1987-08-05August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 5, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in the Auditorium, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs.
Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive;
Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of
Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
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. Way, to accept the items on the Consent Agenda as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 4.1. Letter dated July 15, 1987, from Senator Paul Trible,
stating that resolutions authorizing the Corps of Engineers to study flood
control and navigation projects for the James River passed the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, received as foIlows:
"July 15, 1987
Mr. Guy B. Agnor
Albemarle County Administrator
401Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Guy:
I am pleased to inform you that two resolutions I sponsored authoriz-
ing the Corps of Engineers to study flood control and navigation
projects for the James River have passed the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
As you know, in the last 18 years, the James River Basin has been
ravaged by flooding on three occasions. Although a floodwall is
under construction at Scottsville, and studies are underway for a
Richmond floodwall, the potential for damage remains and a comprehen-
sive regional solution is needed.
The study by the Corps will be a significant step toward the preven-
tion of future flood problems. The major localities along this river
system include Richmond, Scottsville, Lynchburg, Glasgow, Buena
Vista, Lexington, Eagle Rock, Clifton Forge, Buchanan, and Covington.
The Corps will also study potential navigational improvements for the
James River from Hampton Roads to Richmond. At present, the James
cannot accommodate the vessel traffic the area demands.
I will continue to monitor the efforts to improve flood control and
navigation on the James. Please call om me if you have any questions
or concerns regarding the Corps' activities. I look forward to
hearing from you if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Paul Trible"
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item No. 4.2. Letter dated July 22, 1987 from Sarah McConnell, News
Director for WINA-WQMC, re: Special Citizens' Forum to discuss the Route 29
North corridor, proposed bypasses and related traffic issues, received as
information.
Item No. 4.3. Letter dated July 21, 1987, from HighWay Commissioner, Mr.
Ray D. Pethtel, stating that the Commonwealth Transportation Board passed a
resolution designating Routes 601, 676 and 614 in Albemarle County as a
Virginia Byway, received as follows:
"July 21, 1987
Designation of Routes 601, 676 and 614 in
Albemarle County As A Virginia Byway
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Fisher:
This is to advise you that on July 16, 1987, the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Board passed a Resolution designating Routes 601, 676, and
614 in Albemarle County as a Virginia Byway.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner"
Item No. 4.4. Planning Commission minutes for July 21, 1987, received as
information.
Item No. 4.5. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month
of June, 1987, received as information.
Item No. 4.6. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
dated July 30, 1987, re: 911 Center's Management Board recommendation to
establish an "enhanced telephone system" known as an automatic telephone
locator system, received as follows:
"The attached memorandum from the Manager of the 911 Dispatch Center
addressed to my office describe recommendations from the Center's
Management Board to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to
establish an Enhanced 911 Service, which is an automated telephone
locator system to provide information about the location of any
telephone being used to call 911. You may have read of City Coun-
cil's action last week to set a public hearing in early August on
this matter.
Since such a system has additional items to be considered in the
County, which are not issues in the City, that relate to the method,
time, and costs associated with locating telephones Wtilizing the
County's building locator grid system, the County staff is preparing
a supplementary report to the attached memorandums, which will
explain the County's responsibilities in considering ~this automated
system. As soon as this supplementary report is completed, the 911
Board's recommendations will be placed on your agenda for your
consideration. In the interim, the attached memorandums are forwarded
for your information."
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the Board is scheduled to d~scuss this item.
Mr. Tucker said it will probably be at the September 9 meeting.
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item No. 4.7. Second Quarterly Building Report for 1987 as prepared by
the Department of Planning and Community DeVelopment, received and on file.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-87-4. Health Resort. Blanka S. Rosenstiel
petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend 10.0, RA, Rural Areas zone to
include HEALTH RESORT by special use permit and to amend 3.0 Definitions to
include health resort. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 21 and
July 28, 1987.)
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report:
"Petition: Blanka S. Rosentiel petitions the Board of Supervisors to
amend 10.0 RA, Rural Areas zone to include HEALTH RESORT/FARM by
special use permit and to amend 3.0 Definitions to include health
resort.
Definition: The applicant initially proposed the following language
to define health resort/farm:
Exhibit A
Definition:
Health Resort/Farm
A tract or parcel of land containing a minimum of 100 acres,
with improvements, on which is operated a facility or faci-
lities in which guests in residence will be offered super-
vised exercise, medical, wellness and recreational activi-
ties, which may include one or more of equipped gymnasiums,
swimming pools, tennis courts, jogging and riding and hiking
trails or paths, and other like activities, together with
classes and professionally supervised educational activities
and planned on-site meals, designed and intended to improve
or maintain the physical fitness and health of paying
guests. Such facility may include.~guest rooms and adjacent
dining facilities for its guests, but shall not be used for
normal transient guests not participating in such exercise,
educational or recreational programs and classes.
Staff met with the applicant to discuss changes to the proposed
definition. Basically, regulatory language and description of
detailed improvements would be removed from the definition and
included in new supplementary regulation in Section 5.0. Attempt is
also made to distinguish health resort from other uses.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
HEALTH RESORT: One or more parcels of land on which may be located
one or more buildings or structures and other improvements where
guests in residence are offered supervised exercise, medical, well-
ness, and recreational activities together with classes and profes-
sionally supervised educational activities designed and intended to
improve or maintain the physical fitness and health of paying guests;
but expressly excluding hospitals, nursing homes, drug and/or alcohol
rehabilitation centers and other intensive health care facilities.
5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.30 HEALTH RESORT
This provision is intended to accommodate guests in residency
while such guests are participating in exercise, educational or
recreational programs and classes but shall not be deemed to
permit the lodging of guests or transients not participating in
such programs or classes;
Health Resort may include varied types of dwelling units for
guests together with related uses such as but not limited to:
medical clinics; recreational facilities, administrative and
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ce
professional offices; retail shops and service businesses; and
restaurants, cafeteria; and other food services, Such uses may
be permitted as expressly approved in special use permit review
and shall be designed and operated for the convenience of guests
and employees of the resort. As to recreational facilities,
such uses and improvements as equipped gymnasiums, swimming
pools, tennis courts, hiking and/or jogging trails, bicycle
and/or horse riding trails, and like activities and improvements
normally associated with physical fitness activities may be
permitted consistent with appropriate provisions of 5.0 SUPPLE-
MENTARY REGULATIONS and other provisions of this ordinance; but
expressly prohibited shall be: uses and activities involving
motorized vehicles except to the extent as necessary for mainte-
nance and normal operation of the facility; and uses and activi-
ties involving discharge of firearms. Other uses and accessory
uses may be established in accordance with the regulations of
the applicable zoning district;
Minimum area required for the establishment of a health resort
shall be one hundred (100) acres;
Medical services shall not include surgical care or treatment of
disease or injury; provided that emergency first-aid care and
diagnostic services may be permitted;
In addition to criteria of 31.2.4.1, any health resort proposed
on property located within the RA, Rural Areas district shall be
reviewed in accordance with 10.5.2.
Staff Comments:
Definition: A resort is an area or place frequented bY people for
relaxation and recreation. While resorts may seek either rural or
urban location (dependent on character and intent), resorts generally
include a broad range of activities and amenities for indulgence of
patrons. Resorts are clearly commercial uses generally relying on
nonlocal or vacation patronage. Health resort as described by the
applicant includes a regimen ofexercise and other activities, diet,
and instructional programs.
Attempt has been made to narrowly define health resort to avoid the
term being construed as including a broad range of similar uses.
Specifically, intensive health care facilities are expressly excluded.
However, it may prove difficult to justify permitting~.health resort
in a zoning district and not permitting similar uses such as recuper-
ative/rehabilitative centers, executive retreats, and~rest homes; or
uses component to health resort (i.e. - health spa).
RA, Rural Areas District: Health resort is a use normally antici-
pated in a rural setting. Similar, related or component uses
currently permitted in the RA zone are: swim, golf, tennis or
similar athletic facilities; motels and inn; and restaurants (limited
circumstances).
Most uses in the RA zone are agricultural/agriculturally-related and
residential with limited support uses. Effort was made in developing
the RA zone to encourage agriculture/forestry and to discourage uses
not viewed as compatible to agriculture/forestry. Uses permitted in
the prior A-1 zone not found in the RA zone include: ~professional
offices; country clubs; hospitals; executive offices (~100 acre
minimum; maximum 15 employees); radio/television stations~ and homes
for adults. In a November 1986 Comprehensive Plan work session
report, staff stated that 'effort was made to increase the number of
agricultural uses permitted by right under the 1980 Zoning Ordinance.
