1989-09-06September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
253
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 6, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 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,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve items 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 on the consent agenda
and to accept the rmmaining items as information. (Some conversation did
occur before the vote, and that conversation will be noted with each item).
Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs~i Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sher-
iff's Office, Commonwealth's Attorney and the Regional Jail to the State
Compensation Board for the Month of July, 1989, were approved as presented by
the vote shown above.
Item 4.2. Request to have roads in Squir9 Hill Apartments (Hillsdale
Drive and Mall Drive) taken into the State Secondary System of Highways.
Letter dated July 22, 1987, from Roudabush, Galle & Assoc., Inc., had been
received requesting that the above noted streets be taken into the State
System of Highways. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown
above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Superyisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virgin-
ia Department of Transportation be and is ~hereby requested to accept
into the Secondary System of Highways, su~ject to final inspection and
approval by the Resident Highway Departm~t, the following roads in
Squire Hill Apartments development:
Beginning at Station 0+90, a point c~o~on to the centerline of
Hillsdale Drive and the southern edg~ of pavement of Rio Road
(Route 631), thence in a southerly d{~ection along the centerline
of Hillsdale Drive to Station 18+28, i~he end of this dedication.
A d~stance of approxzmately 1,738 fee~.
Beginning at Station 0+22, a point ca
Mall Drive and the west edge of pavem
thence in a westerly direction along
to Station 3+74, the end of this dedi
Fashion Square Mall. A distance of a
~on to the centerline of
nt of Hillsdale Drive,
~he centerline of Mall Drive
nation and the entrance to
~prox~mmtely 352 feet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virgi~ ia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easements along these req~ ested additions as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albmmarle
254
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
County in Deed Book 867, pages 681 and 682 and Deed Book 1060, pages
692 and 696.
Item 4.3. Request for a Street Sign in Logan Village Subdivision to
identify Lawrence Road/Hydraulic Road intersection. Requesting having been
received from Mr. Paul Lawrence in a letter dated August 1, 1989, for the
above noted sign%~ the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown
above:
WHEREAS, request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following road:
Lawrence Road (State Route 1500) and Hydraulic Road
(State Route 676) at its intersection;
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street sign.
Item 4.4. Letter dated August 16, 1989, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy
Zommissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, advising approval of
dditions and Abandonments on Routes 673 and 67!4 was received as information.
"As requested in your resolution dated August 2, 1989, the following
additions to and abandonments from the Sedlondary System of Albemarle
County are hereby approved, effective AugUst 15, 1989.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
Section 3 of new location Route 674 - Froml 0.83 mile
West Route 810 to Route 673; ~
Project: 0674-002-231, N501.
0.06 Mi.
Section 4 of new location Route 674
0.07 mile West Route 673;
Project: 0674-002-231, N501.
Section 5 of new location Route 673
to 0.01 mile North Route 674;
Project: 0674-002-231, NS01.
FromRoute 673 to
From Route 674
0.07 Mi.
0.01 Mi.
ABANDONMENTS
Section 1 of old location Route 674 From Route 0.83
mile West Route 810 to Route 673;
Project: 0674-002-231, N501.
Section 2 of old location Route 674 - From Route 673
to 0.07 mile West Route 673;
Project: 0674-002-231, N501.
0.07 Mi.
0.07 Mi.
Item 4.5. Letter dated August 21, 1989, from Mr. Richard Moring, Direc-
tor of Engineering, re: Milton Drive in Milton~Heights Subdivision, was
received as follows:
"The County has been working for some time to design, obtain approval
from VDoT, and reconstruct Milton Drive tolhave this roadway accepted
into the State secondary road system. The!original cost estimate
(6/86) for this upgrade was $29,400.00. There were 13 lots to share
in this cost (50 percent). In February, 19.87, the County received a
certificate of deposit for $12,438.47 (11 qf the 13 lots).
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 255
(Page 3)
After having road plans completed and approved by VDoT (7/3/89), an
updated estimate was prepared. This estimate was approximately
$125,000. We had two contractors provide us budget estimates based on
the approved road plans. Estimated construction costs were $124,620
and $193,591. This information was presented to the homeownsrs at a
meeting held on August 1, 1989.
The homeowners have decided not to pursue this project further due to
increased costs. On August 11, 1989, Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of
Finance, returned the $12,438.47 certificate of deposit at the request
of Ms. Linda Shifflett, a homeowner in Milton Heights. No further
action by the Department of Engineering is envisioned at this time.
We will keep the approved plans on file should they be needed at a
later date."
Mr. Bowie stated that because of the co~t, the citizens in Milton Heights
subdivision Withdrew their request, and he b~lieves that more ill will was
caused by this road project than good will w~s gained. At the time this
request was originally considered, there wer~ four roads which the Board
considered, and Dunromin Road is the only road which has been completed and
brought into the system. He believes that if the County is going to proceed
further with bringing the other roads into t~e State system, then all of the
estimates should be redone.
Mr. Bain asked why the cost estimates and road plans are three years
apart. Mr. Bowie explained that it took about 14 months to get all of the
property owners to agree and get the necessary signatures, and the dedication
of land and funds. He stated that there was ia slight delay because of a
change in County staff. He said that the project was then inactive for a long
time before it gained VDoT approval. He added that as soon as the project was
approved, cost estimates were obtained and the new cost came in at $125,000.
He stated that it was a horrendously frustrating three year period for every-
body involved. ~
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Agnor the status o~ repairs to Peyton Drive. She
added that its condition is worsening. Mr. ~gnor replied that plans have been
finished and approved by the State and are new out for bids which should be
received this month, and the project awarded~to a contractor by the first of
October. ~
Item 4.6. Letter dated August 15, 1989,i from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, of the Virginia Departmen~i of Transportation stating
approval of the use of 1989-90 Revenue Sharin~ Funds for Routes 631 and 654,
received as information.
"August 15, 1989
Revenue Sharing Funds, 1989-90 Fiscal Year
At its July 20, 1989 meeting, the State ~ransportation Board approved
Albemarle County's request for Revenue Sharing Funds. The funds
approved were in accordance with the Country's previous request. The
project assignments and amounts are as f~llows:
PROJECT
0631-002-219, C504
0654-002-220, C501
0631-002-222, C501
0631-002-219, C501
ALLOCSTION
$ 130~000
$ 8o~ooo
$ 15o~ooo
$ 220,~000
Ail four of these projects are scheduledi!for advertisement during the
coming fiscal year. The County's share ~f this funding must be paid
prior to the advertisement of the projects.. You will be billed for
the $290,000 County share in the very near future."
Item 4.7. Letter dated August 28, 1989, ~rom the Southern Environmental
Law Center concerning a program of the Virginia Department of Transportation
on the cutting of trees around billboards, re.~eived as information.
256
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has taken a position on this matter before,
and he asked the staff to find out exactly what the Board stated at that time.
He believes it would be appropriate for the Board to take the same position.
He is concerned about using Highway Department funds to cut down vegetation
and trees so that private enterprise signs can be more clearly seen.
Item 4.8. Copy of letter dated August 16, 1989, from the State Depart-
ment of Education noting approval of a grant application for ESEA Chapter 1,
Migrant Eduaation, for Fiscal Year 1990 in the amount of $7,000, received as
information.
Item 4.9. Memorandum dated August 25, 1989, from Mr. N. Andrew
Overstreet, Division Superintendent, re: Information about Bindlng Arbitra-
tion, received as information. Mr. Way noted that this item should be includ-
ed in discussions with the area Legislators in December.
Item 4.10. Letter dated August 11, 1989, from Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney, along with a copy of the final order issued by Judge James H.
Michael, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, dismissing the Starks case against ~Albemarle County on the ground of
sovereign immunity, received as information.
Item 4.11. Copy of letter dated August~16, 1989, from Mr. Guy Agnor,
Jr., County Executive, to Mr. Robert O'Neil, iPresident, University of Virgin-
ia, re: Blue Ridge Hospital property, received as information.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that a letter of reaponse from President O'Neil
received on September 6, seems to indicate that staff will be notified of
plans regarding construction. He said that the news media has already an-
nounced that construction is being planned fo~ the Spring. He believes that
the PACC agreement not only says that the University will keep the County
informed, but that the University will make rigasonable efforts to complY with
the plan. Monticello officials have come to some terms with the University
officials on this project, but Mr. Lindstrom said that this does not offset
the fa~t that the proposal is for an office bBilding of 140,000 square feet in
the middle of an area that is zoned and show~!!! in the County's Comprehensive
Plan as rural areas. He mentioned that thereil~has not been any effort made to
initiate the Technical Review Committee proceps to consider how the zoning of
that property could be changed. He knows tha~ the Planning Commission had a
hearing scheduled concerning this project, bu~ the notification of the hearing
was not adequate, so the hearing was postpone~. He feels the site needs to be
reviewed with consideration given to its prox~ity to Monticello. Mr.
