1989-01-04117
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on January 4, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The following certificate was received:
"Virginia:
In the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
December 13, 1988:
Edward H. Bain, Jr., Supervisor Qualified:
Edward H. Bain, Jr., who was on the 8th day of November 1988 duly
elected a member of the Board of Supervisors for Albemarle County,
Virginia from the Samuel Miller District, on this the 13th day of
December 1988 appeared in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County with Travelers Indemnity Company, his surety, entered
into and acknowledged a bond according to law, the said surety acting
by its duly authorized Attorney In Fact, Dale R. Bailey who executed
said bond on behalf of said Corporation by signing thereto its corpo-
rate name and affixing thereto its corporate seal, and who duly
acknowledged same.
And thereupon the said Edward H. Bain, Sr., took and subscribed the
oath of office prescribed by law as a member of the Board of Supervi-
sors of Albemarle County, Virginia.
(Signed) Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk"
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and
Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. Pi Home, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:32 P.M. by the County Executive, acting as temporary Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman!. Motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke, nominating Mr. Way as Chairman of the
Board for 1989. Mr. Bowie offered motion to close nominations and elect Mr.
Way by acclamation. Mrs. Cooke seconded the~motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Way.
Mr. Way expressed appreciation to the Board for their vote of confidence.
Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to elect Mrs. Cooke as Vice-Chairman of
the Board for 1989. Mr. Bowie offered motion to close nominations. This
motion was seconded by Mr. Bain.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
118
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meetingl
(Page 21
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke.
Mrs. Cooke expressed appreciation to the members of the Board for their
vote.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerks. Motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to appoint Lettie E. Neher
as Clerk and Ella W. Carey as Deputy Clerk for 1989.
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. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year
1989. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to set
meeting times for the first three Wednesdays in the month in the County Office
Building as regular meeting times. The first and third Wednesday meetings
will be at 7:30 P.M., and the second Wednesday will be ag 9:00 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.
Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Te~t Amendments
Requested by Citizens. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstr~om and seconded by
Mrs. Cooke to set the first regular meeting in June, 1989~, and the first
regular meeting in December, 1989, as dates on which to consider zoning text
amendments requested from citizens.
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. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of..~ Motion was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to readopt the Board's existing
Rules of Procedure for 1989.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,' Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke
and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve Item 10.1 and toiaccept Items 10.2
through 10.7 as information. ~
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,~ Perkins and Way.
None.
Item 10.1. Resolution to take Garthfield Lane in Garthfield Subdivision
into the State Secondary System of Highways. A letter of ~request having been
received from Ronald D. Carter dated January 27, 1988, the following resolu-
tion was adopted by the vote shown above to accept Garthfield Lane into the
Secondary System.
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System
of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resi-
dent Highway Department, the following road in Garthfield Sub-
division:
Beginning at approximately Station 0+12, a point common
to the centerline of Garthfield Lane and the edge of
pavement of State Route 658, thence in a southeasterly
direction 725 feet to Station 7+37, the end of the
cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unob-
structed right of way and drainage easements along this requested
addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 899, page 591 and
Deed Book 1046, page 281.
Item 10.2. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes for December 13 and
December 20, 1988, were received as information.
Item 10.3. Letter dated December 22, 1988, from Mr. Michael Carroll,
Emergency Services Coordinator, addressed to Mr. Randy Pepin, re: Clean up of
lab site on Cockerille property in Greenwood~ Mr. Carroll states that Mr.
Jerry Saseen of the Wheeling, West Virginia,:office of the Environmental
Protection Agency, will be on the site on Jahuary 3, 1989, to begin the
process of cleaning the lab site.
Item 10.4. Notice dated November 29, 1988, from the State Corporation
Commission, concerning an application filed by Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc.,
to revise its tariffs was received as information.
Item 10.5. Letter dated December 22, 1988, from Mr. G. William Thomas,
Jr., Manager, Richmond Field Office, HUD, re:! Approval of extension of
leasing schedule for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Project No.
YA36-K036-001. Mr. Thomas notes that the leasing schedule has been extended
until October 21, 1989. ~i
Item 10.6. Letter dated December 27, 1988, from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief
Engineer, Highway Department, re: Change in Primary System due to relocation
and construction on Route 20 was received as ~ollows:
"Changes in Primary System made necessary by relocation and con-
struction on Route 20, Project: 0020-00~-S18, C-501 in Albemarle
County were confirmed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on
December 15, 1988, as shown on the attached sketch and described as
follows:
SECTIONS ABANDONED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE 1950
CODE OF VIRGINIA:
Section 1
Old location of Route 20, north of the new
location from Station 15+50.00 to
Station 18+75
0.06 Mi.
Section 2 -
Old location of Route 20, south of the new
location, from Station 18+75 to
Station 23+25
0.09 Mi."
Item 10.7. Letter dated December 29, 1988, from Ms. Barbara Hutchinson,
Secretary, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, re: IRS Form 8038 in
connection with issuance by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority of
its Airport Revenue Bonds was received as information.
120
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 4.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: To receive public comments from
citizens on the appointment of a member to the Albemarle County School Board
to represent the Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 17, December 23 and 24, 1988.)
Mr. Way opened the public hearing on possible candidates to the School
Board from the Scottsville District. He said the law states that an appoint-
ment may not be made until seven days after the public hearing. He has
received names of five people who are interested in applying for the position.
They are Mr. Charles Baker, Mr. R. Madison Cummings, Mr. Scott Morrow, Mr.
Roger R. Ward, and Ms. Lucinda Wheeler. Mr. Way said those applicants present
could come forward to speak at that time.
Mr. Charles Baker said he felt fortunate to have the quality of education
Albemarle County has, and he commended the Board for their work.
Mr. R. Madison Cummings, a pharmacist at the UniverSity of Virginia, was
president of the Red Hill PTO for two years. He said his concern about budget
matters and the increasing population of the County led him to apply for the
School Board position. He thinks the County has good schools with the poten-
tial to be the best. He Said it is unconscionable for the County not to
strive to make its system of education the best in both facilities and curric-
ulum. He said the Board should not rule out the possibility of a tax increase
as a last resort to meet this challenge. If he were a m~mber of the School
Board, he said, he would not shrink from the support of ~uch unpopular issues
as raising taxes and redistricting. He said he also believes the administra-
tors of the University of Virginia should work with City'!and County government
to plan for projected increases in enrollment. He also ~elieves that measures
must be taken to encourage economy and financial responsibility in both county
government and school administration.
Mr. Ray Ford came forward to speak in behalf of Mr. Cummings. He said he
has known Mr. Cummings for years. He said Mr. Cummings has had a positive
effect in his community with children in athletics and in racial and ethnic
progress. He did not feel the Board could make a better choice than Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cliff Ream then spoke in favor of Mr. Cummings. ':He has found him to
be an involved and concerned citizen, actively working w~th children and
acknowledged by parents for his leadership ability. As a member of the
Albemarle Alliance for Quality Education, he said, Mr. Cu]mnings stood out as
one of the most faithful and committed members of the group.
Mr. Way noted that he had received applications from Scott Morrow and
Roger Ward who were not present at the public hearing.
Mrs. Lucinda Wheeler then came forward to speak. She said she has had
four children go through the Albemarle COunty school system, all of whom have
also graduated from college. She is a 37-year resident of Scottsville and the
o%rner of a small business there. She said she would like~,=~ito give back to the
County some of what she had received. She felt her good business sense and
concern for the people of southern Albemarle made her a q~alified candidate.
Mr. Lynwood Coffman came forward to address the Board with concerns about
the Family Life Education curriculum. He said this curriculum clashes with
the values he has tried to teach his children. He said ME. Forrest Marshall,
who resigned from the School Board and created this vacancy, was one of the
staunchest supporters of family values. He said he wants i!to see every member
of the School Board committed to traditional, family valu6s. He feels the
Board of Supervisors should select a School Board representative who adheres
to state law which Mr. Coffman cited as calling for teaching., moral values to
children.
Ms. Lyndley Gough, President of the Albemarle Education Association, said
the AEA strongly urges the Board to appoint a member to tge School Board who
has some knowledge of educational issues, has an inquisitive attitude, would
make decisions for educationally sound reasons and not just for financial
expediency or to quiet a single grievance, and would consider what is best for
the whole system, not just for one geographical region or lone educational
level. She further asked that the Board consider someone iwho would delve into
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
121
and study the system before suggesting major changes and would ask probing
questions and listen with an open mind.
Mr. Way then added Mr. Forrest Marshall's name to the list of possible
candidates in the event Mr. Marshall should reconsider his resignation, saying
that Mr. Marshall had represented the Scottsville District well.