However, in view of existing subdivision development and environ-
mental concerns, only limited changes were made. Some uses (currently)
included in the RA zone bear little or no relationship~to the state-
ment of intent and need not be permitted (based on other zoning
provisions) in the RA zone. These are basically uses permitted by ,
special use permit, such as motels, restaurants, and public garages.
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
The statement of intent of the RA zone speaks primarily of the rela-
tionship of agricultural and residential development. Agriculture is
to be encouraged while only limited residential development is to be
permitted. Commercial uses are not discussed. Staff opinion is that
health resort bears no relation to the continuation/promotion of
agriculture/forestry. Since patronage would be primarily nonlocal,
health resort is not viewed as a support use to existing rural
development.
Summary and Recommendation
In recent Comprehensive Plan work sessions, the Planning Commission
reaffirmed a growth management policy f~r the Rural Areas intended
to:
Deliver public services in an orderly fashion and in the most
cost-efficient manner;
Conserve the County's natural, scenic and historic resources;
Protect existing and future water mupply impoundment watersheds
and groundwater resources; and
Preserve the County's prime and important farmlands and forestal
areas.
Such policy may be difficult to sustain if uses are permitted in the
RA zone that bear little or no relationship to the policy. In view
of this policy and due to extensive acreage requirements, traffic
generation, and other considerations, staff has recommended that
health resort be reviewed under the RA subdivision special permit
criteria in addition to the requirements of 31.2.4.1.
In summary, staff opinion is that health resort is a use normally
anticipated in a rural setting but health resort appears foreign to
the statement of intent of the RA zone. Therefore, staff views the
proposed amendment as a policy decision by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors as to the future character of the Rural
Areas.
Addendum - ZTA-87-04, Health Resort
The staff report has focused on the relationship of health resort to
the RA, Rural Areas zone. It can be anticipated that uses such as
health resorts will from time to time continue to be proposed in the
County. If health resort is not permitted in the Rural Areas zone
and if health resort is to be permitted elsewhere in the County, then
it would be restricted to designated villages, communities, and/or
the urban area.
Unless a new zoning district were created, health resort would be
permitted in one or more residential, commercial or industrial zones.
Acreage requirements and compatibility issues, in staff opinion,
discount location in commercial or industrial zones. Of the residen-
tial zones available, VR, R-l, and R-2 appear appropriate in terms of
density, setting, and land cost considerations. Given the scale of a
health resort, it would occupy a substantial portion of a Comprehen-
sive Plan village. The R-1 and R-2 zones exclude all but single-
family detached dwelling units 'and are the most limiting residential
districts (in terms of permitted uses). ?Therefore, it may be diffi-
cult to permit health resort in these zones and prohibit other uses
such as duplexes.
The Planning Commission is currently considering expansion of the
urban area in its Comprehensive Plan review to accommodate additional
low-density residential development. Conversion of residential land
to other uses would be contrary to this ~ffort and could result in
additional needs for growth area expansion.
August 5, 1987 (Hegular Meeting)
(Page 6)
As stated in the staff report, in addition to health resort, there
are other uses which generally require large acreages and usually
prefer rural/low density locations. These include: executive
offices/retreat; country club; special schools/training centers like
the Federal Executive Institute and certain recuperative/rehabilita-
tive uses which may involve extensive outdoor activities. As an
alternative to special use permits, the Planning Commission may wish
to consider a special zoning district for health resorts and other
types of uses.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 1987,
unanimously recommended denial of this amendment.
During Mr. Keeler's presentation, Mr. Fisher asked him to explain
criteria 31.2.4.1 and criteria 10,5.2. Mr. Keeler replied that 31.2.4.1. is
general criteria before review for issuance of a special use permit. He
that 10.5.2 are special criteria applicable to subdivisions in rural areas,
which he explained in detail. Mr. Keeler also explained that Health Resort is
not viewed as a support use to existing rural development whereas a day care
center is permitted which is supportive of the rural population by providing a
service. Mr. Keeler said that Mrs. Diehl, of the Planning Commission,
corrected the report saying that what is listed as #4 under Summary and
Recommendation is actually the primary intent of the RA district.
After the presentation, Mr. Keeler directed the Board's attention to a
supplemental packet which indicates by highlighting suggested changes to the
supplementary regulations portion of the staff report. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Keeler who suggested the changes. Mr. Keeler replied that the first page was
a suggestion made by Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, dealing with the
total amount of development of the property; the next page was suggested by
Mr. George Gilliam, representing Mr. Bass; the next two pages submitted by Mr
Fred Landess, representing the applicant, deal with total~impervious coverage,
location of primary roads, and prohibition of permitting a health resort in a
reservoir watershed; the last two pages are a letter from~Mr. Paul Sweet,
Architect and Engineer, whose suggestions deal with density and buffering
noise level and lighting.
At this point, the public hearing was opened with Mr~ Fisher instructing
those who wished to speak to line up behind the person speaking in the inter-
ests of time.
Mr. Fred Landess speaking on behalf of the applicant, introduced several
people who would speak later. Indicating a visual aide, Mr. Landess pointed
out items which are allowed through the issuance of a spedial use permit
within the Rural Areas District. He said a health resort~can be included on
this list under a special use permit without amending the?zoning ordinance as
it stands, but that the applicant felt the uses listed are too broad; the uses
would not give good protection to the area in the event that after getting a
permit the health resort was no longer able to operate; the uses would not
give the County control. Mr. Landess explained that a very tight definition
of a health resort will alleviate the problem where if a health resort was no
longer able to operate, someone else would only have the choice of either
operating a similar health resort or using the land for agricultural purposes.
He said the applicant would prefer a definition so narrow as to allow only one
applicant and one area that would qualify under the definition, but the County
staff did not feel this was appropriate.
Mr. Lawson Drinkard, a partner with ¥ickery, Moje, Drinkard and Oakland
Architects, in Charlottesville, stated the developer retainedVMDO to work on
the project. He said Mr. Zuckerman gave the firm one simple criteria for the
architecture of the health resort. The criteria is: when completed, the
health farm is to look like an example of a Virginia farm, with the building
forms taking the shape of barns, silos, farm buildings, and outbuildings.
With visual aides, Mr. Drinkard briefly explained the procedures necessary for
approval of any proposed project in the County, noting that the County must
have a text amendment in the zoning ordinance which says a health resort can
be developed in an area before any issues concerning the project can be
addressed. Mr. Drinkard explained that the developer is faced with spending a
great deal of money to look at all the issues, but it would not be wise to
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
spend money or time if there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that allows a
health resort.
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner said he was asked by the applicant to help define a
health resort and show how the facility will impact on the County. He said
the Piedmont Environmental Council asked him questions about water, sewer, and
traffic, but since no site specific was determined, he cannot give specifics.
However, he can explain existing sites in relation to understanding the same
relative impact. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out Various areas on an Albemarle
County map that are restricted for development by various zoning requirements.
He said with all the restrictions on development, only about ten percent of
the County is available to the type of development sought. Mr. Gloeckner
listed the various uses and consumption of water in rural areas versus the
uses and consumption of water at a health resort. Mr. Gloeckner said it might
be cheaper to use a water treatment plant, bHt his firm can guarantee that the
waste production from a health resort is less than from a farm. He said he
had been in contact with Virginia Tech (VPI-SU), and he also had environmental
experts advise him what the loadings are on a pasture that is not grazed or
used for livestock of any kind, saying that an unused pasture gives off more
nitrogen, sediment, and biological oxygen demand than a health resort; that
with tertiary treatment, a waste treatment plant can get waste to one-quarter
of what a natural pasture is; with livestock.and solid waste, the factor
becomes 40 times worse from farms than from a health resort. Mr. Gloeckner
said he had done his own traffic analyses when working as an engineer in the
Highway Research Department, and he now estimates approximately 600 vehicles
trips per day for the health resort, noting that the facility in Tucson,
Arizona, generates only 356 vehicle trips per day; the health resort would
generate the same amount of traffic as compa=ed to stables in Albemarle County
such as Barracks Stud and/or Darby's Folly. ~Mr. Gloeckner said the traffic
impact from the health resort would be less actually because of lighter weight
vehicles.
