Loading...
1988-07-20452 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 20, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), 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. P. Home, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Perkins to accept the items on the Consent Agenda as informa- tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Mr. Bain. Item 4.1. Notice dated July 11, 1988 from McGuire, ~oods, Battle & Boothe concerning filing of IRS Form 8038 in connection With Riverbend issu- ance by the Industrial Development Authority, pursuant to Section 15.1-1377 of the Code of Virginia, was received as information. Item 4.2. 1987 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department off-Planning and Community Development, was received as i~formation. Item 4.3. Notice from H. Bryan Mitchell, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, concerning placement of Pine Knot on the Virginia Land- marks Register and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, was received as information. Item 4.4. Planning Commission Minutes for July 5 and July 12, 1988, were received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-24. Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel (Blandemar Subdivi- sion) (deferred from July 6, 1988). Mr. Home presented the following memorandum, dated July 15, 1988, and the attached amended cOnditions of approval recommended by the staff. "Mr. Michie as representative for Mrs. Rosenstiel has submitted to this office a proposed Deed of Easement to be granted by Mrs. Rosenstiel to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. I have spoken to Tyson Van Auken from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and have described in detail the current situation with Blandemar Farm. He has stated to me that if Mrs. Rosenstiel were to voluntarily offer an easement on the entire 220 and 600 acre tracts in a form acceptable to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, he could see no!reason on its face that the Board of Directors of the Foundation would not accept such a donation. The Foundation will require some minor amendments to the form of the document. The staff has reviewed !the enclosed Deed of Easement submitted by Mr. Michie. The County Attorney'has July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 453 reviewed the easement as to its form and has no recommendations. Staff of this Department has reviewed it as to content and has the following proposed changes: Item 6. Add to the end . Provided~ however~ that at no time shall there be more than three dwelling units constructed or maintained on the entire Blandemar Farm tract at any one time. Item 7. Suggested revised wording Industrial or commercial activities, except farming, silviculture, horticulture, eampm~-re~rea~, or other open space activities consistent with the Rural Areas are prohibited except as can be and are in fact conducted from the residence house, shop, tool house, or other permitted buildings without alteration of the external appearance of the same. Attached for the Board's review again are the provisions of a previ- ous Deed of Restriction and Amended Conditions of Approval. Staff would recommend that the conditions of approval require that a deed restriction be placed on all properties including those lots located in the residential community to incorporate the following restric- tions: Lot owners of Lots 1-65 of the Residential Community shall not institute or maintain any legal action for nuisance against the owner of the Blandemar Farm Tract or the Rosenstiel Tract by reason of the use of said lands for agricultural or forestal purposes, provided, however, nothing contained herein shall preclude such actions based on health and safety of the lot owners. Ownership of property in Lots 1-65.!~of the Residential Community shall not entitle the lot owners tO any rights of access to or enjoyment of lands in the Blandemar Farm tract or the Rosenstiel Tract. Also submitted by Mr. Michie were three "points for decision". Staff has reviewed these items and agrees that these are the major points for decision and the staff has the following recommendations: Staff does not recommend the retention of any development right to the Rosenstiel tract. me Staff recommends that the Open Space Easement be to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation in perpetuity and has submitted above our recommendations on the scope of activities to be allowed on the properties. Staff recommendations on the conditions of approval are con- tained in the attached Amended Conditions of Approval, which have not changed from the previous Board of Supervisors' meet- ing. At the time of writing this report, staff has not received confirma- tion directly from the applicant as to whether she agrees with Mr. Michie's draft or the staff amendments." AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Board of Supervisors' approval and donation to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation of a perpetual deed of easement on the entire Blandemar Farm Tract and Rosenstiel Tract. Board of Supervisors' approval and recordation of deed restrictions on all lots in the Residential Community consistent with staff recommendations presented at the Board of Supervisors meeting. The subdivision plat submitted for approval shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan by Gloeckner and Osborne, Inc., entitled Blandemar Farm and Residential Community, dated 454 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Along the south side of the entrance roadway leading to the Residential Community as it passes through the Blandemar Farm Tract, the applicant shall install fencing and/or landscaping and screening in general accordance with the following: A 25-foot buffer area shall be established between the edge of road right-of-way and a fence or fences designed to be sufficient to separate the traffic from the farming activi- ties. Within the 25-foot buffer area, the applicant shall install street landscaping or screening shrubs, depending on the type of fencing proposed. The fencing and landscaping is to be approved by the Department of Planning and Community Development. e o Fencing sufficient to separate the farming and forestry activi- ties from the residential activities shall be installed by the Grantor along the property lines between the Residential Commun- ity and the Blandemar Farm Tract approximately as shown on the conceptual plan referenced above. Said fencing shall thereafter be maintained by the property owners in the Residential Commun- ity. A 50-foot private conservation easement shall be estab- lished on the lots in the Residential Community along their boundary with the Rosenstiel Tract. This easement shall require that the area be maintained in its undisturbed iand natural state. The homeowners' covenants shall incorporate the specific terms of the fencing maintenance and conservation easements. At the time of subdivision approval, the Planning Commission shall approve the phasing of the installation df the required improvements including, but not limited to, screening, fencing, and the installation of new lakes. The applicant shall make application within 60.days to include the Blandemar Farm Tract and the Rosenstiel Tract in the Hard- ware Agricultural and Forestal District, as voluntarily offered by the Applicant. As Mr. Horne presented the memorandum, he mentioned a Deed of Easement submitted by Mr. Michie, dated July 20, 1988, attached to~a letter dated 3uly 12, 1988. Mr. St. John said there is a second Deed of Easement, dated July 20, 1988, which Mr. Michie submitted to the Board attached to a letter dated July 15, 1988. He said this easement was limited t6 a period of 20 years, while the one attached to letter dated July 12 had no such limit. Mr. St. John said he has never seen the easement submitted wi~h the letter dated July 15. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if she wished to address the Board. Mrs. Blanka Rosenstiel said she knows the Board is a§ anxious as she is to dispense with this agenda item. She said she has been~clear about her intentions from the beginning, her plans for a cluster development have been examined by the staff at length, and her planning enginee~ has discussed every detail with the Board and provided complete drawings for the Board's consid- eration. When this application was first presented, she Said, four members of the Board supported the request and two were against it. ~!She said even the members of the Board who did not support the request agregd that the cluster proposal was far better than the by-right plan. She said~.~the meeting in June concluded with the Board's request that the attorneys present properly worded deed restrictions and easements before final approval. Y~t at the July 6 meeting, which she flew in from Europe to attend, the Board again deferred its decision. She said she still does not understand how the~meeting strayed from the original intent and turned into yet another public he,ring. July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 455 She said she complied with the Board's request to use only three division rights on the 600 acre tract. She also complied with the Board's request to leave only one development right on the Rosenstiel tract, attaching the three other rights to the cluster. She said she is willing to grant an open space easement for 20 years to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, without, she added, receiving any tax deductions for the donation. She said her proposed Deed of Easement also grants a perpetual easement of 300 feet along Route 708 to the County, if the Virginia Outdoors Foundation will not accept such an easement. She said she has a feeling that the Board will not want to impose upon her the unusual and special conditions and penalties outlined in the staff's "Amended Conditions for Approval". She asked the Board to accept her word that the entrance, the roads, a sturdy, single fence and the entire project that will be built will be more than beautiful and exceptional. She said she has been advised that the staff's request for a 25-foot buffer area and planting along the road is not appropriate or necessary to the safety or well-being of either the residents or the farm animals. She said she has retained Ms. Marcia 3oseph, an experienced and competent land planner and landscape architect, to work on this project. Ms. Rosenstiel said the most important and costly concession she has been forced to make is time; these deferrals have considerably delayed progress on her by-right project. She said she has spent a lot of time and effort to present a beautiful cluster plan which includes a park of over 170 acres with two lakes. She said the park would be established in perpetuity. She said members of the Board seemed concerned about her statement that she did not want to voluntarily grant easements in perpetuity to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. She said she is an hongst woman, and she admitted to the Director of the Foundation when he visited h~r that this easement did not seem necessary to her and was not voluntarily given. She said she is reluctant to grant a perpetual easement on the large tracts because she does not believe that this land belongs solely to her. She s~id she believes the land belongs to God and it would be wrong of her to force.~restrictons on future genera- tions. She quoted Mr. Thomas Jefferson: "N~ society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The 9arth belongs always to the living generation they may manage it". She said it is clear to her that the carefully worded deed restrictions combined ~ith the Board's conscientious control, is all the protection needed to guaCd Blandemar Farm from future development. She said the Planning staff puzzles her~: Last year, the staff opposed a plan for a Health Resort on 200 acres that would have created 250 good jobs and a $10,000,000 tax base and would have used only six acres of Blandemar Farm for buildings and development. She said many of her neighbors were stirred to opposition last year and now realike the value of this lost oppor- tunity and regret that they were fooled. This year, she claimed, the Planning staff is urging the Board to convince her to choose the by-right plan, which will destroy this land's potential for agricultural and forestal use. By this time, Mrs. Rosenstiel continued,~ she could have developed ten or twelve lots with driveways spilling out on Route 708. Yet, she said, she continues to go through this frustrating and ~emeaning process to carry out what she believes to be a better plan for the County, even though this plan is costly for her. If the Board denies the cluster plan tonight, she said, she will move forward with the by-right development. Mr. Way asked Mr. Mark Osborne if he cared to address the Board. Mr. Osborne said he has nothing to add to Mrs. RoSenstiel's statement, but he will answer any questions members of the Board may have. Mr. David Bass addressed the Board and said he is confused about what the Board is voting on tonight. He said he reviewed the file on this application yesterday and the Deed of Easement Mr. Michieisubmitted with the letter dated July 15, 1988, is not in the file. Neither Mr. Horne nor Mr. Pullen of the Planning Department has seen this easement. He said it is difficult for him to coz~nent upon an application when some information has not been made avail- able to the public. ~ 456 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) There are 68 by-right division rights on this property, Mr. Bass said, and he believes the applicant, the staff, and everyone concerned with this development have beentrying to construct a clustered subdivision with 68 dwelling units. He said there are 65 dwelling units planned for the residen- tial community, three units on the Blandemar Farm tract and none on the Rosenstiel tract. He said Mr. Horne's suggested revision of Item 6 of the applicant's proposed Deed of Easement would limit the number of dwelling units on the Blandemar Farm to three, keeping the number of dwelling units for the entire property within the limit of 68 divisions by-right. Mr. Bass said that Mr. Home also suggested that the words "camps" and "retreats" be deleted from Item 7 of the proposed Deed of Easement, which outlines the activities that will be permitted on this p~operty. Mr. Bass said he is concerned about the wording of the entire paragraph, which reads: "Industrial or commercial activities, except farming, silviculture, horticul- ture, camps, retreats or other open space can be and in fact are conducted from the residence house, shop, toolhouse, or other permStted buildings without alteration of the external appearance of the same". He said there are many things permitted by special use permit in the rural~areas, such as country clubs, executive retreats, and golf courses. These uses increase the density of an area, he said. If the Board wants the Blandemar and Rosenstiel tracts to remain either agricultural or forestal properties, he said, then the language of this paragraph must be more specific. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that this paragraph is re¥ised in the Deed of Easement attached to the letter of 3uly 15, 1988, which ~r. Bass did not have the chance to read. The revised paragraph now reads: "lndustrial or commer- cial activities other than farming, silviculture, horticulture, are prohibited except those which can be and in fact are conducted from buildings permitted under paragraph 6 above". Mr. Osborne addressed the Board and said the 68 division rights were arranged a little differently than Mr. Base's description: there are 64 lots in the residential area, one development right on the 22~ acre tract and three development rights on the 600 acre tract. ~- Mr. Osborne said the only difference between the last Deed of Easement submitted by Mr. Michie and Mr. Horne's position on the need is the 20 year limitation on the easement. He said there were significant differences between the applicant's wishes and the staff's amended c~hditions of approval. He said he and Mrs. Rosenstiel would like the amended conditions of approval to indicate that the open space easement would be in effe~ct for 20 years and that ~the applicant must supply only a single fence along iRoute 708 and this fence will be maintained by the farmer. Mr. David van Rojen addressed the Board and said he is concerned about the limitation of 20 years on the open space easement, ge said the subdivi- sion will be there in perpetuity. He said he realizes lawyers have problems with establishing deeds in perpetuity and he appreciates Mrs. Rosenstiel's feelings about God. Perhaps, he said, the open space easement could be granted for a period of time longer than 20 years but shorter than perpetuity, such as 199 years, as is commonly done in England. He said 20 years is a very short time and he feels limiting the open space in this fay is reneging on the part of the applicant. Ms. Sherry Buttrick addressed the Board and said she is standing in for Ms. Tamara Vance of the Piedmont Environmental Council th~s evening. Despite the fact that this development would be three times the s~ze of the usual development in the rural areas, the Piedmont Environmenta~ Council supported the clustered arrangement because of the permanent open space that would be dedmcated by the applmcant. She samd 20 years ms far froM permanent and this limitation does not outweigh the disadvantages of the development. Ms. Jane Heyward addressed the Board and said lots a~e developed so densely in a clustering arrangement that the only beauty ~eft for the lot- owners to enjoy is the open space around the community. ~ow she finds out that this open space will disappear in 20 years and Bland~mar City will take its place. She asked if the Board wants a city in the middle of this rural area. ~ July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 457 Ms. Norma Bartle addressed the Board and said she is pleased that Mrs. Rosenstiel has granted in perpetuity as much of her property as she has. She said she believes the living should govern the land. Twenty years from now, she said, she will not be attending Board meetings and will no longer care what the Board is doing. Twenty years from now, she said, she and Mrs. Rosenstiel will both be taking it easy. She said she might be concerned about the easement if it were for only five or six years, but 20 years seems long enough to her. She said Mrs. Rosenstiel has strong feelings about her prop- erty and to whom it belongs and those feelings should be respected. She said Blandemar Farm is far south of Charlottesville, at least 15 minutes south of the City, so she does not think this area will become developed in her life- time. Since no one else wished to speak to this petition, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. He asked Mr. St. John if he wished to comment. Mr. St. John said the Open Space Act expressly authorizes the easements to be granted in perpetuity, so there can be no legal question about this in the future. He said perpetuity does not really mean forever, because there is nothing that cannot be changed by the legisiature, the State, or the people of the State. In this case, he said, "perpetuity" means a vested property right, as permanent as it can be made. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this issuehas become so mired in detail that its significance as an important policy'decision for the rural area has been lost. He said many people in the development business are watching to see how the Board handles this decision. He said the staff is concerned about clustering and its effect on the density in rural areas and the Planning Commission was unable to recommend either approval or denial of this request. Mr. Lindstrom said the by-right development would fix the density of this area at a steady level and he does not think this density would change regard- less of the County's laws in the future. The permanent density of this property would be 68 building units under a by-right development. On the other hand, the density proposed for the special use permit is considerably higher on the part of the property where thei~development is clustered. He said he thinks it likely, in view of the applicant's limiting the open space easement to 20 years, that the density on th~ rest of the property will increase as well. This potential increase in density is something the Board should consider as it sets policy tonight, Mr. Lindstrom said.. Once this door to the use of rural areas is opened, he said, it will be difficult to close. He said he has heard of a number of property owners with applications ready to submit to the County for development schemes similar to the one proposed by Mrs. Rosenstiel. He said he thinks members of the Board must be sure that they are comfortable with increasing the density in the rural areas, even where there is no guaran- tee that the balance of the property will be left in open space. He said the Planning Commission is working on a clustering provision which will be considered as part of the revision to the Comprehensive Plan. If the County is to adopt the approach proposed by Mrs. Rosenstiel, he said, he would feel more comfortable adopting the approach after its impact upon the County has been considered as part of the comPrehensive Plan review. Finally, Mr. Lindstrom said, he