1989-11-01November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 1, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, 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
~eter T. Way (arrived at 7:35 P.M.).
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
;t. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The m~eting 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. Bain to approve
Items 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the followingirecorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.! Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Resolution to take Wyngate Road in Wyngate Subdivision into
the State Secondary System of Highways. Reques~it dated October 20, 1989, to
have Wyngate Road taken into the System was redeived from James M. Hill, Jr.,
Virginia Land Company. The following resolution was approved by the vote
shown above and set out below.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code 3~3.1-229, the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation be and is hereby r~quested to accept into the
Secondary System of Highways, subject to ~inal inspection and approval
by the Resident Highway Department, the f~llowing roads in Wyngate
Subdivision: ~
Wyngate Road: '~
Beginning at Station 9+85, a point i~ common with the edge of
pavement of Hydraulic Road (Route 6761) and the centerline of
Wyngate Road, thence in a southwesterily direction 1,290 feet to
Station 22+75, the end of the cul-de-Sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the VirgiDia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50t: foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of thei{Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 883, page 296, and Dee~ Book 921, page 712.
Item 4.2. Resolution to take Fitzwood Dr~ve in Fitzwood Subdivision into
the State Secondary System of Highways. RequeSt dated March 5, 1987, was
received from William S. Roudabush of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc., to have
Fitzwood Drive taken into the State System. T~e following resolution was
approved by the vote shown above.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code 3~.I-229, the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the
Secondary System of Highways, subject to f{nal inspection and approval
by the Resident Highway Department, the foi~lowing roads in Fitzwood
Subdivis ion: ~
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Fitzwood Drive:
Beginning at Station 0+10, a point in common with the edge of
pavement of U. S. Route 250 and the centerline of Fitzwood Drive,
thence in a northeasterly direction 510 feet to Station 5+20, the
end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easements along these ~equested additions as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 797, page 566, Deed~Book 860, pages 390 and Deed
Book 948, pages 721 through 724.
Item 4.3. Department of Planning and Cdmmunity Development 1989 Second
Quarter Building Report was received as information.
Item 4.4. Letter dated October 19, 198 , from Mr. William H. Spencer,
IV, President, United Way, concerning funding for the elderly by JABA, was
received as information.
Item 4.5. Copy of Planning Commission ~inutes for October 10 and
October 17, 1989, received as information.
Item 4.6. Letter dated from Mr. Oscar K.. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, the
Department of Transportation, re: abandonments, was received as follows:
"October 20, 1989
As requested in your resolutions dated September 13, 1989, the
following abandonments from the Secondary System of Albemarle County
are hereby approved, effective October ~0, 1989.
ABANDONMENTS
Route 9005 (Meriwether Lewis Elementary 'School -
From Route 678 South to Route 678 North :!
Route 9773 (Stone Robinson Elementary School) -
From Route 729 to 0.07 mile Northwest Route 729
LENGTH
0.06 Mi.
0.07 Mi."
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Gift~.
Mr. Perkins said it has been his privilege for the past three and one-
half weeks to have hosted one of the Japanese~teachers visiting Albemarle
County. He asked Ms. Hutcheson, the coordinator of the program for the school
system, to introduce the teachers from Japan Ko the Board.
Ann Hutcheson introduced to the Board MRS!! Takashi Nakamura, the group
leader and an elementary school teacher; Mr. ¥oshitaka Goto an elementary
school teacher; Mr. Periyuki Shamata, a middl~ school teacher; and Mr. Kinji
Takagishi, a high school teacher. Mr. Perkin~~ then presented each teacher
with a gift, a book entitled "Mr. Jefferson's!!Country." Mr. Nakamura said the
visit has been a good experience and he will ~eave with many good ideas for
Japan's school system. He thanked the host f~milies for their kindness.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: SP-89-82. Guiseppe Ancona. For a
gift/craft/antique shop on 7.45 acres zoned ~, Rural Areas. Property on east
t
side of Rt. 29 North approximately 500 feet north of Piney Mountain Restau-
rant. Tax Map 21, Parcel 16A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 20 and 26, 1989.)
Mr. Ron Keeler gave the staff report as ~ollows:
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
200
Character of the Area: Two buildings and a storage shed exist on the
site which is served by a gravel parking area with three entrances.
Two residences exist adjacent to site, one behind it and one to the
south. This property does not have public utilities. There is an
existing septic system but no running water.
Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting a special use permit to
operate his business which involves the crafting and selling of
concrete lawn statues and the sale of antiques. One of the two
existing buildings is used for the sales and display of the antiques
and the other is used as the workshop for the production of the
statues. Approximately 1000 statues covering about 5000 square feet
of display area are located at the front of the property along Route
29.
The applicant has stated the following jlustification for this request:
'Existing site has been used as antique shop and fruit stand since
early 1960's; current occupant has operated gift and craft store for
three years.'
The applicant was originally served notice by the Zoning Adminis-
trator in April, 1988, that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordi-
nance as he had recently established a new business without proper
permits or zoning clearance. Subsequent letters stated that the
previous use of the site as a fruit stand does not qualify it as a
non-conforming use and the previous activity of selling antiques had
been expanded, changed and extended in ~th 'the volume and intensity
of use and it involves new and differen~ products and items for sale.
Therefore, the Zoning Administrator not~.y~ed the applzcant on May 25,
1989, that he had thirty days to apply ~0r a special use permit to
operate this business. Although this bq~iness has been established,
staff has reviewed the application as ill the operation does not
presently exist.
The Comprehensive Plan includes the folli~wing standards to guide
commercial development: !~.
1. Concentrate and cluster highway-oriented commercial activities to
minimize traffic hazards and advers~ visual impacts.
A use of this type would be permitted by'right on property zoned C-i,
Commercial. A commercial establishment in this particular location
would not be in accordance with the intent of the Rural Areas as
stated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Also, the
Comprehensive Plan has designated substantial amounts of commercial
land in Hollymead, Piney Mountain and th~ Urban Area where this
business could be located.
2. Provide linear landscaped areas alofig public roads and property
lines.
In addition, the Board of Supervisors ha~ stated their intent to
protect Route 29 north of the South Fork~ilRivanna River as a land-
scaped corridor. Except for a small shrdb, there is no landscaping
which screens the parking lot and displa~ area of the business. The
applicant has stated that he does not wan, t to install landscaping
because it would lessen the visibility of~ the property from Route 29
and therefore hurt his business, l~
The Virginia Department of Transportation. has stated:
There currently are three gravel dr~,veways that serve the
various uses on this property. The ~epartment recommends that
the access be upgraded to a single p~ved commercial entrance.
A 200-foot long taper lane is required for this entrance and
the Department recommends a 200-foot!, long, 12-foot wide right
turn lane, with a 200-foot long tapeM lane.
Other Actions in the Immediate Vicinity: In the past, the Board of
Supervisors has denied two rezonings of property zoned Rural Areas to
-om
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
commercial designations which were in the immediate vicinity of this
property and also not located in the Urban Area. In those cases,
staff recommended denial based mostly on the fact that the 'substan-
tial' and 'excessive' commercial zoning existing in the Route 29 North
area and the properties had been designated as Rural Areas (see
ZMA-80-04 for CVR, Inc. and ZMA-82-13 for M. Romanac and G.
Spathopulos).
In June, 1983 the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit
for a gift, craft and antique shop also located outside the Urban Area
approximately three-fourths of a mile south of the Ancona property
(see SP-83-22 for Peggy Boland). However, in that case and with most
special use permits for a gift, craft and antique shop, there was a
condition of no outdoor display. The applicant's business seems to
rely on its outdoor display area and the high visibility of it from
Route 29.
In conclusion, this special use permit application is not in accor-
dance with the Comprehensive Plan's intent to locate commercial uses
in the growth areas and, therefore, staff recommends denial. Should
the Board of Supervisors choose to apprpve this special use permit,
staff recommends the following conditions:
1) The following conditions shall be 5~gun within 60 days and
completed within 90 days of Board ~{ Supervisors approval:
a) Construction of a 200-foot lohg, 12-foot wide turn lane with
a 200-foot long taper lane; aslI recommended by the Virginia
Department of Transportation;
b) Access shall be upgraded to a "i~ingle paved commercial
entrance as recommended by Vmrg~nma Department of Trans-
portation;
2) Site plan shall be submitted for a~proval within 60 days of
completion of condition No. 1;
3)
Display area shall be limited to not more than 20 samples no
closer than 20 feet from the Route ~9 right-of-way;
4)
Storage area shall be no closer tha~ 30 feet from the Route 29
right-of-way and to be screened by a six-foot opaque fence with
plantings at 15-foot intervals along such fence;
5) Landscaping shall be installed to screen the parking area from
Route 29; ~
6) Health Department approval of the s~ptic field."