Mr. Fred Landess, who has lived in Albemarle County almost 30 years,
commented that the one constant he has seen ~Uring this time has been a steady
growth and expansion. He said the real questions are what kind of growth does
the County wants to encourage, and how can quality of life best be kept while
maintaining a solid tax base and providing employment for people who would
like to stay in this area. He said a health ~esort as defined by the devel-
oper will help accomplish these goals; a hea~th resort makes no demand for
additional schools, police, or other governmental services; a health resort
does not pollute; in fact, a health resort has less effect on the environment
than normal farming operations. He said, however, a health resort will create
traffic, but no more than those uses now permitted. Mr. Landess said the
developer believes a health resort is compatible with the rural areas, and a
special use permit is the proper procedure to use to develop a health resort
because the facility will provide a low density and non-intensive use of the
land. The health resort will not create visual objections, contrary to state-
ments by opponents. Summarizing, he said a h~alth resort will help maintain
and preserve the type of life that residents of Albemarle County now have and
want to keep, noting the developer is willingto pay the extra costs necessary
to do business in Albemarle County and to comply with all the regulations, but
not willing to incur those costs and then be advised that the business is not
wanted. He said this is why the developer wants to work with the County to
define tightly what a health resort is.
Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant's presentation is now finished. Mr.
Landess replied affirmatively, but asked thatlthey be allowed to respond if
there are specific questions in regard to theiapplicant.
Mr. David van Roijen, of Crest Orchard, said that based on the informa-
available to date he does not believe the Board should support the
concept of health resorts in the rural areas for a number of reasons, but
three in particular. First is the concept of health farms, saying that
perhaps the reason it is not already incorporated in the zoning text of the
Comprehensive Plan is that a health farm is not actually what it seems. Mr.
van Roijen said he read Canyon Ranch's promotional literature carefully and
was struck by the parallels between what Canydn Ranch calls life-share and
what he would call time-share memberships, as-sold at Massanutten and other
resorts. He said if these are time-share memberships they should be called
such and not given preferential treatment because of the fancy name of health
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
farm. Secondly, as an archaeologist, Mr. van Roijen is aware of the effort
being expended by the Virginia Historical Landmark Commission to help the
County identify areas where development would be likely to have significant
impact on historic and prehistoric sites. He mentioned a study completed
several years before which was made availmble to the Planning Commission
indicating areas highly sensitive to development impact, such as the North
Garden/Red Hill area. Mr. van Roijen also mentioned a current study in an
area west of the proposed site completed by a member of the Virginia Research
Council for Archaeology, which further emphasizes the extreme significance of
archaeological sites in the area. Mr. van Roijen said if'historical preserva-
tion is a concern of the County, the County should not allow large development
projects like the health resort without fully exploring what might be lost.
The third reason Mr. van Roijen is concerned about the health resort is the
problem of sewage disposal. Mr. van Roijen said he spoke with the State
Health Department and the State Water Control Board, and he was assured that
based on the size of the project, the health resort would'~need a sewage
treatment plant. He said you do not get tertiary treatment in a septic field.
For 30 years his family has been farming in Fauquier County and an upstream
sewage treatment plant has dumped effluent into a stream that flows through
the farm. His family has endured the death of cattle, calves, sheep and all
aquatic life in the stream, in addition to watching raw sewage and foam from
the treatment plant flow downstream. Mr. van Roijen said~the previous year,
the cattle on the family farm had to be moved to feed lots because of an
accidental chemical leak from the treatment plant. He said after speaking
with the State Water Control Board that monitors the plan~, they were told
problems could be attributed to mismanagement, over use of capacity, and
mechanical malfunction. Mr. van Roijen said this is typical of treatment
plants. Mr. van Roijen commented that the Board should be warned about the
effects the proposed project will have if it is allowed in the rural areas.
He said that if the Board votes for the zoning change requested, they will
also be voting for the stimulation of further developmentiaround the project.
He encouraged the Board to vote against the proposed change.
Ms. Lois Rochester, President of the League of WomenlVoters in
Charlottesville, spoke in opposition to the zoning text amendment, urging the
Board not to add health resorts to the uses permitted in the rural areas
district. Ms. Rochester quoted the intent of the zoning ordinance. Ms.
Rochester said in the League's opinion, health resorts are intensive water
users because of swimming pools, saunas, and showers. She commented that
groundwater in the County is a very unreliable and limited resource, and many
factories developments have experienced water shortages after development was
completed. Ms. Rochester also said that disposal of wastes is another major
obstacle in locating a health resort in a rural area. She noted the County's
experience with packaged sewage disposal plants has been unsatisfactory. Ms.
Rochester concluded by saying the League feels the proposed addition of
resort to the rural areas district is completely opposite!to the statement of
intent for the rural areas district. She said to permit added uses in the
rural areas would set a precedent that could lead to further loss of the goals
and preservation of the County's farm and forestal areas. (Note: A copy of
the complete text is on file in the Clerk's office.) .i
Ms. Shalom Bogardsky, spoke saying she is familiar with Canyon Ranch in
Tucson, Arizona. She said she knows several of the employees at that facility
and people who live near the ranch, saying these people have nothing but good
things to say about Canyon Ranch. Ms. Bogardsky said she feels Canyon Ranch
has a good reputation and that it would be an asset to the Albemarle commu-
nity; it is a credit to the community to allow a place that would bring the
opportunity for better health to the p~ople of the community.
Mr. Lewis Johnson, a resident in the Samuel Miller District, Red Hill
area, spoke to the Board about population density. He said that about 28,000
of the 60,000 people in Albemarle County are concentrated in about 19 square
miles, giving a population density of about two and one-half people per acre,
or about 500 people for 200 acres in the urban area; 32,00.0 people are distri-
buted over 720 squaremiles, giving a density of less than one-tenth of a
person per acre or 14 people for 200 acres; making the population density for
the urban area about 33 times that for the rural area. Mr. Johnson said that
the 500 people for 200 acres for the proposed health resort would be the same
population density as in the urban area. He asked if picking up 200 acres of
urban population and putting it in the middle of the choicest rural area in
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
the County is in accord with anyone's growth plan. He said that as population
density goes up individual freedom declines, and individual freedom is the
reason many people have held onto rural property through tough times; that
what attracted Mr. Zuckerman to Albemarle County is the rural atmosphere, and
that will be destroyed wherever the health farm is allowed to locate.
Ms. Carol Townsend presented the Chairman with a petition in support of
the zoning text amendment, reading the paragraph on the petition, which said
the 769 people who signed the petition fully support the proposed amendment
because it will be an asset and an aesthetically pleasing enterprise. (Note:
The petition is on file in the Clerk's office.)
Ms. Jane Ehrlich, former resident of New York, spoke in opposition to the
proposed zoning text amendment. She spoke of the beauty of the County, the
unspoiled natural beauty minutes from the City, the breathing room and space.
She said people come to Charlottesville to live because it is not like a big
city. Ms. Ehrlich said if the zoning text amendment is approved its effects
would be irreversible; people in other developed areas are fighting against
the social and environmental ills created as a result of unnecessary change.
She said the County should use the lessons of other towns and cities to the
benefit of the County, citing the deterioration in the quality of life in
Princeton, New Jersey, because of approval of one permit that resulted in
dramatic changes. As a real estate person she is not categorically opposed to
development, but she strongly believes it is more important to consider the
long-term, long-range effects of the zoning and planning issue.
Dr. Warren Brown is a resident and practitioner in the Albemarle County
area for 32 years. Dr. Brown said he owns p~operty in the vicinity of Routes
708, 710, and 696. He is strongly in favor Of the County granting a special
use permit to allow the development of the health resort. Dr. Brown stated
his reasons are that the health resort will he a clean development, will not
use up natural resources, will not pollute the atmosphere, will not substan-
tially change the terrain, but will enhance the farm atmosphere. He said as a
traveler on the routes in the area which wil~ serve as access to the proposed
property, it is difficult to see the area where the proposed development will
be located. Dr. Brown said economic advantages should also be considered,
that the area needs jobs, the development will bring in outside money and will
not burden public schools, the public sewage !system, or the public water
supply, and the County will not have to build roads. Dr. Brown said the
developer is only asking for a variance of existing rules, that this will have
nothing to do with what others may or may not do in the County. He said we
live in a world that is undergoing constant change; nothing has been devised
to stop change; that without orderly and positive growth and change in the
County, the County will regress. Dr. Brown urged the Board to consider
favorable action on the request.
Ms. Ann Farris, lives on Route 710, addressed the Board concerning the
roads and the traffic situation. She asked if a facility of the health resort
type is built near a County road, would the road be able to withstand the
Increased traffic flow during construction, or the commuters going to the
facility, or the guests using the facility. She asked if the County road that
would be used would need to be improved, how soon would it take place, and
where the construction and expense fit into the County's Six-Year Highway
Plan. Ms. Farris said she spoke with Mr. Jeff Echols at the Highway Depart-
ment, and was told that roads in the County are classified as tolerable or
non-tolerable. She said that many County roads are considered borderline
tolerable; a 1986 traffic survey of Route 708~ from Route 29 to Route 1010 at
Taylor's Gap, showed a vehicle usage of 254 vehicle trips per day. Ms. Farris
added that the route was labeled borderline tolerable; that having the health
resort in this area would entail extensive road improvements and there is no
money in the current Six-Year Plan for improving Route 708 or other borderline
tolerable roads. Ms. Farris said as a mother and a teacher she is very
concerned about safety of school buses as well as the children who wait for
them at the side of the road. Ms. Farris said she personally believes a
health resort is not in the best interests of the community, and she asked the
Board to consider these points before a decision is made. Ms. Farris then
read a poem she wrote to indicate her opposition to the zoning text amendment.