Lindstrom said it would be helpful to him if a memo could be prepared with
background information regarding problems andi?pressure points the University
of Virginia is facing on this project.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the County has b~en notified by the University of
Virginia Real Estate Foundation that two thin~s will be occurring. There will
be a site plan provided to the Planning CommiSsion within the next month.
Secondly, the City's members on the PACC are ~rying to set up a meeting soon
where the PACC Technical Committee will revie9 the proposal as it currently
stands.
Mr. Agnor said he hopes that, during the !review process,, this project
will be referred to the PACC Policy Committee Ibefore any other type of review.
He said the next PACC meeting will probably b~ held in October. Mr. Lindstrom
suggested that the County request an earlier P~ACC meeting than would normally
occur. He thinks this is the first situation ~here there is a conflict that
needs to be resolved. He belmeves that some ~tra effort on the part of all.
three parties needs to be undertaken to deterge if the Agreement will stand.
Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Bain ~greed that the County needs to
follow through on this project. He added tha~i the letter of response from
President O'Neil is general and broad and lea~es a lot of openings.
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
257
Item 4.12. Copy of Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for
the Month of July, 1989, received as information.
Item 4.13. Copy of Application dated August 22, 1989, of E-Z Page, Inc.,
for a Certificate to Provide Radio Common Carrier Paging Service and to
Establish Rates on a Competitive Basis, as filed with the State Corporation
Commission, received as information.
Item 4.14. Copy of Minutes for the Albemarle County Planning Commission
for August 1, August 8, August 15 and August 22, 1989, received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.15. Letter dated September 5, 1989, from the Virginia Department
of Transportation, noting Location and Design Public Hearing on September 28,
1989, at 7:30 P.M. at the Crozet Elementary School for the Route 671 (Moormans
River Bridge and Apprpaches) Project.
Agenda Item No. 5. An ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1 of the
County Code by the addition of Section 2.1-4(!q) to be known as the Sugar
Hollow Agricultural Forestal District (Deferred from July 19, 1989). (Peti-
tion readvertised on August 22 and August 29i~ 1989.)
Mr. Lindstrom abstained from discussing!~this item due to having relatives
with property within this district.
Mr. Cilimberg went over the staff repor~iagain. He noted that the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2'0, 1989, had unanimously recom-
mended approval of the district as submitted~ but that the acreage has changed
since that last meeting.
Mr. Way reopened the Public Hearing. MSl. Sherry Buttrick, with the
Piedmont Environmental Council, said that sh~was helping the landowners
combine the land for this agricultural and f~restal district. She added that
she would be happy to answer any questions t~at the Board might have. She
believes that it is probably a good thing that this matter was deferred, even
though some of the land was lost because of f~e deferral. She thinks, now,
that all of the people who wanted their land included in the district are
included, and all of the people who did not want to be included have gotten
out.
No one else was present who wanted to speak to this item, so Mr. Way
closed the Public Hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkina to adopt an
Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 2.1-4,1!iiChapter 2.1, Agricultural and
Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle,!iii'by adding a new subsection (q)
to be known as the Sugar Hollow Agricultural ~orestal District containing
2,581.967 acres, described as follows, and fo~ a period of ten years.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorde~ vote:
AYES:
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messr~? Perkins and Way.
Mr. Lindstrom. ~
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ~ REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORES~DISTRICT,
OF THE CODE OF AL~E
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supe~yisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code '.of Albemarle be, and the same
hereby is, amended to add a new subsecti6n (q) to be known as the
Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District, reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
258
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
(q) The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 25, parcels llC, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14C, 18, 21, 2lA, 24, 28;
Tax map 26, parcels 9, 10B, 19, 40B, 40C, 4lA, 44, 52, 52D; tax map
27, parcels 8, 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 7:50 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6. An ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1 of the
County Code by the addition of Section 2.1-4(r) to be known as the Chalk
Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. Located on the west side of Route 29
South between North Garden and Covesville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on August 22 and August 29, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Location: The proposed district is located west of Route 29 and
south of Route 697 near North Garden, and north of Route 698 near
Covesville. Part of the district is located east of Route 29, on
Route 767.
Acreage: The proposed district containS about 1,272 acres in seven
parcels. ~
Time Period: Ten years. ~'
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: ~ Land in the proposed district
is being used for forestry.
Significant Lands Not In Agricultural/Fdrestal Production: Four of
the seven properties are not enrolled in the land use tax program
(about 130 acres). Of the parcels which are enrolled, about 53 acres
are non-qualifying because of dwellings!ior other reasons. The remain-
ing property, about 1,090 acres, is enr~tled in forestal land use.
Land Use Other Than Agriculture and Forestry: There are four dwell-
ings in the proposed district, or one d~elling per 318 acres.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: ii Other than the small lots
located along Route 29 South, this areailconsists of larger wooded
parcels. This area is well suited for ~ district.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The proposed district is
located in Rural Areas III, and is zone~ RA, Rural Areas. The nearest
growth area is North Garden, a distance .i~bf about one mile northeast.
The Hardware Agricultural/Forestal Dist~iict lies less than one mile
north. ~
Environmental Benefits: Environmental b~nefits provided by the
conservation of wooded areas include pro~ection of ground and surface
water quality, wildlife habitat and crit~%cal slopes.
Advisory Committee: The Advisory Committee on July 25, 1989, unani-
mously recommended that the district be ~approved as submitted. They
did not review Tax Map 99, Parcel 30, which was added at a later
date." '-!
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Planning Co~ission, at its meeting on
August 15, 1989, unanSmously recommended thati';the district be approved as
submitted. ¢
Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing,. and s~nce there was no one present who
wished to speak to this issue, the Public Hea~ing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. L~dstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie
adopt An Ordinance to 3~aend and Reenact SectiOn 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1,
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
259
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, to add a new
subsection (r) to be known as the Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal
District containing approximately 1,272.474 acres, as set out below, and for a
period of ten years including Tax Map 99, Parcel 30.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMA~T,~
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same
hereby is, amended to add a new subsection (r) to be known as the
Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(r~ The district known as the "Chalk Mountain Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the foll6wing described properties:
Tax map 97, parcels 21, 2lA, 22; tax map~98, parcels 12, 13, 14; tax
map 99, parcel 30. ~
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: To 'consider a request to abandon an
old right-of-way known as "Hammocks Gap Road'~i (Notice of this public hearing
was published in The Daily Progress on August*22 and August 29, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board members .that they had received, on
July 12, 1989, the request from Mr. Scott Gen~.ry to abandon this road. He
pointed out the location of the proposed abandonment on a map and stated that
the entire section that runs from Route 612 on, the west side of the Southwest-
ern Mountains to Route 22 is requested for abandonment. He mentioned that in
addition to Mr. Gentry's property there are ac least two other property owners
who are located along this road, but Mr. Gent~y has requested abandonment of
only the portion of the road that fronts his ~roperty. He noted that in the
past the Board has been interested in abandoning full sections of roadways if
at all possible. He said that the owner of E~gehill Farm has been contacted
and now supports this abandonment. He added:~,~hat the staff can see no public
purpose to be served by retaining this as a pgblic~, right-of-way and supports
the abandonment.
Mr. Bain asked if he is correct mn belle~mng that there is no real road
across most of that area. Mr. '~Cilimberg replied that the County staff's
understanding is that it is more of a path thSn a roadway. He said the
Grahams at Edgehill Farm were concerned as to ?whether there would be access
for their forestry operations if this abandonment took place. He said that
all of this has now been settled by an agreement signed between the property
owners along this right-of-way~ The owners aqd contractors for the forestry
operation are now satisfied. ~,
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. ~.~
Mr. Scott Gentry stated that the adjoining property owners, who are
present, are in favor of this abandonment pro~dure.
There was no one else who !wished to s to this matter, so Mr. Way
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie noted that most iof the propert~owners involved were sitting in
the audience, and he asked if any of them objected to the abandonment of this
road. (No one objected).
260
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt
a resolution as set out below to abandon Hammocks Gap Road.
Mr. St. John commented that the map and the metes and bounds description
of this roadway, which are on the same page as the map, should be marked for
identification and made part of this record. Mr. Bowie then reworded his
motion and initialed the page with the map and metes and bounds on it and gave
it to the Clerk.