The public hearing was closed at that time. Mr. Way stated that the
selection of a candidate would not be an easy task. He said he would be in
touch with each applicant to arrange an interview time.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-88-105. Martin Schulman. To amend Condition #3
of SP-88-60, Martin Schulman, to allow a reduction of the minimum building
setback to 50 feet from the proposed western agricultural property line.
SP-88-60 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 5, 1988 to allow
a veterinary clinic and commercial kennel on 21.523 acres, zoned RA. Property
located on the north side of Route 240, across from Acme Visible Records and
in front of the existing Crozet Veterinary Clinic. Tax Map 56, Parcel 67.
White Hall District. (Advertised on December 20 and December 27, 1988, in the
Daily Progress.)
Mr. Horne said Dr. Schulman had presented a letter dated December 28,
1988, in which it is stated:
"This letter is to notify the Board that since the time of our
recent Planning Commission hearing for minimum building setback
distance from our new hospital to our proposed western agricultural
property line, we have reduced the degree of our amendment. We are
requesting to allow this setback distance to be 100 feet. The
zoning ordinance requires 200 feet, andLthe request before the
Planning Commission had been 50 feet. Please feel free to contact
me with any questions."
Mr. Horne said the letter essentially changed the proposal the Planning
Commission had reviewed, and he then proceeded to give the staff's report as
follows:
"Character of the Area: The subject property is vacant, rolling, open
meadow. The existing clinic and a cottage zoned Rural areas are
located to the north on property zoned Rural Areas. A single-family
dwelling is located approximately 600 feet to the east. Properties to
the south and west are zoned Light Industrial, while properties to the
north and east are zoned Rural Areas.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located across Route 240 from
the Community of Crozet and is within Rural Areas III.
Applicant's Proposal: On October 5, 1988, the Board of Supervisors
approved SP-88-60, Dr. Martin Schulnu%n, for a veterinary clinic
(Section 10.2.2.18) and associated commercial kennel (Section
10.2.2.17). The conditions of approval permitted a reduction in the
minimum building setback from the easter~ agricultural property line,
to a distance of 100 feet. Dr. Schulman is purchasing the approxi-
mately ten-acre portion of parcel 67 which lies on the east side of
Parkview Drive, leaving an approximately~ll-acre portion on the west
side. He proposes to further subdivide the 8.327 acres into two lots
of roughly equal size. The veterinary clinic is proposed to be
located on the eastern lot. The requested building setback reduction
is from the western lot.
Staff Comment: The Supplementary Regulations, Section 5.1.11, 'Com-
mercial Kennel, Veterinary, Animal Hospital', stipulates a 500-foot
minimum building setback from any agricultural or residential lot line
except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned
buildings, in which case the minimum setback is 200 feet. It contin-
ues with language which specifies a maximum noise level at that
property line. These setback regulations are based primarily on noise
control. They also provide a buffer distance so as not to be
122
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meetingl
(Page 61
obtrusive in other ways, besides noise, on the agricultur-
al/residential character of adjacent properties. In general, some of
the other non-residential impacts are as follows:
Increased traffic volume and some different types of traffic,
such as service delivery and horse vans;
2. Odor;
Building and parking areas which are non-residential in appear-
ance.
If the Board finds that the minimum building setback is necessary as
stated, in addition to a maximum noise level, staff recommends that
criteria similar to those used in reviewing general zoning ordinance
variances be considered in waiver/modification requests. These are as
follows: a) that the strict application of this ordinance would
produce undue hardship; b) that such hardship is not shared generally
by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity;
and c) that the authorization of such variance willinot be of sub-
stantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the
district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.
This is a self-imposed hardship because the applicant chooses to
subdivide. Staff is of the opinion that approval of this request will
be of substantial detriment to the proposed adjacent?lot. In an early
meeting with staff, Dr. Schulman discussed commercial rezoning of this
property to accommodate other uses in addition to the veterinary
clinic. The proposed 4.031-acre lot is traversed b~ a gas line
easement running diagonally and a drainageway. It Ds on the corner of
two roads, Route 240 and Parkview Drive. If the veterinary clinic is
accessed by Parkview Drive as recommended by staff,.~his proposed lot
will also be traversed by the clinic's access road. ~This property is
moderately rolling, open meadow with few natural buflfers between the
two proposed lots.
Based on these characteristics of the proposed lot a~d the proposed
proximity to the clinic, it may be less desirable fo~ residential land
use. Therefore, it will be susceptible to a rezonin~ request.
Staff views the present setback reduction request aSiclearly distin-
guishable from that approved for the proposed easterD property line.
The eastern property line will be moved closer as a result of the sale
of two acres to the owners of the Starke property. The Starke ,prop-
erty is already developed and has an established evergreen buffer from
the proposed clinic. The additional land will allowlfor an additional
distance buffer.
Comparison cannot be clearly drawn from the existinglclinic. The
existing clinic is a converted residence, nearly oneTquarter the size
of the proposed clinic. It was approved under Light!Industrial zoning
with similar zoning to the west and south. The closest dwelling was
1000 feet to the east, and a large, undeveloped agridultural tract was
to the north, separated by Parrott Branch and a vegetative buffer.
If the Board chooses to approve this request for a s~gnificant reduc-
tion (75 percent) in the minimum building setback, s~aff recommends
consideration of the following:
1. Requirement of additional landscape buffer. For~ example,
requirement of a larger evergreen tree (six to eight feet instead
of four to five feet in height), and a third row.. This is to
achieve a more significant buffer sooner on the ~horter distance;
and
If the stated setback is entirely based on noise
delete the building setback, leaving only a maxi
requirement.
level concerns,
mum noise level
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
123
Staff can find no hardship as basis for this request. Staff is of the
opinion that approval will be detrimental to the residential use of
the proposed western lot. Therefore, staff recommends denial."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20,
1988, voted six to one to recommend denial of the petition.
Since the staff report was written, Mr. Horne said, the applicant has
made a proposal which somewhat mitigates the conclusions of the staff's
report. This proposal moves the lot line separating lots one and two. The
applicant also submitted information on a possible building site in other
locations on the property further away from the property lines. Mr. Way asked
if the Board could designate a building site as a condition of the special use
permit. Mr. Home said he believes the Board has this power.
Mr. Bain asked if the applicant could meet the setback requirements by
moving the lot line even further to the west. Mr. Home said this is possi-
ble, but he is not sure if lot one would then be of legal size or it it would
be buildable.
Mr. Lindstrom said this case seems different from the usual request for a
waiver to the setback regulations. Ordinarily, the lot lines are already
established and waiving the setback requirement for a building may threaten
the buffer area between two pieces of property. In this case, the building
sites on Lot 1 and 2 are known and it is the~lot lines that have not been
decided. Allowing the property line to be close to the proposed clinic on Lot
2 would expand Lot 2, giving the owner of Lo~ 2 more flexibility in choosing a
location for a house. Expanding Lot 2, Mr. Lindstrom continued, also makes it
more likely thai~ Lot 2 will remain a residential lot.
If the Board were to follow this line of reasoning, Mr. Home said, it
would place the responsibility for maintaining a buffer area and meeting
distance requirements on the owner of the reSidential lot, rather than the
owner holding the special use permit. Mr. Home said the staff prefers that
this responsibility fall on the special permit user, not the by-right user, of
a piece of property. Mr. Home said the staff does not wish to make Lot 1 any
less desirable for residential purposes and pointed out that this lot is
crossed by a gasoline easement, a possible d=ainageway and, due to the recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission, a roadway leading to the veterinary
clinic.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Dr. Martin Schulman addressed the Board.~ He said this request is part of
a proposal presented to the Planning Commissi%n in June, 1988; nothing has
been changed or added to the original proposal. From the beginning, he said,
he has intended to divide his eight-acre parcel into two four-acre lots. One
lot would be developed into the new veterinary clinic and the other would
remain undeveloped. He said the main impact upon an adjoining landowner of
building a veterinary clinic too close to a p~operty line would be noise. He
said the Planning staff has on file a copy or, his acoustical engineering
report, which demonstrates his compliance with the decibel rating required by
the Zoning Ordinance. He said the clinic would meet these requirements at a
setback of 100 feet. Even if the clinic were!set back only five feet from the
adjOining property, he said, it would meet th~ requirements governing noise in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Dr. Schulman said the building would not?be obtrusive: the parking lot
is well-landscaped and is limited to 16 spaces; and the design of the clinic
is designed to suit residential areas and its-architect holds national awards
for his work. Because he owns a home and lives on an adjacent parcel, he
continued, his first priority has been an aesthetically pleasing building.