is concerned that any change in the development procedures do not create market incentives for further develop- ment. He said he thinks clustering arrangements clearly create a market incentive and will encourage development of [he rural areas. Mr. Perkins said he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Lindstrom. He said the cluster arrangement is more marketable and he sees nothing wrong with that, but he thinks the landowner should be Willing to trade something off for this increased marketability. He said he thinks the balance of the property should not be developed for more than 20 years. He said he does not have any problem with allowing the Rosenstiel tract to. retain one development right. He said he does not care whether the County or the Virginia Outdoors Founda- tion holds the open space easement, but he does think the easement should be 458 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) perpetual. He said he thinks the uses of this property should be limited, but he does not mind allowing uses such as day camps and riding camps. He said he agrees with the applicant that the fence in question should be a single fence maintained by the farmer and any planting along this fence should be done for beautification. Mr. Perkins said he does have a problem with Item #4 in the applicant's proposed Deed of Easement, which reads: "Management of timber shall be in accord with sound forestry practices under a plan subject to approval by the Grantee. Selective cutting may be practiced so as not to alter the character of forest lands". He said "selective cutting" usually means the landowner cuts the best trees and leaves the junk. He said he would like to have the wording revised to state that the management of the timber shall be in accord with sound forestry practices under a plan subject to approval by the Virginia Department of Forestry" Mr. Bowie said he hopes that 20 years does not pass as quickly as several people have said this evening, because 20 years is all the time he has left in this world. He said he has no problem with retaining one division right on the Rosenstiel tract. He said he would prefer that the open space easement be granted to the County, because he does not want the future of this County to be decided in Richmond. He thinks the limit of 20 years is fair. He said he thinks the issue has been simplified to who gets the easement on the open space and for how long. Mrs. Cooke said she has a problem with the limit off'20 years. She said everybody quotes Mr. Jefferson, but things move much faster now than they did in his day. If Mr. Jefferson were alive today, she said, he probably would think 20 years Was not long enough, either. She said she would prefer a limit of 40 or 50 years. Mr. Bain said he understands from Mr. St. John that the Board cannot make it a condition of approval that the easement be granted in perpetuity, or for that matter, for any longer than 20 years. Mrs. Cooke asked if there were any way to change the limit of 20 years. Mr~ St. John said the only way to change this is for the applicant to volun- tarily change the limit, stating that the limit is being ~hanged without coercion or duress. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the request must be treated as if there were no restriction on the balance of the property except for the suggested Deed of Easement. He suggested that the Board hold a straw vote on how members feel about accepting an easement with a 20 year limit. If thel vote fails, then he thinks the Board should proceed as if there were no easement offered to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or the County, and determinel if there is support for this request on these grounds. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom that the Board n9t accept in princi- ple the application for 68 clustered lots, with the balance to be restricted for a 20 year period only. If the majority of the Board is unwilling to support~the principle of clustering with the 20 year limit on the open space easement, Mr. Lindstrom said, the Board will have to move to a different set of considerations. If the majority supports this principle, then there are details and conditions that will have to be addressed. Without a straw vote, hei~said, he fears that the issue will become bogged down in a morass of extraneous detail. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll wa~ called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. Before he voted, Mr. Perkins said he would like a longer limit on the open space easement. If voting "aye" means that the by-right development will come about, he cannot support the motion. He asked Mrs. Rosenstiel if she would grant the open space easement for longer than 20 years. Mrs. Rosenstiel said she can give the Board only her time. July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 459 Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this request confronts the Board with a substantial increase in the density on a rural tract of land and the likeli- hood that the balance of the property will be developed in the foreseeable future. The alternative by-right development would insure a density that is more compatible with rural use. He said he supports clustering, but he wants to be sure that the balance of the property will remain open space for a significant period of time. He does not consider 20 years to be significant. Mr. Way said it does not seem to him unreasonable that a board of super- visors will be able to make decisions concerning the development of the rest of the property. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has approved development on Route 29 North under pressure. He said the Board has approved developments throughout the County that were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because, on a site-by-site basis, the Board faced pressures resulting in approval. He said approving this request will open the door to increased density in the rural area, an area without roads or services. He said approving this request will cost the County in terms of the services it will have to provide and the damage suffered by the environment. Mr. St. John said the County already has criteria for a special use permit for this kind of density in the RA district. He said comparing the by-right development with the clustering arrangement is not part of this criteria. He said the Planning Commission considered the special use permit on its own merits. He said it is a change in policy to make the comparison between by-right development and the proposed development the most important factor in deciding whether to approve the request. Mr. Way said it is obvious the Board is faced with a tied vote, which means the request cannot be approved, unless a member of the Board changes his or her mind. Mrs. Cooke said she has lived in the County for a long time and has seen how rapid growth can be and the problems it brings. Perhaps it is more difficult, she said, for people to understand this if they have not lived here for a long time. Twenty years ago, she said;i she would never have believed that Route 29 North could look the way it does now, and the change seems to have taken place in the blink of an eye. She said the plan the applicant has presented is beautiful, but she cannot support the request with the limit of 20 years on the open space easement. Mr. Bain said he thinks changes in land use policy should be based upon a consideration of the County as a whole, rather than just one piece of prop- erty, so he would move to deny the application. He said he regrets that the revision of the Comprehensive Plan has taken so long and knows that the delay is hard on concerned citizens, but he thinksthis is where changes of this sort must occur, not on a piece-by-piece basis. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the special permit, with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the restrictions proposed by Mrs. Rosenstiel tonight and b~ her attorney and proffered for 20 years and with the recommended changes mn the deed restrictions proposed by the staff. He said there must be a positive motion to dispose of this matter and an- nounced that he does not intend to vote for t~e motion. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.! Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins and Way. ~ NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstromi The Chairman announced that the motion is defeated and the request is denied. (Note: At 9:02 P.M. the Board recessed. The meeting reconvened at 9:14 P.M.) 460 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-35. Dana Slater. To locate a single wide mobile home on 21.46 acres, zoned RA. Property on north side of Route 605, approximately 1.4 miles west of its intersection with Route 743. Tax Map 20, Parcel lC. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5 and July 12, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: Route 605 has scattered residences inter- mixed with forest and farm land. The property itself is an overgrown field in the front one-third of the property. The middle third is new growth of small pines while the rear one-third is heavily wooded in mature deciduous trees and pine. The mobile home is to be located in the mature growth. No dwellings are visible from the site. Currently there are three mobile homes within a onermile radius of this property. Staff Comment: Two letters of objection have been received concern- ing this petition stating a general objection and a concern of depreciating property values. The applicant intends to reside in the mobile home and not to use it as a rental unit. The applicant further intends toconstruct a house on the property in two to three years. Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions. 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 30 days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; ~ Provision of a potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping~and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction ~f the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. ~ Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meetihg on July 12, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of the request, with the staff's recommended conditions. ~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicants wished to address the Board. Ms. Dana M. Slater said the mobile home is currentlyl located on Route 53 near the Mount Eagle Baptist Church and meets all County~requirements for skirting and anchoring. She said she and the co-applicant, Ms. Cynthia J. Dotson, have planted about 80 hardwood trees, such as pecan, English butternut and black walnut, in the front two acres of the propertyand intend to keep the property in forestal use. She said she has no objections to any of the conditions. Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant planned to build a permanent home. The applicant said "yes". Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant w,uld object to July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 461 another condition, stating that the mobile home must be removed after the permanent home has been built. She said "no" Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Bowie, to approve SP-88-35 with the five conditions of the Planning Commission, and a No. 6 reading: "The mobile home must be removed from the property at the time a permanent residence is built." There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: Conditions of approval are set out in full below: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; 3. 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; 4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia~Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; 5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening ~hall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it shouldidie; 6. The mobile home must be removed from the property at the time a permanent residence is built. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-88-38. H. Wayne Elliott. To conduct a Home Occupation, Class B, for computer software business, on property zoned R-2. Property at intersection of Huntington Road and Carrsbrook Drive in Northfields Subdivision. Tax Map 62A3, Parcel N14. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress !on July 5 and July 12, 1988.) Mr. Home gave the following staff's re~ort; "Character of the Area: Property is loc!ated in the rear portion of the Northfields Subdivision on a wooded !lot. Staff Comment: This is a proposal to al~low a computer software occupation in the basement of an existinlg dwelling. The only employ- ees are Mr. Lambert and his sister. Mr. Lambert's occupation involves no sales on the site and all materials and products are received and distributed through either the U. S. Mail or other parcel carriers. There will be no change to the exterior of the house and the applicant states there will be no noise or pollution generated by this use~ The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that access is adequate. Four letters of objection have been received concerning this peti- tion. Concerns state deed restrictions and loss of residential character as well as the occupation constituting a nuisance. The County has no authority to enforce private deed restrictions. Approval or disapproval of this petitionlshall in no fashion be deemed to affect the posture regarding deed restrictions. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Section 5.2 and 31.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and that the character of the district will not be changed. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions: 462 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Such occupation may be conducted within the dwelling provided that not more than 25 percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one sign. There shall be no sales on the premises. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neigh- borhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street. The home occupation shall comply with performance standards set forth in section 4.14. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its~meeting on July 12, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of the request, subject to the staff's recommended Conditions. Mr. Bowie noted that in a letter to Mr. William Fritz, Mr. Lambert proffered "to place no signs anywhere on the exterior of the house". He why this proffer is not included in the recommended conditions of approval. He also asked why there is no time limit set on approval and no condition would prohibit transferring this use to a later owner or renter of the property. Mr. Horne said he does not remember why the conditions do not take advantage of the applicant's proffer concerning signs. He said the Planning Commission felt the impact of this special permit would be so negligible and there was no reason to set a time limit. He said transferring the use was never discussed. He said it seems unlikely that this very specialized occupa- tion, the only occupation permitted at this address, would lend itself to b~ing expanded by someone else. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the ~Pplicant wished to address the Board. Mr. Mark Lambert said he does not wish his business to be visible to the neighborhood and there is no need for any kind of exteriar sign. He said his business is mostly with colleges and customers that are not in this area, so there is no need for any kind of local advertising. He ~aid he respects his neighbors' concerns about the quality of the neighborhood, but his business i~ a quiet one, involving only his family and two cars. Since there was no one else who'wished to speak concerning this applica- tion, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the m~/tter before the Board. Mrs. Cooke said this property lies in her district ~nd she has asked the staff whether any other special permits have been issued lin this area, includ- ing Northfields subdivision, Carrsbrook subdivision and Wakefield subdivision. She said no such permits have been issued in this area. iShe said Mr. Horne has said there are some businesses carried on in this arena without special permits, but obviously the Board can do nothing about thi~ until the nei object. She said she believes the neighbors are the ones, who should decide whether to enforce their deed restrictions. She said she:~will not support this, because the area is residential and not conducive to home occupations. If the Board approves a special use permit in this case, she said, she be- lieves more such requests will follow and destroy the neighborhood. She said this request should be handled by the Northfields Neighborhood Association. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to deny SP-88-38. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said this is a difficult decision for him, because there are apparently people with home businesses who have been ~ess honest and forthright than the applicant and he does not want to encourage dishonesty. July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 463 He said the compatibility of the use requested with the surrounding uses concerns him; this use is not consistent with the deed restrictions. He said he is also concerned that this is a rental property and he thinks any home occupation should be under the direct control of the owner of the property. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie said he is not sure he supports the policing by neighborhood associations of County regulations. He said he doubts Mr. Lambert's business will take up any more space in his house than Board paperwork takes up in his own home. He commended the applicant for following the proper procedures and asked why, if it is known that other people may be violating these regula- tions, the County staff is not checking on them. Mr. Agnor said the County investigates such violations if the neighbors bring them to the attention of the County. Mr. Perkins asked what would happen to Mr. Lambert's business if the Board denied the request. Mrs. Cooke said a denial would not shut down his business; there are plenty of business offices to rent. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-88-49. Wilbur J. Wright. To locate a double wide mobile home on two acres, zoned RA. Property on southeast corner of Route 663 and Route 664 intersection. Tax Map 19, Parcel 12C1. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5 and July 12, 1988.) It was ascertained that the applicant was not present. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and-seconded by Mr. Bowie to A~fer this petition to September 7, 1988. There was no further discussion. 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. Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-87-03. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 4.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify lot regulations as it relates to lot frontage and lot width measurements. (Advertised in the Daily Progress July 5 and July 12, 1988.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "As previously discussed with the Board ~of Supervisors, the purpose of ZTA-87-03 in conjunction with STA-87-01 ~is to clarify and make consis- tent the provisions for lot frontage and lot width measurements in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. This ordinance as currently drafted reflects the preliminary decision made by the Board of Super- visors at their meeting of June 8, 1988,' to adopt ZTA-87-03 with the reduction in frontage on cul-de-sacs being limitedto zones other than the RA, Rural Areas. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are contained in Section 3.0 Definitions and in Section 4.6 Lot Regula- tions. The Zoning Ordinance amendments are as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS Frontage - The continuous uninterrupted distance along which a parcel abuts a single adjacent roadror street. Cul-de-sac A vehicular turnaround area at the end of a dead-end street provided for the purpose of safe and convenient reverse of traffic in one continuous forward movement. 464 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meetin (Page 13) Easement - A right possessed by the owner of one parcel, of land by reason of ownership of such parcel to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property rights of that owner. 4.6 LOT REGULATIONS 4.6.1 FRONTAGE ANDLOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS 4.6.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.6, every lot shall front on an existing public street, or a street dedicated by subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance with section 18-36 of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle. 4.6.1.2 Except as specifically permitted in this section~ frontage shall not be less than required by the regulations of the district in which the lot or parcel is located. a. Frontage on a public street cul-de-sac or on a private road cul-de-sac may be reduced to not less than fifty (50) feet~ except that this reduction shall not be permitted in the RAp Rural Areas zonSng district~ provided that driveway separation shall be in accor- dance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. b. For a lot located at the end of an access easement, frontaKe shall not be less than the full width of such easement. 4.6.1.3 Minimum lot width shall be measured at th~ building setback line and shall be at least the same width!as the frontage required for the district in which such 16t is located. Lot width shall not be reduced under 4.6.1.1. 4.6.3.2 Other yards adjacent to streets shall have a minimum width or depth, a$-the-ea~e-may-be;-o~-e~ghty-~SO)-pereen~-~ equal to the minimum front yard depth required in the district in which the lot is located. Th~s provision ,s, hall apply to lots in the RA or residential districts only. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak concerning these amendments. Since no one wished to speak, Mr. Way closed public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. St. John suggested that the last four words of ~he definition of easement be changed to "of the latter owner". Members of'i the Board agreed that this change would improve the clarity of the definition. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to a the amendments with the additional amendment mentioned by Mr. St. John. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie said they stood by the arguments each pre- sented during the last meeting this item was discussed. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom. NAYS: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins, and Way. ~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by?Mr. Perkins to approve ZTA-87-03 with removal of the offending language in 4.6.1.2(a) that the reduction shall not be permitted in the RA, Rura! Areas, zoning July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 465 district." by adopting the following ordinance. There was no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. Messrs. Bain and Lindstrom. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED UNDER ZTA-87-03, LOT REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following sections shall be added to, amended, reenacted, or repealed in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows: Under Section 3.0, Definitions: Add a definition of Cul-de-sac to read: A vehicular turn- around area at the end of a dead-end street provided for the purpose of safe and convenient reverse of traffic in one continuous forward movement. Add a definition of Easement to read: A right possessed by the owner of one parcel of land by reason of ownership of such parcel to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property rights of that owner. Amend the definition of Frontage to read: The continuous uninterrupted distance along which a parcel abuts a single adjacent road or street. Under Section 4.6, Lot Regulations, repeal the existing 4.6.1 and in its place, put the following: 4.6.1 FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS 4.6.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.6, every lot shall front on an existing public street, or a street dedicated by subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department df Transportation, except that private roads shall be p~rmitted in accordance with section 18-36 of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle. 4.6.1.2 Except as specifically permitted in this section, frontage shall not be less than required by the regula- tions of the district in which the lot or parcel is located. Frontage on a publi~ street cul-de-sac or on a private road cul-de-sac may be reduced to not less than fifty (50) feet', provided that driveway separation shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. For a lot located at the end of an access ease- ment, frontage shall not be less than the full width of such easement. 4.6.1.3 Minimum lot width shall be measured at the building setback line and shall be at least the same width as the frontage required for~the district in which such lot is located. Lot width shall not be reduced under section 4.6.1.1. Amend Section 4.6.3.2 to read as follows: 4.6.3.2 Other yards adjacent to streets shall have a minimum depth, equal to the minimum front yard depth required 466 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) in the district in which the lot is located. This provision shall apply to lots in the RA or residential districts only. Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-88-1. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify parking regulations for commercial uses. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5 and July 12, 1988.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows: "Origin: Planning staff, Zoning Administrator Public Purpose To Be Served: Provided uniform language to insure consistent application of regulations. Staff Comment: These amendments were developed by Planning and Zoning to clarify application of parking regulations to commercial uses. These require- ments differ from other localities in that a sliding scale is pro- vided. This assumes that parking demand declines somewhat with the Size of the use. Also these requirements apply to ~retail sales area' as opposed to gross floor area which in staff opinion is a more accurate determinant for parking demand. Staff recommends the following actions: 1. ADD TO 3.0 DEFINITIONS: Retail Sales Area: That portion of the net fl6or area of a commercial use devoted to the display and/or s~le of merchandise to the public. Storage of inventory, offices,~iand other such areas not devoted to the sale and/or display of merchandise shall not be considered as retail sales area. ADD TO 4.12.6.6 REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Except as otherwise permitted by the planning commission pursuant to 4.12.4~ provisions of section 4.12.6.6.1 and section 4.12.6.6.2 shall apply to any determination as~to the required number of off-street parking sPaces tobe provtlded in a particu- lar case. ~i. Where the term 'retail sales area' is employed~ either: (a) a figure of 0.80 of the gross floor area shall be employed; or (b) the applicant shall submit floor plans which d~lineate the retail sales area~ in which case, such floor plans sh~!l be binding as to ultimate usage. 3. AMEND 4.12.6.6.1 AS FOLLOWS: a. For each commercial nsem use of a retail ~haracter: One (1) space per each one hundred (100) square feet of retail sales for the first five thousand (5,000) square'feet and one (1) space for per each two hundred (200) squar~ feet of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) squ~re feet. AMEND 4.12.6.6.2 AS FOLLOWS: ~ Shopping Center (Planned Development - Shopping!Center District Only): Five and one-half (5 1/2) spaces per each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable floor areA. Building Material Sales: One (1) space per fiv& hundred (500) square feet of retail sales d~ptay area. Feed and Seed Store: One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales and d~sptay area. July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 467 Furniture Store: One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of retail sales area." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 7, 1988, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-88-1 as set out above. Mr. Horne said the staff has received many site plans for what are clearly intended to be retail uses, but the applicants want to put up shell buildings. When faced with such site plans, the staff has two options: guess what the retail use is to be, because the retail use determines the parking regulations, or apply an arbitrary gross floor area. He said the Commission is concerned about these practices, because in many cases, the applicants run out of parking spaces before they have finished leasing all of their business or commercial space. The remaining business space cannot be used until one of the existing commercial spaces changes its use to something that needs fewer parking spaces. He said this proposed amendment would encourage applicants to submit floor plans that show the precise use of that square footage. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak concerning these amendments. Since no one wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve ZTA-88-1 by adopting the following ordinance. There was no further discus- sion. 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. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set,lout in full below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED UNDER ZTA-88-01, pARKING REGULATIONS RELATED TO COMMERCI~ USES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following sections be added to, amended, and reenacted in the Albemarle County Zoning. Ordinance to read: In Section 3.0, Definitions, add a idefinition of "Retail Sales Area" to read: ~ That portion of the net floor area%f a commercial use devoted to the display and/or sale of merchandise to the public. Storage of inventory, offices, and other such areas not devoted to the sale and/or display of merchandise shall not be considered as retail sales area. In Section 4.12.6.6, Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces, add the following language: Except as otherwise permitted by the commission pursuant to section 4.12.4, provisions of section 4.12.6.6.1 and section 4.12.6.6.2 shall apply to any determination as to the required number of off-street parking spaces to be provided in a particu- lar case. Where the term "retail sales area" is employed, either: (a) a figure of 0.80 of the gross floor area shall be employed; or (b) the applicant shall submit floor plans which delineate the retail sales area, in which case, such floor plans shall be binding as to ultimate usage. In Section 4.12.6.6.1, Determination of Number of Parking Spaces Required for Unspecified Uses, Subparagraph (a), amend language to read: For each commercial use of a rAtail character: One (1) space per each one hundred (100) square feet of retail sales 468 July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) for the ~first five thousand (5,000) square feet and one (1) space per each two hundred (200) square feet of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet. In Section 4.12.6.6.2, Schedule of Specific Requirements for Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces, amend the following definitions to read: Building Material Sales: One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales area. Feed and Seed Store: One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales area. Furniture Store: One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of retail sales area. Shopping Center (Planned Development - Shopping Center District Only): Five and one-half (5 1/2) spaces per each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable floor area. Agenda Item No. 11. Jordan Development Corporation, extend contract to purchase Scottsville School. Mr. Agnor explained that the contract between Jordan Development Corpora- tion and the County expires on July 29, 1988. The staff~'has received a verbal commitment from Uniroyal-Goodrich to sell the County 5.29 acres of land, but this has not been committed to in writing. Also, a new asbestos inspection was made and it was found that the 1985-86 asbestos removal did not meet current standards. While staff continues to pursue options, it is requested that the contract be extended to December 31, 1988. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr ~indstrom to extend the Jordan Development Contract to December 31, 1988. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~rom, Perkins and Way None. ~ Agenda Item No. 12. Statement of Appeal to Highwayi!Commissioner Secondary Road Six-Year Plan. The subject of this item was a letter of appeal to the State Highway Commissioner relating to the Board's wish to delete fromi~the Six-Year Highway Plan a project to replace the bridge on Route 671 over the Moormans River. A draft letter had been prepared by the staff. After suggesting several changes, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom an~ seconded by Mr. Bowie authorizing the Chairman to sign the letter on behalf of the Board. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: i AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~rom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Reorganization Deputy County!~xecutive Staff Assignments. ~ Mr. Agnor presented to the 'Board members a new General Government organ- izational chart showing a change in the Deputy County Executive assignments. The departments of Finance and Police will be moved from lhe supervision of the Deputy for Administration and Public Safety to the Deputy for Physical and Human Development. The departments of Inspections, Parks and Recreation, and Social Services will then be transferred from the supervision of the Deputy for Physical and Human Development, to the Deputy for Administration and July 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 469 Public Safety. The Office of the Watershed Management Official will be transferred to the direct responsibility of the County Executive. He requested concurrence of the Board in the changes. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the changes proposed. 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. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: April 3 (Afternoon) and July 17 (Afternoon), 1985; and November 18, 1987. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for April 3 (Afternoon), 1985, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for November 18, 1987, Page 12 beginning with Item #7 to the end, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve those minutes which had been read. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie,_Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed On the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie said the Planning District Commission had been made aware of a requested change in the NPDES permit issued to Nimbus Records in Greene County. Their original request said discharge would be 4.4 miles from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority public drinking water supply intake. The request has now been changed, and he asked that staff keep an eye on this matter. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to July 27~ 1988, at 7:30 P.M. At 10:20 P.M., motion was offered by Mr~ Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn this meeting until July 27, 1988. There was no further discussion. 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.