Roll was called and the motion to adopt the following resolution carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen to abandon a
section of an old road not in the State Highway or Secondary System;
and
WHEREAS, the Board, on July 12, 1989, ordered that this matter be
advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virginia Code Section
33.1-157; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on September 6, 1989, the
Board finding that the said section of ~Oad serves no public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that an "old~! road" right-of-way known as
"Hammocks Gap Road" (and shown on the attached exhibit) be abandoned
to public use as per the following description:
Beginning at the end of maintenance of State Route 612, near
the middle of the east property li~e of parcel 25, tax map
63; thence 313 feet in a southerly!!direction to the north-
east corner of parcel 24, tax map 63; thence along the east
property line of parcel 24, tax maP'! 63; to the northeast
corner of parcel 12A, tax ~map 79; ~hence along the common
property line between parcels 12A, !!tax map 79 and parcel 43,
tax map 63; to the northwest corne~of parcel 46, tax map
79; thence along the common property line between parcels
12A, tax map 79 and parcel 46, tax !map 79; to the northwest
corner of parcel 46A, tax map 79; ~hence along the common
property line between parcels 12A, !~tax map 79 and parcel
46A, tax map 79; to the northwest cgrner of parcel 2, tax
map 80; thence along the common prd~erty line between
parcels 12A, tax map 79 and parcel i~2, tax map 80; to State
Route 22 and the end of th~s abandd~ment.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-57. Robert & Mandra Haney. To allow for the
subdivision of a vacant 23. 124 acre parcel z~ed Rural Areas. Property on
northeast side of Route 53 at intersection ofliRoute 7291 Tax Map 93, Parcel
48. Scottsville District. (Advertised in th~ Daily Progress on August 22 and
August 29, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as'~i~follows:
"Special Use Permit Criteria:
1. The property under review consists i'~f 23.14 acres which is gently
to moderately rolling with some areas of critical slopes present.
Several streams are on the site, O~ly small areas, the front
portion and proposed house site, ar~ clear. The remainder of the
site is heavily wooded with a mixture, of mature deciduous and
evergreen trees. The site has limi{ations for agricultural uses
due to soil type.
2. Soils on this site consist mainly of Manteo Channery Silt Loam.
This soil has a severe hazard of er~smon. The soil is not suited
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
261
to cultivated crops and is moderately well suited to pasture and
hey crops. The potential productiVity for trees is moderate.
To the best of the applicant's knoWledge the site has been wooded
since 1950 and no commercial agriculture hes taken place on the
property since 1950.
Approximately 70 percent of the land within one mile of this
proposal is in land use. In response to the possible effects of
this development on the character of the area, staff referred the
Board to comments on Page 70 of the recently adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
Approximately nine percent of the acreage within one mile of this
site was in lots of five acres or less on the date of adoption of
the Zoning Ordinance. This area is not located within a developed
Rural Area.
This property is located approximately 5.5 miles from the urban
area.
This request is for an additional lot and should have a minimal
impact on capital improvements. However, approval of this request
may set a precedent that will result in significant impact on
capital improvements programming.
8. This development can obtain an adequate entrance to serve two
lots. Route 53 from which access iscurrently tolerable. Route
729 which intersects Route 53 at this property is currently
non-tolerable.
History of the Property: This property ~s the residue of a subdivision
which created five additional lots. That division, which was adminis-
tratively approved on July 18, 1985, exhausted the development rights
of the present tract. The property was purchased by Robert and Sandra
Haney in the spring of 1989. ~
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The~i~recently adopted Comprehensive
Plan states "Additional lots are contrar~ to rural area preservation
(page 301 of Draft)." Development in rural areas may have both direct
and indirect effects on the Rural Areas ~see item #4 in Special Use
Permit Criteria Section of this report).it!~
Summary: This proposal does not satisfylthe criteria for a special use
permit found in Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property
was subdivided in 1985 and purchesed by ~obert and Sandra Haney in 1989
with the knowledge that no development rights remained. In addition,
soils on this site are not favorable for~subsurface drain fields. A
note on the approved plat states "Percolation tests dictate that there
will be required very large drain fieldsi!and possibility that pumping
may be required". The plat further note~ "one dwelling unit per lot".
Staff opinion is that approval of this S~ecial Use Permit will set a
precedent that could lead to additional ~ots in the Rural Areas of the
County. The Rural Area zone has been in;~existence since 1980 and a
substantial number of lots with no additional development rights have
been created. Should the Planning CommiSsion and Board of Supervisors
choose to approve this request, it shouldl be clearly distinguished from
these several hundred other lots with no ~evelopment rights.
Staff recox~nends denial of SP-89-57 for I~pbert and Sandra Haney."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 1,
1989, had recommended unanimously the denial o~ this Special Use Permit.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked the Haneys if they would like
to speak. ~
Mrs. Haney stated that when she and her ~sband purchased the land they
knew there were no more division rights on thei'property, but they were told
262
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
that Special Use Permits would allow division to be considered incase there
was good reason for dividing the land. The land was heavily wooded, the soil
is not very good and there could be erosion. She said they have no intention
of removing any trees other than enough to put the second house on the prop-
erty for her daughter and son-in-law. This property is not in an developed
area. South on Route 729, at the point where her property joins Routes 729
and 53, there are nothing but trailers for a mile on either side of the road.
Going north on Route 729, in the direction of Charlottesville and Milton
Hills, which is a developing area, there are many private dwellings. West on
Route 53, Mrs. Haney stated that there are homes and stores for quite a
distance, and to the east on Route 53 there is a church and several dwellings.
Farther down Route 53, in the eastern direction, there are farms. She com-
mented that the only area that is not developed within a mile radius of her
property is her own property and the properties that join her land in the
back. These properties have some dwellings on them with access to Route 729,
and they are large pieces of land.
Mrs. Haney said she believes the County is concerned that approving this
request might set a precedent for developers to put in subdivisions. She
added that her land is completely isolated, and that there is a gravel road
that goes into her property for one-half mile. She mentioned that the build-
ing site is not visible from Routes 53 nor 729 and is completely surrounded by
trees. She pointed out that there was no mention on her copy of the plat that
drainage was a problem. She said that the p~rcolation test was acceptable..
The Health Department tested the soil and indicated that it would handle a
drainfield, but that the drainfield would have to be larger than normal
because of the type of soil that is in that area. As far as farm use is
concerned, she was told that the property could effect farm use. She commenn-
ed that since her property has never been in farm use, it will not take up any
land that might be otherwise used for farming. She said that she has also
been informed that Route 53 is tolerable for itwo homes on that piece of
property. !i
Mr. Haney said the critical slopes are ~h the northern end of the proper-
ty. He said there are two streams on his la~d, both of which circumvent the
property. One stream comes in from the northwest and the other comes in from
the southeast, and they are both below the c=iticat slope area, so he does not
see why the streams would be a factor in the ~rainage situation. He added
that the housing and drainfield would be located several hundred feet away
from any stream except when there are heavy r~ins which might cause the two
streams to flood. ~
Mrs. Haney spoke again to the Board and ~said the building site is at the
highest point of the property. She added tha~ the proposed home her daughter
and son-in-law will build will be located on the drive that is already there,
so the home will not be any closer to the fld~d area.
Mr. Maney stated that his daughter's hom~ would be located slightly
southwest of his building site which is locat'~d centrally in the property and
is approximately 2,200 feet away from Route 5~.
Mrs. Haney said she knows it is a big jo~ to handle the land in Albemarle
County because it can be misused and abused a~.d the beauty can be ruined. She
said this is their main concern. They want t~ have a home but they do not
want to destroy the natural beauty of the are~. They want to give their
daughter and son-in-law an opportunity to hav9 a home on a piece of property
which would provide some legacy to their family. If her daughter and
son-in-law can build on this land, they would?~not have to pay $400 to $600 a
month to rent, which would mean that they wou~d not be able to get ahead
because of high rent payments. She said it w~uld never be her intent to
subdivide that property to the point of a "su~idivision." She added that her
husband is a carpenter and a foreman at the N~rth Anna Power Plant, and he
understands what building is all about. She ~'emarked that her husband has
gone to great lengths to plan in such a way t~at the home will not take away
from the property and that it will be an addition to the property and will not
take away the natural environment. She said ~e and her husband are confused
and don't understand all of the laws and do n~t know what everything that has
been said really means. She does see very cl~ ~rly, however, that two homes on
that property will have no effect on the surrc ~nding property. She believes
that she understands what is meant by setting dangerous precedent, but she
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
263
added that since the Board sets up those precedents, and since it is a family
use and not a development in the sense that a developer is making a lot of
money, she would like for that to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Haney commented that some of the neighbors were concerned that these
two particular homes might detract from the beauty of the area. He said that
in both areas where the homes will be built, with the foliage in the spring,
summer and fall, the other homes cannot be seen from these two sites. He said
that when the foliage is not on the trees, the two homes can still not be seen
from the other home sites at ground level.