Mr. Climiberg said the Planning CommissiQn, at its meeting on October 3,
1989, unanimously recommended denial of this ~etition.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Fred Heblich representing the applicJnt came forward to speak. Mr.
Heblich asked that the Board defer action on ~his tonight. After the Plan-
ning Commission meeting, Mr. Heblich said he ~ried to contact Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Zoning Administrator, to discuss the issue of non-comforming uses.
Ne said he thinks the staff's report misrepresents the effort he has made to
discuss Mr. Anacona's options with the Zoning iAdministrator. Mr. Heblich said
he tried on more than one occasion to talk wiCh Ms. Patterson and she was not
in her office. He said that Ms. Patterson did~ leave a message with his
office, which stated that "it would be more appropriate to call the County
Attorney". Mr. Heblich said he has discussed ~this matter with both Mr. St.
John and Mr. Bowling, neither of which he believes has the authority or the
facts held by the Zoning Administrator concer~ing what use is non-conforming
and what would be acceptable on th~s property.~ He said that a fruit stand and
antique shop were operated on this property f~ many years. He said his
client has two businesses: the antiques operaltion and the statuaries.
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
202
Mr. St. John said it was on his advice that Ms. Patterson referred Mr.
Heblich to the County Attorney's office. The existence of the business
currently on this property is the subject of a pending court procedure brought
by Ms. Patterson against Mr. Ancona in order to suppress the zoning violation.
This case is scheduled to be heard November 19, 1989. Since litigation was
involved, Mr. St. John said, he thought it was best for Mr. Ancona's lawyer to
discuss the problem with Ms. Patterson's lawyer.
Mr. St. John said he does not think the pre-existing use has anything to
do with the request for the special use permit now before the Board. When a
use is grandfathered because it pre-existed the Zoning Ordinance, a special
use permit is not needed to continue that use. He said the question of what
activity, and to what extent that activity, was grandfathered is a question
for the Zoning Administrator to decide, and not the Board. He said the Zoning
Administrator has made her decision; if the applicant feels himself to be
aggrieved, he can appeal her decision through the Board of Zoning Appeals and
then the courts. For the Board to consider the pre-existing use in its
decision concerning this special use permit, Mr. St. John said, would be to
inject an irrelevant and confusing issue int°] the matter. He said this
request for a special use permit must be judged on its merits: is what the
applicant is requesting appropriate for a special use permit at this site?
Mr. Heblich said that Mr. Keeler interjected the issue of whether the use
was non-conforming. He said that Mr. Keeler,.~ in the staff's report, also
represented to the Board that the Zoning Admi~nistrator was waiting for Mr.
Ancona to make some sort of overture. Mr. H~blich said the Zoning Admini-
strator listed different activities taking p~ace on the property and stated
that Mr. Ancona violated the Zoning Ordinance.'. Mr. Heblich said he and Mr.
Ancona would like to know if all the activiti~es violate the Zoning Ordinance,
or if only some activities are in violation. :'~Given this information, Mr.
Ancona could decide whether to pursue a speci!al use permit, move his business
somewhere else, or if he can continue to oper~ate,~ some part of the business,
perhaps the antique business, as he is now. ~
If the question is what the applicant ca~ legally do under the existing
situation without a permit, Mr. St. John said':~ the Board cannot answer this
question. He said it is not the function of !this Board even to investigate
this question. Mr. St. John said that under ~'!~he law, he who asserts that he
has a grandfathered right has also the burden.ii to show exactly what is grand-
fathered; the burden is not on the Zoning Administrator to define what is
grandfathered and what is not.
Mr. Heblich said he agrees with Mr. St. John. Mr. Heblich said he is
asking the Board to defer action on this request, so that Mr. Ancona can
discuss the use of his property with the ZoniRg Administrator and find out
what is acceptable. Then, perhaps, it will n~t be necessary to pursue this
request for a special use permit. Mr. Heblich said that he and his client do
not know, at this moment, what will be allowed on this property.
Mr. St. John said he does not think the Board has to tell Mr. Heblich and
Mr. Ancona what uses are grandfathered on the:iproperty. Mr. St. John repeated
that it is up to the applicant and his attorney to prove that a particular use
is grandfathered. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Heb}ich if he intended to ask the
judge on November 19 for a continuance of thi~ case, because this application
may be pending before the Board. Mr. Heblich~'said he plans to ask for a
continuance, not for the reason cited by Mr. S~. John, but because he has a
jury trial scheduled for November 19.