Dr. Schulman said he believes the proper~y lines he proposes will enhance
the potential of Lot 1 for residential use. Qne possible building site on
this lot would lie 200 feet from the proposediclinic and 200 feet from Route
240. He said he does not intend to request t~at Lot 1 be rezoned. If the
Board decides that this lot has little residential quality, he said, he and
124
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meetingl
(Page
his wife may wish to use this property for a small riding stable or a building
to house a facility for a large animal practice.
At the Planning Commission's meeting, Dr. Schulman said, Mr. James
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, stated that this request need not be decided
on the grounds of whether a hardship exists. Dr. Schulman said he does not
claim that a hardship exists, but he does feel that the setback requirement
for noise control is excessive.
Since no one else wished to speak to this request, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Horne if the staff still recommended denial of the
request now that the applicant is proposing a setback of 100 feet. Mr. Home
said "yes".
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the applicant's proposal to! move the property
lines east gives Lot 1 more flexibility as a residential ilot. Insisting upon
a setback of 200 feet for the clinic on Lot 2 will limit ithe building sites on
Lot 1, he said. Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant would be able to divide his
property, regardless of the location of the dividing line. Mr. Home said he
has not investigated moving the dividing line far enough to allow a 200-foot
setback, but does not think it would affect the building sites on Lot 1. Dr.
Schulman said moving the property line this far west would prevent the pro-
posed clinic from having a reserve septic drain field. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the use of L~t 2 is more inten-
sive than those of the surrounding lots. He said the applicant has already
received a waiver from the Board of Zoning Appeals on thelinumber of parking
spaces necessary for the use. He said he is concerned that if the waiver is
granted, there will not be room to accommodate any possible expansion of the
clinic on this property. Then, other waivers may be requested and that
worries him. Despite his earlier belief that the waiver would allow more
flexibility for a residential use on Lot 1, Mr. LindstroM~said, he is con-
cerned that any future expansion, by this applicant or a ~future owner, might
strain the limits of this property. Mr. Lindstrom said he sees no compelling
reason to grant a waiver in this case.
Mr. Perkins said it seems a hardship to him that theiapplicant may end up
with a lot he cannot use. Mr. Horne said this parcel haS'yet to be divided;
it is not as if these lots existed before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted and
the Board is disallowing a reasonable use of either of th~se lots.
Mr. Bain said he concurred with the recox~nendation of the Planning
Commission. He said he thinks there are ways to make user,of this property
without granting this waiver.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Llndstrom to deny the
request for SP-88-105.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if he would address the q~estion of hardship
in this case. Mr. St. John read from the Zoning Ordinanaaie that in the case
of these regulations, the Board may "vary or waive these regulations in a case
where it deems appropriate".
Roll was called on the foregoing motion, which carri~ by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Mr. Lindstrom.ii
NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-88-16. Forest Lakes Associates. To rezone
13.9264 acres from HC, R-1 and R-15 to PD-SC for a community shopping center
of 71,800 square feet with an additional 3.96 acres in unspecified outlots.
Property located on the east side of Route 29 North and o~ north side of
Timberwood Boulevard. Tax Map 32, Parcels 36, 36F and 42,~ and Tax Map 46,
Parcel 29D. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily P~ogress on Decem-
ber 20 and December 27, 1988.)
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
125
(Mrs. Cooke abstained due to family involvement in the project, and left
the room.)
Mr. Horne began the staff's report as follows:
"Proposal: Forest Lakes Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 13.9264 acres from HC, Highway Commercial, R-1 Residential,
and R-15 Residential to PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center.
The property is located on the east side of U. S. Route 29 North and
adjacent to the main entrance to the Forest Lakes development (Timber-
wood Drive; under construction) in the Hollymead Community in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. A listing of the properties proposed
for rezoning follows:
TAX MAP/PARCEL
ACREAGE
32-36F 2.4728
32-42 3.7956
46-29D 0.1254
32-36F 1.4190
32-36 3.7973
32-42 1.2280
46-29D 1.0883
TOTAL 13.9264
CURRENT ZONING
HC, Highway Commercial
HC, Highway Commercial
HC, Highway Commercial
R-l, Residential
R-i, Residential
R-15, Residential
R-15, Residential
Comprehensive Plan: The current Comprehensive Plan states that
additional commercial areas are planned for the intersection of Route
649 with Route 29 North. These areas may be developed as highway-
oriented commercial to serve residents Of the Hollymead community as
well as travellers on Route 29 North.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan states that:
Regional service is designated on ~oute 29 North at Route 649.
This area is intended to serve commercial service needs for the
Hollymead community, the Airport, ~nd Route 29 North traffic.
This location is expected to accommodate multiple uses for future
commercial development convenient Co a variety of users.
Commercial service area is designated south of Route 649 on the
east side of Route 29 North to provide general retail needs in
the community and the northern par~ of the
County.
Application Plan: The Application Pla~ proposes a 71,080 square foot
shopping center and three outparcels consisting of 3.96 acres. The
shopping center would be constructed ini~wo phases with the initial
phase consisting of 43,080 square feet ih the following uses:
Grocery
Drug store
Shops
TOTAL
25,000 square~eet
6,780 square feet
11.300 square ~eet
43,080 square ~eet
Access to public roads would be provided, at four locations. One
access to Timberwood Boulevard would be established 550 feet east of
U. S. Route 29 North. One access to Route 29 North is proposed 480
feet north of Timberwood Boulevard and would be a joint access with a
proposed gasoline service station. Two accesses would be provided
from an existing unnamed roadway to be upgraded to Virginia Department
of Transportation standards. This road ~parallels Route 29 North from
Timberwood Boulevard north to Route 649 '(Proffit Road). Access to the
three outlots would be internal to the shopping center.
The Forest Lakes Shopping Center compare~ with other County shopping
centers as follows:
126
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meetingl
(Page 1(
Fashion Square
Rio Hills
Pantops
Albemarle Sq.
Shoppers' World
FOREST LAKES
Scottsville
Woodbrook
Building area
578,456 sq ft
274,986 sq ft
177,762 sq ft
168,695 sq ft
140,842 sq ft
71,080 sq ft
42,096 sq ft
38,613 sq ft
Site area
57.0 acres
34.6 acres
17.6 acres
22.8 acres
12.6 acres
10.0 acres
3.0 acres
2.5 acres
BuildinK/Acreage
10,148 sq ft/ac
7,948 sq ft/ac
10,100 sq ft/ac
7,399 sq ft/ac
11,178 sq ft/ac
7,108 sq ft/ac
14,032 sq ft/ac
15,445 sq ft/ac
Building coverage for Forest Lakes Shopping Center would be compara-
tively low. This has permitted design flexibility to accommodate
possible revision to landscaping/buffering, building pattern and
internal circulation in the final site plan process~
Zoning History: This site as well as other property in the, area has
been subject to several rezoning petitions in the 1980's. The resi-
dential areas of Forest Lakes were rezoned initially, however, staff
did not endorse unplanned rezoning of commercial areas. Subsequent
rezonings were approved for a portion of requested commercial acreage.
More specifically:
Limitations of access to Route 29 North and Route 649 as well as
phasing of roadway improvements were proffered.
Rezoning approval was limited to acreage adequate to serve
residential zoning existing at that time. Of a total 32 acres
requested to be rezoned, 17.8 acres were approved.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INTRODUCTION: Of the 13.9 acres proposed for
rezoning, 7.5 acres are currently zoned residential~hile 6.4 acres
are already zoned commercially. Benefits to the applicant in seeking
PD-SC zoning include a more favorable floor area-to-barking standard
and a broader range of commercial uses.
Benefits to the general public derive from the opportunity to address
the proposed development in broader terms than are realized under
conventional zoning and site plan reviews. HistoriCally, in the case
of shopping center development, attention is focuserS'ion> transportation
concerns. U. S. Route 29 North has been a roadway of considerable
community concern, therefore, in approaching this zoning petition,
staff has employed the following framework for review:
Traffic generation under PD-SC zoning should no~ represent an
increase over potential traffic under existing ~oning. Since
1979, staff has employed this approach for several rezonings
along Route 29 North;
Since 1976, it has been County policy that staff recox~endations
reflect the best transportation and access improvements for each
development review with the Commission/Board exercising discre-
tion regarding actual required improvements. ~
The remainder of the report will deal with issues of!physical develop-
ment and rezoning criteria with particular emphasis dn transportation
iSSUeS · ~
Site Characteristics: During review of road plannin~ for Timberwood
Boulevard, VDOT recognized that the original propose~ intersection
with Route 29 North would prove developmentally impractical.
