be restricted by
the Board of Supervisors to the Spradlins and their immedi-
ate family only.
No sale of the business or land under the proffered zoning
shall occur by the Spradlins knless approved by the Board of
Supervisors before hand on te~ms and conditions that the
Spradlins and the Board of Supervisors can mutually agree
to.
10.
In the event the Spradlins cease doing business for any
reason, the Board of Supervisors shall terminate by notice
the proffered zone and the Sp~adlins agree that all vehicles
and motor parts shall be removed at their sole expense from
the property and a clean-up made. In the event the County
is forced for any reason to r~move the cars and clean up,
the Spradlins agree that they!will be personally responsible
for the cost thereof.
11.
The Spradlins will agree to c~ntinue all conditions of their
special use permit except the iprovision of no more than two
inoperable cars. ~i-
12.
The Board shall revoke its apRCoval for non-compliance of
these conditions at any time gpon proof of the same at a'
public hearing.
The first proffer states: 'No use shall! occur on the property other
than the existing uses' which includes t!agricultural uses.' There is
no provision for agricultural uses in a~leas of heavy industrial zoning
so the approval of this rezoning would ~equire that all livestock and
poultry be removed from the property. ~
Staff is of the opinion that only one o~ the proffers begins to
address the previously mentioned list ofi positive findings that the
Board of Supervisors must make to justifi~ approval of this special use
permit. That proffer (number 6) states~"For emergency only other than
normal working hours, the business will pick up by wrecker on call
vehicles as requested by County or State?Police' which implies that
there may be a service provided for the public's benefit. However,
the rest of the proffers do not demonstrate that this operation serves
a public need and, in fact, most of the~proffers are legally unaccept-
able or address issues which would requi~e compliance with regulations
regardless of whether they were proffered or part of the conditions of
approval. To reiterate, the applicant has provided no information
that this operation will satisfy a publi~ need and not be solely for
the benefit of the proprietor. Staff has been provided no evidence as
to why it may be impractical or prohibitive for this operation to
locate in an industrial area where publi~ infrastructure is readily
available to support such a use.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive P!an (draft for Public Hearing,
June 14, 1989) states there is an adequate amount of land available
for industrial development. Currently there are 510 acres of indus-
trially developed land and the Plan designates an additional reserve
of about 1100 acres of vacant and develo~able land.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the following GENERAL STANDARDS to
guide industrial development: ~.
Locate industrial uses adjacent to ~ompatible uses (commercial,
public or other industrial, etc.) as' opposed to residential or
other sensitive areas.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Encourage the location of industrial uses in areas where public
utilities and facilities are adequate to support such uses.
Upgrading and extension of ~oads, water, sewer, electrical,
telephone and natural gas systems should be considered in review
of an industrial application.
Locate industrial uses within a half-mile of highway, air, or
rail transportation facilities not only for convenience of the
industry, but also to avoid industrial traffic through resi-
dential and agricultural areas and on roads not designed for such
traffic.
The Comprehensive Plan also emphasizes that the Rural Area is intended
to provide for natural resource protection, particularly agricultural
and forestal, and limited public services. It is not intended to be a
development district and, in fact, limit&d rural residential develop-
ment and special use permit uses are to be sensitive to and supportive
of this emphasis.
During prior review, the Planning Commission questioned as to whether
this use was of primary service to the immediate area or a regional-
oriented use. In June 1988, the General District Court ordered the
applicant to remove the then 200 vehicle~ from the site. In November,
1988, the Zoning Administrator reported that about 430 vehicles were
located on the site. An increase of +23~ vehicles in five months in
staff's opinion is indicative of a regional scale business. It should
also be noted that staff estimated approximately 700 vehicles at the
site on a June, 1989 field inspection, f~rther supporting the con-
tention that this operation is of a regi9nal scale. Regional busi-
nesses should be located in appropriate 6rban designations. Staff can
determine no distinguishing factors for i%his particular type of use to
be located in a rural area.
History/Violations: The applicant was ~sued special use permits in
1977 and 1983 for operation of a PUBLIC i~ARAGE. The County staff
repeatedly attempted to insure compliance with the various cond!t~ons
of approval including two convictions in!General District Court and
two referrals of the special use permit ~o the Board of Supervisors
for revocation or other disposition. After ten years of repeated
violation, the Board of Supervisors revoked these special use permits
on August 10, 1988.
In addition, the Zoning Department has listed the following apparent
violations:
Mobile homes and semi-trailers have been placed on the property
for storage. (There are now three or four mobile homes and one
semi on the parcel.)