Ms. Susan Cabell, Chairman of the Economic Development Division of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, read a resolution affirmed by
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
the Board of Directors on May 28, 1987, in which the Chamber of Commerce
resolved that a way be found to include health resorts inthe list of activi-
ties and projects allowed in rural areas. (Note: A copyof the complete text
is on file in the Clerk's office.)
Ms. Peggy Carson, lives on Route 708 in North Garden, and says she has
her house up for sale. It is not selling mostly because of this Board and the
zoning laws. She thinks the community would be lucky to have this resort near
North Garden, and she is in favor of the health resort.
Mr. Rick ?reve, a farmer in the Batesville area, Samuel Miller District,
since 1946, spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning amendment mainly
because he believes it is in contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan. He said
he is not opposed to growth, but is opposed to changing the zoning laws
because a precedent will be set and the County will be breaking faith with the
Plan.
Mr. Norman Sutter, lives in North Garden on Houte 71~, spoke in opposi-
tion to the proposed zoning amendment. He said he has be~n a resident of the
County for only three months. He was brought to the area through the efforts
of a real estate agent who said he would like the quality of life south of
Charlottesville. The area is zoned Rural Areas and he relied on the County's
Comprehensive Plan in purchasing the property. Only three months later, that
is about to change. He noted problems in New York State from which he moved,
and requested the Board to deny the request because it will open the door to
more development in the area.
Mr. Kenneth Ackerman, Executive Director of the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency, read a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of MACAA, on
July 28, 1987, endorsing the Canyon Ranch project. Before reading the resolu-
tion, Mr. Ackerman said the Agency represents people who are not usually
represented and whose choices are often the most limited in the community.
These people include the unemployed and the under-employed, and the resolution
addresses their needs~ The resolution is summarized as follows: The MACAA is
the regional anti-poverty agency dedicated to serve the Cityof Charlottes-
ville, Albemarle County and surrounding counties. To achieve its poverty
reduction and self-sufficiency goal, MACAA conducts employment training and
placement programs. Increased employment opportunity from economic develop-
ment holds the key for many of the dependent poor to become self-sufficient,
If located in Albemarle County the Canyon Ranch Project w~ll provide a signif-
icant number of job opportunities with added benefits and~support services for
employees and additional tax revenues for the County. The resolution also
requests the Board to grant the necessary zoning text amendment for the
establishment of the venture.
Mr. Mort Sutherland, who has lived in North Garden fOr 75 years and is a
former member of the Board of Supervisors, spoke in opposition to the zoning
text amendment in order to preserve the County's farmland~ He noted that the
beauty of the County is in its open land. He asked the Bqard to deny the
zoning change.
Ms. Norma Bartle, a resident of North Garden, summarized her experience
as a member of a board of supervisors in upper New York. .She has inspected
the property in question and she has no problem at all with the health farm
that is proposed for the site. She feels there is a need~for jobs for the
unemployed and underemployed and competition is necessary to raise the level
of salaries in the area, so the tax burden can be shared by all in a more
equitable way. Ms. Bartle urged the Board not to close the door on the
future.
Mr. Charles Lebo, resident of Albemarle County, spoke to urge the Board
to vote favorably on the proposed zoning text amendment. He said the
specifics of the plan can be worked out later, but nothing can be done unless
this zoning text amendment is passed.
Mr. John Redick, President of Citizens for Albemarle, an organization
concerned with protecting the environment of Albemarle County, paraphrased
from a letter the organization sent to the Board recently, as follows: at
their meeting on July 23, 1987, the Board of Directors voted unanimously to
oppose ZTA-87-04; the Board is not against growth in an appropriate location,
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
but is concerned about the proposed location in the rural area zone and the
setting of a precedent which would alter the Comprehensive Plan and make it
easier to adopt future modifications that would seriously weaken the Plan;
once the usage is changed the land will never return to a rural area zone; the
Board of Directors believes this type of zon~ must be protected; this type of
health resort should be located in an area where roads and public water and
sewer are available or will be in the future. Mr. Redick said, personally, he
feels Route 708 is inappropriate for the type of traffic that will be gener-
ated by the proposed health resort. Mr. Hedick urged the Board of Supervisors
to support the Comprehensive Plan and to deny the zoning text amendment, to
preserve the nature of the area.
Ms. Pollie Whitetiel, addressed the Board saying North Garden and Red
Hill have always been a small family community. She feels that if the Board
opens the door to a health resort, the co~unity will lose that feeling
because development begets more development.
Mr. Bob Dennis, President of the Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke
saying the Council sees the issue as what uses are consistent with the rural
area; whether the rural zone is a leftover from planned development or a
holding zone. He said the Council is working with the County during revision
of its Comprehensive Plan, and the Council thinks it might be better to revise
the Plan and then consider what zoning ordinance amendments are needed to
implement the revisions. Mr. Dennis stated the proposed amendment and the
related language contains too much specific detail; it seems to justify a very
specific proposal; if the zoning ordinance i~ to be amended it should be a
broader definition. Another issue that concerns the Council is the appro-
priate scale of any facility in a rural area~working to preserve its rural
atmosphere. Mr. Dennis gave the Board papers containing language from the
Loudoun County Rural Management Plan, which was designed to deal with the
question of scale. Mr. Dennis also submitted material prepared by CH2M Hill,
an engineering firm, dealing with package sewage treatment plants. Mr. Dennis
corr~nented that once a sewage treatment facility is built, it can become a
growth time bomb. He cited a sewage treatmeht plant built in Culpeper to
serve a country club. The country club and the sewage facility have been sold
to a private developer, and the property has,become the nucleus of a new town
in an area where Culpeper does not want one.
Mr. Dave Bass, resident of Red Hill/North Garden, said he feels the real
issue is the Comprehensive Plan. He feels special interests want a special
ordinance that is in violation of the Plan. 'He said the rural areas cannot be
maintained without the protection of the Comprehensive Plan; the benefits of
the proposed amendment must be weighed against the impact on roads, sewage,
and future health problems. Mr. Bass asked that when the Board votes, the
Board consider this high density, large-scale, hotel/resort operation
in a rural area. Mr. Bass quoted from an interview in Vogue given by Mr.
Zuckerman, in which Mr. Zuckerman said a spa ,is everything from a health club,
vacation resort, to a substance abuse center. He asked the Board to protect
the special countryside, historic farms, and rural life all the residents of
the area now enjoy.
Ms. Marilyn Fantino, long-time resident ~of Albemarle County, a teacher,
spoke saying she thinks a lot of people have~a misconception about the health
resort concept. She said when she read the items listed in the Rural Areas
District requiring special use permits, she came across a listing for Day
Camp/Boarding Camp. Ms. Fantino said she believes a health resort is just a
boarding camp for adults. She said she thinks the health resort will fit into
the countryside. She asked the Board that when a vote is taken the Board not
be conservative because sometimes conservative is negative. Ms. Fantino
concluded by commenting on a poem by Robert Frost that says building walls
keeps things in, but also keeps things out.
Mr. Harold Pillar, has lived in southern Albemarle County near Scotts-
ville for 15 years, spoke about the jobs that will be created, the environ-
ment, traffic, rural life in genera], saying the health resort is just a
commercial operation. He mentioned Westchester County, Bucks County, Cooke
County, Pennsylvania, citing that these counties have deteriorated due to the
development in them. Mr. Pillar said that if people want a health resort,
they can go to Fairfax County, Loudoun County and any other county in northern
Virginia. A health resort is not needed here; there is no benefit to this
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
kind of growth; with an increase in population taxes will rise. He urged the
Board to vote against the amendment.
Mr. Jim Duffy, of the Greenwood Citizens Council, stated the Council
Board voted unanimously to urge the Board of Supervisors to oppose the
amendment on the basis that it fails to adequately protect agricultural and
forestry lands in the County.
Mr. Harry Fair, is a resident of Albemarle County, aphysicist, lawyer
and a farmer, and has the largest herd of cattle in the County. He said he
loves the North Garden area. He said he cannot see the area about to be
developed from any public road. He commented that Homestead and White Sulphur
Springs are beautiful resorts; they accommodate thousands'of patrons every
year; and they are all in rural areas.