Timberwood was relocated northwar~d causing the draining and partial
filling of a pond. Construction of the shopping cen~'er would result
in filling of the remainder of the pond to raise the ~site to compati-
ble elevations with Timberwood Boulevard and Route 2~ North (Borrow
activity from other areas of Forest Lakes would be n~cessary).
The Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Albem~rle County
Virginia notes that much of the site has been subject~ to past grad-
ing/filling activities and current soil characteristi~cs are unknown.
Undisturbed identified soils consist of Elioak loam ~hd Glenelg loam.
These are deep well-drained soils, however, they are ~ery erosive.
Frost action and low strength are limitations to development. The
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1I)
127
applicant should take care to insure proper compaction in area of
fill.
Water and Sewer~ Fire Protection: This site is within the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional area for both public water and
public sewer. An eight-inch water line is located in the shoulder of
Route 29. Fireflow is estimated to be about 1160 GPM at 20 PSI,
therefore, a sprinkler system may be necessary. The applicant is
currently extending an 18-inch sewer line though the area which would
serve the Forest Lakes development as well as areas west of Route 29
North.
Stormwater: The County Engineer has recon~nended that stormwater
detention for this property should be achieved by use of a regional
basin located adjacent to the swim and tennis club.
Screening; Landscaping: Extensive landscaping is proposed along all
roadways. Both VDOT and the County Engineer have commented that
landscaping proposals may need to be adjusted to maintain intersec-
tional sight distances.
Transportation~ Traffic Generation: A transportation analysis plan
was required during review of initial development plans for Forest
Lakes. That plan allocated 138,500 square feet of commercial building
on the existing 17.8 commercial acres. This rezoning petition would
increase total commercial area to 24.2 acres (minus road
right-of-way).
As proposed, the shopping center would generate 4850 vehicle trips per
day which is less traffic per acre than ~anticipated under the trans-
portation plan, however, future outlot ~ses are likely to be intensive
traffic generators. Staff will recommend that traffic generation for
the total 24.2 acres of commercial not exceed the 9452 vehicle trips
per day anticipated in the transportation study for the existing 17.8
commercial acres. This approval would 911ow the Forest Lakes deve-
loper flexibility in location of futurei!commercial uses. This
approach would also be consistent with d. ounty efforts over the past
ten years to control traffic to Route 2~ North.
Transportation: Internal Circulation: ~nternal access near Timberwood
to Out Parcel 1 should be relocated to ~lign to the main access aisle
parallel to Phase I of the shopping cen~er. A joint~ or cross access
should be provided for Out Parcels 2 and 3.
Some redesign of the angular building pattern together with parcel
pickup turn outs could reduce circulation problems together with
unauthorized parking as is experienced ih the Food Lion/Willoughby
shopping center on Fifth Street in the City.
Transportation: External Access Road ImProvements: Many issues
regarding access and road improvements were addressed by original
zoning proffers. The applicant has agreed to all improvements cur-
rently recommended by VDOT.
Two modifications to the prior zoning p~ffers are requested by the
applicant and recommended by the Planning staff:
1. Relocation of Timberwood Boulevard ~orth of the original planned
intersection with Route 29 North has resulted in inadequate
spacing to accommodate three entrances to the north of Timber-
wood. Access Point 3 has been deleted on the current Application
Plan. Access Point 4S would be a j~int entrance with the pro-
posed Tiger Fuel service station and would be located +480 feet
north of Timberwood Boulevard. VDO~ and the County Engineer
recommend that AP4S be located 500 ~eet north of the Timberwood
with 32.7.2.2 ~f the Zoning Ordinance.
crossover
consistent
Staff recommends that the joint access b9 permitted as proposed on the
Application Plan for the following reasoms:
a. There is no other reasonably p~acticable access to such
development except within 500 Seer of the crossover. The
proposed joint entrance is at Maximum separation from the
128
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 1
crossover under control of the Forest Lakes developer.
fact the joint entrance has greater separation than the
southern entrance preliminarily approved for Tiger Fuel;
In
No reasonable means of alternative access is available to
such development. Restriction of Route 29 access solely by
Timberwood Boulevard would add burden to that intersection.
Access within 500 feet of the crossover would be consistent
with the public health, safety and general welfare. The 500
foot separation serves to reduce safety problems due to
congestion at major intersections, U-turning movements, and
weaving. As stated earlier, the applicant is providing
substantial road improvements including signalization of the
Timberwood crossover when warranted. These improvements
(particularly controlled U-turns by signalization) would
reduce safety concerns. ·
While not covered as a consideration in the ordinance,
relocation of the joint entrance northward would result in
wholesale revision to the approved Tiger Fuel preliminary
plan.
Under current proffers, the joint entrance cannot be installed
until the northern entrance to Tiger Fuel is installed. This was
to insure that access be established consistent with crossover
spacing. The crossover at Tiger Fuel will be Closed with estab-
lishment of the Timberwood crossover, therefore, the issue from
staff viewpoint is moot. ~
Summary and Recommendation: Issues related to appropriateness of
commercial zoning, transportation concerns, relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan, and timing of development have h~en addressed in
prior zoning reviews. Due in large part to these prior exhaustive
reviews, Forest Lakes Shopping Center has been considered as refine-
ment to past actions. During this review, as in pri~r phases of
development, the Forest Lakes developer has made every effort to
accommodate Comprehensive Plan recommendations as we~l as specific
comments from the Site Review Committee.
Section 8.5.4 (a) and (b) require the Commission in ~ts findings to
determine: the suitability of the tract for the general type of PD
district proposed in terms of relation to the Comprehensive Plan;
physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding
area; and the relation to major roads, utilities, p~lic facilities
and services.
Section 8.5.4 (d) permits the Planning Commission tO, recommend
approval subject to stipulated modifications. The s~
that the Planning Commission make a positive finding
Forest Lakes Shopping Center is consistent with the
of 8.5.4 (a) and (b) subject to the following modifi
ments:
MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICATION PLAN:
:aff recommends
that the proposed
:equired findings
:ations and agree-
Note on plan that outlots are not approved for uses involving
drive-in window. ~
Relocate access near Timberwood for Outlot 1 to !~align with main
access aisle parallel to Phase I of the shopping~ center.
Provide joint or cross easement between Outlots ~2 and 3.
AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY AND THE APPLICANT:
Agreement to develop property in general compliance with the
Application Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in
Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
129
Staff approval of shopping center subdivision plats and Tiger
Fuel subdivision plat. Ail plats shall reflect appropriate
access easements and carry notes regarding restriction of access
to U. S. Route 29 North.
Staff approval of site plan for Forest Lakes shopping center and
revised site plan for Tiger Fuel service station. Staff may
request administrative approval of site plans for individual
outlots.
e
Agreement by applicant that traffic generation from the ±24.2
acres of commercial zoning shall not exceed 9452 vehicle trips
per day."
It was ascertained that several pages of an addendum to the staff's
report were missing. The Board recessed at 9:12 P.M. to allow staff time to
photocopy materials. The Board reconvened at 9:18 P.M. and Mr. Horne
presented the addendum as follows:
"Recommended Agreement #4 of the staff's report proposes a limit to
traffic generation from commercially zoned areas of the Forest Lakes
development. The developer has stated two concerns regarding the
proposal. Firstly, road improvements aS recommended by YDOT and
agreed to by the developer are based on idevelopment of all commercial
land (as well as residential loading). /~Some road improvements may not
be necessary if development potential i~ not achieved (all improve-
ments would be made with construction o~ the shopping center).
Secondly, the developer is concerned that the intent of the limitation
nderstood in the future and tha~ the limitation may become
permane-~---~- ~----~--nt or affect future commercial r~zonings in Forest Lakes.
After additional consideration, staff offers the following comments:
1. The current Comprehensive Plan rec~mmends community and highway-
oriented business development for ~ihis area and the proposed plan
recommends regional-scale as well ~s community development. To
,
underdevelop this area commercia~ily could increase pressure
(and support argument) for commerciR1 zoning elsewhere in
Hollymead. Staff anticipates deve~bpment of all commercial land
along Route 29 North in the urban ~ea prior to the next Compre-
hensive Plan revision and that pre~Isures to continue the commer-
cial strip into the Hollymead area ~ill be substantial.
2. No traffic proffer was included in !!%he prior rezoning. Substan-
tial road improvements and limitati!ons to access were proffered.
Under the current rezoning, additid~al road improvements and
limitations to access would be realized. These measures would
adequately accommodate traffic to the immediate area of Route 29
North.