2. Salvaging of mobile homes.
Stockpiling, burying, and/or burning of tires.
There have been additions added to a second building on this
parcel without a building permit. One addition has a restroom
and a kitchen area in it.
Use of a mobile home for residential purposes without permits or
Health Department approval, i~
On March 14, 1989, the Circuit Court of Albemarle County declared an
injunction to, among other things, ceaseland desist operating a
salvage yard or public garage unless thel=property can be properly
zoned for such activity. The injunctioni~is effectuated should the
Board of Supervisors choose not to approve the applicant's request.
Based on past history and the applicant's current position, it appears
that the applicant is unable to comply with zoning restrictions. As
can be seen from the previously mentioned history, extraordinary
expense has been encountered by the taxpayer in terms of litigation
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
42
and consumption of staff's time in attempts to enforce conditions
imposed by the Board of Supervisors. To obligate the Zoning Admini-
strator to enforce zoning regulations as to future operation of this
business may result in continued public expenditures which, in staff's
opinion, is contrary to the public interest. This is in addition to
the fact that this application is a request to rezone a property for
an operation that is not non-conforming, but rather illegal. The
applicant has stated that he would operate with 400 vehicles, however,
currently has an estimated 700 vehicles, 200 more than when the
Circuit Court issued an injunction in March 1989.
Environmental Concerns: Among pollutants associated with motor
vehicle salvage are motor oil, gasoline, brake fluid and antifreeze.
Petrochemicals are a particular problem in regard to groundwater and
surface water contamination since these agents travel great distances
both horizontally and vertically in the soil. Small amounts of such
pollutants can contaminate substantial volumes of groundwater and once
contaminated, wells are usually not salvageable.
Based on the estimate of 700 cars at the site, the following capaci-
ties could be expected: 700 gallons o~!oil; 1400 gallons of anti-
freeze; and unknown amounts of gasoline. If these substances were
removed from the operation properly, t~e applicant should be able to
provide evidence through transaction r~eipts that the physical
removal of these potential pollutants from the property has occurred
in a safe manner.
The applicant submitted a copy of a water report. However, the
Spradlin residence, from which well water samples were taken and
evaluated by an independent laboratory,.is not downgrade of the site
where vehicles are presently stored. ~!~more comprehensive assessment
of groundwater resources in the area wo~ld provide better information
regarding current water quality. The W~tershed Management Official
has recommended such in the attached letter (on file).
More than 15 properties exist within 1000 feet of this site. There is
no alternative to groundwater as a water supply in the area. Staff's
opinion is that groundwater contamination may not become evident for
some perzod of tzme due to the complex movement of subsurface water.
In summary, staff's opinion is that thi~ location is inappropriate for
a motor vehicle salvage operation in te~ms of environmental concerns,
relationship to adjoining properties, a~d adequacy of transportation
facilities. Staff therefore recommends~.'denial of ZMA-88-20 and the
accompanying SP- 89- 32.
The following conditions are offered byv'staff should the Board of
Supervisors choose to approve ZMA-88-20~and SP-89-32. Although staff
does not feel these conditions overcome=~all of the negative aspects
and environmental concerns of the application, there have been con-
ditions included that reflect the regulatory measures for similar
facilities as outlined in the Solid Waste Management Regulations of
the CommonWealth of Virginia. Recommended conditions of approval are
as follows:
1. The applicant shall accept all vehicles presented to him regard-
less of the value to him;
Correct all outstanding zoning violations within 60 days of
approval, including reducing the ndmber of vehicles to 400. At
no time shall the number of vehicles exceed 400, unless necessary
to meet condition #1 as may be required by the Zoning Admini-
strator; I'
Site plan approval;
Neither the automobile storage are~ nor any part of the operation
shall be located within:
100 feet of any stream, pond or other surface water body;
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
500 feet of any well, spring or other groundwater source of
drinking water;
c. 100 feet of any adjacent property;
Staff approval of a comprehensive assessment of the existing
water quality of groundwater resources and surface water runoff;
Staff approval of a groundwater monitoring system which shall be
capable of yielding groundwater samples for analysis and shall
consist of:
At least one monitoring well installed hydraulically
upgradient from the vehicle storage area. Their number,
locations and depths shall beCk. sufficient to yield ground-
water samples that are:
Representative of background groundwater quality in the
uppermost aquifer near the facility; and
2. Not affected by the facility;
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
b. At least three monitoring wells installed hydraulically
downgradient from the vehicle',:storage area. Their number,
locations and depths shall iniaure the early detection of any
statistically significant amounts of pollutants that migrate
from the vehicle storage are~ito the uppermost aquifer below
the facility;
Staff approval of results of the g~oundwater monitoring system to
be submitted on quarterly basis; ~.
Department of Engineering approval~ of a certified engineer's
report in accordance with section ~.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Ail facilities shall be protected ~rom trespass and shall be
surrounded on all sides by natura!i;barriers, fencing, or an
equivalent means of controlling public access through the use of
securable gates equipped with lock~;
Planning staff approval of screening in accordance with Section
5.1.10 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Department of Engineering approval~of a runoff control plan
designed to divert a 25-year, 24-h6ur storm away from storage
area and provide that any surface ~ater runoff is managed so that
erosion is well controlled and environmental damage is prevented;
Dust and odors shall be effectivel~ controlled so they do not
constitute nuisances or hazards; '~
Open burning shall be prohibited, ~xcept pursuant to a permit
issued by the State Air Pollution ~ontrol Board;
Tires shall not be buried on this property;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance;
16. Paving of the existing gravel entrance is recommended by the
Virginia Department of Transportation;
17. Elimination of all agricultural usgs which requires the removal
of all livestock and poultry." ~
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 22,
1989, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-88-20 and SP-89-32. Mr. Cilimberg
said, if the Board decides to approve this rgquest, the staff recommends an
eighteenth condition not mentioned in the staff's report, This eighteenth
I
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
44
condition would establish the following schedule to be followed by the appli-
cant in complying with the preceding 17 conditions: the applicant must comply
with conditions 1, 12, 13 and 14 immediately after approval of the petition
and submit the site plan within 90 days after approval. During the review of
the site plan, the Planning Commission will be authorized to establish a
reasonable time period for compliance with conditions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
15 and 16. The applicant must comply with condition #17 within 60 days of the
approval of this condition.
Mr. Bain asked which of the petitions mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg was
advertised for this public hearing, and if the other petitions, which were
deferred from an earlier public hearing, must also be advertised and heard
tonight. Mr. Cilimberg said the only petitions advertised for tonight's
public hearing were ZMA-88-20 and SP-89-32. He said the other petitions were
brought to public hearing on April 5, 1989; the public hearing was opened and
closed on those petitions at that April 5 meeting.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. ~en Dick, attorney for the appli-
cant, came forward to speak. Mr. Dick said ~t is his understanding that the
Board will consider all the petitions submitted by the applicant, not just
ZMA-88-20 and SP-89-32. He then asked Mr. John Tapscott to present the
results of a groundwater test conducted by Tappin.
Mr. Tapscott addressed the Board and sa~d the water was tested by a
national testing laboratory certified by the.i~Environmental Protection Agency.
He said the applicant asked him to test a p ua, a stream and the wells of four
households. He said he found traces of ethylbenzine and styrene, two hydro-
carbons, in the stream at levels of .010 par~s per million. He said these
levels are safe for drinking water but he do~s not know what effect they may
have on aquatic life. He said he also detec~ied secondary contaminants in the
stream, contaminants which the Health Department considers to be nuisances
rather than harmful. These secondary contaminants include iron, manganese and
metals. He said he found no hydrocarbons in the wells. He said he does not
know where these wells are located, because he did not test the wells himself;
he just picked up the samples.
Mrs. Cooke asked where the wells that were tested are located. Mr.
Tapscott repeated that he did not take the te~ts himself, but had an employee
test the wells. He does not know whether the~wells are upstream or downstream
from the site. ~
Mr. Way asked Mr. Cilimberg if staff has~'seen the water report and
verified its findings. Mr. Cilimberg said : .
Mr. Dick said that Mr. Tapscott had previously determined, in a report
presented to the Board, that there was nothing wrong with the wells on Mr.
Spradlin's property. ~
Mr. Way asked Mr. Dick where the samples!!~from the wells in the report
just presented by Mr. Tapscott had come from.~ Mr. Spradlin said the samples
came from wells belonging to the following adjoining landowners downstream
from his property: Athlene Harrup, Buford castle, 3immy Thacker, Edgar Melton
and Ed Vodipija, Mr. Spradlin said that a sample also came from his own well.