Mr. Heblich said there are certain things Mr. Ancona would like to do
with his property. Mr. Heblich said his client realizes that the special use
permit is a problem and if it were granted wi6h the conditions recommended by
staff, it would create insurmountable economiC' problems for Mr. Ancona. Mr.
Heblich said his client is looking for other~}°cati°ns' He is also looking
for other ways to organize his business so that he might be able to stay
at
the same location. Mr. Heblich said he askin~i for the deferral simply to give
his client time to investigate his options. ~
Mr. Bowie said the applicant was served n. Otice by the Zoning Administra-
tor in April, 1988, eighteen months ago, and h~ is just now trying to work
things out, a few weeks before the court date.~ Mr. Heblich agreed, but said
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
his client is an immigrant from Italy and does not have the most sophisticated
knowledge of local government and zoning regulations, something Mr. Ancona has
in common with many County citizens. For a long time, Mr. Heblich said, his
client was under the impression that the only thing he was doing wrong was
operating without a business license, which he got, thinking that would take
care of the problem.
With no further comments from the applicant, and with no one else rising
to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the
Board.
Mr. Bowie said that Mr. St. John's comments have made it clear to him
that the court, not the Board, should decide which uses are grandfathered on
Mr. Ancona's property. When he considers the request for the special use
permit aside from the matter of grandfathering and given the Board's recent
insistence on screening and berms for other businesses along Route 29 North,
Mr. Bowie said, he cannot support granting a special use permit, if the
applicant is unwilling to comply with the screening requirements.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to deny
the request.
Mr. Way said he can support the motion,i!isince denying the special use
permit will not prevent the applicant from d~scussing his options with the
Zoning Administrator.
There was no further discussion. Roll ~as 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.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: zTA-89-12. The Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolutioh of Intent to amend Article 1,
General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance tO include recent provisions added
to the Code of Virginia. (Advertised in the~Daily Progress on October 20 and
October 26, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler said this amendment would br.~ng Article I, General Provisions,
of the Zoning Ordinance into compliance withi~new State Code provisions. The
change to Section 1.6 would bring the Zoning~iOrdinance into compliance with
the new Comprehensive Plan.
The public hearing was opened. There b~ing no members of the public
present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before
the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and secohded~, by Mrs. Cooke to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Article I, General Provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance to bring same into compliance withilnew State Code provisions, all as
set out in the following ordinance.
Roll was called and the motion carried ~by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messcs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ~AND REENACT
ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF[THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO BRING SAME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH N%W sTATE CODE PROVISIONS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Sqpervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVIS~IONS, of the Zoning Ordinance,
be amended and reenacted by the additio~ of subsections 1.4.9 and
1.4.10, and by the rewording of 1.5 and 1.6, all as follows:
1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT
~ovember 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
1.4.9
To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of li-
censed airports; and
1.4.10
To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the
applicable state water quality standards to protect surface
water and groundwater defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of
the Code of Virginia.
1.5
RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are simi-
larly situated and environmentally similar in like manner
with reasonable consideration for the existing use and
character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suit-
ability of property for various uses, the trends of growth
or change, the current and fut6re land and water require-
ments of the community for various purposes as determined by
population and economic studies and other studies, the
transportation requirements oflthe community, and the
requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, play-
grounds, recreation areas and Other public services; for the
conservation of natural resourcps; and preservation of flood
plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land,
the conservation of properties ~and their values and the
encouragement of the most apprqpriate use of land throughout
the county.
1.6
RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In drawing the zoning ordinance! and districts with reason-
able consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated
and express purpose of this zoniing ordinance to create land
use regulations which shall encDurage the realization and
implementation of the ComprehenSive Plan. To this end:
development is to be encouragedii in Villages, Communities and
the Urban Area; where services ~nd utilities are available
and where such development willilnot conflict with the
agricultural/forestal or other ~ural objectives; and devel-
opment is not to be encouraged Rn the Rural Areas which are
to be devoted to preservation O~ agricultural and forestal
lands and activities, water supply protection, and conser-
vation of natural, scenic and h~storic resources and where
only limited delivery of publicli services is intended.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: ZTA-89-13. The Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolution ~f Intent to amend Section 10.0,
Rural Areas, of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the statement of intent
and subdivision of land, and uses permitted. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 20 and October 26, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler said this amendment was discuss'ed earlier this afternoon and
some changes were suggested. After making the~e changes, staff will again
present this amendment to the Board. He said that Mr. St. John also wished to
review the language in the amendment concerning pre-existing easements.