Mrs. Haney pointed out that the other homeowners can see each other's
homes from their properties, so she does not feel that this should be a
problem for her neighbors. She thinks that the neighbor's biggest concern was
that a housing development would become a part of that piece of property,
because the neighbors could not tell from the sign on the road. whether a
development was being constructed or a couple of homes were going to be built.
Mr. Haney said he and his wife would be'more than willing to have a
stipulation in the Special Use Permit that only two homes could be built on
the property.
With no one else coming forward to speak., Mr. Way closed the public
hearing Mr. Way said he is very sympatheti~ to what the Haneys have said,
an~ he ~grees that very probably a drainfiel~ could be put on the property and
an attractive house could be built without h~rting anyone. The problem ~s
that theBoardhas~i_~t~time discussing development rights, and the five
~o-n--~hat piece of property'S!beve already been used. If the
Haneys are allowed more development rights, ~hen the Board cannot legally deny
hundreds of other people in this County who have used all the development
rights on their piece of property. He said this would make it possible for
any number of people to come in and ask for one more development right. He
has not been on the Board as long as some. of ~the other members, but he knows
that some of the other members have struggle~over the matter of how many
development rights should be given for a piec~ of property. He pointed out
that the Board cannot say that one thing can ibe done by the Haneys, but
another person cannot do the same thing..
Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Way that becaus~ of this one issue, a precedent
cannot be set. He said that even though thisliis a 23 acre tract, it was a 33
acre tract at the beginning, and five, two ac~e lot rights were used.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to deny the
petition. 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. 9. SP-89-55. Robert & ~andra Haney. To locate a single
wide mobile home on property located on the ngrtheast smde of Route 53 at
intersection of Route 729. Tax Map 93, Parce~ 48. Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2~ and August 29, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as f~llows:
"Staff Comment: The proposed mobile hom~ will not be visible from any
state roads or adjacent properties. The ~s~te is wooded and the
proposed mobile home is to be located in i!an existing clearing.
Currently there are ten mobile homes within one mile of this property.
The proposed mobile home is for the applicant's daughter and husband,
who intend to build a permanent dwelling ~t some time in the future.
Two letters of objection have been received, concerning this petition.
These letters state concerns of visibili~ and setting a precedent
that would lead to additional permits al!~wing commercial activities
which may reduce property values. ~i
264
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition staff recommends the following conditions of
approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
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 within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
o
Maintenance of existing vegetation, ilandscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction 9f the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
Mobile home is not to be rented;
Special use permit is issued for us~ of Robert & Sandra Haney's
family only;
Mobile home is to be removed from t~e property within thirty (30)
days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for an addi-
tional dwelling;
Mobile home is to be located as sho on the attached plat by
Robert L. Lum titled 'The John N. G~akos property'. Minimum
setbacks from adjacent properties i~i 100 feet."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning CommissiOn, at its meeting on August 1,
1989, unanimously recommended approval of SP-~:9-55, with the conditions set
out in the staff's report.
Mr. Way opened the Public Nearing on thi~ matter. Mrs. Haney indicated
that it has been clearly stated what she wants to do. She said that she and
her husband applied for a permanent permit in~i~tead of a temporary one with the
idea that they would not have to reapply for ~nother permit if mt had been
possible for her daughter to build on the property.
With no one else coming forward to speak,~ Mr. Way closed the Public
Nearing.
Mr. Perkins said he is confused about what the Board has done in relation
to this property. He said the Board first de~ied the Haneys the right to
subdivide this property because there are no ~evelopment rights left. He
added that, now, the Board is giving them the~ight to put a home on the
property. He asked if the Board is giving th~Haneys one development right.
Mr. Bain answered that they already have one development right for the
property, but they would like to have two development rights. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that a parcel of 21 acres or greater{.allows a dwelling unit without
having a development right. I
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve this
petition subject to the nine conditions recommended by the Planning Commission
in a memo dated August 4, 1989, and set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by!ilthe following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs'l Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ii
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
265
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 within thirty days of the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfactionof the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
Special use permit is issued for use of Robert & Sandra Haney's
family only;
8. Mobile home is to be removed from the property within thirty days
of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for an additional
dwelling;
9. Mobile home is to be located-as shown on the attached plat by
Robert L. Lum titled "The John N. ~ianakos property". Minimum
setbacks from adjacent properties ~S 100 feet.
Agenda Item No. 10.. ZMA-89-7. Virgini~i Land Trust. To rezone 17.3
acres from R-1 Residential to HI, Heavy Industrial. Property on west side of
Route 29 North about 1800 feet south of the ~orth Fork Rivanna River Bridge.
Tax Map 32, Parcels 22B and 22B1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on August 22 and August 29, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report: /k/~!~f~;
"Proposal: The applicant is petitioning3 the Board of Supervisors in
accordance with Section 33.2,1 of the Z~ing Ordinance to rezone 17.4
acres from R-l, Residential, to HI, Hea~ Industrial.
Location: Property, described as Tax M~.p 32, Parcel 22B1, is located
~n ~e ~est side of Rt. 29 approximatel~'i 1,800 feet south of the North
Fork Rivanna River Bridge. Property is iiocated in the Rivanna Magis-
terial District.
Staff Comment: The recently approved Comprehensive Plan shows this
property as primarily industrial service!-in the Community of
Hollymead. The Comprehensive Plan shows.~transition to an area of
medium density residential immediately to the west of this property.
The Comprehensive Plan states 'the area west of Rt. 29 North is
intended for industrial and office uses Es a large employment area.
It is expected that these uses will be of a large scale and have a
significant airport orientation. Existing residential areas on the
west side of Rt. 29 North are recognized~· but are not intended to
expand except for an undeveloped area of ilmedium density north of Cedar
Hill Trailer Park'.
Approval of industrial zoning adjacent t0 a~eas shown as medium
density residential in the Comprehensive~Plan should provide for
protection of future residential areas. ?Without protection, the
expansion of the residential area may be!!compromised. Protection
could take the form of, but is not limitgd to, any or all of the
following: additional setbacks, increased buffers and restricted
uses. The applicant has not submitted p~offers to effect any of the
above mentioned protection measures.
266
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Section 28.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states 'HI districts are hereby
created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning
map to permit industries and commercial uses which have public nui-
sance potential and will therefore be subject to intensive review for
locational impact on surrounding land uses and environment'
Property along Route 29 North in this area adjacent to residential
property has been rezoned to industrial designation. A recent rezon-
ing, ZMA-87-19, Republic Capital, included very restrictive proffers
which sought to protect residential areas.
Staff is of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to approve
unfettered heavy industrial zoning which has 'public nuisance poten-
tial' adjacent to areas shown as medium density residential in the
Comprehensive Plan and currently zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Staff is of the opinion that industrial'zoning without proffers to
protect areas shown as residential in the Comprehensive Plan is
inappropriate and, therefore, recommends denial of ZMA-89-7, Virginia
Land Trust.
Addendum to ZMA-89-07 Virginia Land Trust
The applicant has presented the following proffers for ZMA-89-07
Virginia Land Trust:
'1. We hereby proffer a restriction on=the types of uses of the
property that will prohibit brick Manufacturing; concrete mixing
plants; manufacturing of sewage diADosal systems; manufacturing
and recycling of tires; petroleum g!asoline, natural gaa and
manufactured gas storage; sawmills~.~' wood preserving operations.
2. We will expand the undisturbed buff~er area from the required 30
foot width to a 50 foot width alon~ the lot line which abuts the
Residential planned property. '
Staff has included a copy of Section 28 iOf the Zoning Ordinance which
has been revised to affect the applicanC's proffers.
Staff has reviewed the proffers and is df the opinion that many uses
which have a public nuisance potential ~re retained. The applicant
has stated that the proposed use on thi~ property is 'Mobile Home
re-manufacturing'. This use includes 'c~ecking all electrical,
plumbing and structural components of thee home. Any defective materi-
als will be replaced or repaired'. This~ use will require outside
activities which have a potential impact~i~ on areas designated
as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Such impacts
could include, but are not limited to, n~ise and sight.
Staff is of the opinion that it would b~!i inappropriate to approve a
Heavy Industrial zoning which has a pub~!~c nuisance potential adjacent
to areas shown as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan
and areas shown as and currently zoned ~, Rural Areas.
Staff recommends denial of ZMA-89-07 Vir~inia Land Trust."