3. As observed in the prior rezoning, ~the regional effect to Route
29 North would be dependent on the mix of commercial uses. By
duplicating some shopping opportunities in the urban area, the
Forest Lakes commercmal area could reduce traffic burden in the
urban area. Staff opinion is that the proposed shopping center
would serve that purpose.
4. Staff has refined traffic projections to account for the rela-
tively low-intensity of development i~for the shopping center,
deduction for the Tiger Fuel site, and deduction for right-of-way
dedication. About 12.8 vacant acres (including shopping center
outlots) would remain after shoppin~ center development. If the
residue of existing zoned land deveioped with HC, Highway Commer-
cial uses, about 5500 vehicle trips~..per day could be anticipated
compared to the 4600 vehicle trips p~er day limit suggested by
staff. Under either scenario, somei~!traffic would be absorbed by
access to Proffit Road, internal tr~ps to Forest Lakes and
potential linkages to Hollymead.
130
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 1~
For reasons stated above, staff has no objection to deletion of
proposed Agreement #4. High-traffic generators requiring special use
permit (i.e., drive-in window uses) would be subject to future review.
Should the Con~nission determine that a generation limit is warranted
on the residue the 5500 vehicle trip per day figure would more appro-
priately reflect anticipated development under existing HC zoning.
This would result in an average generation of 456 vehicle trips per
day per acre for the entire 22.7 acres in Forest Lakes as compared to
432 vehicle trips per day per acre employed by staff for general
planning purposes."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20,
1988, unanimously recommended approval of the request for rezoning, with the
"Modifications to Application Plan" as set out above, and with the "Agreements
Made by the County and the Applicant" set out above, but~changing the figure
"9452 vtpd" in #4 to "10,350 vtpd".
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks #2 is too open-ended and suggested that its
second sentence be changed to read: "All plats shall reflect appropriate
access easements and carry notes regarding restriction of access to U. S.
Route 29 North to the satisfaction of the Planning staff'S..
Mr. Bain said he is concerned about the number of accesses this proposed
center would have onto Route 29 North. He said Shoppers~i World and Fashion
Square Mall are much larger than this shopping center, bdt they have fewer
accesses onto Route 29. Mr. Horne said the staff felt the applicant had some
claim to these accesses, since they were part of the pro~fers attached to the
original rezoning request, ZMA-85-20, which the Board ha~ accepted. Mr. HornE
said he does not think the applicant would have a vested~right to these access
points if they conflicted with the Zoning Ordinance or the health, safety and
welfare of the public. Mr. Horne said a number of improvements were exchanged
for these access points in the original request for rezoning.
Mr. Bain said he thinks PD-SC zoning would benefit bhe applicant, which
should give the Board some leverage on the issue of access points. Mr. Home
agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom said the original request for rezoning'did not anticipate
that the access points would serve commercial development on property behind
the lots fronting Route 29 North. Under the current rezoning request, he
said, these accesses, particularly AP4S, could serve unlimited development in
this area. If the Board accepts the staff's recommendation to delete Agree-
ment #4, Mr. Lindstrom said, the intensity of the develop~nent is no longer
limited. Mr. Horne pointed out that the Comprehensive Pt~n considers t~is
property, even the portions to the rear, to be commerciali'property.
Mr. Bain said he thinks it would be better to funnell as much of the
traffic as possible onto either Timberwood Boulevard or P~offit Road, rather
than have traffic entering the property directly from Rou~e 29 North. Mr.
Horne said Timberwood Boulevard will eventually serve a l~rge residential
development and could be overburdened if it were the onlyiaccess into the
shopping center.
Mr. Lindstrom said the traffic might flow better if ~P4S served only
traffic entering the shopping center and AP4 served only ~xiting traffic. Mr.
Home said this pattern of traffic could become very congested at the Tiger
Fuel property, which is served by AP4S.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Ms. Denise Etheridge addressed the Board and said she represents Forest
Lakes Associates. She said there are three elements of the mixed-use,
self-contained community planned for Forest Lakes: housin~ for County resi-
dents, swimming pool and tennis club for the residents of~Forest Lakes, and, a
shopping center for residents of FOrest Lakes and the adjqining communities.
She showed slides of the pool and tennis club. Although ~here are no resi-
dents in Forest Lakes yet, Forest Lakes Associates has already committed over
$1.5 million for the recreational facility. She said Forest Lakes Associates
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
131
is working on the first two elements of this planned community and would like
to begin work on the third, the shopping center.
Ms. Etheridge also showed slides of a shopping center in North Carolina
that she said resembled the prototype for the shopping center proposed for
Forest Lakes. She said Forest Lakes Associates would like to have direct
access onto Route 29 to allow travelers to reach the shopping center without
having to use a heavily traveled residential road. The buildings in the
proposed shopping center will be subject to an architectural review board.
She said the sign for the shopping center will not be located along Route 29
North, but on the commercial property off Timberwood Boulevard. There will
also be landscaping in the commercial area, along the entrances and the
parking lots. Berms between Timberwood Boulevard and the shopping center will
minimize the visual impact of the buildings upon the residents of Forest Lakes
and travelers on Route 29. She said Forest Lakes Associates has deeded a
40-foot wide buffer along the 800-foot length of Timberwood Boulevard to be
common property. She said this buffer testifies to the commitment of Forest
Lakes Associates to enhance the community and preserve green space.
Ms. Etheridge said rezoning this property to PD-SC would not just benefit
Forest Lakes Associates, but residents in th~ Forest Lakes development and
surrounding communities, and the County as a~whole. She said applying for the
PD-SC designation allowed Forest Lakes Associates to maximize the internal
traffic flow for the entire commercial development, not just Phase I. Early
in the plans for development, Forest Lakes A~sociates decided they did not
wish to build roads that might have to be improved later to accommodate future
development. She said the Associates asked Mr. Roosevelt for the maximum
standards to which any road in this development must be built and then incor-
porated those standards in their road designs.
Ms. Etheridge said the PD-SC designatio~ also benefits the County because
it gives the County a chance to influence th~ kind of development that will be
built on this site. She asked the Board to ~pprove this request. She intro-
duced Mr. Bill Roudabush, engineer for the p~oject, Mr. Frank Kessler, a
member of Forest Lake Associates, and Mr. Fr~d Payne,. legal counsel for Forest
Lakes Associates.
Mr. Bill Roudabush addressed the Board..~ He said the request before the
Board is a plan for the orderly and unified development of a shopping center
and part of an overall plan for the 700 acre~.' making up the Forest Lakes
development. He said the County has approved.,I other elements of this large-
scale development, such as the plans for Timberwood Boulevard and for internal
waterlines. He said Forest Lakes Associates :[~lso submitted with the applica-
tion a plan for landscaping the property. W~'ile the 40-foot wide buffer zones
along one side of Route 29 and both sides of Timberwood Boulevard are included
in the request for rezonlng, Mr. Roudabush s~ld, these strips w~ll be desig-
nated for landscaping only. i
Mr. Roudabush said there has been some dzscussmon over the proximity of
the two crossovers. When SP-85-20 was reques~ted, no engineering work had been
done to determine where these entrances and c:,rossovers would be located. Once
the engineering work for the roads in this project began, Mr. Roudabush
continued, the first step was to find a place~ for a crossover. There were
several constraints: VDoT did not want the d~fference in grade between the
north- and south-bound lanes to be more than five percent; the access had to
be situated so it could eventually serve the :,industrially zoned property
across from the shopping center on Route 29; .there had to be adequate sight
distance; and there were storm drains and utilities in parts of the median
strip on Route 29 North. Due to these constraints, Forest Lakes Associates
could not use the pre-determined and approvedl-access points.
Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Board and said the presentation is
finished. He said he may wish to rebut some points later in the meeting.
Mr. Home asked if he could mention something he had forgotten earlier.
After receiving the Chairman's permission, Mr~ Home said the staff became
aware, within the last three days, that there~was some dispute about the
ability of this applicant to construct AP4S, {he joint entrance for Tiger Fuel
and the shopping center. The Planning staff,~County Attorney and representa-
tives of both Tiger Fuel and Forest Lakes Associates met to determine whether
132
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 1~
there was sufficient evidence in the record that this application could be
brought before the Board, specifically, whether the applicant had the color of
title necessary. After reviewing the evidence brought forth by both sides,
Mr. Horne continued, the County Attorney decided that Forest Lakes Associates
did have the color of title necessary to bring the application before the
Board.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. St. John said, the applicant must
show evidence that he has standing to apply for the approval of his request.