The public hearing was opened. There being no members of the public
present to speak, the public hearing was immedilately-closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer this
item to November 8, 1989, to allow the County ~ttorney to review the language.
Roll was called and the motion carried by ~he following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.i Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: ZTA-89-14. The Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the defini-
tion of public garage. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and
October 26, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler said this zoning text amendment, an accompaniment to
ZTA-89-13, would allow public garage to remain as a use in the Rural Areas.
However, the definition of public garage would be changed to delete the
following activities which staff believes to be inappropriate to the Rural
Areas: the equipping, renting, selling, or storing of motor vehicles.
The public hearing was opened. There being no members of the public
present to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Article III, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordi-
nance by amending the definition of "Public Garage", as set out in the follow-
ing ordinance.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried ~by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None. ~i!;
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ii~,AND REENACT
ARTICLE III, DEFINITIONS, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF!'"PUBLIC GARAGE"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article III, DEFINITION~!~ of the Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended and reenacted by the rewording of the definition for
"Public Garage", as follows:
Garage, Public: A building or portion ~hereof, other than a private
garage, designed or used for servicing ~r repairing motor driven
vehicles.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Z~A-89-15. The Albemarle County
Planning Commission has adopted a Resolutionjof Intent to include temporary
mobile classroom in all districts under the ~rovision that relates to public
uses and buildings. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and
October 26, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler said this request is from thg Department of Education. Staff
is of the opinion that temporary uses should~ be provided to all public uses.
The public hearing was opened. There b~ing no members of the public
present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before
the Board. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in all
zoning districts to include temporary or mobile facilities under "public
uses".
Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~.s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~'
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS
TO INCLUDE TEMPORARY OR MOBILE FACILITIES
UNDER "PUBLIC USES"
ORDAINED by the Board of S~pervisors of Albemarle County,
BE
IT
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended
in all zoning districts to include "temPOrary or mobile facilities"
under public uses, these amendments to be in the
following sections: I
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
20.~
Rural Areas District, Section 10.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right
Village Residential, Section 12.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right
Residential, R-l, Section 13.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right
Residential, R-2, Section 14.2.1.9, Permitted Uses by Right
Residential, R-4, Section 15.2.1.11, Permitted Uses by Right
Residential, R-6, Section 16.2.1.12, Permitted Uses by Right
Residential, R-10, Section 17.2.1~12, Permitted Uses by Right
Residential, R-15, Section 18.2.1.12, permitted Uses by Right
Planned Residential Development-PRD, Section 19.3.1.7, Permitted
Uses by Right
Planned Unit Development-PUD, Section 20.3.1.7, Permitted Uses by
Right
Commercial, C-l, Section 22.2.1.b.18, Permitted Uses by Right
Commercial Office-CO, Section 23.2.1.8, Permitted Uses by Right
Highway Commercial-HC, Section 24.2.1.36, Permitted Uses by Right
Planned Development-Shopping Centers-PD-iSC, Section 25.2.1.3,
Permitted Uses by Right
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial-PD-MC, Section 25A.2.1.3,
Permitted Uses By Right
Light Industry-LI, Section 27.2.1.12, Permitted Uses by Right
Heavy Industry-HI, Section 28.2.1.21, Permitted Uses by Right
Wording for all of the above noted sections shall be: "Public uses
and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as
schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and~roads funded, owned or
operated by local, state or federal ageneies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, ma~n or trunk lines, treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (~ference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
Agenda Item No. lla. Appointments: Advisory.:. Council on Aging.
Mot-~on was offered by Mr. Ba±n and second, ed by Mrs. Cooke to reappoint
Mrs. Betty L. Newell, term to expire on June !}, 1991. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. llb. Appointments: Jof~t Airport Commission.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr.
John C. Lowry, term to expire on December 1, [992. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded votel
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. llc. Appointments: BOC~ Code Board of Appeals.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reappoint
Mr. John Hood, term to expire on August 21, 1~94. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote~i
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. lld. Appointments: Co,unity Services Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reappoint
Dr. W. D. Buxton, term to expire on June 20, i992. 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.
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. lle. Appointments:
Board.