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:26 P~,M.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Co~issmon unanunously recommended
approval of this petition with the most recen~n~ proffer included. This proffer
and
deleted all uses except mobile home manufacturing, distribution; a number
of public service uses such as fire and rescu9 squad stations; electric, gas,
oil and communication facilities; water distributions and sewage collection
lines; and public uses in buildings such as s~hools, offices, parks, play-
grounds and roads funded, owned or operated b~ local, state or federal agen-
cies. There was some question in Mr. Bowie'si!and Mr. Lindstrom's minds as to
whether the proffer was referring to the man~acturing of mobile homes instead
of general manufacturing. Mr. Cilimberg answgred that the proffer is refer-
ring to the manufacturing of mobile homes. M~. Bowie suggested that the
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
267
wording in the proffer be changed to make the intention clearer. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the applicant was quoting directly from the ordinance
and that was why the proffer was worded in such a manner.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that, according to the staff report, there still
remained an objection because of the buffering issue and the consistency issue
with the adjoining property. He asked how the proffer has been amended
relating to these issues, and how the staff now views this situation. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the Commission's primary concern and the staff's
concern initially was the unfettered position of the initial rezoning applica-
tion that would have been for any HI use. He said that the Commission had a
great concern about HI of any type in this particular location with the
residential area potentially expanded to the west. He said that the first
proffer limited somewhat the HI uses that would be available to the applicant
and provided for some additional buffering, but that issue was still of
concern to the Commission. The Commission felt that if one use was intended
for the site, that use should be identified and then the Commission could
judge whether that use would be allowed without any other conditions. The
Planning Commission did feel that mobile home manufacturing and distribution
was a public benefit, and it was a use that Was less of a nuisance than some
other HI uses. The Commission also felt that a difference of 30 to 50 feet of
buffering, as was originally offered by the ~pplicant, was not that signifi-
cant. He added that because of the natural ~ay of the land, which involves
steep slopes and a stream, the Commission fe~t that during site development
there would not be an opportunity to get within 50 feet of the adjacent
properties. Because of these things, the Co~ission felt comfortable in
granting the limited proffered rezoning without any further requirement for a
buffer.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the staff feels iiiabout the limited proffered
rezoning as it relates to buffering. Mr. Ci~imberg answered that the staff
feels that there is credence in the way that ithe County's ordinance has
provided for buffering and screening. He we~t on to say that 30 feet is
provided in the ordinance, and if it is felt ~'Ithat 30 feet is not appropriate,
then perhaps the ordinance should be re-exami~led as well as all of the zoning
cases. He added that this property is an und!eveloped area of medium density
residential use. He mentioned that considerJ the lay of the land, and with
this development occurring first, there is opportunity to make sure that
the County does not allow development in envi/Conmentally sensitive areas. If
the medium density development occurs to the Hest, there is tt~e opportunity to
make sure some additional setback or buffering is created to protect any
potential residential area. He said the sta~.~ feels that this kind of propos-
al can be accepted, iJ
Given that this proposal is discretionary and does not have to be ap-
proved, Mr. Lindstrom said, it seems as thou§h the staff is trying to make the
best of a bad situation. He asked why. Mr. ~ilimberg replied that the
ordinance provides for necessary setbacks or ~buffering, and this proposal for
development is mn accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for thms particular
site. He said this area is shown in the Planlfor industrial zoning. He added
that the proposal has been proffered down to ~ individual use, and the staff
feels that the proposal is acceptable. ~i
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many people would be employed, given the kind. of
use and the size of this project. Mr. Cilimb~rg answered that he does not
have an estimate of the number of ~ '
people who ~ould be employed. He said the
Comprehensive Plan calls for 271 square feet per employee and 3,846 square
feet per acre. He explained that in this cas~ there are five acres involved
with probably 17,000 square feet. This meansi~/that approximately 60 people
could be employed.
At this time, Mr. Way opened the public
Mr. Tom Batchelor spoke to the Board and
does not plan to employ 60 people, but probab~
his company will take in mobile homes to be
he will not be building new mobile homes, but
ones. He said there is a dire need in this
earing.
informed the members that he
y less than ten people. He said
paired and sold. He added that
will be re-manufacturing older
ea for this sort of activity.
268
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Batchelor is intending to reconstruct old mobile
homes. Mr. Batchelor replied that most of these trailers will be traded in to
other dealers and some will come from trailer parks where people will want to
sell their trailers. He said that his companY will buy these trailers and fix
them up to be resold.
Mr. Bowie asked how many trailers will be displayed on the lot. Mr.
Batchelor answered that he does not know how many trailers will be on the lot
at any one time, but he said that there will be a number of display trailers
for sale.
Mr. Bowie then wondered why the proffer~for a 30 foot buffer was used
instead of the proffer for the 50 foot buffer. Mr. Batchelor responded that
the 50 foot proffer was made for the entire 17 acres in the parcel. He said
that the buffer was dropped from 50 to 30 feet because the proposal went from
a number of uses to just one use. He added that the adjacent property is
owned by Virginia Land and the University of Virginia.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if Mr. Batchelor:is authorized to act as an agent
for the owner of this property, or if he is the potential user. Mr. Batchelor
replied that he is representing Dr. Charles Hurt.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Batchelor woHld be willing to make a proffer
on the number of employees that would be on ~hat site. Mr. Batchelor answered
that he does not believe that the business w~ll require over ten employees,
but he cannot see any reason to proffer that!~'~limit.
There was no one else present who wished to speak to this application, so
Mr. Way closed the public hearing. ~ii!'
Mr. Lindstrom said this is the second r~zoning request to come before the
Board since July 1. He thinks it is clear, ~espite the study that was recent-
ly done, that with only two percent unemplo~ent in the County, any new jobs
created are likely to be filled by people wh6 will move here. He said the
financial consequence is that revenues from the new business will not offset
the expenditures required for government services, such as education and
capital facilities. He said the reason he asked Mr. Batchelor about the
employment limitation is that one way this p~tential fiscal impact can be
handled is to make sure there will not be as .~many as 50 or 60 employees on
that site. He said this would add to the financial burden of ~the County
without any offsetting revenues. He went on !to say that a rather large amount
of industrial zoning is shown in the Plan, a~d his feeling is that there
probably is more than can be handled by the Gpunty, if all of these potential
employees arrive over a period of ten or 15 years. He said sometimes he
believes that building houses does not generate people, and sometimes he
believes that it does. He does believe that .~ith two percent unemployment,
zoning for a bigger employment base is very ~kaly to increase the County's
population, and he thinks that County offici~s should be aware of this
potential cost.
Mr. Bain asked if public water and sewer'is available to this site. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that the the water would cpme from the North Rivanna System
and the treatment would take place at Camelo~l
Mr. Bowie pointed out that there is no m~ntion of the protection of Route
29 as far as visual buffering is concerned, a~d he asked if there is a reason
for this. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the staff did not address visual buffer-
ing directly with the applicant because it fe!t that, with the provisions
available in the site plan ordinance, there wguld be the opportunity to get
landscaping to provide some buffering for Rou~e 29. He said that this does
not necessarily mean that any additional setback would be required.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Cilimberg feels t~at the County has the authority
under the existing ordinances to require the ~uffering. Mr. Cilimberg an-
swered, "yes."
Mr. Perkins wondered if the left turn an~ taper lane are part of the
conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg responded, "no." He said this would be
~ ' and
addressed during site plan approval. Mr. Bowie asked ~f the left turn
taper lane could be mandated, at that point. !iMr. Cilimberg answered that the
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
269
lane could be required, if it is necessary for the development. He added that
YDOT will make a recommendation at this time'. Mr. Bowie inquired if anything
else needs to be done regarding the left turn and taper lane issue or if the
applicant needs to address this matter as another proffer. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that if the applicant is willing to proffer this lane, it would be
helpful to have those proffers. He said the staff feels that these issues can
be addressed during site plan approval.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that this part of Route 29 is not developed yet,
and he said that in close proximity to this site, there will be some type of
complex. His concern is whether mobile homes should be allowed to be aligned
along the side of the road. He thinks the mobile home industry is important,
and that it is important for people who want mobile homes to have them, but he
is not sure that the major entrance to this community is the place for a major
display area for mobile homes. Notwithstanding the fiscal impact that this
application has, it will certainly have an aesthetic impact. He does agree
that if a business is selling mobile homes, they should not be hidden from
view as people drive by. He added that he has a problem with all of the car
dealerships, but they are located within the ..area where the clutter is already
established. He said this application is for an area that has not yet been
cluttered. He mentioned that 84 Lumber, on ~he other side of the road, is not
a place of beauty. He said this is an isolated case so far, but this is
another issue to consider.
Mr. Bowie said he understands what Mr. ~f. Lindstrom is saying, but the the
Comprehensive Plan allows commercial activit~ all along Route 29. He asked
Mr. Cilimberg if this application is in compliance with the recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan, except for the zoning. ~r. Cilimberg said "yes".