Mr. Bill McRae, a resident of Albemarle County, said a zoning ordinance
is not intended to be solid, locked in stone, but meant to be a document that
can grow with the County. He said there is language in the zoning ordinance
that allows it to be amended. Mr. McRae cited the two criteria needed for
amendment of a zoning ordinance: 1) must show that there will be no adverse
effects from a new use any greater than from other permitted uses; 2) the new
use must be of the same general character as those already permitted. Mr.
McRae urged the Board not to be afraid to amend text intended to be amended to
grow with the County.
Mr. Bayne Henyon, who lives in the yellow farmhouse at the corner of
Routes 708 and 29, thinks some growth is coming and is in favor of high
quality controlled growth, does not want to see farms chopped up into miles of
asphalt and rows of houses, but the Canyon Ranch project makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Henyon is strongly in support of the health resort.
Ms. Carol Townsend, speaking personally at this time, said even the
Constitution of the United States can be amended when it does not fit the
needs of the people or when it has to be amended. On the tax base issue, Ms.
Townsend said if land goes out of the tax base, it must be picked up someplace
in real estate taxes. Directing her next comment to the opposition, she asked
where the alternatives are for the $30,000,000 investment and the $8,000,000
of taxable income the County will stand to lose if the zoning text amendment
is not approved.
Dr. Bob Fritz, in family practice in the County, teacher at the Univer-
sity of Virginia, said the health resort is a positive and forward step~ it is
a great opportunity to show leadership in the area of health matters. Dr.
Fritz believes the concept of a health resort is great.
Mr. Forrest Marshall, life-long resident of the County, is not opposed to
anything good coming to the County. He said he is in favor of "Yankee"
dollars coming to the County. He urged the Board to vote for the amendment.
Mr. George Gilliam, an attorney representing some North Garden residents
opposed to the Board's adoption of the proposed amendment, handed two papers
to the Board. He said those people hope the Board will vote the ordinance
down, but if it does not, he has changes to suggest in the proposed amendment.
The first page suggests three additions to Section 5.1.30 concerning a two
percent gross land area improvement restriction, a 1,000 foot buffer zone
between adjacent property lines, a wastewater system serviced by a packaged
treatment plant owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority,
with an expected life of 40 years, user-financed by a sinking fund or other
appropriate mechanism. The second page is a list of 11 factors deemed appro-
priate for the Board's consideration concerning impact of traffic generated on
existing roads, height, mass and scale of proposed buildings, effect on views
of neighbors, groundwater depletion, noise generation, intensity of lighting,
whether the proposed development is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan,
availability of public water and sewer services, availability of other sites
in the County, economic impact, and financial stability of~ the applicant. Mr.
Gilliam said he is not advocating the zoning text amendment; he said this is a
"fall-back" position because he hopes the Board defeats the amendment.
Mr. Bruce Hogue, a farmer in the County since 1938, said the County has
been looking for clean businesses and this is one of them. He believes the
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
102
health resort is the type of business the County should encourage; there needs
to be something to make a broader tax base. Mr. Hogue said he hopes the Board
will vote in favor of the amendment.
An unidentified lady said she has lived in Albemarle County 34 years.
She has not spoken to even one person who does not feel this would be a
fantastic opportunity for the County. She thinks this is the greatest thing
to happen in the County for a long time.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The meeting was recessed at 10:00 P.M., and reconvened at 10:14 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said everyone has focused on a single application. He said
the zoning text amendment affects all of the County; the petition that went to
the Planning Con~nission affected over 90 percent of the land in the County.
This zoning text amendment must consider the benefits and detriments to the
whole County and not just one particular area. He has grave reservations
about anything that encourages changes in agricultural/forestal land because
of the limited amount of such land and the fast-growing population in the
County. Mr. Fisher commented that developers look at a change like this with
short-term motivation, and others are concerned about the long-range view;
everyone is speaking to his own interests. Mr. Fisher said he thinks if an
amendment is passed to permit health resorts ~to be approved anywhere in the
County, by any applicant, it must be one that everyone can live with. He does
not think the standards in the present ordinance are adequate for this
purpose. Mr. Fisher commented that a letter to the Board, from Mr. Paul A.
Sweet, speaks compellingly about population density and buffers, and about the
impact of these on neighbors on adjacent property. He believes that any
ordinance that is passed to allow this type df development should have some-
thing in it which limits the density of the development in order to maintain
the rural character of the area, and not affect neighbors; the ordinance
should contain setback requirements to comply with those already in effect for
other athletic facilities, should include hours of operation and noise stan-
dards. Mr. Fisher said if the Board can agree to incorporate some of the
measures stated, he believes this will create a basis for future consideration
of Special Use Permits. He thinks this is t~e most rational approach that can
be taken. ~
Mr. Way said he agrees with much of what Mr. Fisher is saying. Person-
ally, Mr. Way feels the strong points and benefits to the County outweigh any
adverse effects. He agrees that a health resort needs to be defined; the
ordinance is flexible enough to allow this; this type of development will be
beneficial to the County and the Board would ~Be wrong to say this type of
facility will not be allowed in the County. He intends to support changing
the ordinance to allow the health resort to be a part of the ordinance.
Mr. Bowie said he spent some time going over the regulations, and found
that everything that is proposed to be included in a health farm is already
included under the Special Use Permit criteria for rural areas. He agrees
with many of the conditions suggested for the. proposed health resort, and he
intends to support the change in the proposed zoning text amendment.
Mrs. Cooke, a life-long member of the community, said that if change had
not taken place in the community, there would have been no economic growth and
no opportunity for her to provide for her children and for her children to
prosper in this community. She commented that each side made good points
tonight that need to be thought about. The main thing the Board must consider
· s controlled growth. Due to the fact that this use can be controlled and
growth is needed, she intends to support the zoning text amendment.
Mr. Henley said he has always voted the way he felt he should, and if he
had to vote tonight, he would vote against the amendment. He said he is
willing to wait and see.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the same way~ and his position is not
popular. There is agriculture and there are health resorts, and the two are
distinguishable. He is not ready to accept that the way to preserve rural
areas is by having health resorts instead of agricultural uses. Mr. Lindstrom
accepts that there are intense consequences to agricultural use, but that is
appropriate in an agricultural area. If the County has come to the point
:LO3
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
where the rural areas must be preserved by artificial uses, then more has to
be done to the ordinance. The list of uses for Special Hermit provisions does
not justify adding health resort to the list; this will then justify adding
additional uses which will be contrary to the basic thrust and intent of the
agricultural area. He is willing to wait and see what the Board comes up
with~ however, having the type of facility he heard about tonight underlines
the fact that having this kind of amendment is questionable.
Mr. Fisher said in consideration of an amendment, he has in mind to
contain the density of what is allowed by special permit ~to approximately
which is allowed by right. His understanding is that by right a minimum 100
acre parcel could have nine lots with an average densityper lot of 2.8
people, or approximately 25 people per 100 acres. If the Board is to defer
this item for further staff work, some guidelines must be set. Mr. Fisher
proposed deferring the zoning text amendment for two weeks to allow staff time
to revise the amendment in order to set a density standar~d reasonably consis-
tent with what is allowed by right in the rural areas, to set standards for
setbacks, and to set standards for environmental usage that would be consis-
tent with other recreational areas; the limit for the gross land area coverage
should be the same as the two percent that was in the original amendment sent
to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said the Planning~ Commission found the
two percent too great, but he thinks to enlarge it any could create a substan-
tial problem.
Mr. Bowie said he does not agree with what Mr. Fisher said. To establish
a $25,000,000 health farm for 200 people is ludicrous, and to add 11 condi-
tions that cannot be met is deliberately setting out to destroy the amendment.
He believes that for a health farm, five percent gross land area on 100 acres
is not too much for a legitimate development in the center of 100 acres. Mr.
Bowie said he would like staff to come up with some guidance; with the excep-
tion of the setback, he has no problem with what was presented. A basic
ordinance should have basic guidance; to limit density to:the population in
the rural area does not make sense.
Mrs. Cooke suggested that based on the preceding disgussion, the pros and
cons of the issue of the zoning text amendment and statements made by members
of the Board, the staff should take into consideration all that has been said
and come back with some suggested language the Board can consider to develop
what is necessary to deal with the issue. She said the Board needs a little
more time to talk about the issue.
Mr. Keeler asked for confirmation as to what was suggested: staff is to
come back to the Board with language as to how a health r~sort can be accommo-
dated in the rural areas anywhere.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Bowie that if the zoning text amendment
will be loaded down with language that will make the use impossible to do, and
then the Board approves the amendment, the ordinance will be totally imprac-
tical. If this is the intent, the Board members should say that now.
Mr. Bowie added that if the amendment were before th~ Board tonight with
no specific site designated, he doubts that any member of~the public would be
at this meeting to speak; the amendment should be made so the use is accept-
able anywhere in the County, including setbacks, size requirements, and
percentage to be developed. The amendment should speak generally so the Board
can regulate the use, but not kill it.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. CoOke, to ask that
staff present to the Board a revised amendment with suggested necessary
controls to allow this venture anywhere in the County and that this be placed
on the agenda for the first meeting in September. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-87-49. T. Mitchell and Emiley Willey. To allow
existing (Clifton) tourist lodge to expand to an inn with restaurant.
Property located on east side of Rt. 729, south of St. Z50 East. Tax Map 79,
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
104
Parcel 23B. Rivanna District.
and July 28, 1987.) '
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 21
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report:
"Petition: T. Mitchell and Emiley Willey petition the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit for an INN (10.2.2.24) and
RESTAURANT (10.2.2.26) on 7.85 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 23B, is located on Route 729 across
from Stone-Robinson Elementary School in the Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Introduction: The applicant presented information at the Planning
Commission hearing which staff believed warranted a revised staff
report. In addition to issues of access, highway orientation of the
business and historic significance of Clifton, the applicant provided
evidence of little change between the current operation and the
proposal under this permit (please see Attachment A which is on
file).
Character of the Area: The main dwelling known as Clifton is a late
18th or early 19th century plantation hduse. The building has been
substantially altered and is not eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places though staff of the Virginia Landmarks Commission
stated that it may have some historic significance.
The applicant states that:
Clifton was a part of Peter Jefferson's original Shadwell estate
which was, in turn, deeded to Thomas Jefferson.
Clifton was included in that portion of the Shadwell estate which
Thomas Jefferson deeded to his oldest daughter, Martha, as a wedding
gift upon her marriage to Thomas Mann Randolph.
Thomas Mann Randolph, an early Governor of Virginia and the father of
Thomas Jefferson's only surviving and legitimate heirs built the
first structures at Clifton and lived at Clifton for a period of time
shortly before returning to Monticello amd reconciling with the
Jefferson family just before his death in 1828.
Clifton was an early warehouse for the port at Milton, and, as such,
was the focus of one of Thomas Mann Randolph's business efforts
locally. Indeed, the marble stone sitting at the present entrance to
Clifton is reputedly a remnant of a column destined for the University
Rotunda which broke on the dock at the Milton port just below Clifton.
It is also believed that the grounds at Clifton were planned and
designed by Thomas Jefferson, or at least by one of his proteges; the
multiple terracing, for instance, are illustrative of his influence.
Most properties in the area are developed or approved to be developed
residentially or are in commercial, industrial, or public use.
Approval of Clifton would in staff opinion have little effect on
agriculture or forestry.
Applicant's Proposal: Clifton is currently operating as "tourist
lodging" a use by right in the RA, Rural Areas, zone. The initial
staff report questioned the extent of the current operation to which
the applicant responded that:
'We have been and currently are licensed~by Albemarle County under
the Tourist Lodging provision. We have been inspected by both the
State and local Health Department and the Safety Marshal, all of
which have given us their approvals. We have also conferred with the
County and obtained all appropriate approvals for conforming our
sanitary system, including bringing the septic tank and well up to
full commercial standards.
105
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
We would respectfully disagree with the staff comments about con-
fusion with respect to the existing operations. There is the impli-
cation that we are not permitted to do what we have been doing in
terms of hosting receptions and weddings. We have been advised by
the County that the hosting of such events is entirely permissible if
such events are catered by a licensed caterer. Upon checking with
the Alcohol and Beverage Control Office we were also advised that we
were not allowed to purchase or sell alcoholic beverages on behalf of
Clifton. Both of these conditions have been strictly adhered to in
each instance, to our knowledge.'
Therefore the only increase in usage requested under.this permit is
an increase from five to seven lodging rooms and to open the dining
area for one seating per night to the general public.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends that 'conver-
sion of historic buildings to commercial uses compatible in character
should be considered as a method of historic preservation.' In the
case of Clifton, substantial effort has already been expended on
renovation.
The plan also recommends that 'residential, commercial and other
development activities should be directed to designated growth areas
rather than being permitted to encroach on agricultural and forestal
areas with detrimental effects.' Due to existing development in the
area, staff opinion is that Clifton would have little direct effect
on agriculture and forestry. The plan contains locational recommen-
dations for highway-oriented uses including motels and restaurants,
however, the existing Clifton operation is not highway-oriented in
nature.
Staff Comment: As stated earlier, this petition represents little
change over the use already authorized by the County~ When presented
with this argument and other information (Attachment A), the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to:
1. Approval is limited to six (6) rooms for overnight travelers and
a fifty (50) seat restaurant. Except for lodging guest and
occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties and
the like, restaurant usage is limited to not mo~e than fifty
(50) diners per evening.
2. Site plan approval. Prior to review of the sit~ plan by the
Planning Commission, the applicant shall obtain ~Health Depart-
ment and Virginia Department of Transportation approvals.
3. Building and Fire Official approvals.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 21, 1987,
unanimously recommended approval subject to the three conditions in the
staff's report.
At this point, Mr. Keeler said that Condition #1, denoting six rooms for
overnight travelers, was incorrect. He said staff went back to the Planning
Cox~ission on this point and was told the Commission had intended to change
six rooms to seven rooms.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Keeler if there was any discussion as to whether the
building could be changed, added on to, or modified on the outside. Mr.
Keeler said no. Mr. Fisher asked if the building is considered an historic
building. Mr. Keeler replied affirmatively, adding the applicant has given
his representation of historic significance in the staff report; however, the
Planning Commission does not have anything firm from the Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission. Also, the building cannot be put on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Mitch Willey, owner of Clifton, handed the Board members pictures of
Clifton to give the Board a sense of what Clifton is. He Said that since
opening, he and his wife have sought to keep Clifton a small, intimate, quiet
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
facility, allowing their guests to experience overnight lodging in an historic
home. Mr. Willey pointed out that the historic significance of Clifton is
contained in the file furnished the Board members. He told the Board the inn
has been recommended by the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitors Center, and
others in the County. The only complaints they receive are from guests who
would like to be able to have dinner at the inn with some of their friends.
He pointed out that the proposal is consistent with the County's Comprehensive
Plan; there is no change in the use of Clifton on the basis of the proposal,
no structural changes proposed, and no change to the land.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Willey if there is some kind of reasonable limit
that would accommodate Mr. Willey's use but would also protect the area from
what might happen with a future owner. Mr. Willey replied that they have no
interest in becoming a large restaurant, but they must be able to serve 50
people in order to be allowed to serve alcoholic beverages. He said that
serving 50 people on a given evening would be disruptive to the operation of
the inn; they do not anticipate seating more ~than 32 people in the dining
room. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Willey if he could suggest some hours of operation
that would provide some control over future owners. Mr. Willey replied they
would be happy to observe the same hours as any other place in the County
considered a comparable institution. ~
Mrs. Cooke asked if the inn is only going to have one seating for dinner
per night. Mr. Willey replied affirmatively. Mr. Way suggeSted a condition
be set that the permit is one seating for dinner. Mr. Willey agreed. Mr.
Lindstrom suggested hours of 6:00 P.M. to 11:~00 P.M. Mr. Willey agreed that
6:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. would be fine. Mr. Bowie commented that midnight
seems fair for closing time, but if Mr. Willey is satisfied with 11:00 P.M. as
a closing time that is all right. Mr. Wille~said that 11:00 P.M. is fine.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion
was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP-87~49 subject to the Planning
Commission conditions, adding that the hours of operation for the restaurant
shall be from 6:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., and Condition #1 be limited to seven
rooms. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. After a short discussion of the
interpretation of Condition #1, Mr. Keeler suggested that the hours of opera-
tion be included as Condition #4, and the wor~s "and such diners shall be
seated during those hours set forth in Condition #4" be added at the end of
Condition #1. Both Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie agreed. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded ~ote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, iHenley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
The conditions of approval are as follow~:
Approval is limited to seven (7) rooms for overnight travelers and a
fifty (50) seat restaurant. Except for lodging guests and occasional
luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties and the like, restau-
rant usage is limited to not more than fifty (50) diners per evening,
and such 50 diners shall be seated during those hours set forth in
Condition #4;
Site plan approval. Prior to review of the site plan by the Planning
Commission, the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia
department of Transportation approvals;
Building and Fire Official approvals;~
Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be from 6:00 P.M. to
11:00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-87-51. Woodbriar Associates. To allow installa-
tion of a six-inch diameter sewer line under the North Fork of the Rivanna
River. Property located on west side of Rt. 29 North, adjacent to bridge over
North Fork of the Rivanna River. Tax Map 32, Parcel 19. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 1987.)
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report as follows:
"Staff Comment: This proposed sewer line would connect industrial
properties near the airport to the proposed expanded Camelot sewage
treatment plant. Service would be provided to about 40 acres of land
zoned LI, Light Industrial, and the Planned Development-Industrial
Park property. (A site plan has been submitted on a portion of the
Light Industrial land. No plans have been submitted on the Planned
Development-Industrial Park land.)
The applicant proposes to cross the river with a six, inch diameter
force main to be encased in concrete to avoid flotation. The cross-
ing would occur about 20 feet upstream of a 12-inch water line
crossing (see Attachment A which is on file). This is the only
design information submitted to date. As can be seen from the County
Engineer's comments, substantially more planning and design needs to
be undertaken before the project can proceed (see Attachment B which
is on file). Also due to consideration of stream flow, the County
Engineer comments that 'construction of this type must be performed
in the months of July or August, during periods of low flow, due to
restrictions placed by the Army Corps of Engineers.' This comment
causes staff concern for the following reasons:
1. This petition is scheduled for Board of Supervisors review on
August 5, 1987, leaving less than four weeks for the applicant
to plan, obtain approvals, and complete the project including
restoration and stabilization of the area;
2. This is a relatively sophisticated construction!project which if
hastily undertaken could result in severe erosion and other
degradation problems;
3. If construction is undertaken but not complete when fall rains
arrive, severe problems could result from increased river flow.
Corrective measures may be difficult to accomplish at time of
high flow;
4. Given these cautions, the Commission and Board may wish the
applicant to provide reasonable demonstration that construction
together with all restorative measures can be accomplished
during this limited time frame. Should the applicant be unable
to convince the Commission and Board that the project can be
accomplished this season, staff would recommend~a substitute
condition #1:
1. Project together with all restoration and stabilization
measures to be completed by August 31, 1988.' No work within
the floodplain to be initiated prior to July 1, 1988.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction together with all restoration and stabilization
measures to be completed no later than August 3~, 1987;
2. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a development permit for
this project as required by Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance. No such permit shall be issued until all conditions
of this special use permit have been met;
3. Approval of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and
presentation of evidence of such approvals to the Zoning
Administrator;
4. County Engineer approval in accordance with the requirements of
30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District with particular attention to
approval of access and river crossing plans;
5. Only those areas necessary for the conduct of this project shall
be disturbed. Activity shall be conducted in such a manner so
that equipment shall not travel over, be parked on, or otherwise
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
108
encroach on tree root systems outside of approved project
limits;
All disturbed and denuded areas shall be stabilized as required
by the County Engineer. County Engineer approval of restorative
and stabilization measures prior to issuance of development
permit. Such approval shall among other things specify that all
excess construction material and debris shall be removed from
the floodplain and disposed of properly;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance; :
Posting of warning signs upstream from the site to advise
canoeists and other users of construction activity and temporary
obstructions;
9. Cash bonding as a mechanismby which the Zoning Administrator
may cause immediate compliance with this special use permit and
all other county regulations. The [County Engineer shall make
periodic inspections of the site to insure compliance with
conditions imposed herein. The County Engineer may require such
corrective measures as deemed necessary to insure compliance
with these conditions.
10. Presentation to Zoning Administrator of proof that all easements
necessary for construction and maintenance of entire length of
sewer line have been obtained."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission,~ at its meeting on July 21, 1987,
unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff's conditions, but
reworded Condition #1 and Condition #2 as follows:
Construction together with all restoration and stabilization measures
to be completed no later than August 31, 1987; provided that comple-
tion date may be extended not more than thirty (30) days by the
County Engineer in light of the current status of the project and the
weather;
The Zoning Administrator shall issue~a development permit for this
project as required by Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. No
such permit shall be issued until all conditions of this special use
permit have been met and the County Engineer shall have certified
that in his opinion the project can be expected to be completed prior
to termination date noted in ConditiOn #1.
Mr. Fisher asked if this industrial area has been proposed to be served
by public utilities in this manner. Mr. Keeler replied yes, but a permit had
never been applied for. He reminded Mr. Fisher of permits that had been
approved for the expansion of the Camelot sewage treatment plant. Mr. Keeler
said the capacity of the expanded treatment plant was to be attributed to
Briarwood and to the industrial park. After expanding the plant, the devel-
oper will have all the additional capacity. Mr. St. John asked if this is
pursuant to the agreement between General Electric and the developer. Mr.
Keeler replied that General Electric is not involved.
Mr. St. John asked if the sewer line and the pumping station will be
taken over by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Keeler replied
affirmatively. Mr. St. John asked if the Service Authority is going to
monitor construction and conduct inspections to make sure the work is accept-
able to the Service Authority.
At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing so Mr. Wendell Wood,
the applicant, could reply to the question. Mr. Wood stated the planning
process must be approved by both the Albemarle Service Authority and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The sewer'.line is 7,000 feet long; Wood-
briar Associates is asking to be allowed to cross the river a width of approx-
imately 34 feet; the Service Authority has approved the location of the
crossing, and Woodbriar has also received approval from the State Health
Department. Mr. Wood said all the permits necessary for work to begin have
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
been received, except for the permit necessary from the Board to cross the
floodplain.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the requirements contained in Condition #3 must
met. Mr. Keeler replied the requirements must be met before a development
permit is issued; development permit is a term required to be included in the
ordinance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the insurance pro-
gram. Mr. Lindstrom asked for confirmation that the developer will not be
able to do any construction or grading until the developer gets the develop-
ment permit, and the development permit will not be issued until the other
approvals are presented to the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Keeler ~eplied
affirmatively.
At this time, Mrs. Cooke disqualified herself from participation due to
the fact that she is involved with some land that would directly benefit from
that which is before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
approve SP-87-51 with the conditions reco~nended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Construction together with all restoration and stabilization measures
to be completed no later than August 31, 1987; provided that comple-
tion date may be extended not more than thirty (~0) daYs by the
County Engineer in light of the current status of the project and the
weather;
2. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a development permit for this
project as required by Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. No
such permit shall be issued until all conditions of this special use
permit have been met and the County Engineer shall have certified
that in his opinion, the project can be expected'to be completed
prior to termination date noted in Condition #1;
3. Approval of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and
presentation of evidence of such approvals to the Zoning
Administrator;
County Engineer approval in accordance with the requirements of 30.3
Flood Hazard Overlay District with particular attention to approval
of access and river crossing plans;
Only those areas necessary for the conduct of this project shall be
disturbed. Activity shall be conducted in such manner so that
equipment shall not travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach
on tree root systems outside of approved project 'limits;
6. Ail disturbed and denuded areas shall be stabilized as required by
County Engineer. County Engineer approval of restorative and stabi-
lization measures prior to issuance of developmen~ permit. Such
approval shall among other things specify that all excess construc-
tion material and debris shall be removed from the floodplain and
disposed of properly;
7. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
8. Posting of warning signs upstream from the site to advise canoeists
and other users of construction activity and temporary obstructions;
Cash bonding as a mechanism by which the Zoning Administrator may
cause immediate compliance with this special use permit and all other
County regulations. The County Engineer shall make periodic inspec-
tions of the site to insure compliance with conditions imposed
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
ti0
10.
herein. The County Engineer may require such corrective measures as
deemed necessary to insure compliance with these conditions;
Presentation to Zoning Administrator of proof that all easements
necessary for construction and maintenance of entire length of sewer
line have been obtained.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to prohibit open
burning of leaves, brush and similar materiais in certain portions of the
County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 1987.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the text of the proposed ordinance as follows:
"Sec. 9-23.2:1. Prohibition on open burning in certain areas.
Except as otherwise expressly permitted by state law, or in
accordance with Section 9-22 (b) of this Code, it shall be unlawful
for any person to burn or set fire to any leaves, brush, logs, grass,
debris or field containing dry grass or other inflammable material at
any time within the urban area of the County. For purposes of this
Section, the term "the urban area of the County" shall include that
portion of the County shown as such on the map which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
This ordinance shall be effective upon its approval by the State
Air Pollution Control Board."
Mr. Tucker commented on concerns raised ~y residents in some areas over
burning of leaves and problems encountered at'~a construction site the previous
year with clearing and burning of trees and brush in preparation for develop-
ment of the land. He said the prohibition of burning will leave the respon-
sibility of disposal to the individual property owner or the private sector.
Concerns have been expressed that leaf disposal at the landfill should be
prohibited, even though it cannot be prevented because of the manner in which
it occurs.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Clarence Wetsel, has a 175 acre farm. in the Carrsbrook area off of
Rio Road and this property is covered by the Amendment. He stated his opposi-
tion to the ordinance because of the problems of disposal of debris. He said
that 75 acres of his land is in the floodplain and when a flood occurs, debris
is placed on the land and it would be a burden to dispose of the debris. Mr.
Wetsel said he is concerned about his neighbors getting rid of their leaves on
since there is no County pickup of leaves.
Mr. Reo Ford, who has 10 acres of land at 101Northfields Circle, is
opposed to the amendment as proposed. He is objecting to the boundary because
it includes him. Mr. Ford showed the Board members a map which showed his
property in relation to Mr. Wetsel's. Mr. Ford said his property contains 200
trees which require pruning and trimming, and!'an old vegetable garden used for
brush piles, where debris is burned in January. He said since his property is
included in the boundary defined by the ordinance, he would have to discontin-
ue burning unless a provision is contained in the ordinance for special permit
burning. Mr. Ford asked the Board to consider changing the boundary to move
it up to Northfields Road, or to provide special permits to be issued on a
time basis. '
Mr. Maynard Stoddard, representing the Virginia Department of Forestry,
asked if the ordinance, when adopted, would still allow bona fide burning for
forestry practices within the area, if such aCea lies within the boundary.
Mr. Fisher asked how much forest land is in the area. Mr. Stoddard said he
did not know, but with a 175 acre farm in the iarea, he believes there may be
some. Mr. St. John replied that exceptions e~ist where permitted by State
law; he does not think the Board has the authority to prevent that.
ili
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Richard Arthur, reminded the Board he had spoken at the July meeting
and at that time it was reported that a disposal site had to be set up, but he
had heard nothing about what was going to be done about the leaves and rubbish.
Arthur asked how the Board can address the problem if the Board does not
know how big the problem is. He asked if it is reasonable to expect private
industry to invest in larger equipment and other miscellaneous equipment to
pick up and haul the leaves so as to make it economical to make the trip to
the dump two months of the year. If private enterprise does not do this,
would the County be prepared to do the job; the whole County would have to pay
for disposal and other residents in the County would probably object because
they would have to pay to move someone else's trash. He asked if leaf burning
two months of the year represented a greater environmental impact than the
burning occurring in wood stoves, fireplaces, and grills, which are used all
year. He said rotting leaves in a landfill will be a greater environmental
impact because of underground fires caused by the rotting and subsequent
spontaneous combustion. Mr. Arthur said that in the City, burning is prohib-
ited, but the City picks up the debris. However, in the suburban area
of a more casual way of life, lower taxes and less service, people
do more for themselves, including the burning of leaves. He does not
feel this ordinance will be enforced by law enforcement people patrolling, but
only by peer pressure and by residents supporting the ordinance. Mr. Arthur
commented that he cannot see how the Board can seriously consider this type of
ordinance when there is no public demand for it; that a lot of problems that
have developed have been because of neighborhood squabbles~ In the final
analysis, there are better ways to solve neighborhood squabbles than by
passing ordinances that apply to the whole community.
Mr. Ted Armentrout, President of the Jefferson CountrY Firefighters
Association (JCFA), was asked to convey to the Board the concerns of fire-
fighters in the Charlottesville/Albemarle County area. Mr~ Armentrout said
that.approximately 18-24 months previously, Mr. J.B. Morris, President of JCFA
at that time, sent the County a letter requesting an ordinance that would
extend the State Division of Forestry Open Burning Law year round in Albemarle
County. He said JCFA's concerns include decreasing financial and manpower
support in the County and that manpower is extremely limited during daytime
hours. He believes there is an Environmental Protection Agency statute
concerning the remedies regarding nuisance burning. Mr. A~mentrout said JCFA
asks that any change in the ordinance be to make the State ~Division of
Forestry law effective year-round.
Mr. Fisher asked if he meant that no burning be allowed before 4:00 P.M.
Mr. Armentrout replied yes, any open burning must be done after 4:00 P.M.,
burning must be out by midnight, and any burning must be a~tended. Mr. Way
asked if he means year-round, county-wide. Mr. Armentrout '~replied affirma-
tively.
Mr. Chester Titus who lives in the Knollwood/Hessian Rills area, stated
that someone in his neighborhood has been burning debris for three days. The
fire has been smoldering and all the neighbors have been br~eathing in the
smoke; sometimes he cannot find his house because of the smoke pall; people
have paid no attention to the guidelines that have been lal.d down; burning
goes on all hours of the day and night; fires are left unattended with no fire
hoses nearby. He said people have ignored the ordinance partly because it is
confusing and partly because it is complex. He said he should have the right
to breath in his own yard. Mr. Titus asked the Board to adopt the ordinance.
Ms. Joan Graves who lives in Berkeley, said she objects to breathing
smoke. She says people in her neighborhood burn leaves, and even though the
smoke from the leaves is objectionable, the smoke is more objectionable when
contractors burn leaves, brush and tree stumps. She believes there is a
problem in Branchlands and she does not know what the contractor plans to do
about it. She said Canterbury Hills will be in jeopardy when land is cleared
in that area. She asked if there is a way to separate construction burning
from homeowners who burn debris. Ms. Graves said she needsl to breathe; she
cannot do so when she has to breathe smoke; other people fe~l the same way.
Ms. Graves said she hopes the Board takes these concerns in~o consideration
when the Board votes. ~
At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowi~ commented he had
previously asked for specific information on the ordinance: how it can be
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
112
enforced, what should be done with the leaves, and how disposal should be paid
for. He said that information was not in the packet tonight. He said he is
not prepared to vote on this question tonight.
Mr. Lindstrom said the problem in some neighborhoods is the volume of
leaves that need to be disposed of. Some exceptions, under certain circum-
stances, make sense, especially for people who live on large tracts of land.
The problem is an urbanizing community in the transition stage, and the Board
cannot reasonably impose these kinds of restrictions until there is a way to
dispose of the leaves. Mr. Lindstrom said he is interested in having an
ordinance of this type in the urban area. The ordinance is important, but it
is not fair for the Board to just say there Will be no more burning and not
propose some solution to the problem.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with ~roviding some language in the
ordinance allowing people with large tracts Of land to burn leaves and debris.
The Board does have a responsibility to people who live in more confined areas
to help when people are irresponsible about the burning of leaves. This is a
volatile issue and people do not broach this kind of subject with a neighbor.
Since her district is the one affected most, people have come to her for a
solution. Mrs. Cooke commented that a woman who had spoken at the previous
meeting, had received a threatening telephone call because she brought the
issue up. She said the Board must come to grips with the problem; it is the
Board's responsibility to address the problems resulting from urbanization of
the County, even if money must be spent.
Motion was the offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer
this item to August 12, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To receive views of citizens in the
school district on the appointment of the Sch6ol Board member from the Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress 6n July 17, July 18 and July 19,
1987.)
Mr. Bowie said this appointment was advertised and two applications were
received by the deadline, Mrs. Louise Warner ~nd Mrs. Sharon Wood. He met
with each applicant for an interview earlier in the week. In light of the
late hour, he told the applicants he would nog assume they were withdrawing
their names if they decided to leave. Mr. BoWie advised the Board that both
applicants left the meeting at about 11:15 P.M.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Lyndley Gough, President of the Albemarle Education Association
(AEA), said she wants to remind the Board of some items to consider when
appointing anyone to a school board. Ms. Gough urged the Board to consider
someone who would have some basic knowledge of educational issues; have an
· nquisitive attitude; be able to make decisions for educationally sound
reasons, not just as something that would be expedient to get it out of the
way or to quiet a particular grievance; someone who would consider what is
best for the whole system, not a particular p~rt of the system; someone who
would ask questions and require that the questions be answered, yet be able to
listen with an open mind. Ms. Gough said the ~AEA thinks it is important that
the School Board be representative of the entire population. Ms. Gough
concluded by saying that AEA appreciates the ~opportunity the open hearing
process gives for people to have input into am appointment decision.
With no one else left to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie said he will consider the input from Ms. Gough, and asked the
Clerk to see that each Board member receive copies of the applications. Mr.
Fisher said this item will be placed on the agenda for the meeting of
August 12, 1987.
113
August 5, 1987 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Fisher suggested that the remaining
items on the agenda be deferred until August 12. At 11:55 P.M., motion was
offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer all remaining items on
the Agenda until August 12, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.