2 07~
Land Use Classification Appeals
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to reappoint
Mr. Samuel Page and Mr. Montie Pace, terms to expire on September 1, 1991.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: October 19 (A), 1988; January
18 (N), March 22, April 5 (A), April 12, Oc~ober 2 (A) and October 4, 1989.
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for April 12, 1989, and found them to be
in order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for OctOber 4, 1989, Pages 12 to End and
found one item to be corrected. On Page 19, at the end of the third para-
graph, change "of the Committee" to "of the Board and the Mayor."
Mr. Way had read the minutes for October 2, 1989, and found a typo-
graphical correction.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of OcDober 4, 1989, Page 1 to Item 12 on
Page 10, and found them to be in order. !~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and sec~nded by Mr. Bowie to approve the
minutes as read and corrected.
Roll was called and the motion carried bY the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. :
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Bowie reported on a conference he 5ad attended last week with the
Virginia Department of Transportation. He said he learned several disturbing
facts at the conference. First, he said, he'would like to provide some
background information. Since World War II,{Virginia is one of only four
states that has exceeded what the federal government considers a reasonable
rate of growth. Mr. Bowie said that Virgini~ is now the twelfth fastest
growing state in the United States. Since 1980, the per capita income, or
taxable income, in Virginia has risen from 8~ percent to 107 percent of the
national average. Mr. Bowie said the increasing population and the rising per
capita have combined to give the Commonwealth of Virginia great increases in
revenue over the past nine years. Localitie~ are receiving none of this
additional revenue. ~
The first disturbing fact he learned at~'the conference, Mr. Bowie said,
is that the Commonwealth plans to use its roRd building program to spur addi-
tional economic growth. Mr. Bowie said that state officials claim this growth
is necessary to solve the problem of unemploy~ment; however, industrial growth
is not occurring in areas with high unemployment rates. Mr. Bowie said the
road building program, with its attendant growth, threatens Albemarle County,
even though the County enjoys a low rate of dnemployment.
Mr. Bowie said another disturbing fact was revealed in the opening
address given by Ms. Vivian Watts, the Secret!ary of Transportation for the
Commonwealth. According to Ms. Watts, the Commonwealth can no longer afford
to build the roads it needs; local governmen~ must pay their share. Mr.
Bowie said that representatives of VDoT suggested several ways that local
governments could raise revenues for road prd~ects, such as impact fees and
conditional zoning. Of course, only localiti~s in Northern Virginia have been
empowered to use these methods of raising revenue.
2
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Bowie said he also asked about the status of the environmental impact
statements for the proposed bypass and received evasive, non-commital answers.
Mr. Bowie said his impression, after the two-day conference, is that the
County "has a rough row to hoe".
Mr. Bain said that the members of the Board who plan to attend the
Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) meetSng have a job to do. Mr. Way
said members of the Board should also voice these concerns during its meeting
with the area legislators, i
Mr. Bowie said that improvements to Route 58, which reaches from
Portsmouth to Danville will cost $600 million; the State has allocated $40
million. He said residents in counties through which this road passes will
have to pay an additional 20 cents per $100 yalue of real property in taxes
for the next 20 years to pay off the bonds fdr the road.
Mr. Lindstrom said these policies are p~rt of the "New Jerseyfication" of
Virginia: 'the State is doing everything it Gan to encourage industries to
move to Virginia, without doing anything to iielp local governments accommodate
the pressures of rampant growth. ~
Miss Neher said that members of the Sol~d Waste Task Force wish to make a
presentation to the City and County. Mr. Way suggested that the presentation
be made on December 13 1989, during the regularly scheduled day meeting.
Not-Docketed: At 8:42 P.M., Mr. St. Jo n said an executive session would
be necessary to discuss the case of Spradlini!iVS. the Zoning Administrator.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to adjourn
into executive session for the purpose of discussing legal matters under State
Code Section 2.1-344.a.7.
Roll was called and the motion carried b]y the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None. ,
At 8:53 P.M., the Board reconvened into iopen session. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to !certify that the executive
session was in accordance with State Code Section 2.1-344.a.7, by adopting the
following resolution:
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.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board.iof 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 Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that':the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia Ia~ 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 w~re heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board i.of Supervisors.
November 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
VOTE:
~YES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins
and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to November 6, at 8:00 A.M.
At 8:55 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to adjourn to November 6, 1989, at 8:00 A.M. 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