Mr. Lindstrom said there is a whole ran~ of flexible uses for that site,
one of which could be mobile homes. Mr. CliP'berg replied that there are a
number of those uses by right and special us~s permitted in LI and HI zoning
that would fit this Comprehensive Plan designation.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that other us~s might have less of a visual
impact on Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg agreed, but said that this area is not
committed to any one use.
Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen if the Board approves this applica-
tion, and then at some later time the mobile ~home operation ceased. She asked
if the next tenant for that piece of propert~ would have to appear before the
Board to establish the use for that property,i Mr. Cilimberg answered that the
new tenant would have to establish the use f~r that property if the use is
different from the uses listed in the proffer.
Mr. Way explained that usually only one ~se is established for a piece of
property out of the whole list of items. Mr~ Cooke stated that if this is
true, then the property would be designated fbr. that use and for nothing else.
She added that should that operation cease, ~en the new tenant would have to
reapply for another type of operation on tha~i'piece of property. She said
that this means that this Board would have c~trol over what is put on that
property. Mr. Way agreed that this is his u~erstanding.
Mr. Lindstrom felt that, since July 1, [~e Board has been in a situation
where there has been a surplus of these types~of uses. It seems to him, that
given the fact that there is land already zoned for industrial use and that
this is a request for more to be added at a ti~me when the County is in a
position to accept proffers that are more dir~ctly related to offsetting the
impact, the Board should think seriously abo~ saying, "no." He added that
there is no willingness on the part of the ap]
will offset the impact. He said, however, th~
cant, because, if he were the applicant, he w
Lindstrom went on to say that the rules have
certain impacts. He thinks that the Board sh
lng when it relates to applicants' requests.
Mr. Bowie said he wishes he knew more ab~
licant to provide proffers that
~t he does not blame the appli-
uld request the same thing. Mr.
hanged and more is known about
uld consider being more demand-
ut what can and cannot be done
under conditional zoning and what the impact would be. He said there is
nothing wrong with this proposed business foril, ithe site, and it is probably
needed. He does not know, however, if the business is needed at that
270
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
particular site. He said there are impacts involved because, if employees
move into the area, they will cost the County money. He mentioned that no
additional screening is being required, and there is no attempt to satisfy
these needs. He wonders what the whole purpose of conditional zoning is, if
these requirements are not met. His concernis whether the Board should start
being stricter with this application. He went on to say that he has no
problem with this as a proposal, but he pointed out that the site is at the
far northern end of a strip of land. He believes that if zoning is changed to
meet the applicant's needs, the applicant ca~, if he wishes, proffer to offset
the effects of that rezoning. Mr. Bowie said that it is the applicant's
business if he chooses not to proffer, but the Board is not obligated to
approve the application. He repeated that his concern is whether this is the
time for the Board to start being less permissive.
Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Bowie and said~that the Board has to start
considering this issue at some point. He said that this applicant is asking
for a specific use, and the acreage has been'reduced. He stated that this
site is at the far northern end of the industrial area and there is other
industrial property that is not located on Route 29. He added that this
application does give him some real concern.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that screening is a concern and the number of
employees is a concern, but the Board is notimaking any movement towards
addressing these concerns and the fiscal andlaesthetic impacts that are
involved~ He believes that there should be some limitation on the number of
employees involved at this site and also theie should be some meaningful
screening, other than just the minimum requirement. He thinks that such
proffers would be reasonable, but in the absence of them, he thinks the
impacts outweigh the benefits.
Mr. Batchelor stated that he does not h ye a problem with proffering the
number of employees because he is comfortabl, that the number will never
approach 60. He would, however, like to leave himself a little leeway, and
not proffer over 15 or 20 employees. He added that it would be extremely
difficult to proffer the screening along Rou~e 29.
Mr. Bowie explained that the one issue involved the 30 foot screening
that was expanded to 50 feet in the originali!.proffer, and the fact that it was
never addressed again anywhere else. Mr. Ba~chelor answered that the 50 feet
of screening would not be a problem, but he ~oes not know how to screen the
front of the property because people need to.!Isee the flnmshed product. He
commented that he does not want it to be an ~gly sight, because it would not
help his business or the County. He realize~I that this is the north end of
the industrial area that appears in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that one
of the reasons that this site was picked is that on Route 29, there are not
many places where he can put this business. ~He commented that the application
has been proffered down to what the Comprehe~sive Plan requires. He said that
there were many other heavy industrial uses ~hat he thought should have been
left on the list. He said that time became ~ problem and he realized that if
this business did not last, then another tena~nt could come back and apply for
any other use that is listed. He added that '~o one could come into this piece
of property and put in a welding manufacturing company, or anything of this
nature, because it is a single use piece of ~operty.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she thought t~t landscaping might be more
appropriate than screening. She pointed out ~hat ~t m~ght be to Mr.
Batchelor s advantage to do attractive landsq~apmng to showcase the fmnmshed
product. She said that screening is a shuttling out while landscaping is an
enhancement of the aesthetic value of the property. Mr. Batchelor agreed and
sa~d that he thought that the ordinance assumed the responsibility for screen-
ing requirements.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom suggested t~at it might be advantageous for
Mr. Batchelor to delay his application for a ~eeko He then mentioned a place
on Route 29, that is no longer there, that he[Isaid had so many mobile homes on
the property that nothing could have been don~ to make it attractive. He said
that with five acres there should be enough d~pth so there will be some
flexibility for storing the mobile homes thattare not on display. He believes
that limiting the number of mobile homes that ~are in front of the property and
the way the property is landscaped are ways of accommodating Mr. Batchelor's
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
271
need for display and at the same time an aesthetic balance can be attained. He
commented that it is hard for him to picture.how much frontage or actual
display space is available on this site. He said he is suggesting delaying
the application for a week so that Mr. Batchelor can examine ways that land-
scaping, etc., can be accomplished.
Mr. Bowie stated that he wanted to make sure that he was clear on the
issues. He asked Mr. Batchelor if he was willing to proffer 15 employees as a
maximum and also if he would proffer a 50 foot screening next to the residen-
tial areas. He mentioned that mobile homes were not too appealing to be seen
along Route 29 as a person is driving into Charlottesville, and suggested that
Mr. Batchelor work with staff to develop some type of wording, if Mr.
Batchelor chooses, to proffer for some landscaping along Route 29. Mr.
Batchelor agreed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to defer
action on this petition to September 13, 1989.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Cilimberg if he understands what the Board is
trying to accomplish. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." He said that the staff
would discuss with Mr. Batchelor the County's requirements for buffering an
undisturbed area and also for the setback from Route 29.
Mr. Way commented that this discussion hlas pointed out the need for the
Board to make decisions as to how to proceed.i~ith the issues that were ad-
dressed at today's meeting. He pointed out ~hat Mr. Batchelor has had to go
through a number of steps with the Planning Qommission and has basically done
everything that he has been asked to do. He~isald that now that Mr. Batchelor
is appearing before this Board, he. is being told that what he has done is not
good enough. Mr. Way said he understands that the rules have changed as of
3uly 1, but Mr. Batchelor has no idea what t~bse rules are, and the Board has
not set any guidelines or criteria. He is n~it sure that the Board is being
fair in this case.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands Mr. W~Y's concern. He went on to say
that even if the rules had not changed, he t~inks the proffers and the con-
cerns that have been expressed at this meeting are appropriate concerns. He
believes the Board needs to think more aboutlhow~ this new authority can be
implemented.
Mr. Way said he would support the motlon~ He said he would have support-
ed this application as it was presented. He ~nderstands, however, what has
been brought out at this meeting, and he does not believe that a week's delay
will hurt anything
·
At this time, roll was called and the m~tion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie said he believes the Board has?~ to address what it wants to
accomplish on Route 29. Mr. Bain said the Bo~ard needs to have some different
mechanism in place relative to dealing with entrances to property, and every-
body should know about the mechanism. He sa{d the cost does not have to be
great, but the County should try to keep the ~ntrance corridor attractive.
Mrs. Cooke mentioned a petition that was before the Board several weeks ago
when there was the opportunity to upgrade a C~rtain parcel on Route 29 North,
and the Board was unable to come to any agreement to do that. She said that
unless the Board gets some mechanism in placei~ there will be a continuation of
the unattractive and totally commercialized emtrances along Routes 29 and 250
throughout the County. She thinks that perhaps the Board should start to
address this issue in the form of landscaping!las opposed to screening. She
believes that screening conjures up an entire~y different image in a person s
mind, while landscaping is a much more descriptive way of getting the Board's
point across.
Mr. Bain asked if the site plan ordinanc, addresses this issue. Mr.
Cilimberg answered, "no."