Mr. Dick said the staff's report mentioned that approval of his client's
application would constitute spot zoning. Mr~ Dick said he has researched
this issue and the validity of zoning an area~in a way that differs from that
of the surrounding area depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
He said that many courts have recognized thatispot zoning cannot be sustained
unless the zoning is designed to serve the general welfare of the community or
to further other statutory objectives. He sa~d the State Code, Section
15.1-491.1, provides that every community can~iiprovide for conditional zoning
in its zoning ordinance, which the County has~done. He then read the follow-
ing excerpt from Section 15.1-491.1 of the StJte Code: "It is the general
policy of the Commonwealth ... frequently where competing and incompatible
uses conflict, additional zoning methods and ~rocedures are inadequate. In
these cases, more flexible and adaptable zoniqg methods are needed to permit
differing land uses and at the same time to recognize the effects of that
change". Under the statutes providing for conditional zoning, Mr. Dick
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
continued, zoning classifications may be allowed subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant for the protection of the community, conditions
that may not be applicable to other property similarly zoned.
Mr. Dick said the staff is also concerned about contaminants that may
result from his client's business. He said Mr. Spradlin is willing to proffer
that the Oldover Corporation will remove all solvents collected from the cars.
He said that Mr. Spradlin uses most of the gasoline drained from the cars.
Mr. Dick said that Mr. Spradlin's business has not contaminated a single well
after over 11 years of operation. Mr. Dick said his client can meet all the
environmental concerns raised by the staff.
Mr. Dick said he will now address the issue of whether Mr. Spradlin's
business is in the public interest. He asked!everyone in the audience who
supported the application to rise. About 50 people rose. He asked those who
opposed the application to stand. Three people stood.
Mr. Dick said that Mr. Spradlin providesla service offered nowhere else
in the County: he pays people for their junk;cars and hauls these cars away
from their property. Mr. Dick said these cars are stripped and then sent to
Richmond to be crushed. These cars are no longer in the County and that is a
service to the County. Mr. Dick said the number of inoperable vehicles
currently on Mr. Spradlin's property proves t~hat there is a great need for
such a service. ~
Mr. Dick said his client can abide by m~st of the conditions of approval
recommended by the staff, except for condition #17, which prohibits any
agricultural uses of the property and calls for the removal of all livestock
and poultry. Mr. Dick said the livestock andithe poultry have been on the
property for a long time and he thinks the agricultural uses would be allowed
under the grandfather clause.
Mr. Edward Spradlin addressed the Board. While Dave Spradlin was away on
vacation, he said, a car caught on fire. Mr. Edward Spradlin said the Fire
Department put out the fire, but no one would, pick up the car until David
Spradlin came home and did it himself.
Mr. Howard J. Spradlin, a disabled veteran, addressed the Board. If it
were not for David Spradlin, he said, he would not have a car to drive. He
said that David Spradlin fixes his car for fr~e whenever it breaks down. He
said that David Spradlin tows away cars that break down on the road, clearing
the road immediately when it might have taken hours for a wrecker to arrive
from Charlottesville. He said that David Spradlin helps keep the southern end
of the County clean.
Mr. Tom Knight, a teacher of automotive Mechanics, addressed the Board.
He said that Mr. Spradlin tows away the cars Lis students work on. Before Mr.
Spradlin started doing the job, these cars so~etimes wound up in gullies and
ditches around the County. Mr. Knight said t~at Mr. Spradlin also donates
parts to the class. Mr. Knight said he livedi!in the Woodridge neighborhood
four years and commented that it is really scary to live that far out in the
country. He said he was grateful to have someone nearby to call when the car
breaks down.
An unidentified man said that Mr. David S'~pradlin is always willing to
help his neighbors, regardless of whether the~ can pay him.
Mr. Harold Pillar said the cattle are in imf. Spradlin's junk yard to keep
down the grass that grows between the cars. H~e said these cattle perform a
useful service and they should be allowed to r'emain, despite the staff's
recommendation. If the surface water were contaminated, the cattle would be
dead, he said.
Mr. Pillar said that he collects cars an~i Mr. Spradlin provides the parts
he needs for his hobby. Mr. Pillar said that ihe directs collectors who live
hundreds of miles from the southern end of th~ County to Mr. Spradlin for car
parts. Mr. P~llar sa~d that one-thmrd of the ~ross national product is based
on the aUtomobile, yet there is only one salvage yard in the County and that
one is allowed only under the grandfather cla~'pe.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(page 28)
46
Mr. Pillar said he left the Board's meeting on April 5, 1989, with the
impression that the County's staff was going !to develop an ordinance to allow
Mr. Spradlin and other potential owners of salvage yards to be in business.
Mr. Pillar said he does not think the County's staff is doing its job. He
thinks the staff should review the ordinances controlling salvage yards that
other counties have drafted and come up with one for Albemarle County.
Mr. Owne Zimmerman said his parents, who are old, live in the Woodridge
area and Mr. Spradlin has helped them with their car. He said he hopes the
Board will allow Mr. Spradlin to stay in business under whatever rules and
regulations the Board feels are necessary.
Mr. Dennis Wood addressed the Board and said that Mr. Spradlin fixed his
car for free. If providing car parts and service for little money or none at
all is not a community service, he asked, he Would like to know what is.
!!
Mrs. Pamela Henderson addressed the Board and she was also speaking for
her mother, Ms. Nancy Groomes. She said she ~and her mother live within one
hundred yards of Mr. Spradlin and he has been a great help to them.
Mr. Herbert Roach said that Mr. Spradli~i purchased two cars no one else
would bid on at an auction held by the County?s Maintenance Shop. Mr.
Spradlin then hauled off these cars for the County.
Mrs. Jean Spradlin addressed the Board a~hd read a letter from Mr. Alvin
Gentry, an adjoining landowner who could not ~be present this evening. Mr.
Gentry, former captain of the Scottsville Re~Cue Squad, wrote that Mr.
Spradlin volunteered 24-hour wrecker and repair service. Mr. Spradlin also
took apart old wreckers and rescue squad vehii~les, sold the parts he could,
and returned the money to the rescue squad. Hr. Gentry said that Mr. Spradlin
also donated cars to the rescue squad to use !~or training. In his letter, Mr.
Gentry asked that the Board allow Mr. Spradli~ to remain in business,
Mr. Roy Hoover said that Mr. Spradlin ha.~ helped him on many occasions
and he thinks he should remain in business fo~ this reason.
Mr. Dick said he would like to proffer the water tests and that the
solvents will be removed by the Oldover Corporation. He said his client
agrees to conditions 1 and 2 of the staff's recommended conditions of approv-
al, but Mr. Dick thinks the staff should traVel to Mr. Spradlin's property and
identify any zoning and building code violations, rather than just write him a
letter. Mr. Dick said that condition ~/3 was ~cceptable and sections (a) and
(b) of condition ~/4. According to Section 26~i~10.2 of the County's Zoning
Ordinance, Mr. Dick said, the Setback from an~ adjacent residential proPerty
should be 30 feet, not the 100 feet specifiedi?~in paragraph (c) of condition
f/4. Mr. Dick said he believes his client has?~met condition ~5, by providing
the results of the water test. He said that ~ondition ~6 is acceptable,
although he is not sure how the cost of an underground monitoring system would
be shared. He said the terms of this condition should be more exact. He does
not believe, as stated in condition ~/7, that ~he results of this monitoring
system should be submitted quarterly. If the~e has been no pollution during
the past 11 years, he said, he does not thinkiilpollution will show up on a
quarterly basis. Mr. Dick said he and his client agree to condition ~/8.
Concerning condition ~/9, Mr. Dick said that n~tural barriers around the
property are already in place and fencing the~/.ientire property would be too
expensive. He said that one adjoining lando~er has expressed concern about
the visibility of the business and Mr. Spradl~n has promised to create an
earthen barrier so this landowner will not be ~able to see the cars. Mr. Dick
said he thinks that condition ~/10 is a rewording of condition ~9. Mr. Dick
said neither he nor his client understands condition fill, nor do they think it
has any relevance to this application. Mr. D~Ck said conditions ~12, ~/13, f/14
are acceptable. He believes his client has a~ready met conditions ~15 and
f/16, concerning the entrance to the property. ~I' He said he and Mr. Spradlin do
not agree to condition f/17, calling for the e!limination of all agricultural
uses from the property, including the removal ~f all livestock and poultry.
Mr. Way pointed out that condition ~/16 r~quires that the applicant pave
the entrance, which Mr. Spradlin has not done.~ Mr. Dick said he questioned
~ ·
the need for paving the entrance and Mr. Way s~amd he questiOned this himself.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 47
(Page 29)
Mr. A1Schwartzenback, who lives across from Mr. Spradlin's property,
addressed the Board. He said he knows that Mr. Spradlin has helped many
people, but he is concerned that approving this request may set a precedent
for spot zoning. He said junk yards negatively affect neighborhoods. He is
also concerned about the groundwater and does not believe that tests conducted
now can insure that the groundwater will be safe to drink 20 years from now.
Nor does he think the County is in a position to supply the residents of
Woodridge with water, should the groundwater become contaminated. He said
there are about 40 homes within one-half mile of this proposed site and these
are the people who will pay the price of lowered property values and contami-
nated water. He said that approving this request would be tantamount to
allowing a chemical factory in a residential:'neighb°rh°°d-
Mr. Way said that he had received a phone call from Mrs. Rebecca Harrup,
who asked that her concerns be stated at the public hearing. He said that Ms.
Harrup opposes the application because of the possibility of the groundwater
becoming contaminated, the dangers of increasing traffic on Route 620 and the
applicant's history of violating the Zoning ~rdinance.
Mr. Buford Castle, an adjoining landowner and cattle farmer, said he is
concerned about the quality of water. He said he thinks Mr. Spradlin's
property should remain agricultural. He said he signed a petition ten years
ago supporting Mr. Spradlin's request for a .garage and body shop, but he
cannot support this request for a junk yard.i~' He said that contaminates from
Mr. Spradlin's business could end up in his ~Pond.
Since no one else wished to address this application, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before .the Board.
Mr. Way said this is a difficult applicmtion. While he appreciates the
testimony to Mr. Spradlin's helpfulness, he isaid, it is irrelevant to the
Board's decision. Mr. Way said this application involves two issues. The
first is whether this business provides a public service and if the absence of
this service would be detrimental to the re~dents of the County. Mr. Way
said he thinks the County has a problem with junk cars and if this facility
did not exist, there would be more junk car~ in the woods and fields of the
County than there are now. He said that citizens have commented that Mr.
Spradlin is the only person in the County who will pay the owner of a junk car
to have the car removed. Even though this is a "nuisance business", Mr. Way
said, it performs a necessary function in the community.
The second issue, Mr. Way said, is whether this is the proper piece of
property for a salvage yard operation. Whil~ there is industrially zoned land
in the County available for such an operation, he said, the advantage to the
site owned by Mr. Spradlin is that the operation is totally hidden, from the
road and from adjoining landowners.
Mr. Way said he is also concerned abouti!the groundwater. He said the
staff has not been able to review the test results submitted by Mr. Dick
tonight. He thinks the staff should analyzeiithis report and determine from
where the samples came.
Mr. Way said he is concerned about Mr. ~pradlin's past violations of the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Way said he has visited this property and informed Mr.
Spradlin that, if this application is approved, Mr. Spradlin would have to
comply with the conditions attached to approyal. Mr. Way said that Mr.
Spradlin assured him that he would. If the Board approves this application,
Mr. Way said, he will make it his business tQ make sure that the applicant
complies with whatever restrictions are plac~d upon the use of this property.
Mr. Way said he has told Mr. Spradlin that h~, as a member of the Board, will
immediately request that the special use per~it be revoked, should Mr.
Spradlin not comply with any condition of approval.
Mr. Way said he also thinks it is significant that Mr. Spradlin has run
his business for over ten years with no serious environmental effects. Mr.
con 1 ~
Way said he is willing to s'der the continuation of this operation with
conditions that will safeguard the neighbors ,and address the issues that have
been raised this evening. He said he thinks The conditions recommended by the
staff address the problems that have been rafsed, but he does not agree with
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
48
the necessity for each and every condition. He said he thinks there has been
enough evidence shown that this is not a regional operation, conducted simply
for the benefit of Mr. Spradlin.
Mr. Bain said the business jumped from 400 to 700 cars in a period of two
months and he does not think all these cars came from the County in this short
period of time. He said he does not think there has been evidence offered
tonight, or in previous hearings, either to support or disprove the claim that
this is a regional business. He said he is also concerned about the impact of
this operation upon the environment and pointed out that negative effects
might take longer than ten years to show up. He said he cannot support the
application for the operation to continue where it is located.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board should also consider the times the
applicant has violated the Zoning Ordinance in the past. He said no one has
mentioned if the applicant is willing to post a bond for the operation. He
said he is not willing to support the request, but he is willing to discuss
the issues, if necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is apprqpriate to review the facts behind
this application for the benefit of the citizens who spoke in support of the
application. He said that Mr. St. John has ~ated that, in order for approval
of this application not to constitute spot zeming, the applicant must agree
not to reject any junk cars within the Count~,~ even though these cars have no
value to him, or cost him more to dispose of ~han the cars are worth. Mr.
Lindstrom said he has seen no such proffer, iJudging from the volume of
vehicles handled by Mr. Spradlin, Mr. Lindst~m said he thinks this business
is fundamentally a profit-making operation. He said the question is whether
this request for rezoning complies with the i~w. He thinks it would be
difficult to expect the applicant to accept the kind of condition that Mr. St.
John has said would be necessary if the rezon~ng were not to be spot zoning.
Mr. Lindstrom said that what the applicant isCrequesting is illegal; if the
Board approves the request, a number of people in the County have standing to
raise the issue of legality.
Mr. Lindstrom said another consideration.~, is the location of the property,
a relatively small parcel in the middle of a :.number of other small parcels.
He said that not all of the adjoining landowners were here tonight and he
thinks that some of the citizens who have spoken in favor of this application
might not support it if they owned property next to the operation, rather than
a mile or so away. He said some of the neighbors who have been courageous
enough to speak up have opposed the request, ilAs a general proposition, he
asked, does it make sense to put a heavy zndu~trzal zone in the middle of a
residential neighborhood? He said he cannot ~elieve that Mr. Spradlin and his
crew will remove every drop of oil, antzfreez.e,, brake fluid, transmission
fluid and gasoline from the number of cars that they process every month.
Normally, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks ~hat what an applicant has done
elsewhere under different circumstances is no~ relevant. In this case, he
said, he thinks the members of the Board usttiask themselves whether it is
reasonable to expect that a complex and extensive set of regulations and
conditions, which require day-to-day attention, will be adhered to by an
applicant who has repeatedly violated the Zoning Ordinance. According to the
staff's report, the applicant has not only '
v~olated the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to his business, but in the following ways: placing mobile homes and
semi-trailers on the property for storage without permits; salvaging mobile
homes; stockpiling, burying and burning tires;.'/added to buildings on the
property without a building permit; and using ila mobile home for residential
purposes without the approval of either the Cq..unty or the Health Department.
Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant was ordered bY the Circuit Court to limit his
operation; since that order, the applicant haslI added several hundred more
cars. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is unreasonable to expect that the
applicant will adhere to the conditions recomm'.ended by staff to safeguard the
public welfare.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it remarkabl~ that the results of the water
test indicate that the wells tested are uncont!kminated. He said traces of
hydrocarbons did show up in the stream, which ~e thinks is amazing, consider-
ing the amount of rain the County has had recehtly. He said he knows of no
place these hydrocarbons could have come from, other than this operation.
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
49
Mr. Lindstrom said he is very concerned about the signal the Board may be
sending to the public. He said the Board hasjnever considered approving a use
by institutionalizing it with a change in zoqing, where there has been a
blatant, repeated, consistent violation of the Zoning Ordinance over years.
He asked how the Board can expect other people to abide by zoning regulations
if it institutionalizes this violation, perhaps the most blatant on-going
violation of the zoning regulations in the COunty. He said approving this
request will tell citizens that the Board will do anything, if you hire a
lawyer and fill the auditorium with people to speak on your behalf. Mr.
Lindstrom said it may be tempting to approveilthis request on the groUnds that
it is providing a service to County residentS.. He said he would like to have
the ownership of these vehicles traced; he b~lieves it could then be proved
that many of them came from owners outside the County. He cannot Support the
request.
Mr. Perkins said he attended a meeting last week on the problems with the
Greenwood Chemical Company. He said it is g~ing to cost about $8.5 million to
clean up the contaminationcaused by the Greenwood Chemical Company. He said
he does not think the County knows what Mr. ~Pradlin's business will be like
in 20 years. He said there are too many unknowns involved with the applica-
tion for him to support it.
Mr. Bowie said it has been mentioned that some of the applicant's prof-
fers are illegal. He asked the County Attorney to comment upon this claim.
Mr. St. John said he is not sure which proffers the staff considered illegal,
but he belieVes the Proffers so referred to ~re not of the essence to the
Board!s decision. He said he believes the q~estionable proffers are proffers
#8, #9 and #10, which express the applicant'~willingness to have the rezoning
limited to him and his family. Mr. St. Johnii!Said he thinks the rezoning would
stay with the property; he does not think th~iBoard could limit it to one
family. In this situation, he said, the property has been totally devoted to
this activity. If something happened so tha~iMr. Spradlin could no longer run
the business, somebody would want to take over the business. Mr. St. 3ohn
said this business is not like those allowedii!Under, home occupation permits;
those types of businesses can be terminated Oh a moment's notice. He said
this business involves a heavy investment an~iilcould not be ended on a moment's
notice, so it is covered by the rule that th~iuse would run with the land.
However, he repeated, he does not feel that ~ese proffers are crucial to the
Board's decision in this case. Mr. St. John~i~aid he believes these proffers
are unworkable from the applicant's point ofiv~ew as well, because no bank
would lend or invest money in a business wit~!such a restriction.
Mr. St. John added that he does not hell, eve that the seventeenth condi-
tion recommended by staff, concerning the livestock, poultry and agricultural
operations, is crucial to the Board's decision. If the Zoning Ordinance
prohibits agricultural uses in an area zonedi!Heavy Industrial, Mr. St. John
said, the Board does not need to prohibit the~e uses in a condition.
Mr. St. John said that, presumably, the!Board is to decide whether this
property is appropriate for the use requested~by the applicant. If this
property is not appropriate, then the fact that an individual wishes to run
such a business does not make that use approp~zate. If the property is
appropriate, he concluded, then there is no ~ed to limit the use to a specif-
ic individual.
Mr. Dick said he would like to remind th~ Board that his client has other
applications before the Board, besides the request to rezone the property
Heavy Industrial. He said he has heard no comments from the Board concerning
these other applications.
Mr. Lindstrom said that his comments pertained to the essence of the
request made by Mr. Dick and Mr. Spradlin. M~. Lindstrom suggested that
members of the Board indicate whether they ar~ willing to approve this re-
quest. If the majority is willing, he said, then he thinks the Board should
discuss the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mrs. Cooke said she has given this matte~ as much thought as she can and
she is tremendously concerned about the possibility of pollution if the
request is approved. She said there is a grest deal of concern about the
quality of the water supply in the County. Should the groundwater in the
September 20, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
5O
Woodridge area become contaminated, she said, Mr. Spradlin himself would be in
a fix. She said she is concerned for Mr. Spradlin's water as well as that of
his neighbors. For this reason, she said, she is not inclined to support this
request. She said that the many violations by the applicant over the years do
not lead her to believe that he will make a concerted effort to protect his
neighbors, and his own, drinking water.
Mr. Bowie said he has visited the site and would not even have found it,
if someone had not pointed the way. He saidThe recognizes that Mr. Spradlin
has been a help to the community. He said he believes Mr. Spradlin's business
is like a landfill: a nuisance and a source iof pollutants, but also a neces-
sity. He said he thinks there has to be this kind of business somewhere and
this one is already here, which weighs heavily in his decision. However, he
said, he senses that the majority of the Board does not feel the way he does.
He does think the County needs an automobile isalvage yard.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was not sure that 'he really was aware of all of the
numbers of the applications before the Board.~ He said he was aware of
ZMA-88-20 and SP-89-32. Mr. Dick had also mentioned 88-06, 88-07 and 88-20 in
various ways requesting approval of this property. Mr. Cilimberg said there
was also ZTA-88-4.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were six a~itogether. Mr. Bain said there
was also SP-89-32, which was tied to 88-20.
Mr. St. John suggested that Mr. Cilimber~g read all of the numbers out to
the Board because of the typographical error bn the agenda. Mr. Cilimberg
said outstanding petitions are ZTA-88-4, ZTA-88-6, ZMA-88-27, ZMA-88-20, which
is before the Board tonight specifically in the staff report, and SP-89-32
which is associated with 88-20. i.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom~and seconded by Mr. Bain to deny
all of those applications.
Mr. Bowie said he opposes the motion, primarily in recognition of the
service Mr. Spradlin has provided the communiny.
There was no further discussion.
by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way. ~
Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: October 19(A), 1988; Janu-
ary 18(N), March 22, April 5(A), 1989. No minutes had been read.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and the Board.
Mr. Harold Pillar addressed the Board. He said a member of the Board had
questioned where the cars parked on Mr. Sprad~in's property had come from.
Mr. Pillar said there are roughly 50,000 people in the County and 42,000 in
the City. Assuming that there is one car for ievery three people would yield a
figure of 31,000 cars in this community. He said cars last about seven to ten
years, which means that about 4000 cars a yea{ must be disposed of in some
way. He said that only about one-tenth of these inoperable vehicles end up on
Mr. Spradlin's property. Mr. Pillar asked wh~t will happen to these cars now
and answered that they will fill the ravines, ~i~litter the hillsides and contam-
inate the streams.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. At 12:05 ~.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Bowie to adjourn to 8:00 A.M., October 2, 198~. 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. ~~~
Chairman