At issue, he said, is the strip of land, a 40-foot wide easement, between the
Tiger Fuel property and the property owned by Forest Lakes Associates. He
said this easement runs back 200 feet into the property. The property line is
in the middle of this easement. Mr. St. John said that a determination by
County staff that an applicant has presented enough evidence to give him
standing to process his application would have no bearing on this matter if it
goes to court. He added that the Board should not attempt to adjudicate a
dispute between neighbors.
Mr. David Sutton, the president of Tiger Fuel Company, addressed the
Board. He said he favors the concept behind the Forest Lakes project and
thinks such a development is needed in this area of the Gounty. Nevertheless,
he said, he opposes the request for rezoning because, if'i~:this application is
approved as submitted, Tiger Fuel Company will not be ab~e to build the
gasoline station it has designed and which was approved blY the Planning
Commission in March, 1988. He handed out copies of the s!ite plan for the
gasoline station. He said the entrance proposed by Fore~ Lakes Associates
will negate his company's planned use of the site. Acco~i~ing.~i~. to the appli-
cant's plans, customers of the Tiger Fuel gasoline statiHn will have to use a
joint entrance and make a left turn against traffic exit~g the shopping
center to reach the gasoline pumps.
Mr. Sutton said he does not think this application should be before the
Board because Forest Lakes Associates has not shown the staff or the Board
that it has the right to construct the entrance across the Tiger Fuel prop-
erty, as shown in the plan. He quoted from a letter to Forest Lakes Associ-
ates from the Planning Commission as follows: "The Plan~ing Commission will
not review plans or plats which occasion sight distance, grading or other
easements without evidence from the developer that permi~Mion is obtainable.
This evidence must be submitted by the revision deadline~or this item to
proceed to hearing". The required evidence was not submitted prior to the
Planning Commission hearing or this hearing, Mr. Sutton said. He said the
Forest Lakes Associates have no documents or contractual i~vidence giving them
220:~foot depth of the
the right to a 20-foot right-of-way across the entire ~
lot belonging to Tiger Fuel. When asked to present such ~vidence, Mr. Sutton
said, Forest Lakes presented a contract stating that: "TSger Fuel and Forest
Lakes agree that a joint curb cut on Route 29 at the sout~ end of the subject
lot be installed by buyer and will show on Tiger Fuel's s~te plan as being 20
feet on Tiger Fuel's site and 20 feet on Forest Lake's la~d. The 20 feet on
Forest Lake's land shall be covered by a perpetual easement to Tiger Fuel and
shall extend the full depth of 200 feet. The entrance ma~ be used by seller
for purposes of ingress and egress only." He said this a~reement creates a
20-foot easement for the benefit of Tiger Fuel on the property of Forest Lakes
Associates, not vice-versa. There is no language in thms~contract, he said,
to give Forest Lakes Associates a 20-foot easement acrossiilthe property of
Tiger Fuel, Mr. Sutton said. He asked that the Board den~ this application,
or defer action until Forest Lakes Associates can show clear evidence that it
has the necessary easement.
If the Board approves this application, Mr. Sutton s~iid, it will in
effect be revoking Tiger Fuel's site plan, which has been iapproved by the
County. He said Tiger Fuel's site plan contained a condi~ ion stating that the
entrance may be altered upon subdivision of the property. He said he agreed
to this condition, assuming that such an alteration would be consistent with
the legal rights of the adjoining landowner and would not.eliminate the
previously approved use of Tiger Fuel's property as a gasciine station.
Mr. Sutton said the problem was created by a change in the proffers for
this tract. The original proffer, for SP-85-20, contained five entrances, one
of which was properly located to serve the Forest Lakes SSopping Center. This
access, AP3, was eliminated, in part to reduce the cost roi the developer and
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
133
to accommodate the future industrial development of the property across Route
29 North from the planned shopping center. If Forest Lakes Associates is
reaping the benefits from this relocation, Mr. Sutton said, they should also
bear some of the disadvantages and be content to access their shopping center
via Timberwood Boulevard and the road running behind the shopping center. He
thinks these roads will provide adequate access to the property. If the Board
would agree to restore AP3, this would solve the problem, Mr. Sutton claimed.
Dr. Charles Hurt addressed the Board. If the Board acts on Mr. Sutton's
request, he said, he thinks the Board would be acting unfairly to both Mr.
Kessler and him. He said he owned all 650 acres of this property and sold
what is now the Tiger Fuel property to Tri-Ton, Inc. Since this property is
only an acre, too small for a septic system,~he deeded five acres to them with
the understanding that four acres would be transferred back to him when public
sewer became available. He said he is the owner of four-fifths of the prop-
erty that is now held in the name of Tiger Fuel. He said Mr. Sutton claims
that the whole five acres is his property, but he has never paid Dr. Hurt for
the land, and Dr. Hurt said he has the contract to prove that he still owns
four acres of the property. He showed the B~ard where the one acre and the
four acres are located on a map.
Mr. Hurt said Tri-Ton, Inc. agreed to pay $125,000 for the property now
held by Tiger Fuel and to build a joint entrance. The agreement to build a
40-foot joint entrance onto Route 29 North, ~n expensive undertaking, was a
major consideration in the sale. If Tri-Ton~: Inc. was unable to build this
entrance, it was to deed back the entire property to Dr. Hurt and he would
refund the $125,000. He said the County tur~ed down the site plan prepared by
Tri-Ton, Inc., so the entrance went unbuilt.
Despite Mr. Sutton's claims to the contrary, Dr. Hurt continued, there is
record of a 40-foot easement. Dr. Hurt said~there is an unrecorded contract
which states the conditions of the sale as hq. described them. He said the
contract Tiger Fuel presented to the County ~is evidence for their position was
not the real contract. He said he had appended a letter to the contract
stating that he signed the contract with the iunderstanding that he was to have
a 40-foot easement across the property. Dr.jlHurt said he has asked Tiger Fuel
to deed back the property to him since it ca, not fulfill the terms of the
contract and he has offered to return the mo~ey paid for the property. He
said Mr. Sutton should have no standing in this matter, because his con-
tractual rights have expired and the propert~ should revert back to Dr. Hurt.
He handed copies of the contract and the letber to the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is a fascinatin~ case, but he agrees with Mr. St.
John that it is outside of the Board's bailiwick.
Dr.-Hurt said he is concerned that the BOard may decide this matter on
the basis of standing, and he wants to make ~t clear that Mr. Sutton and Tiger
Fuel are the ones who have no standing.
Since no one else wished to address this~application, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that Tige:r Fuel's property, for which a
site plan has already been approved, may be =endered unusable for this purpose
if the Board approves the request for rezoning. When he travels, he said, he
chooses the gasoline station with the easiest~ access and he thinks other
people do the same. He said he likes the plans for the shopping center, but
he is concerned about the accesses.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the PD-SC zoning, allows the County flexibility
and benefits the public. However, he said, l~e does not think a proliferation
of entrances is necessary for an area zoned PD-SC. He said he thinks this
shopping center would reduce traffic on Rout~i29 North and the developer has
gone out of his way to plan good roads. Nevei~theless, he said he does not
think the joint entrance is necessary with access available from Timberwood
Boulevard and the road connecting the propert~ to Proffit Road.
Mr. Bowie said he does not understand wh~ the disputed entrance is
necessary. Mr. Home said the applicant beli&ves this entrance will relieve
the overburdening of Timberwood Boulevard. M~. Bowie said he thinks the Board
134
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 11
must decide whether the traffic should be stacked on Route 29 North or
Timberwood Boulevard.
Mr. Horne said part of the road improvements proffered by the applicant
in return for the access points was a third lane on Route 29 North to serve
traffic turning into the shopping center. If access point AP4S is deleted,
Mr. Home said, this third lane may not be necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom said the amount of residential traffic that will be on
Timberwood Boulevard will be an incentive for travelers to use AP4S to access
the shopping center, thereby creating more of a traffic problem on Route 29
North. He thinks the Board should not approve anything that will worsen the
congestion on Route 29 North.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the Forest Lakes residential area will be able
to access Proffit Road. Mr. Home said this access to Proffit Road will come
into existence eventually, but it may take a while, due to problems with sight
distance and buying the property.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Home for the ultimate traffic count on
Timberwood Boulevard and when the peak hours of traffic ~ill be. Mr. Horne
said he will look up the figures.
Mr. Bowie said he wants more information on the.traf~fic patterns, the
effect of AP4S on Route 29 North traffic, and the effect~of deleting this
access point upon traffic on Timberwood Boulevard. He said he would support
deferring this request until this information is provided! To answer all
these questions, Mr. Home said, the applicant would have!to conduct a traffic
analysis of the site.
Mr. Perkins said he does not believe access AP4S is necessary for the
property to be used as a shopping center.
Mr. Horne said the volume of traffic on Timberwood BOulevard near its
intersection with Route 29 North is anticipated to be 13,~000 vehicle trips per
day. This figure is based on the following assumptions: !the proposed Meadow
Creek Parkway will not connect to Proffit Road or across the the dam, and
there will be one access point to the shopping center between Timberwood
Boulevard and Proffit Road. Mr. Home said AP4S is expected to carry about
2800 vehicles per day, so if this access were deleted, traffic on Timberwood
Boulevard would increase to almost 16,000 a day.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that much of the traffic l~aving Timberwood
Boulevard would be doing so early in the morning, before the shopping center
opened.
Mr. Bowie asked if staff could gather some more information on access
AP4S and what the effect on traffic would be if this access allowed entrance
only. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know if the stacking lanes on Route
29 North will handle the anticipated traffic. Mr. Horne said he could have
some general information for the Board in two weeks.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to defer
Zbt~-88-16 until January 18, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: ~Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke.
(Note: Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 11:05 ~.M.)
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-88-98. Insmed Incorporated (~stec). To allow
laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical on 3.286 acres zoned LI, developed as
Astec Center. Property located on the west side of Route 742 (Avon Street)
adjacent to the south of Interstate 64 and across from City of Charlottesville
Public Works. Tax Map 77E2, Parcel 4. Scottsville District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on December 20 and December 27, 1988.)
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: Two salvage yards are to the west of the
site. Student Services (light warehousing) and the City's Public
Works yard are across Avon Street. The closest residential area is a
mobile home park across Moore's Creek about 500 feet away.
This property is currently developed with Phase 1 of the Astec
building (10,000 square feet). Phase 2, under construction, would
house Insmed (2,000 square feet) and other uses (17,000 square feet).
Staff Comment: Insmed would be a small research and development use
with five employees. Mr. Peter Thomas, President, Insmed, has stated
that:
'Insmed, Inc. is a pharmaceutical research and development firm
which has licensed research from the University of Virginia
involving diabetes. It is the company's responsibility to fund
this research with the hope of eventually developing one or more
commercially valuable products which will assist in the diagno-
sis and treatment of diabetes.'
In order to provide comprehensive review under special use permit
criteria (Section 31.2.4.1), a detailed'idescription of the
biochemical process as well as a certified engineer's report address-
ing performance standards has been required. The Department of
Engineering has reviewed and recommends 'approval of the engineer's
report as satisfying all performance standards (i.e., noise, vibra-
tion, glare, air pollution, water pollution, radioactivity, and
electrical interference).
Insmed must satisfy Albemarle County Service Authority/Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority permitting process Go discharge waste products
into the public sewer system. For mater!ials to be disposed of by a
commercial waste removal firm, three separate containers will be
provided (halogenated wastes, non-halog~hated wastes, and aqueous
wastes). The County Engineer should approve on-site spill contain-
ment measures. The health Department sl~buld approve off-site dis-
posal (which may be covered under commerhial hauler licensure).
In 1985, the Board of Supervisors appro~gd a special use permit to
allow HUMAGEN (UNOGEN), a microbiologic~! laboratory, at this site.
Staff opinion is that Insmed is similar ~in character and operations
to HUMAGEN. With appropriate conditionSi~of approval, the criteria
for issuance of a special use permit can be satisfied. Staff recom-
mends approval subject to the following conditions:
This special use permit is issued to authorize a pharmaceutical
laboratory to be operated in accord?with 'Certified Engineer's
Report and Performance Standards' prepared by Pleasants Associ-
ates, Inc., submitted by Peter G. Thomas for Insmed Pharmaceuti-
cals, Inc., dated November 17, 1988~ and further identified as
'Exhibit A: SP-88-98,' initialed R~K and dated December 20,
1988. Any changes to procedures, materials listing, or disposal
methods shall be approved by the CoUnty Engineer who at his
discretion may defer such approval ~o the Board of Supervisors;
Albemarle County Service Authority/~ivanna Water and Sewer
Authority approval prior to discharge to sanitary sewer system;
All Virginia Department of Health r~quirements to be met includ-
ing approval of materials to be lan~filled, and including report
submittal to Bureau of Toxic Substances Information;
County Engineer approval of spill c~ntainment plan."
135
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20,
1988, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended
by staff.
136
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Thomas, President of Insmed, was present to speak at the public
hearing. He said he would be happy to answer any questions.
Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve
SP-88-98 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as fol-
lows:
This special use permit is issued to authorize a pharmaceutical
laboratory to be operated in accord with "Certified Engineer's
Report and Performance Standards" prepared by Pleasants Associ-
ateS, Inc., submitted by Peter G. Thomas for Insmed Pharmaceu-
ticals, Inc., dated November 17, 1988, and further identified
as "Exhibit A: SP-88-98," initialed RSK and dated December 20,
1988. Any changes to procedures, materials listing, or dis-
posal methods shall be approved by the County Engineer who at
his discretion may defer such approval to the Board of Supervi-
sors;
Albemarle County Service Authority/Rivanna WateC & Sewer
Authority approval prior to discharge to sanitary sewer system;
e
Ail Virginia Department of Health requirements to be met
including approval of materials to be landfille~, and including
report submittal to Bureau of Toxic Substances Information;
4. County Engineer approval of spill containment pI~an.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4,
Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts of the A%bemarle County Code,
subsections (d), (g), (m) and to add a new subsection (o) ~to be known as the
Buck Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 20 and December 27, 1988.)
(d) Addition to Blue Run A~ricultural and Forestal District. Located on
State Routes 231, 640 and 641 in northeastern~Albemarle. ~ivanna District.
Mr. Horne gave the staff report on Blue Run AgricultUlral and Forestal
District, a synopsis of which follows:
"The proposed addition contains 2,976.972 acres in 15! parcels. The
existing district contains 1,136 acres. This distric~ and the addi-
tion must be reviewed eight years from June 18, 1986.~,'~ Five of the 15
parcels, about 45 acres, are not enrolled in the landi use tax program.
Two of these parcels are used for home sites related ko the adjacent
acreages. There are nine dwellings in the proposed a~dition, or one
dwelling per 331 acres. An AT&T facility is located ~n an adjacent
parcel. Development in this area is limited by the S~uthwest Moun-
tains and the distance from Charlottesville. The nearest growth area
is Stony Point Village, a distance of about four mileS. The Blue
River flows into the Rapidan River, which supplies drinking water for
the Town of Orange. Environmental benefits provided ~y the conserva-
tion of wooded areas include protection of ground and'~surface water
quality, wildlife habitat and critical slopes. The A~visory Committee
recommended that the addition be approved as proposed~
Mr. Horne said a parcel, Tax Map 50, parcel 7, was ad,ed at the last
minute, increasing the proposed addition to 16 parcels and/2,998.672 acres.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 20, 1988, recommended
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
137
approval of adding Tax map 35, parcels 22, 22A and 23; Tax map 36, parcel 9,
and 20; Tax map 49, parcels 4A, 4A5 and 24; and Tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B,
32A, 45B, 47, 47A and 47B for a total of 2,976.672 acres and a time period of
eight years from the date of adoption of the original ordinance.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ms. Sherry Buttrick addressed the
Board on behalf of the Piedmont Environment Council. She offered to answer
any questions. Since no one else wished to speak to this matter, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to
approve the additions recommended by the Planning Commission with the addition
of Tax map 50, parcel 7, by adopting the ordinance set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(g) Addition to Moorman's River Asricultural and Forestal District.
Located on State Routes 658, Ivy Farm Drive and Pleasant Lane in western
Albemarle. Jack Jouett District.
Mr..Home gave the staff report on the Moorman's River Agricultural and
Forestal District, a synopsis of which follows:
The proposed addition contains 181.676 acres in 15 parcels. The
existing district contains 10,303.381 acres and includes an addition
made on September 7, 1988. If apprOveda the addition must be reviewed
at the time the original district is reviewed, or eight years from
December 17, 1986. Eleven of the 15 parcels are not enrolled in the
land use tax program. All of these parcels are subdivision lots, nine
with dwellings. Of the four parcels wh{ch are already enrolled, about
95 acres are used for agriculture, 53 f6r forestry and about six are
non-qualifying because of dwellings or other reasons. The urban area
is located about two miles from the Ivy~Farms area. The proposed
addition is located within the South Fo~k Rivanna River Reservoir
watershed. Route 614 is a Virginia Byway; the Moorman's River is
designated a County scenic stream and a 3irginia scenic river.
The Advisory Committee recommended approval of Tax map 44, Parcel 3lA
and 31Al, and Tax Map 42, parcel 7 (Millington tract). The Committee
did not review Tax Map 41, Parcel 44 since an application had not yet
been submitted.
Staff is concerned that subdivision lotsl do not meet the intent of the
agricultural/forestal district. The existing Moorman's River District
includes several small lots, but none within a formal subdivision.
The Board did exclude two lots in Wyngate Subdivision from the Ivy
Creek District on November 2, 1988, because the lots were clearly
intended for residential purposes and toinclude them would be incon-
sistent with the intent of agricultural/forestal districts.
Mr. Horne said parcels have been added since the staff's report was
written, increasing the proposed addition to 195.136 acres in 16 parcels. Mr.
Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20, 1988,
recommended approval of Tax map 41, parcel 44i Tax map 42, parcel 7; and Tax
map 44, parcels 3lA, 31Al, 32G, and 32G1, for',!a total of 173.69 acres for a
time period of eight years from the date of a~option. Mr. Horne said the
Planning Commission recommended denial of those applications for parcels which
were subdivision lots, since these do not mee~ the intent of the Agricultural
and Forestal District.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Sinc~ no one wished to address this
matter, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and !placed the matter before the
Board. ~
138
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting~
(Page 22
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to add
to the Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District parcels recox~ended
by the Planning Commission, with the addition of Tax map ~44, parcel 30A, for
which an application was received today, by adoption of the ordinance as set
out below. Tax map 44, parcels 32, 32B, 32C, 32E, 32K, 32L, 32M, 32N, and
33E2 as subdivision lots were denied.
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.
(m) Addition to Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
on Peavine Hollow Road off State Route 668 in northwestern Albemarle.
Hall District.
Located
White
Mr. Horne gave the staff report on Free Union Agricultural and Forestal
District, a synopsis of which follows:
"The proposed addition contains 30.010 acres in two parcels. One
parcel was not included in the original application due to the staff's
error. The existing district contains 1,394.599 acres. The addition
must be reviewed at the time the original district is reviewed, or ten
years from September 21, 1988. Neither parcel in the proposed addi-
tion is enrolled in the land use tax program, since the acreage is not
sufficient for forestal land use. ~ne nearest growtb area is
Earlysville Village, about five miles away. The property is located
within the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir waterShed. Environmen-
tal benefits provided by the conservation of wooded ~reas include
protection of ground and surface water quality, wild.~ife habitat, and
critical slopes.
The Advisory Committee and staff recommend that the ~ddition be
approved as proposed." ~
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20,
1988, recommended approval of Tax map 16, parcels 13A and.it3D for a time
period of ten years from the date of adoption.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak to this
matter, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the
Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. ~indstrom to add to
the Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District those p~rcels recommended by
the Planning Commission and adopt the ordinance set out b~low.
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.
(o) Buck Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District'. Located on State
Routes 671 and 664 in northwestern Albemarle. White Hall District.
Mr. Home gave the staff report on Buck Mountain Agrihultural and
Forestal District, a synopsis of which follows:
"The proposed district contains 633.353 acres in seven parcels and is
requested to be reviewed in ten years. Ail seven parcels are enrolled
in the land use tax program, with about 318 acres being used for
agriculture, 303 for forestry, and about 12 are non-qualifying because
of dwellings or other reasons. There are three dwellSngs in the
proposed district, or one dwelling per 211 acres. The nearest growth
area is Earlysville Village at a distance of about four and one-half
miles. The Free Union Agricultural/Forestal Districtiilies one-half
mile to the west. The proposed district is zoned RA,~Rural Areas,
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
139
except for parcel 17-26C, which is zoned PUD. The County's environ-
ment would benefit from the proposed district, which lies within the
South Fork Rivanna River reservoir watershed, and the proposed Buck
Mountain Creek reservoir watershed.
The Advisory Committee recommended that the district be approved as
proposed, for a time period of ten years. The staff concurs with this
recommendation."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20,
1988, recommended creating Buck Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
with Tax map 8, parcels 16A, 16C, 17E, 17F and 50; and Tax map 17, parcel 26C
and 31, for a time period of ten years from date of adoption.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the parcel zoned PUD carries a permanent conser-
vation easement.
Mr. Way read a letter from Ms. Linda Wielien who was instrumental in the
formation of this district and urged its approval.
Since no one else wished to speak to this issue, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to create
the Buck Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District as recommended by the
Planning Commission and to adopt the ordinance which follows. 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 A REENACT SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Coda of Albemarle be, and the same
hereby is, amended in subsections (d), (ilg) and (m) by the addition of
certain parcels, and to add a new subsec~cion (o) to be known as the
Buck Mountain Agricultural and ForestallDistrict, reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. ~
(d) The district known as the "Blus Run Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the foll6~ing described properties:
Tax map 35, parcels 17, 17A, 22, 22A, 23% 24A, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 28,
29, 29B, 31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parce!~ 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels,
4A, 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 7, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A 47B.
(g) The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 27, parcel 32, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4,
5, 6, 6A, 7Al, 8, 11, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18,~1:23B, 32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A,
34B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map;29, parcels 2C, 7B, 8, 8B,
8E, 8H, 8J, 8K, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C,i 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A,
63D, 67, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 70H, 70H1, 70K, 70L,
70M, 71, 7lA, 73B, 74A, 76, 77, 78, 79, ~gA1, 79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D,
79D1, 80, 84, tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A, 1SE; tax map 41,
parcels 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, i!44, 50, 67, 67B, 68, 70, 72B,
72C, 89, tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 7~ 8, SA, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D,
25C, 25C1, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 48D1, 40G, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43,
43A, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map 43, parcels 1, lB, 2, 3, 3A, 3C, 4C,
4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 1SA, 18C, ii18E4, 18F, 18G, 18J, 19I,
140
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24
19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 2lA, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A, 25B, 25E, 30,
30A, 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, 33D, 34, 45, ~45A, 45C, 45D, 58;
tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A,
29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 3lA, 31Al, 31D, 31F, 31G, 32G, 32G1; tax map
59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A.
(m) The district known as the"Free Union Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A, 15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17, 26,
30 (part), 30B, 36, 37, 38, 39, 52B1, 52B2, 54; tax map 17, parcels 8,
8B, 8C, 17C, 18H, 22.
(o) The district known as the "Buck Mountain Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 8, parcels 16A, 16C, 17E, 17F, 50; tax map 17, parcels 26C,
31.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. No names were offered.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: May 7 (A), May 21 (N) and June
18 (A), 1986; November 4 and December 2, 1987; October 24 and November 2,
1988.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of December 2, 1987, page 12 to the end and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for November 2 (A), .1988, and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for June 18 (A), 1986, and found them
to be in order. He had also read December 2, 1987, pagesil-12, and found them
to be in order with minor typographical corrections.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for May 7 (A), 1986, and found them to be
in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve
those minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,i Perkins and Way.
None. ~
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the
Public and Board Members.
Mr. Agnor asked if members of the Board planned to attend the meeting for
school board and the Virginia Association of Counties Virginia Municipal
League scheduled for Friday, January 6, 1989. Topics to be discussed at the
conference include budgeting and relations with governing bodies. Mr. Way
said Mr. Agnor, Mr. Overstreet and he are attending this meeting and encour-
aged other members of the Board to attend.
Mr. Agnor said the Governor's Conference on Travel Services will be held
this month.
Mr. Bowie said a meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission will be held January 5, 1989. He noted that the term of Mr. Bain
has expired and he moved the reappointmentPof Mr. Bain to the Planning Dis-
trict Commission for a term to expire on December 31, 1989. Mr. Lindstrom
January 4, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
141
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins said he has read a letter from Mr. Craig van de Castle
concerning the establishment of recycling centers. Mr. Perkins said he thinks
this is a good idea and asked if the Board could require developers to set up
recycling centers. Mr. Home said he will investigate this possibility.
Mr. Way suggested that the joint meeting with the School Board scheduled
for January 9, 1989, be postponed to January 23, 1989, to allow the School
Board time to review the latest information on the Crozet replacement school.
Members of the Board agreed to the postponement.
Mr. Bain asked the status of the Solid Waste Committee. Mr. Agnor said
Mayor Elizabeth Waters and Mr. Way were to meet to decide on appointments.
The Board agreed to have work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan every
Wednesday afternoon until it is completed, beginning January 11, 1989.
At 11:40 P.M. motion was offered by Mrs,i Cooke and seconded by Mr.
Perkins to adjourn into executive session toldiscuss personnel matters.
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
The Board reconvened into open session at 11:51 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.