272
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that not only on July 1 did the Board get new
authority with respect to accepting certain types of proffers, but there has
been some other recent legislation that relates to corridors relative to site
plans. He is not sure what tools are available to the Board concerning these
issues. Mr. Agnor and Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Board will receive a
memo at next week's meeting with information that will list the State Code
sections as well as some detailed work that the City of Charlottesville has
done in this regard. Mr. Cilimberg thinks that the County may be able to work
from this information, but Mr. St. John will need to give the staff and Board
some legal interpretation to what the Code allows.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that Route 20 North is a prime candidate to be
considered under this new legislation because it is shown for urban type
development in the Comprehensive Plan, none df which has yet begun.
Mr. Bowie agreed that the Board should have a clear idea of what is
desired for Route 20 North before applications are received. He said Mr.
Batchelor had gone through all of the proper~channels and had not heard any of
these comments until he appeared before this!Board. He said that he felt that
he had to support the applicant, but he thinks that time is needed to word the
proffers properly. He said that he would have supported the application,
however, because anything else would have been unfair.
In regard to developing screening and landscaping plans, Mrs. Cooke asked
Mr. Cilimberg if his department ever gets involved with the Garden Club of
Virginia or any other such groups that do historic or scenic restorations for
byways. Mr. Cilimberg answered that to his knowledge his department has never
been involved with any of these groups relative to landscaping or screening.
Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be appropriate {or the County to be involved with
these groups or would it be cumbersome. Mr. ilCilimberg replied that the staff
could consult with these groups, especially r~egarding the routes that are
designated as byways and scenic highways in t~e County's ordinance. He said
that the ordinance only allows for setbacks ~ this time. He added that the
site plan ordinance is different in that it d~als with all landscaping and
screening, in a general sense. He thinks thalt if restructuring is being
considered, part of the ordinance might addr~i~s corridor design. If this
occurs, Mr. Cilimberg said, the staff would d~rtainly want to consult with
some of these groups. Mrs. Cooke said there are three powerful groups in the
State of Virginia at the County's disposal: ~.the Garden Club of Virginia, the
Federated Garden Clubs of America, which has ia big contingent in this area,
and the VPI Horticulture Landscaping Divisio~i at Blacksburg. She said they
are all active groups and like to take part i~n these types of projects.
Mr. St. John commented that several yea~s ago these groups were involved
with with the planners in developing a handbq~k, which he does not belzeve was
put in the ordinance because it was so detailed. This handbook is available,
and it recommends several types of plants for~i certain conditions and other
useful information. ~
Mr. Perkins said there should be adequa~
Highway Department should be concerned. He r
was to be a limited access highway, with serv
that if buildings are put close to the road,
acquire rights-of-way. He said that if these
will be adequate room available for the futu~
setbacks, and he feels the
members reading that Route 29
.ce roads on each side. He added
.hen it will be very expensive to
projects are set back now, there
He pointed out that the
congested areas close to the highway are moving steadily north on Route 29.
ili' e d at
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:18 P.M. ~nd reconv ne 9:26 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-89-10. Scottsville School. To rezone approxi-
mately 2.3 acres from R-10 Residential to R-i~ Residential to allow for the
development of 34 low to moderate income elderly apartment units. Property
described as Tax Map 131, part of parcel 8lA, ~and Tax Map 130A(2), Parcel 76A
and part of parcel 76 is located in the town 9f Scottsville. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress dn August 22 and August Z9,
1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report:
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
273
"Petition: To rezone approximately 1.81 acres comprising Tax Map
130A(2), part of parcel 76 and Parcel 76A from R-10 to R-15, Residen-
tial, and to rezone approximately .46 acres comprising Tax Map 131,
part of Parcel 8lA from YR, Village Residential, to R-15~ Residential.
Property is part of the former Scottsville School in the Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Proposal: The contract purchaser, Jordan Development Corporation,
proposes to develop this property into 34 apartment units for low
income elderly tenants.
Staff Con~nent: The general area of the former Scottsville School was
designated Medium Density Residential with the approval of CPA-88-1.
With the Board of Supervisors' approval of the revised Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan on July 12, 1989, the area was designated
High Density Residential. 3.864 acres encompassing the school were
rezoned to R-10. With the approval of ZMA-88-02, it was noted that
part of the school building encroached on adjacent land owned by
Uniroyal and that "additional land adeq~uate to maintain required
building setback should be acquired and~rezoned." The County has since
acquired 5.312 acres from Uniroyal-Good~ich adjacent to the school
property. The Board of Supervisors, on!!December 14, 1988, passed a
Resolution of Intent to rezone the necessary acreage from the school
property and from the recently acquiredi~Uniroyal-Goodrich property to
R-15 to meet zoning regulations. ZMA-8~-10 accomplishes this intent
by rezoning the minimum acreage to allo~ for the proposed development.
Staff opinion is that considerations re~arding the proposed develop-
ment remain unchanged since the approva~ of ZMA-88-02. The proposed
rezoning is consistent with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-10 kith the proffers as offered by
Jordan Development Corporation and acce~ted in ZMA-88-02."
Mr. Way asked Mr. Cilimberg if the rezo~
encumber the Department of Parks and Recreat~
Cilimberg answered, "no." He stated that ea:
in the dedication of the property which will
Recreation Department's activities. He adde~
through sidewalks to the areas that the Depa~
ing of this property, would
on's use of the property. Mr.
mment language will be included
allow access for the Parks and
that this access can be obtained
tment uses. He said that there
will also be a reciprocal easement arrangemen~t for the Jordan Development
Corporation to provide some excess parking. ~!
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak, so Mr.
Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom
to approve the petition subject to the proffers set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
1. No more than thirty-five residenti~i apartments will be developed
on the property. There will be no !further additions or expan-
sions of any type on the site;
2. Tenancy will be limited to persons ~f low to moderate income,
aged 62 and over;
Rental subsidy assistance under the,iSection 8 Moderate Rehab-
ilitation Program will be used to the extent and for the length
of time available;
The property will not be used for any of the uses allowed under
R-15 zoning prior to the satisfaction of all terms, conditions
and contingencies set forth in the dontract dated January 13,
1988, between the petitioner and Co~ty of Albemarle, and any
amendments or extensions thereto. ~
274
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 12. Report on Route 29 North Study of Expressway Alter-
native, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is preparing a matrix comparison to include all
bypass options being studied in the U.S. Route 29 North Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
Mr. Way commented that there is quite a bit of information on the Route
29 North Study that is not available for the Board at this time. He said that
Mr. Cilimberg would discuss this matter, and he asked Mr. Cilimberg to be
brief, since he will be discussing this matter again with the Board at a
meeting next week.
Mr. Cilimberg distributed a packet of information to the Board which
included a variety of screenline traffic impacts both in the base year and the
forecast year along various segments of Route 29 North. He introduced Mr.
David Benish, newly appointed Chief of Commun. ity Development, and asked him to
give the Board a brief description of the information in their packets.
Mr. Benish then went over the chart of ~raffic counts and explained some
of the information that was listed on this chart.
Mr. Bain asked, in reference to the column of 1987 actual traffic counts,
if these counts were done in late 1987. Mr. '!Cilimberg replied that he does
not remember the actual time, but the count was done at the initial stages of
the contract work. ~,
Mr. Cilimberg told the Board that when Mr. Benish was working on these
numbers, adjustments were made to reflect the error that the model had for all
of the links in the 1987 base year. He said~ithat the model was not always
exactly the same as the ground count. He ad~ed that whether or not the error
was a plus or a minus percentage, it was applied to the forecast year because
this is an acceptable way to try to show a r~asonable forecast year traffic
count.
Mr. Benish then described how this is dPhe with use of the traffic
counts' chart. !i!
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if the only actual traffic counts available are
for 1987. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." Mn~ Lindstrom asked if the staff
had taken the model projections all the way a~ross the line and revised them
by one percent for eaCh particular link. He!~ondered if, whatever the error
was for each link, the line was adjusted by ~he percentage of error to bring
it in line with the actual count. Mr. Benzsh answered that Mr. Lzndstrom was
correct. ·
Mr. Agnor wondered if the percentages were relatively small. Mr. Benish
answered that there were some percentages that went up to 25 percent, but they
were rare. He said that most of them ran from one to eleven percent. He
stated that the staff had first intended to give the Board the model numbers
for 1987 to show the Board the percentage difference.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked the staff for the information which lists the
model numbers for 1987. Mr. Benish respondedlthat he can give this informa-
tion to the Board, and he will probably include another matrix with this
information for next week's meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Cilimberg if he has been able to find out the
situation with the utilities in the median off!Route 29 North. Mr. Cilimberg
answered, "no."
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the information that was just given to the
Board shows the consequences for some of the alternatives in terms of how the
different alternatives will affect certain roads. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Benish
if, at next week's meeting, the Board will bei!given the rights-of-way, land
use and structures to be taken for all the RoUte 29 alternatives. Mr. Benish
said that this information will be given to t~e Board next week, along with
other information.
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
275
Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff for additional information on the direction
of the deviation between percentages of traffic count, any available informa-
tion on the relocation of utilities, and traffic counts for the external
stations.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: October 19 (A), November 9,
December 7 (N), December 14, 1988; January 11, January 18 (N), February 8,
March 8, March 22, March 29, April 3, April § (N), April 6, April 10 and
May 22, 1989.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes for March 8, 1989, Pages 11
them to be in order.
End and found
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for January 18, 1989, Page 20 to End, and
made the following minute book correction. On Page 27, Item No. 8 should
include the words, "... Glenn M. Davis and his immediate family ..." after the
word "applicant". Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for April 10, 1989, and
found typographical corrections.
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for December 14, 1988, Pages 1-13;
February 8, 1989, Pages 1-21; and March 29, I989, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for November 9, 1988, Pages 1-9 and
found them to be in order. He had read the minutes for December 7, 1988,
Pages 1-10, and found several typographical errors and made the following
minute book correction. In the last paragraph on Page 6, the first sentence
in line four should read, "A determination was made that the Board's policy of
extension, of public water and sewer service ~r-extens~n to the area was
inconsist----~-~ with the Comp~ens-~ve Plan, an~ ...".
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for ~pril~? 6, 1989, and made the
following minute book corrections. On Page ~' paragraph
four,
line
nine,
the
first complete sentence should read, "Moreover, he said, the County would
pr~babty have to build a new schools to holdi~i~hese children, which would cost
about $44,580,000 by-the-~me-~he-~nty-paya-~ack-~he-m~ney-b~rr~wed-~
the-sch~t; based on the cost of the Crozet S~ahool, which will hold 450
· · · II · '~I'1 0
students and w~ll cost $4.5 m~ll~on. On l~n~ 15, change the sentence t
read: Th~s f~gure considerably exceeds the :~revenues .... On l~ne 18, the
words "costs the County" should be deleted, and the words "has a net cost to
the County of at least" should be inserted.
On Page 4, line two should have the wor~ "making such annual alloca-
tions'' inserted between the words "stop" and ~"especially". Paragraph 5, line
five should have the word "current" inserted ~efore the words "tax rate".
On Page 5, the words "The Board agreed ~ again address the matter of
setting the tax rate and adopting the budget~t its next meeting." should be
added after the first vote.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for April 5, 1989 (Night), Pages 1 to
18, and found typo. graphical errors.
Mr. Way had. read the minutes for January:.iill, 1989, Pages 11 -End and
found the following minute book correction. 9n Page 15, paragraph two, the
word "and" should be inserted after the word ~doors" in line three. Mr. Way
had read the minutes for February 8, 1989, Pa~es 22-End; April 3, 1989 (A);
April 5, 1989(N), Page 18 to End and found th~m to be in order. Mr. Way had
read the minutes for May 22, 1989, and made t~e following minute book correc-
tion. On Page 6, paragraph two, line three s~ould read, "Mr. Reaser said
abou~-BOg-acres-beh~nd-~o~e~-are-nnn~ed the ~lbemarle High, Jouett~ Greet and
shop complex contains about 220 acres~ with about 100 unused."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and secon ed by Mr. Bowie to approve the
minutes as read and corrected.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr, Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs'.. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
276
NAYS: None.
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board Members.
Mr. Bain commented that, relative to action letters from the Board of
Zoning Appeals dealing with signs, actions were taken by the BZA on August 15,
1989, that involved variances made for Branchlands on two different parcels of
land. He said that the variances amounted to 1,130 square feet, and he thinks
that this is preposterous. He is not saying that this should be appealed, but
he believes that the entire sign ordinance has to be amended. He would like
for this to be done promptly, because he thinks that this has become a prac-
tice at the BZA level, and the staff probably feels that there is not a lot
that can be done. He mentioned that the Board has been discussing beautifying
and landscaping property, so he thought he would bring the problem of signs to
the Board's attention. He said the signs heliis referring to are wall signs,
not free-standing, but there are some huge fcee-stand~ng signs being in-
stalled, also. He mentioned that the County. has had two sign commissions
which filed both minority and majority reports, but nothing has been done
about the problem. He suggested that the staff work on this problem, with
suggestions from the Board.
Mr. Bain said that the Legislative Services staff has drafted several
bills for the Grayson Commission to introduce to the Legislature in 1990 the
differences on the taxing authority between Cities and counties. He knows
that the County's Legislative Liaison has att'ended some of these meetings, and
he expects more details will be forthcoming. Although the County has estab-
lished its legislative needs, he thinks more'~will probably have to be done by
the County, depending on what occurs over the next 60 days.
Mr. Bain said he has received several c~mplaints about Route 670, the
Owensville Road. He said that north of Meri~ther Lewis School to Garth Road
is becoming dangerous. Potholes have develoDed over the last 60 to 90 days,
and he would like to have this situation brought to Mr. Roosevelt's attention.
Mr. Lzndstrom commented that the portmoql of the road that runs from Route
250 to Meriwether Lewis School has been repa~ed. There were no more comments
from the Board. i
Mr. Way then asked if anyone present fr~m the public would like to speak.
Mr. Sam Kaplan, President of the Woodbrook Community Association, read a
statement to the Board. He indicated in thiS' statement that he and his
neighbors have watched with some concern the ~recent developments in the
long-standing controversy about the Route 29 ~orth corridor. He said the
Association applauds the efforts by the Boar~i,I to gather information on the
ongoing consultant s study, but the Assocmati!~n ms dzsqumeted by reports mn
the local media It appears that the County'i~ representatives on the Joint
Transportation Committee participated in closed door conferences to reach a
consensus on a secret plan for the Route 29 N~rth corridor. Secondly, Mr.
Kaplan said that the Board seems to be rushin~ toward taking a position on the
controversy on the basis of incomplete information. He added, that, to the
Association's. knowledge, there has been no study of the economic impact as
opposed to the physical impact of the alternative routes through a bypass or
expressway. He stated that neither the Board.~nor the Sverdrup Corporation is,
to the Association's knowledge, undertaking ai. study showing the loss of tax
revenue from the expressway or other alternatives. He added that the Associa-
tion respectfully makes the following request~ of the Board. Firstly, make it
clear to the public that the County representatives on the Joint Transporta-
tion Committee do not speak for the Board. T~is is not obvious to the public,
and he thinks that the role of these representatives needs to be clarified.
Secondly, the Association feels that it should be made known that the Board
has not authorized these representatives to negotiate with other jurisdictions
in secrecy for the purpose of developing a consensus plan. He said he is
referring to the news article regarding such ~ consensus plan that suggested.
that the plan was allegedly being conceived b~hind closed doors. Thirdly,
September 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
277
since the least controversial of special use permits requires a public hear-
ing, the Association believes that the most controversial issue to face the
community in the past Z0 years deserves as much attention. He asked for the
Board's promise that the Board will take no position on this issue without
hearing from the citizens of Albemarle County in the appropriate setting of a
Public Hearing. He thanked the Board for its time, and said the Association
would be interested in the Board's questions or comments.
Mr. Way told Mr. Kaplan that the Board may wish to respond after it has
had a chance to read the Association's statement more carefully.
Mr. St. John commented that he will be unable to be at next week's
meeting since he must be in Charleston, South Carolina to argue the case for
the Nativity Scene. Since he cannot attend the meeting, he said, he would
like to have the discussion concerning the Camellia Gardens detention basin
deferred for at least one more week. He has met twice with Mr. Lee and other
residents, including the complainant, Mr. Castellino. He said that while
everybody might not be satisfied with what has taken place, Mr. Lee has
cooperated fully up to this point in implementing what the County Engineer
said had to be done. He added that since the Homeowners' Association didn't
draft a plan and there was no other engineer~involved, Richard Moring drafted
a plan in text and in drawings, which showed~hat needed to be done to remedy
the situation with respect to the basin. He.mentioned, too, that after all of
the work has been done, there will have to b~ a maintenance program. He
informed the Board that Mr. Lee has held a m~eting and has gotten an estimate
of what it will cost to get the work done. ~e said that Mr. Lee is now at the
point of getting a contractor to do the work~ If necessary, Mr. Lee is
willing to advance the money to pay the contractor and then collect it back
fromthe homeowners.
It was decided to place this discussion on the agenda for October 4,
1989.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. At IO:iO~!P.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman