Loading...
1987-04-15April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 15, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia°. PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. John T. P. Horne, County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P. M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve 4.1 and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of March, 1987, were approved as presented. Item 4.2. County Executive's Financial Report for the Month of February, 1987, was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Mr. Fisher called attention to Mr. Agnor's financial report. In the section marked Capital Improvement Fund, he asked if the item at the top of one of the pages called Non-revenue Receipts of $2,000,000.00, is for the Literary Fund loan. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes," it is for the Meriwether Lewis School project, but has not yet been received. Item 4.3. Copy of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1986, was received as information and is on file in the Clerk's office. Item 4.4. Notice from the State Corporation Commission that Shopper's Shuttle and Escort, Ltd., has applied for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle, received as information. Item 4.5. Letter dated April 9, 1987, from Senator John W. Warner, concerning the County's request for extension of the HUD Moderate Rehabilitation Program Grant, was received. According to his letter, Senator Warner has contacted the Secretary of the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development and asked that he consider favorably the request of the County for the extension. Mr. Way asked about the HUD extension, and Mr. Horne replied that there should be an answer by next week. Item 4.6. information. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 10, 1987, was received as Agenda Item No. 5. SP-87-8. Vernon Baker. To allow construction of radio station on vacant 22.332 acre parcel, zoned RA. Property located on east side of State Route 743, north of Advance Mills near the Greene County line. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1987.) Mr. Horne noted that a letter dated April 8, 1987 had been received from Mr. Baker asking that this petition be removed from consideration. Mr. Bowie offered motion to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. ty. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Tax Increase caused by Reassessment of Real Proper- (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 3, 1987.) Mr. Agnor stated that the State Code requires when there is a biennial reassessment that the locality advertise the results of that reassessment and the rate applied to it in order to compare the revenues to the County's General Fund from the real estate taxes. From last year's comparison, excluding new construction or improvements to existing properties in this 1987 tax year, the assessment resulted in a 10.69 percent increase in the tax base. In order to offset that increased assessment, it would be necessary to lower the tax rate from its current rate of 77 cents to 70 cents per $100 of assessed value. The budget that was 4OO April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) advertised and heard in the hearing last week was advertised at 72 cents per $100 of assessed value, which results in a two-cent tax rate increase or a 2.86 percent increase in taxes by not lowering the tax rate all the way to 70 cents. He reported that individual property taxes may increase a different amount than that, either above or below, due to the changes in assessments, so these are average numbers. The purpose of the hearing tonight is to hear comments from citizens on that reassessment increase. Mr. Fisher clarified Mr. Agnor's statement by saying that the state says this ad has to be run if even $1 more is collected this year than last year. The assumption is that the County can presumably run on the same dollars from year to year, and any change in that is a tax rate increase. He said the rate has been advertised for reduction from 77 cents to 72 cents. He opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Cary Branch said he has been a resident of Albemarle County for 22 years and owns property in the County. He wholeheartedly commended the Board members for the budget they have prepared that allows for a tax reduction. He said he does not remember the last tax rate reduction. He asked Mr. Fisher to enlighten him as to when the last tax reduction took place. Mr. Agnor and Mr. Fisher agreed it was in 1979 on real property. Mr. Branch said he supports the tax reduction, with a fully funded budget that would allow the tax rate to be lowered to 72 cents. Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing. Agenda Item No. 7. Set Tax Rates for 1987. Mr. Fisher said that, in order to finalize the budget, the Board must set the tax rates for 1987 and to adopt the Appropriation Ordinance for 1987-88. Mr. Agnor stated that since the Board saw the draft form of the ordinance, staff has been advised that the May Presidential Primary will be fully funded by the state, and state revenues are reflected in this ordinance for that increase. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the record show that he plans to support the Appropriation Ordinance, but he did not support the tax rate decrease, which was actually an increase, for reasons that he previously stated. He does, however, support the budget, as proposed, with that exception. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to adopt the following resolution setting the tax rates for 1987: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1987 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Forty Cents ($4.40) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Forty Cents ($4.40) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valua- tion; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm live- stock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. There was no further discussion. and the motion was carried with the following vote: Roll was called AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. Adopt Appropriation Ordinance for 1987-88. Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the 1987-88 Appropriation Ordinance as set out below. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried witk the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE YEAR'ENDING JUNE 30, 1988 AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; 401 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (page 3) and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro- priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988: Paragraph One For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum of two million five hundred eighty-five thousand seventy-five dollars and no cents ($2,585,075) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Refunds and Abatements $ 2,585,075 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT the sum of three million eight hundred eighteen thousand nine hundred sixty-eight dollars and no cents ($3,818,968) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Board of Supervisors $ 373,266 2. County Executive 318,186 3. Elections 113,621 4. Finance 1,292,796 5. Information Services 517,776 6. Legal Services 169,550 7. Personnel 259,377 8. Planning District Commission 28,896 9. Staff Services 708,770 10. Visitors' Bureau 36,730 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT the sum of one million nine hundred thirty-one thousand two hundred one dollars and no cents ($1,931,201) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Engineering $ 280,608 2. Extension Service 65,379 3. Housing 77,299 4. Planning 472,787 5. Refuse Disposal 771,217 6. Soil and Water Conservation 12,028 7. Watershed Management 36,209 8. Zoning 215,674 Paragraph Four For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN SERVICES the sum of four million one hundred fifty-seven thousand five hundred seventy-one dollars and no cents ($4,157,571) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Bus Service Monticello Area Community Action Agency Region Ten Community Services District Home First Night Virginia, Inc. Health Department Jefferson Area Board on Aging Jefferson Area United Transportation Legal Aid Society Regional Library Madison House Offender Aid and Restoration Outreach Counseling Parks and Recreation Piedmont Virginia Community College Retired Senior Volunteer Program Rivanna Park Shelter for Help in Emergency Virginia Public Assistance Public Assistance Payments Food Stamp Program Employment Service Program Fuel Assistance Program 200,005 13,604 20,284 117,410 27,500 70 406 120 46 750 21 077 7 951 684 918 3 432 21,886 12,000 645,311 5,190 5,000 95,600 24,646 1,025,651 494,400 202,374 39,798 36,594 402 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (Paqe 4) Paragraph Five For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE the sum of four million eight hundred twenty-seven thousand five hundred twenty-three dollars and no cents ($4,827,523) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Ambulance, Rescue Squads $ 60,525 2. Animal Control 58,749 3. Circuit Court 44,011 4. Clerk of Circuit Court 325,012 5. Commonwealth's Attorney 229,536 6. Community Attention Home 24,360 7. Correction and Detention (Jail) 60,071 8. Emergency Medical Communications Equipment 239 9. Emergency Medical Services Council 5,597 10. Fire Department 402,461 11. Forest Fire Extinction Service 13,595 12. General District Court 12,520 13. Inspections 502,939 14. Joint Dispatch Center 148,673 15. Juvenile Detention Home 16,304 16. Juvenile Court 32,355 17. Magistrate 3,170 18. Police Department 2,269,775 19. Sheriff 316,944 20. SPCA Contract 6,000 21. Volunteer Fire Departments 288,875 22. Grants (Miscellaneous) 5,812 Paragraph Six For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to: 1. Capital Improvements Fund $ 1,000,000 Paragraph Seven For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of Charlottesville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1988, in the amount of two million two hundred seventy-seven thoUsand nine hundred fifty-three dollars and no cents ($2,277,953) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows: 1. Revenue Sharing Agreement $ 2,277,953 SUMMARY Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 20~298~591 To be provided as follows: Prior Year's Fund Balance Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total GENERAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 386,255 16,967,801 3,232,735 11,500 $ 20,598~291 SECTION II That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro- priated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the SCHOOL FUND the sum of thirty-eight million five hundred thirty-six thousand four hundred forty-four dollars and no cents ($38,536,444) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Administration $ 647,709 2. Instruction-Regular Day School 23,769,458 3. Attendance and Health Services 327,691 4. Pupil Transportation 2,982,816 5. Operation-School Plant 4,037,506 6. Fixed Charges 6,760,984 7. Adult Education 10,280 SUMMARY April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 To be provided as follows: Prior Year's Fund Balance Revenue from Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd) Revenue from the Commonwealth Miscellaneous Revenue Total SCHOOL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 38,536,444 $ 425,000 21,632,104 16,245,840 233,500 $ 38,536,444 SECTION III That the following sums of money be and the same hereby, are appro- priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the function of SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM the sum of one million three hundred thirty-five thousand five hundred sixty- one dollars and no cents ($1,335,561) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias SUMMARY Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 Paragraph Two $ 1,335,561 $ 1,335,561 $ 924,561 37,000 374,000 $ 1,335,561 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd) $ Revenue from Fees Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 46,000 172,500 218~500 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of eight thousand dollars and no cents ($8,000) is appropriated from the Mclntire Trust Fund as follows: 1. Payment to County Schools $ 8,000 SUMMARY Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 8,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from investments per trust Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 8,000 8,000 Paragraph Four For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of two million thirty-five thousand two hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($2,035,280) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund as follows: 1. Debt Service Payments 2,035,280 SUMMARY Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 2,035,280 $ 218,500 Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 SUMMARY 1. Textbooks $ 218,500 For the current expenses of the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS, the sum of two hundred eighteen thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($218,500) is appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows: April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) ( Page 6]___ To be provided as follows: Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd) Total DEBT SERVICE resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 Paragraph Five 2,035,280 2,035~280 For the current expenses of PREP PROGRAM the sum of six hundred ninety-four thousand five hundred eighty-seven dollars ($6940.587) is appropriated from the PREP Program Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Ragged Mountain $ 303,781 2. C.B.I.P. Severe 390,806 SUMMARY Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition and Fees Total PREP PROGRAM FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 Paragraph Six $ 694~587 $ 694,587 $ 694,587 For the current expenses of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of five hundred eighteen thousand one hundred twenty-one dollars and no cents ($518,121) is appropriated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Organizational Research $ 30,000 2. Chapter I 400,246 3. Chapter II 55,000 4. Migrant Education 32,875 SUMMARY Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government $ Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ Paragraph Seven $ 518,121 518,121 For the current expenses of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the sum of two hundred three thousand nine hundred ten dollars and no cents ($203,910) is appro- priated from the Community Education Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Community Education $ 203,910 SUMMARY Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 203~910 To be provided as follows: Revenues from Tuition and Fees Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ Paragraph Eight 203,910 203,910 For the current expenses of FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT the sum of two hundred twenty-four thousand one hundred dollars and no cents ($224,100) is appropriated from the Facilities Refurbishment Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Facilities Refurbishment $ 224,100 SUMMARY Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd) Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND resources Available for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1988 Paragraph Nine 224~100 224,100 224,100 For the current expenses of SUMMER SCHOOL the sum of fifty thousand six hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($50,650) is appropriated from the Summer School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Summer School $ 50,650 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) !Page 71 4O5 SUMMARY Total SUMMER SCHOOL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition and Fees Total SUMMER SCHOOL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1988 $ 50,650 50,650 50,650 SECTION IV That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro- priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of one million six hundred sixty-five thousand two hundred sixty- one dollars and no cents ($1,665,261) is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Operation of Regional Jail $ 1,665,261 SUMMARY Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 1,665,261 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Revenue from Other Sources Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 1,448,407 21,000 8,300 $ 1~665~261 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of JOINT DISPATCH CENTER OPERATIONS the sum of four hundred forty thousand six hundred eighty-five dollars and no cents ($440,685) is appropriated from the Joint Dispatch Center Fund and appor- tioned as follows: 1. Compensation $ 360,219 2. Operations 80,466 SUMMARY Total JOINT DISPATCH CENTER FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 440,685 To be provided as follows: From the County of Albemarle $ From the City of Charlottesville From the University of Virginia Other Total JOINT DISPATCH CENTER FUND resources avail- able for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988 $ 148,673 215,601 66,411 10,000 440,685 Total appropriations mentioned in Sections I through IV in this Ordinance for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1988: RECAPITULATION Section I Section II Section III Section IV General Fund School Fund Other School Funds Fiscal Agent Funds $ 20,598,291 38,536,444 5,288,709 2~105,946 GRAND TOTAL $ 66¢529¢390 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby autho- rized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as moneys become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance. SECTION V Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, con- ditions, and provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. '40 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro- priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, the Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs~Fund, Community Education Fund, Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Summer School Fund, Joint Dispatch Center Fund, are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionateappropriations--the purpose being to make the appropria- tions payable in full in the amoUnt named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director of Finance being first obtained. Paragraph Three All balances of appropriations payable out of the General fund of the County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1988, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1988. However, nothing in this para- graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Com- munity Education Fund, Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Summer School Fund, Joint Dispatch Center Fund or Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed expendi- tures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988. Paragraph Four No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contrac- tual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting depart- ment, bureau, agency, or individual and the Purchasing Agent, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifi- cation furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individu- al. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures pre- scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. 407 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) ~Ra~e 9) Paragraph Six All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Seven All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the pro- visions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Eight This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-86-90. Colonnade Associates. Allow construction of drive-in branch bank on vacant 0.57 acre parcel, zoned HC. Property located approximately 300 feet west of the city limits on south side of U. S. Route 250 West. Tax Map 60, Parcels 40B1 and 40B2. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: This property is vacant. Independent gas and a Shell gasoline service station are located east and west of the site respec- tively. University Heights Apartments and several vacant small high density properties are to the south with access to Route 250 West by Colonnade Drive. CATS Study: U. S. Route 250 West currently has an 80 foot right of way in this area. The CATS Study recommends a 90 foot right of way, therefore, staff recommends reservation of an additional five feet of right of way. The Board of Zoning Appeals has granted variances from the scenic highway zoning requirements to permit a 10 foot parking setback and a 75 foot building setback. Reservation of an additional five feet of right of way would increase these setbacks to 15 feet and 80 feet respectively. This would permit maintenance of a planting strip in the future. Staff Comments: In 1984, staff recommended that uses involving drive-in windows (i.e., banks, fast food restaurants, etc.) be permitted by special use permit only due to transportation considerations. Primary concerns are access and circulation patterns combined with high traffic volumes. Regarding circulation, neither Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation nor staff have substantial objeCtion to the one-way pattern proposed by Colonnade Associates. Increased width of the entrance aisle and a bypass lane will be considered at time of site plan review. As to traffic volume, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that: 'A drive-in bank generates an average of 192 vehicle trips per day for each 1000 gross square feet of building. This is one of the higher traffic generators among the types of businesses allowed under the HC zoning. Since the request in this special permit is a heavier traffic generator than most of the businesses in this zoning, the Department recommends against this request since this section of Route 250 West is currently well-travelled and fairly congested.' Staff offers the following comments: Most properties which directly access Route 250 east of the bypass are developed. Properties on the north side of Route 250 do not have direct access due to the railroad. The only other property on the south side of Route 250 (not owned by University of Virginia) is controlled by Colonnade Associates and has frontage on Colonnade drive as well as Route 250. (The applicant is placed on notice that staff will likely recommend that access be limited to Colonnade Drive.) Therefore, a program to control traffic generation would have little benefit due to existing development; Due to existing development, the segment of Route 250 West from the City limits to the bypass should be treated as a 'city street' as is recommended by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the portion of Route 29 North from Hydraulic Road to .the bypass; An exclusive left-turn lane exists in front of this site which will reduce friction for westbound traffic. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Development limited to 1550 square foot building area and four ATM lanes (one lane may be deleted if bypass lane is required); Right-of-way reservation line to be established at 45 feet from centerline of Route 250 West. Setbacks to be measured from reservation line." 408 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (PaGe 10) Mr. Horne reported that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 7, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of the petition with the same two conditions as recommended by staff. He went over a schematic site plan with the Board members, and said this would give them an indication of what the proposal is all about. Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department had reviewed this, and Mr. Horne replied, "no," the site plan has not gone before the Site Review Committee yet. Mr. Fisher said he would be astonished if the Highway Department would recommend two cuts on a parcel of this size in this area. He called attention to the fact that the Highway Department recommends in their letter that rezoning of this Special Permit not be approved. Mr. Horne replied that this particular plan has been shown to the Highway Department, and they have indicated that if the use is to go in, it would not object, at least on a preliminary basis, to this pattern. He said a single entrance will not work very well. Mr. Fisher said it seems to him that if the Board plans to approve this request, there should be a third condition: that the entrances and exits be designed in accordance with the Department of Transportation's recommendations. Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing, and Mr. Bill Heischman was there to represent Colonnade Associates. He stated that they own the lot in question, the lot across Colonnade Drive, and two lots on Colonnade Drive behind this lot. He is also representing Albemarle Bank who wants to lease this particular lot. He said that the one lot shown on the site plan is actually two lots at the present time. They are two 70 foot lots, and the dividing line is just about in the center. He said they have had requests from people who wanted to put fast food stores there and all kinds of outlets. They feel that a lesser use of the property is probably some sort of a bank building, but the trouble seems to be with the drive-in portion. They don't have access to Colonnade Drive from that particular lot, but it does take in the entire property between the two filling stations. They will have a buffer zone on both sides. He agrees with the staff report, but it bothers him that the lot on the other corner of Colonnade and Route 250 seems to be tied in with this project. He said this land is completely across another street. The other lot adjoins Colonnade right now, but it doesn't really have any rights to come into Colonnade Drive. He would rather discuss that when the times comes. Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing when no one else wanted to speak. Mr. Fisher asked again that the Board consider a third condition relating to entrances and exits as he suggested earlier. Mr. Bowie commented that it would be more consistent with past conditions if the third condition asked for VDH&T's approval of entrances. Mr. Fisher accepted Mr. Bowie's rewording of the statement, and Mrs. Cooke said her motion would reflect that. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to, in the final draft, spell out ATM/ais(automatic teller machines). Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve SP-86-90 with the addition of a third condition reading: "Virginia Department of Highway and Transportation approval of entrance". Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. (The conditions of approval are as follows:) Development limited to 1,550 square foot building area and four auto- matic teller machine lanes; Right-of-way reservation line to be established at 45 feet from centerline of Route 250 West. Setbacks to be measured from reservation line. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-87-3. William L. McGee, Jr. Allow woodworking shop to be located in an existing barn. Property located on south side of Route 6 approximately one mile west of intersection with Route 671. Tax map 16, Parcel 6. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The site is located approximately 1200 feet from the nearest dwelling units. The adjacent properties are predominately in open pasture or woodlands. The topography in the area is rolling to moun- tainous. Staff Comment: This is a proposal to relocate an existing private workshop from a log cabin to an existing barn on the property. The applicant intends to sell some items produced on site (trim work, cabinets, etc.) to building contractors. Deliveries will be made by the applicant, and there will be no sales or display on site. This use is not intended to be a full time business and is not the primary source of employment for the applicant. The woodshop will be used only when individual orders are requested or for private use. 4O9 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) ~ ii) Equipment to be operated in the woodshop includes a table saw, drill press, planer, sharper, sander and sawdust vacuum. One letter of objection was received from an adjacent property owner. The~ property of the objector is located approximately 1000 feet from the pro- posed workshop and is presently undeveloped. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the use would not be a substantial detriment to other properties in the area. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following: 1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance; 2. Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 17, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of the request with the conditions outlined in the staff's report. Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing, and Mr. William McGee, applicant, said that he has been in woodworking for pleasure, but he had decided that if he ever wanted to sell anything, he wanted to do everything according to the law. He decided to get a business license, but he is still not sure he is going to sell anything. He said it will not be a major undertak- ing with a lot of people working for him. He mentioned that in the report it said that the nearest dwelling was 1200 feet. He said that the nearest dwelling is quite far away. He mentioned that his closest neighbor is Dr. Herring, who lives across the road. Dr. Herring came to the Planning Commission hearing, and he said he wholeheartedly approved. The gentle- man who sent in the letter of objection is an absentee land owner and doesn't understand exactly what it is he wants to do. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. McGee has more than one barn on his property, and Mr. McGee replied that he does. He identified for the Board which barn he will use. Since there was no one else to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Henley commented that Dr. Herring is a good judge of character, and if he approves of this, then he will, also. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-87-3 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. (The conditions of approval read as follows: Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance; Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-87-6. James B. Murray. Allow reallocation of development rights for a 24-1ot subdivision. In addition to 13 lots by right, the applicant requests 11 additional lots from two adjoining tracts. The proposed subdivision will have one entrance on State Route 660 and one entrance on State Route 661. Property located on southwest side of Route 660, approximately one-half mile west of Earlysville. Tax Map 31, Parcel 21. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Immediate Environs and Existing Characteristics: The area surrounding the subject property has rolling topography with open grassland and pockets of wooded areas. There are approximately eighty-one single-familyhouses and 111 parcels of five acres or less within a one mile radius of the property. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: This property is located within a Rural Area designated in the Land Use Plan and is within the South Fork Rivanna River impoundment watershed. Residential density standards in the Compre- hensive Plan recommend a maximum of one dwelling unit per ten acres for land located in reservoir watersheds. The following is a review of the rural areas special use permit criteria, as set forth in Section 10.5.2.1, the applicant has responded to criteria 99. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural ... production .... The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal produc- tion .... The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. (Soils on the property include Brandywine loam, Chester loam, Cullen loam, Hayesville loam, Meadowville loam and Worsham loam.) In regards to these three criteria, staff offers the following: This entire parcel presently enjoys preferential land use taxation, and has enjoyed it since the program was initiated in 1975. Therefore, legitimate, continuous agricultural operations have been practiced to 410 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) the satisfaCtion of the Real Estate Department· Of the 189 acres total, 113 acres are in forestry and 76 acres are in agricultural land use. Soil suitability on Parcel 21 is designated as follows: AGRICULTURE = 75.9 acres total Class II = 24.1 acres Class III = 31.4 acres Class IV = 18.7 acres Class VI = 1.7 acres FORESTRY Excellent Good Fair = 113.3 acres total = 80.9 acres = 14.4 acres = 18.0 acres Much of these soils are considered good for agricultural or forestal uses. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten acres for important farmland. This request proposes a 7.6 acre average lot size within the developed parcel, or 12.3 acre average lot size overall (including Tract V and Tract I-4). If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area .... Seventy-eight percent, or 2,154 acres within a one mile radius have been in commercial agricultural or forestal land use. Therefore, this property is considered to be in an agricultural or forestal area. In regard to the effect of development on the character of the area, staff offers the following: As discussed during the development of the Zoning Ordinance, development in an agricultural area has direct and indirect effects. Among direct effects are: the vandalism of crops and equipment and the destruction of livestock by children and pets; the desire to regulate routine farm activities by residents of the develop- ment (i.e., spraying of pesticides and herbicides; spreading of lime and manure; proximity of livestock to residential areas, commercial timbering activities) and high land prices which make it difficult for existing farmers to expand and new farmers to locate in the area. Indirect effects are generally related to the expectation of continued development in the area, resulting in the impression that agricultural land is in transition. Indirect effects include: reduced or marginal production; disinvestment in equip- ment, livestock and other aspects of farming requiring large and/or long-term investment and idling of farmland. Development in an agricultural and forestal area can change the character of the area, not only in the immediate vicinity but in remote areas. Increased residential traffic on rural roads can result in hazardous conflicts with slower moving tractors, fruit trucks and logging trucks. New or expanded utility corridors through active farms may be required to serve new developments. Where development occurs in identified agricultural and forestal conservation areas, regulations should be flexible to permit site locations that minimize interference with agricultural and forestal operations, that use marginally productive lands and that cause a minimum loss of productive agricultural and forestal acreage. Staff is not suggesting that the proposed Panorama Estates Subdivision would generate all of these negative effects. However, the subdivision would increase residential development in the area which is viewed as inconsistent with the agricultural objective. One of the applicant's reasons for the proposed lot configuration is to provide more separation between the residential lots and farming activities. 5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas .... Ten percent, or 268 acres within a one mile radius is in parcels of five acres or less. Therefore, this property is considered to be in an undeveloped rural area. The majority of developed land is found along Route 660 in subdivisions such as Loftlands Wood, Mallard Lake and Fairgrove. This property surrounds Cooper Industries (Crouse Hinds) and the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department. Loftlands - 28 lots - 1.5 acre average lot size Mallard Lake (Blue Ridge Forest) - 27 lots - 2.8 acre average lot size Fairgrove - 50 lots - 2.7 acre average lot size. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, .... April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) {Page 13) The Village of Earlysville, the closest designated growth area, is +0.6 mile distant. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming .... Response time for the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department is one to five minutes. The Education Department has commented: "this develop- ment should not adversely affect the instructional program". In regards to road improvements, see criteria 98. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not ... a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road. Route 660 is presently and will remain tolerable; a constraint on Route 660 is the one-lane bridge across the Rivanna River south of this site. The Virginia Department of Transportation has verbally commented that Route 661 is presently non-tolerable. They state 'previously, the Department recommended that Route 661 be improved from the subdivision entrance to Route 660.' In regards to Route 661, staff offers the following observations: The distance from the subdivision entrance to Route 660 is approx- imately 1,500 feet or 0.3 mile. Route 661 traffic count (taken July-October 1986) is 35 vehicle trips per day. This request will increase traffic by seven lots by seven vehicle trips per day or 49, for a total of 84 vehicle trips per day. Route 661 is narrow (10-14 feet) and non-hardsurface with gravel in patches. The applicant maintains that with this proposal, although the traffic on Route 661 will increase from that which exists, there is actually a decrease in the number of lots served by Route 661 than with 'by-right' development. Staff recommends the use of caution in comparisons which utilize assumptions of 'by-right' development. Because Route 661 is not presently built to the standards necessary for existing traffic, any increase in traffic will further exacerbate the situation. Without improvements, citizens may request that the County allocate funds to widen and pave the road. Based on a 1984 list of unpaved roads by traffic count, 84 non-hardsurface roads or 58 percent of the non- hardsurface roads, had counts higher than the projected 84 vehicle trips per ~day resulting from this proposal. For the most part, those gravel road improvements funded in the Six Year Highway Plan have been granted for roads iwith higher traffic counts than that projected for Route 661. Staff recommends that no lots be approved on Route 661 until it is improved to a standard adequate to carry the projected traffic. iResponse to Criteria 99 as submitted by the applicant: a. Amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtra- tion of sediment: See "Existing Vegetation" analysis map prepared by Robert McKee & Associates. Extent of removal of existin~ vegetative cover durinq construction: The only vegetation to be cleared and grubbed shall be that necessary for removal along the proposed street alignments, in the area of the proposed stormwater detention pond, and for individual home construc- tion, including driveways. No vegetation whatsoever shall be disturbed in the proposed conservation easements, which coincide with areas of major runoff concentration. Amount of impervious cover after development: Roads, 2.34 acres. Driveways, 0.79 acre (assumes 24 drives each 120 feet long by 12 feet wide). Houses and garages, 0.66 acre (assumes 1,200 square feet per lot). Total impervious area is estimated to be approximately 3.79 acres, or 2.00 percent of the total site area. Proximity of any paved area, structure, or drainfield to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment or during construction, proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment: Through the use of conservation easements, in no case will there be any land- disturbing activity closer than 105 feet from any perennial or inter- mittent stream or impoundment. No structures or paved areas will be closer than 105 feet from any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment, and will generally be considerably further allowing drainfields to be located downhill from the structures. Soil types and characteristics with re~ard to septic field suitability and erodability: See "Soils" analysis map prepared by Robert B. McKee & Associates. 412 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) Slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure or paved area shall exist after development: See "Slope" analysis map prepared by Robert B. McKee & Associates. All structures shall be placed on building sites with slopes less than 25 percent. With one exception (entry road off State Route 661), no roads traverse slopes greater than 25 percent. Estimated timing and duration of construction: Development will most likely be phased into two phases - the East Phase (18 lots) to be served directly from State Route 660, and the West Phase (6 lots) to be served directly from State Route 661. The timing of each phase is presently unknown. he Degree of alteration of oriqinal topography and veqetative cover: It is anticipated that with the exception of the roads and stormwater detention pond dam, grading and earthwork for this development will be minimal. It is the intent of the developer to maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible. Artificial devices which will require periodiC inspection and/or maintenance or may be susceptible to failure or overflow associated with one hundred year storm: Stormwater detention pond, dam and spillway, possibly stormwater drainage culverts under proposed road- ways, and paved and unpaved ditches along sides of roadways. *Comparative information of phosphorous loadings has been compiled by the applicant's engineer, and is attached. Staff Comment: This special use permit is a request for a transfer of lot rights (development right +21 acre lots), and a decreased lot size. A breakdown of 'by right' lots follows: By-right: Parcel 21 (189 acres) - 5 lots (2 acre minimum) +8 lots (21 acre minimum) 13 lots total Parcel 21E (also referred to as Tract V) (11 acres) - 5 lots (2 acre minimum) - Ail lot rights relinquished. Part of Tax Map 45, Parcel 1 (also referred to as Tract I-4) 5 lots (2 acre minimum) +8 lots (21 acre minimum) 13 lots total (193 acres) - Six lot rights relinquished; the right to eight minus one (8 - 1) = 7 lots of 21 acre minimum remaining. With this applicatiOn, the applicant relinquishes all five development rights from Parcel 21E (Tract V), and all five development rights plus one right to a 21-acre lot from Tax Map 45, Parcel 1 (Tract I-4). Of the 24-1ot rights, nine are rights to lots of a 21-acre minimum (eight from Parcel 21 and one from Tract I-4). Therefore, because this request is for all 24 lots~ to be permitted under 21 acres in size, nine lots are requested at a de- creased lot size. Tracts V and I-4 are not listed as part of the application. Their develop- ment will be restricted by deed covenants to comply with this proposal. History: SP-85-16 James Murray, Stephen Murray & Panorama Farms, Inc. was indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1985. Points were raised about the size of the development and the availability of groundwater in light of the shortages experienced by Crouse Hinds. SP-85-16 proposed 80 lots on the 189 acre Parcel 21 with an average 2.1 acre lot size. The applicant does not wish for the present application to supersede the 1985 proposal which is still under 'indefinite deferral status', but rather that it be considered a separate and independent submittal. If the present application is approved, the applicant has stated that he will withdraw SP-85-16. A cOmparison of SP-85-16 with the present request, SP-87-06 follows: 413 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) LRa~e 15) Current Proposal Number of lots on Parcel 21 24 Previous Proposal 80 *By Right-Based on Estimated Potential 13 Average lot size 7.6 acres 2.1 acres 14.5 acres Residue Lots (Potential) 33 (2 acre min) 33 (21 acre min) 66 total 9 total of similar size = 94 acres average lot size 48 (2 acre min) 42 (21 acre min) 90 Total Lots Access By Route 661 from Parcel 21 From Parcel 21, Tract V and Tract I-4 14 34 34 minimum 18 minimum (Tracts V and I-4) Stormwater Retention Basin Yes Yes Not required Conservation Easement Along Streams Yes Yes Not required Agricultural Best Management Practices Yes Yes Not required Character of Area Creation of smaller lots along Rt. 660 in closer proximity to other development. Residue a mixture of small and large lots. Development on the banks of the reservoir Five fewer small (two acre minimum) lots = 10 total potential small lots. Maintaining large parcels for agricultural use and locating development along Rt. 660 in closer proximity to other development. A mixture of small and large lots. No small lots; all of the residue would be lots averaging 94 acres each. A potential of 15 small (two acre minimum) lots. Review of this special use permit request will be in two parts: technical criteria and policy considerations. The technical criteria are as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The policy considera- tions are appropriately addressed under the legislative discretion of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Staff opinion is that while this request does not meet all the criteria requirements for proposed rural area development, there is a documentable public benefit in terms of protection of the watershed which outweigh the criteria in this case. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-87-06. Technical Criteria: Review of technical criteria will focus on issues of groundwater availability, preservation of agricultural activity, and protec- tion of watershed quality. ke Groundwater Availability: The staff and the Planning Commission expressed concern over the adequacy of groundwater in the review of the previous SP-85-16 proposal. The applicant has requested a reconsidera- tion of this issue in light of developments over the past two years which further resolve it. The availability of water issue arises from the fact that the adjacent industry, Cooper Industries, has experienced diminished well yields and has had to truck an average of 40,000 gallons per week. The concern is not to place further demand on the same water source by the location of a number of residential lots in close proximity. This area is outside the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional areas and outside the designated growth area. A telephone conversation with Mr. Thomas McLean, Plant Manager for Crouse Hinds, disclosed the following: The water recycling system presently has an on-line target date of the end of September, 1987. The new system is designed to reclaim 80 percent of the water used. The plant presently uses 160,000 - 163,000 gallons per week. Of this amount, 120,000 gallons per week is produced by on-site wells and 40,000 gallons per week is purchased from the Service Authority. The water recycling system should reduce well demand to 6,800 gallons per day, or 34,000 gallons per five-day work week, with no public water purchase necessary. After the recycling system is on-line, Crouse Hinds will utilize much less water than 'by right' industry is '4J. 4 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) Be Ce permitted (32.61 acres x 400 gallons/acre/day x five days = 65,220 gal- ions/week). Please be advised that these figures are based on assump- tions of water reclamation and the existing number of employees and shifts. The County Engineer and Watershed Management Official are of the opinion that the proposed stormwater retention pond will assist in groundwater recharge. SP-87-06 proposed either (a) provision of on- or off-site well sources with appropriate pumping, treatment and storage (with or without combined system with Crouse Hinds); or (b) provision of individual wells on each lot. The applicant states the following: The 24 lots on 189 acres will be drawing on water under three times as much land as the factory draws upon. A well drilled on Parcel 21E was tested in September, 1986, to flow over eight gallons per minute. This is sufficient water to supply 67 percent of the needs of the entire 24 lot subdivision. There is no way to confirm the availability of groundwater or whether Crouse Hinds shares the same aquifer, without intensive geological studies. By-right development would create lots which are more spa- tially remote from one another, but which may be smaller and if not developed in conjunction with several parcels, may leave fewer alter- natives if water shortages exist. Preservation of Agricultural Activity: The previous proposal, SP-85-16 better served to meet the goal of preserving agricultural activity by limiting the residue development to nine tracts with an average 94 acre lot size. The present proposal is difficult to evaluate in this regard because no plan for development of the residue is proposed. As a result of the present proposal, Tract I-4 may only be divided into lots of 21 acres or greater. This is the acreage set forth in the Zoning Ordinance as the minimum for the preservation of agricultural land because it is the maximum requirements for all categories of land use taxation. The effect of this type of proposal on the agricultural area in general is set forth in discussion of special use permit criteria ~4 above. Protection of Watershed Quality: With the present proposal, the right to five small lots (two-acre minimum) and one large lot (21 acre minimum) is transferred from property (Tract I-4) on the banks of the reservoir, and the right to five small lots (two-acre minimum) is transferred from property (Tract V) approximately 3,200 feet from the reservoir. The applicant notes this is in 'a good faith effort to maximize public benefits and the environmental protection of the reservoir' that lots are transferred to a more distant location where they will become larger lots upstream of watershed protection improve- ments. In addition the applicant offers the three following measures of watershed protection: Stormwater retention basin to reduce sediment and phosphorous loading on the reservoir from this area. e Conservation easements within the 100 foot septic setback from streams. These areas are to remain undisturbed except as neces- sary for road and driveway construction. These filter strips are recommended in Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards to 'reduce erosion and runoff of sediment, nutrients and pesticides for land activities adjacent to watercourses; provide stream bank stabili- zation by maintenance of live root systems; maintain temperature norms along water courses and maintain shoreline and aquatic habitats'. Agricultural Best Management Practices as outlined in memorandum from William Norris, Watershed Management Official, dated March 20, 1987 (on file). These practices include: Se The establishment and maintenance of watering troughs to remove the livestock from the streams and reservoir. Fencing the reservoir frontage at a minimum distance of 100 horizontal feet from the normal pool elevation. Approxi- mately 24 acres would be involved in the 100 foot conserva- tion easement fenced area. Establishment of no-till/no-cultivation easement area along the shoreline of the reservoir. This area is to be 300 feet wide measured from the normal pool elevation. This would involve an additional 44 acres. Streambank erosion prevention and repair techniques to correct existing erosion areas shall be implemented. A review of the technical criteria reveals the following: While there exists no conclusive verification at this time, the availability of groundwater does not appear to be the limiting _4~5 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) tRa~e 17) factor that was perceived with SP-85-16. This is the result of a water reclamation system soon to be utilized by Crouse Hinds, and a significant reduction in the number of lots proposed (80 lots versus 24 = 70 percent fewer). The present application appears to have a slightly positive impact on preservation of agricultural activity by the deletion of all small lots in future development of Tract I-4. This application does not accomplish this goal as clearly as SP-85-16. This application does better protect watershed quality by the institution of the five measures and practices. The County Engineer and Watershed Management Official recommend approval of this application, based on the following: The water demand by the proposed 24 lots no longer appears to be an issue. The proposed lots are larger than the minimum permitted, and therefore, further help to filter and abate runoff. Portions of the lots (conser- vation easements) will remain in their natural state. Transferring lots to this location reduces the number directly on the reservoir. The proposed retention pond will trap and filter pollutants prior to discharging to the reservoir. The agricultural best management practices will help to further enhance water quality. Policy Considerations: By the clustering of these lot rights, the character of the area will be more of a developed appearance than 'by right.' The development is proposed along Route 660, which is in closer proximity to established subdivisions. From the adoption of the Rural Areas zone in December 1980 through January 1986, 21 special use permits have been filed. Of these, seven or one-third of the requests were for reduced lot size (from 21 acre minimum). A review of special use permit requests for subdivision of property in watersheds did not find any requests for 'transfer' of lot rights. Of the seven applica- tions approved, three proposed watershed protection measures. These mea- sures include a lake and/or limited land-disturbing activities. None of the seven applications involved property on the banks of the reservoir. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, it is important in terms of precedence to make positive findings that by virtue of the specific aspects of this property location and the plan for development, that there are identifiable, overriding public bene- fits to be gained which outweigh the fact that the proposal does not meet all criteria for review of special use permits. This property is distinct from previous special use permit requests by the location on the banks of the reservoir and the level of watershed protection measures offered. In addition, there are very few working farms on the banks of the reservoir. Tax maps showing the reservoir in relation to parcel lines show that there are few undeveloped parcels of this size on the banks of the reservoir. Due to the above unique characteristics of this proposal, the staff is less concerned than normally about the precedent to be set for future requests. In the staff opinion, few other requests will be able to provide the same combination of characteristics. Conclusion: The present request does not meet all of the technical criteria as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Based on measures proposed by the applicant, this proposal clearly meets the goal of protection of watershed quality. This goal is particularly important due to the proximity to the reservoir and the existence of a working farm on the majority of the residue. This property is unique in that few, if any, of the undeveloped parcels on the banks of the reservoir could transfer lot rights and require a special use permit. Based on the efforts proposed for the protection of watershed quality, staff recommends approval of SP-87-06, subject to the following conditions: County Attorney approval of deed restrictions which provide limitations to the development of Tracts V and I-4 and which provide for the continuation of Agricultural Best Management Practices, in accordance with this application; 0 Watershed Management Official and County Engineer approval of the establishment of runoff control measures and Agricultural Best Manage- ment Practices as outlined in March 20, 1987, memo to Amelia Patterson, Planner, from William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official; No lots accessing Rt. 661 shall be approved by the Albemarle County Planning commission until Rt. 661 is improved to Virginia Department of Transportation standard for the total projected traffic after this subdivision; April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) ( Pa~e_18 ) Future subdivision proposals shall generally comply with the Panorama Estates Subdivision site development plan dated January, 1987 by Robert B. McKee & Associates. Stream locations are subject to approval by the County Engineer. If the applicant chooses to install a central well system, the follow- ing is required: Se County Engineer approval of central well system to be designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards; be The central well system should be comprised of two or more wells, each of which is independently capable of supplying water for all 24 lots; Ce The well shall be located on property subject to the present application; Well test is to be witnessed and approved by the County Engineer." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 31, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of this petition to the Board of Supervisors, subject to the following conditions: County Attorney approval of deed restrictions, easements and/or contracts which provide limitations to the development of Tracts V and I-4 and which provide for the continuation of Agricultural Best Management Practices, in accordance with this application; e Watershed Management Official and County Engineer approval of the establishment of runoff control measures and Agricultural Best Management Practices as outlined in March 20, 1987, memo to Amelia Patterson, Planner, from William K. Norris, Water- shed Management Official; Future subdivision proposal shall generally comply with the Panorama Estates Subdivision site development plan dated January, 1987 by Robert B. McKee & Associ- ates. Stream locations are subject to approval by the County Engineer; e If the applicant chooses to install a central well system, the following is re- quired: County Engineer approval of central well system to be designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards; be The central well system shall be comprised of two or more wells, each of which is independently capable of supplying water for all 24 lots; c. The well shall be located on property subject to the present application; d. Well tests are to be witnessed and approved by the County Engineer. 5. Applicant shall withdraw SP-85-16 within thirty days of approval of SP-87-06." The following is a memorandum to Mrs. Amelia Patterson from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi- dent Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, dated February 19, 1987. "SP-87-06, James B. Murray (Panorama Estates Subdivision), Route 660 - The entrance locations were not staked in the field, therefore, it was not possible to check sight distance. It appears that the proposed entrance on Route 661 does not have adequate sight distance and would need to be shifted to the north. It appears that adequate sight distance exists on Route 660 with the cutting and trimming of vegetation. However, until these entrances are staked, it is not possible to verify sight distance. In a letter dated March 20, 1985 the Department addressed comments for SP-85-16. The required 100-foot long, 12-foot wide right-turn lane with 100-foot taper lane is shown on this plan for the entrance on Route 660. Previously, the Department recommended that Route 661 be improved from the subdivision entrance to Route 660. There is a 50-foot access easement shown for Lot 2 on Route 661 and the Department recommends that all lots have access off the new internal road. The Department will need to review and approve road plans for any future State maintained roads." Mr. Horne summarized the staff report. He said the Planning Commission deleted the suggested condition Number Three of the staff, which recommended upgrading Route 661, and slightly changed Condition Number One to clarify that limitations could be made through deed restrictions, easements and/or contracts. Mr. Fisher inquired if that meant that contracts could take the place of deed restrictions and easements. Mr. Horne responded that most likely it would be a combination of two or three of those measures depending on the actual conditions that are being met. He said the County Attorney may want to address that, but the applicant has submitted a letter in which he essentially agrees to implement the Watershed Management Official's suggestions for best management practices. The Planning Commission could not resolve which one would be applicable in each case. They decided to include them all and work with the County Attorney and the applicant to make sure that the appropriate mechanism is placed on the appropriate condition to make sure it is binding. April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Lindstrom said he did not understand what limitations on development the condition is designed to enforce and for how long. What would trigger a change? He cannot tell from the condition what is really meant, and he asked Mr. Horne to elaborate. Mr. Horne said that included in the original proposal (SP 85-16) is the idea that the applicant was relinquishing various development rights on two adjacent parcels and essential- ly transferring those rights to this parcel. He said the applicant will relinquish five development rights for small lots on what was showing as Parcel 21E, and that is all of the development rights on that parcel~ The applicant also relinquishes six development rights on Parcel I-4. That is, five small, two-acre lots, and one 21 acre lot development right that would be transferred from that parcel to this parcel. There would be a residue of seven, 21 acre parcel rights. That's one thing that is built into the whole proposal. In terms of the various additional setbacks, easements along streams and the reservoir, those would most likely take the form of actual easements on a plat. Certainly the setbacks from the streams within the actual subdivision would be in the form of easements. In terms of contracts, in a response to Mr. Norris' memorandum, Mr. Murray has stated that they are essentially accepting those, so the letter can be treated as a binding contract. Without doing a complete analysis of whether that should be accepted as a contract, or whether it is an easement or a deed restriction, Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, advised the Commission that all those words should be placed in the condition. At a later date, for the best management practices and various other things, he would assist the County staff in determining whether an ease- ment, contract or a deed restriction would be most suitable for each individual condition. Mr. Lindstrom asked if what Mr. Horne described included the large parcel on the tax map. Mr. Horne said that it does. He pointed out the remaining farm area, and Mr. Lindstrom asked how many development rights are left. Mr. Horne said significant development rights would remain with that area. It depends on how the development will be structured as to which rights will be realized. He pointed out that the major thing offered by the applicant is the best management practices, installation of water troughs, stream bank erosion, fencing of the reservoir frontage and various other best management practices on the land that is intended to remain a working farm area. This would not be part of the actual application, but is offered as part of what he believes is a binding contract that would be in effect as long as there is no change made to the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that the conservation easements along the reservoir itself are a restriction over and above what would occur just by virtue of moving these development rights around. Mr. Horne responded that Mr. Lindstrom was correct as far as the actual development of the land. The applicant is not offering to physically restrict his ability to divide this land. Mr. Fisher said the wording of this condition is extremely important to him because he sees deed restrictions as a fairly short term sort of limitation. The easements provide the best assurance that these proffers are going to be carried out for a longer period of time. Contracts can be essentially useless, because they can be changed tomorrow. He feels that there is a very large distinction between how these various rights are proffered away. Mr. Horne suggested that the Board review a letter to Ms. Amelia Patterson from Mr. Murray, dated March 21, 1987. In that he is responding to the staff discussion as to the issues they felt were important. There is an explanation of Mr. Murray's understanding as to what is the status of this letter. Mr. Horne referred the Board to Page two, Paragraph one. He said there is also a discussion as to various other aspects ~of the application. He said this letter was seen and discussed with Mr. Payne by the applicant. At the Planning Commis- sion meeting, there was not a full resolution as to whether or not this was a binding person- al contract or how long it was good for, but the current condition is somewhat all inclusive as to its language. This letter and Mr. Norris' memo are two crucial documents to the plan being offered here by the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the conservation easement is any different from the setbacks that would be required on the streams. Mr. Horne answered, "no." Mr. Lindstrom said so this basically reiterates the County's regulations. Mr. Horne answered,"yes," for the streams themselves. However, there are streams on the property that are not subject directly to the application. On those, there is the offer for those set- backs, also. Mr. Fisher asked if the setbacks weren't already required, and Mr. Horne replied that if development did occur, they would be required. Mr. Fisher inquired as to what happened to the suggestion that no development occur until the road was upgraded to handle the traffic. Mr. Horne responded that the Commission did not agree with the staff's analysis of that issue. The applicant argued that he didn't want the road upgraded, the neighbors did not want the road upgraded, and it would do more damage to the character and possibly the environment of the area than it was worth. Mr. Lindstrom said, when Mr. Murray speaks, he can elaborate a little on what is meant exactly by a personal contract in terms of whether it means it is binding on anybody other than the people who sign it. Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Murray to speak first. Mr. Murray said they started out two years ago to solve an estate planning program. They have a very large farm that has a high value. They needed to plan in advance. The family's goal was not to leave the farming business for the subdivision business, but to preserve as much of the farm as possible. They developed first a plan and included all the land. That plan involved moving all the development rights up on the 189 acre parcel. The Planning Commission hearing disclosed some real concerns about the density created and about the water. That plan was deferred until tonight and is still pending before the County, and they are back to the Board of Supervisors with a substitute. They have worked on this 418 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) ( Parquet20 ) substitute for a year and a half. He thinks it is apparent from the length of the staff report that the staff has worked very hard on this. There are many details that have been added, and changes that have been made that address primarily environmental concerns. The key to what is before the Board tonight is to take a small number of small lots that by right, can fall right on the banks of the reservoir, and move these lots as far from the reservoir as possible, immediately adjoining Loftlands subdivision and as close as possible to the Village of Earlysville. The smallest lots are next to Loftlands and Earlysville. There are a few large ones on Route 661, and they are moving all of those to get them away from the reservoir and upstream of reservoir protection measures. Everyone has tried to maximize environmental protections. They have enough land to have the ability to do some- thing that is a fundamental change for the protection of the reservoir. They are dealing with a mile and a half of frontage on the reservoir. He mentioned that there is no other parcel or group of parcels in single ownership that gives the County an opportunity to do this again. He does not believe anybody is opposed to it. He said a letter was sent to the Board from the League of Women Voters supporting this proposal. The Planning Commission gave it a unanimous vote, and everybody spoke in favor of it. He feels it provides the County with something that will be tremendously beneficial to the reservoir. He responded to Mr. Lindstrom's concerns by suggesting that the answers to the majority of his questions are in materials mailed to the Board members. He said that if Board members would take the March 21 letter, Mr. Norris' staff report and with the background that he is going to give, he thinks he can explain what is going on and the reason that the Planning Commission changed Condition Number One. Mr. Murray stated that there are three types of restrictions or environmental concerns in which the staff was interested. First was conservation easements in the develop- ment, itself. How do they make sure that with 189 acres that nothing is built in the inter- mittent stream areas within 200 feet. That problem is solved with permanent conservation easements recorded as deeds to last forever. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher asked who would hold these deeds. Mr. Murray said if the Board would like the County to be the recipients of those easements, that's fine. He thinks the County is the logical party, and assumes it will be the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to make sure he understands and would like to ask questions as Mr. Murray goes through this. He said that one of the proposals is for a 200 foot setback from all intermittent streams, and he asked where this shown. Mr. Murray replied that it is in the development itself which is shown as the "mustard colored" parcel on the drawing on the board. Mr. Lindstrom wanted to know if that is an additional 100 feet over the current setback requirement, and he determined from Mr. Horne that it is the same as the current requirement. Mr. Murray said there are two hundred foot wide strips shown on the plan which would be permanent conservation easements deeded to the County. Mr. Fisher wondered how this differed from the current requirement that no construction or septic tank or anything else can be placed within a hundred feet of these streams. Mr. Murray said he did not think it differs at all, but the staff had asked them to respond whether or not there would be deeded easements, and their response is, "yes." Mr. Norris clarified the discussion by stating that current regulations have the septic setback at 100 feet from the edge of a tributary stream. Construction activities are not precluded. The conservation easement was put in the Comprehensive Plan as a recommendation. For the past year or so, staff has been recommending it in addition to the runoff control requirements. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is a prohibition of all activity within 100 feet. Mr. Norris said, "yes." There will basically be no cutting or clearing, and a natural strip 100 feet wide will be maintained on either side of the streams. That is where this proposal differs from the runoff control ordinance restrictions. Mr. Murray said the second area of concern is how to control the transfer of development rights. How is the right to create small parcels from the two other tracts legally con- trolled? That is being accomplished by making those two tracts, although no development is occurring on them and there is no plan showing how they will be divided, a part of this application. Legally, if they are part of this application, and they go into the zoning file, those rights are, as part of this application, allowed to go on to Tract IV, and disappear from the other two tracts. Mr. Fisher asked if the owners of record are identical for all of those properties. Mr. Murray replied that all owners of record have joined in this application. That is why Stephen Murray is an applicant even though he has no ownership interest in Tract IV. He is an owner of Tract V, but he is joining in this application to make sure that legally those rights disappear from his property. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this proffer is to reduce the number of development rights on Parcel V and I-4 by the number of rights that are being transferred to Tract IV. Mr. Murray said that was correct. Mr. Lindstrom asked how this would be accomplished. By making those two other tracts a part of the application, Mr. Murray said. Mr. Lindstrom wondered why Mr. Murray decided to do it that way rather than with a deed restriction, and Mr. Murray answered that is why the staff and the Planning Commission felt it might best be left to the County Attorney's final opinion. If the County Attorney would like to see a recordable document that says that those development rights as defined in the Zoning Ordinance of December 1980 are transferred, they would be willing to do that. It seems to them, legally, that the proper place for that is in the County's zoning files. Therefore, parcels were added to the application that have no lots shown. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Murray would have any objection to those being included in a deed restriction. Mr. Murray answered that as a recital that it is happening, that is fine. Mr. Lindstrom wondered if that was Mr. Murray's intent that that would also preclude an application for a special permit for development on those parcels or a rezoning or if it 419 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (Pa~e 21~ would just apply to those by-right parcels. Mr. Murray said it applies onlY to the by-right parcels. He said that at this time, ten, five-acre lots could be cut off along Route 661 without any road improvements. The idea is to prevent that from ever happening by pushing those lots away from the reservoir and onto this parcel upstream of the protection measures. They feel that the logical, legal way to do that is to take parcels which are not being developed and make them part of the development so that it goes into the permanent zoning files as having happened. Mr. Way asked the County Attorney if he agrees basically with what Mr. Murray is saying, and Mr. St. John said he probably would not put it in the same words, but he doesn't see anything that he disagrees with. Mr. Murray went on to discuss the third concern that was raised by the staff which is how to handle the best management practices. There is another tract of land that is over 800 acres that's not part of this application. The applicants are trying to do everything they can to protect the reservoir, so they are proffering to do additional things on that land even though it is not part of the application. They are not making that land part of the zoning record, so instead they are handling it with a personal contract. He and Mr. Payne determined that a contract was a good vehicle to do it, because of the nature of what is being done. Essentially what needs to be done to institute Mr. Norris' best management practice recommendations is to build things. They are entering into a binding five-year contract to construct a series of improvements that will benefit the County. There is approximately a mile of fencing, concrete water troughs and a series of things to be con- structed over a five-year period. They are all relatively permanent. The idea is to take 880 additional acres and have a personal contract with three parties all promising the County to construct improvements for the County's benefit. Mr. Lindstrom asked what happens in the future if the parties to the contract don't own that land anymore and repairs are needed. Mr. Murray said the extent of the proffer is that they are proffering to spend money to install these things which are of a relatively perma- nent nature. At some point it is conceivable that someone may want to do things differently, but for the foreseeable future, they are permanent improvements. Mr. Fisher asked if it is a five-year contract with the current owners. Mr. Murray answered that the five-year period is something that has been worked out. He said that Mr. Norris has visited the farm and has worked with the farmer and decided that a certain amount would be done each year, over a five-year period. Mr. Fisher inquired if this is the same kind of thing as clean lakes funding or some other federal funding and farmers are paid to do it. Mr. Norris replied, "yes,'~ and the Murrays are participating in that program. In reply to one of Mr. Lindstrom's questions, Mr. Murray said that if the land is sold, the personal obligation continues. The three applicants would be liable, and Mr. Lindstrom said they could be sued no matter where they are at the time. Mr. Fisher asked when the obligation ends, and Mr. Lindstrom explained that it is personal, and the obligation ends when the three people have all died. Mr. Murray concluded his presentation by saying that he hopes the Board members can see how much thought and work has gone into this proposal. Mr. Norris discussed how the plan reached this point after it was first presented in 1985. He said the applicant came forward with a plan for all of the acreage, and ended up with parcels that were very large. That was deferred, and two years later they have come back with a different plan. Mr. Norris said he is responsible for the practices being recommended and required on the residue property. Originially, the applicant had not men- tioned any of the residue property in his application. Mr. Norris and the County Engineer will review the agricultural best management practices every two years. The applicant will be given the five-year implementation period, and the projects have to be completed within that five years. The watering troughs and facilities are to remove livestock from the streams and reservoir and part of this is funded under the "Clean Lakes Program~" He men- tioned that he has studied some of the City's acquisition maps, and there are some correc- tions that have to be made if there is ever an application on that property, because the lines are not correct. The minimum 100 foot buffer is basically a conservation easement, and there is a land use matrix attached to his memo (on file). He attempted to stay consistent with the current regulations and the policy on the proposed Buck Mountain reservoir. The City owns a 10 to 15 foot buffer in this area, and he does not feel it is sufficient for water quality protection. The second part of this is a no-till, no-cultivation easement which is essentially 300 feet from the edge of pool, which is basically identical to the Buck Mountain setback. He envisions a line of a minimum of 100 feet that is fenced, and 200 feet from that there will be a no cultivation, no till zone. This essentially gives a 300 foot uninterrupted buffer. Other parts of this agreement include stream bank erosion prevention repair, proper maintenance and fertilization, and the additional vegetation strips along the streams on the residue property. He wants to be sure the Board is aware that a section has been added, and the applicant has agreed to it, that should the residue properties ever be considered for development, the following might be appropriate for evaluation of the applica- tion: 1) the established conservation easement areas along the reservoir frontage should remain and be maintained; 2) only large lot developments of 21 acres or greater should occur along the reservoir frontage area, and 3) no structure or structural improvements, either temporary or permanent should be allowed within the easement areas. He said that was added as a restriction to give some control on what happens on the rest of the property. He stated that the County does not have as much control as it would have had with the original application, but he thinks this application does a lot for water quality protection. Mr. Steve Murray said his concerns are directed toward the upgrading of Route 661 on which he lives. He is against upgrading Route 661. He does not doubt the Highway Depart- ment's or the staff's road width assessment of between 10 and 15 feet. None of the first 1500 feet or probably 2000 feet, where the entrance for the development is proposed, is under 13 or 14 feet wide. Ten feet of the 10 to 14 feet is well beyond where the entrance to this development would go. Consequently, this helps no one who presently lives on the road. The only parcel that enters the road during the first 1500 feet before the entrance to the subdivision is owned by the applicants. If the road was widened to state standards, which he thinks is 18 feet wide, it will essentially become a speedway that runs into a dead end, and .420 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) there is no where to turn around. They have had a meeting with the people who live on that road, and another gentlemen spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. They are all used to the minor inconvenience of slowing down to pass people along that road, especially consider- ing the fact that the portion of the road presently in the best condition zs the portion being considered for upgrading. Mr. Fisher brought out the fact. that as soon as new houses are built and sold, people will be asking for road improvements so school buses, fire trucks, etc., will be able to travel the road safely. Mr. Steve Murray agreed with Mr. Fisher, but he repeated that they are talking about fixing the best portion, and that part of the road has plenty of room for two people to pass. Beyond the development, the road narrows down considerably. He feels that if the County wants the road upgraded, then they should make the rest of the road as nice as this section. Mr. Steve Murray pointed out that the applicants are trying to transfer development rights away from the rest of the road. Another point is, there are only seven other lots along the road, and they are within the first two to three-tenths of a mile. He thinks that the Planning Commission agreed that this would be opening up a speedway for the rest of the road that goes nowhere. He agrees with the Board's concerns and hopes that they agree with his. Mr. Fisher asked how many families presently use the road. Mr. Steve Murray said there are presently three families at the dead end of the road. He pointed out the area where he lives on the map. There are two other families above him. This is a total of six families. Mr. Fisher noted that with twenty-four new houses, there will be at least five times the traffic. Mr. Steve Murray also stated that all the people on that road questioned that traffic count. Mr. Horne clarified that the way the proposed development pattern is laid out, there are two cul-de-sacs, one from the north and one from Route 661 in the south. The number of houses that would actually take access under the application plan on Route 661 is seven and not twenty-four. Mr. Fisher replied that that does make some difference. Mr. Way asked where the entrance would be, and Mr. Horne pointed it out on the map. He said the plan is not yet definite. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if he had been told that Route 661 was considered nontolerable, and Mr. Horne said, "yes." Mr. Bob McKee said he wanted to clarify two things about the road. He pointed out, that there are only about seven lots off of that cul-de-sac. He said that in the staff report there was mention that comparisons shouldn't be made with a "by-right" development, but he thinks that given the fact that comparisons are being made with the "by-right" development in terms of environmental impacts to the reservoir, etc., it is only fair to make those compari- sons as far as the road issue is concerned. Eleven development rights are being taken off of Route 661 from the lower parcels. By his count, using the Highway Department's standards, about 77 vehicle trips per day are being excluded from use on Route 661. Eleven are being added which makes a net reduction in "by-right" use of Route 661 of approximately 28 vehicle trips per day. If the "by-right" plan is compared on this parcel, there is a possibility for an excess of seven development rights coming on Route 661 at this point, so the daily traffic count is being reduced on Route 661. He also mentioned that there was a comment in the staff report that the Highway Department had taken some traffic counts on Route 661 from July to October 1986, and he was told there was a house under construction on that road during that period. He wonders if this could have something to do with the traffic count being as high as it was at that time. Mr. Mike Zakin, contract purchaser of the parcel, said he had had three residents on the road contact him, knowing that he was projecting the purchase of this parcel, specifically to appeal to him not to upgrade the road. One of them wanted to come tonight, but could not make it. This person had told Mr. Zakin that if he had wanted a road that would invite people to drive down to his home, he wouldn't be living there. He stated that a house under construction, when there are only four people living in over a hundred acres of land, is a bit unusual. Everybody on that road spoke to him about the count, when they were told about the figures from the Highway Department, and said that they had never seen that many vehicles on that road except when there were subcontractors and workers coming in and out of that house. All of them are concerned with the privacy of their homes and with people turning around in their driveways where their children play. They are concerned about an increase in robberies. They came to him and asked him to do something. He explained that he did not have the authority to make that decision, but that there would be only seven houses added at the very beginning of the road, and that he would be happy to work with the Highway Depart- ment to maintain the grading of the road, improve the ditches, etc., and see to it that they didn't do anything to reduce the quality of the road. When a gentleman from the Highway Department spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, he acknowledged that the usage of the road was extremely low and that compared to other roads in the County that are designated as nontolerable, this road has extremely low traffic. It is a secluded nook of a road. All he wanted to do was express to the Board the feelings of three people on that road. They repre- sent the bulk of the people there. With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing and invited the County Attorney to speak on the issues of deed restrictions, easements and contracts and perhaps to suggest an improvement to this language, if he was prepared to do so. If not, Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to tell the Board how to go about carrying out this requirement. Mr. St. John said he was not prepared to improve the language at this moment, but he was prepared to comment on the easements and contracts, etc. He stated that the devices that have been used to bring this about clearly benefit the public, but the question is whether it is legally feasible. He said that this is not technically a transfer of development rights, in his judgment. That wouldn't be permitted under State law or the County's ordinance. He said there is a tract of land under common ownership, with all the owners of those tracts having united in this one application. So that tract is now before the Board as one unified application. The transfer of development rights can be treated just as any other application for clustering. This is not a transfer between different owners or different tracts of land or between different zoning districts which is the definition of transfer of development rights. All this is legally, in his judgment, is an example of clustering. That can be accomplished without deed restrictions or putting something to record in a deed book. The 421 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) ~Page 23) same thing is true of the protective 200 foot strip along the intermittent and perennial streams on the "mustard colored" tract. That can be done as a condition even though it goes beyond present regulations. A condition would not even be needed on this special use permit, if what's being done did not go beyond the present regulations. The Board can still do this by writing it as a'condition to this special use permit, and there is no need to write it in the deed book records in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court. When that is done, the Clerk ends up keeping the zoning map. These restrictions, or conditions, to the special use permit are part of the zoning map. State law says the zoning map is kept in the Zoning Administrator's Office, not in the Clerk's Office. In his judgment, the same thing can be accomplished by doing that without putting it in the Clerk's Office. In his judgment, furthermore, it is technically illegal as well as practically unwise, to use the Clerk's deed registry to accomplish this kind of thing. It should be done strictly in the conditions of the special use permit and kept in the Zoning Office in the County Office building. With respect to the residue property on which the best management practices are going to be imposed contractually, this is very beneficial. Mr. St. John pointed out the biggest tract on the map and said that land is not part of this application. He stated that contract zoning is illegal in Virginia. He thinks the Board would be on shaky ground because the question is whether or not a contract like this is enforceable. That piece of land, not being a part of this application, is no different legally from the situation if you were talking about some other totally separate tract downstream, where the owner said if you will approve this special use permit, he would agree contractually to do certain things that are beneficial to the County on this other separate farm. If that is taken to its logical extension, you are not just talking about best management of agricultural practices. There are a lot of things people can do voluntarily that would be beneficial to the County. They could agree to perform 1000 hours of community service such as cleaning up garbage dumps. He sees it legally as being exactly the same. If the Board "goes by the book", the decision as to what to do on these other tracts should not be influenced by an agreement, contractual or otherwise, to perform some other beneficial service to the County that has nothing to do with the land that is subject to this application. That is his opinion of the legal situation that the Board finds itself in now. He said a lot of work has gone into this "cat skinning device", and the Board may not want to go by the book. That is up to them. Mr. Fisher stated that most of the land with reservoir frontage is on this parcel that Mr. St. John has cast considerable doubt as to whether or not the contract is lawful and can be enforced. Mr. St. John said that maybe the Board wants to take a chance, and very likely knowing the people involved, "their word is as good as their bond". Maybe it is worth a lot, even if it is not legally enforceable. Mr. Fisher said he is trying to weigh the public benefits that have been proposed as offsetting this increase in density on another property in the watershed. The basis for that is all of the protection devices that are going to be prepared for the drinking water for the people in Charlottesville and the urban area of Albemarle County. He is trying to determine whether there is a public benefit to the whole project. Mr. St. John responded that if it happens, it is a benefit, and people say it's going to happen. If you get away from the legal technicalities and know the people, and you believe that they will do what they say, it's a benefit if it happens whether it is legally enforceable or not. That will be a judgment that the Board has to make. In his belief, this is not countenanced by the state enabling legislation. Mr. Fisher asked why, then, is this proposal before the Board, and Mr. St. John replied that a lot of work went into it, and the final decision is not up to him. It is up to the Board. He pointed out that what the Board is approving is a special use permit. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if this proposal passes and six months from now this "white ringed area" is sold, what that would mean. Mr. St. John said, in his judgment, it means that it will be up to the buyer as to whether he wants to comply with the moral obliga- tion that was imposed on this land when the special use permit was approved, but he cannot be forced to do so, even in court. The Board will only have a contract, the consideration for which was a rezoning, and the contract is void. Mr. St. John also mentioned that there is something else he would be leery of if he were the applicants or the contract buyer, and that is that the zoning itself is illegal and void and can be attacked as such if it is treated as having been bought in part or in whole by this promise for best management practices. The rezoning could be nullified. A special use permit is, under Virginia law, a legislative act and is a breed of zoning. If it has been bought by promises, contractual or otherwise, to perform some other service beneficial to the County, then it's void or certainly voidable. The fact that the residue of this property is adjacent to the property that is part of this application doesn't change that. It's not part of the application. It's no closer to this application, legally, than if it were a separate farm a mile away. Mrs. Cooke said she did not understand why the Board was hearing anything about that piece of property. If what they are being asked to do is approve a special use permit, and that's the legal thing they are being asked to do, and the other parcel is a moral thing that they are being asked to consider, then she is confused. Mr. St. John replied that the offer is there for what it's worth, and is being offered by the applicants for what it's worth. Mrs. Cooke asked if that is true as long as the applicants own the property. Mr. St. John said he believed that is what the applicants said. When they have gone, it's not even envisioned. This is a personal contract, so when they are gone, it wouldn't affect the buyer or the successor. But they are promising to do these things within five years, and that seems to be a promise that they plan to be around for five years. He said that would be worth something to him if he were reviewing this. He said he didn't know about the precedent that the Board ~u~~§9~ing, to let a zoning decision be influenced by something that is in his judgment~ He pointed out that the Board may find value enough in what is being offered on the "green and mustard" colored tracts, that it may want to approve the application without regard to anything that is being promised on the "white" tract. If no mention had been made about the "white" tract at all, there may still be enough benefit in what is being done on the other two tracts to approve the application. April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Agnor said one other factor that may have entered into this is that originally the whole tract was a part of the application. But, the parcel fronting on the reservoir is not a part of the current application, so it is an evolutionary process that the best management practices are being recommended to be placed on this tract, and it has not been pursued from the standpoint of being legally enforceable. Mr. St. John said the idea of conservation easements is something that a landowner has available and the County has available to accept. It involves economic benefits to the owner who is willing to give up his development rights, where the landowner wants to be sure he won't be taxed on the basis of developable land and to be protected from any governmental action which would treat him as having developmental land. He can give an easement or even sell an easement to the state or local government which will prevent the land from ever being developed. But that's independent of any request for development. In that situation, there is not an application for approval of development on which there is available the imposition of conditions. There would not be any opportunity to restrict development absent the conservation easement. That's why a conservation easement has value. That is also why, in his judgment, it's unnecessary to use that device here. There is an application here for development, and there is the opportunity to impose condi- tions on approval of the application. Those conditions should be kept on file in the Zoning Administrator's Office. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about areas where special permits have been granted to people who transfer development from one part of the property to another and say they will reserve the rest of the property forever. In these cases, the only good enforcement mecha- nism is conservation easements. If people say they are going to take ten units off of this part of the property and put them over on another part, he thinks they should be willing to put conservation easements over the entire area from which they have removed development rights so that would be a lasting and binding agreement. Then they won't be back asking for another special permit to develop that area and gain additional development rights. Mr. St. John said that is a valid thought, but it contains a fallacy. They could still come back for the right to develop. He said it would simply involve more red tape, because if the board of supervisors at that time is inclined to allow them to develop, that board can release them from perpetual conservation easements. The release would also have to be recorded in the Clerk's Office because the original conservation easement is recorded in the Clerk's Office, but they can do it. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that is the same with the easements held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. St. John said if the easement runs to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or to some other foundation or to some private organizations that accept those easements, and have been approved by the government, that is totally different. That would lock the hands of a future board of supervisors, and it would take the governing body of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to release the easement in that event. He said that is not what's being done in this case. It takes a long time for a foundation of that kind to review the offers of these easements and approve them and accept them. He does not think that kind of thing can be done as part of a special use permit application. Mr. St. John said he will not going to instruct his office to refuse to approve these easements and documents. If the Board says to do it, they will approve them and record them. He will not say that it cannot be done legally, but he thinks that the Board will not be doing it legally, "by the book". Mr. Bowie asked if Condition Number One gives the County Attorney the authority to see that it's done and recorded properly in the Zoning Office if that is the proper place. Mr. St. John answered that if it is approved as it is, deed restrictions would be recorded in the Clerk's Office where the deeds are recorded. If this is approved with these conditions, then they will receive these and record them in the Clerk's Office, but Mr. St. John does not think they belong in that office. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John what he thinks it should say. Mr. St. John said, if the conservation measures and the transfer of development rights are not going to be accomplished through deed restrictions, then all of these conditions need to be rewritten to make them conditions of approval. Mr. Horne said he reads Numbers two, three, four and six as pure conditions of approval. These conditions approve, based on a document, certain measures, and the applicants must comply with the plan that has been shown to the Board tonight. He feels they are straight conditions. Mr. Bowie mentioned that Condition Number Two speaks of best watershed practices. Mr. Fisher said that it doesn't say what parcels, but Mr. Horne said that it is referenced in the March 20th memo. Mr. Fisher asked for the parcel number and asked if it was cited in this memo, and Mr. Horne replied that it just says "the residue." Mr. Fisher asked that it be stated for the record what that means. Mr. Horne replied that the residue portion of the property is intended to mean Tax Map 45, Parcel One. Mr. Agnor said the condition can be rewritten to mean Parcels I-4 and V because they are the residue of the property that is not going to be developed "by-right." He said that is an interpretation of what residue means. Mr. Agnor also mentioned that he thought it was intended to be as Mr. Horne illustrated, but if the Board would like to remove the concern that Mr. St. John has r.aised, he suggests that the residue is the "pink and the green" areas on the map displayed. Mr. Norris stated that the Best Management Practices are intended for the "white area with the red ring" and the "green and pink" areas. Those practices were intended for all the residue of this application and the residue of the applicant's property. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that the residue of Tract I-4 is enforceable because that is part of the application. The part that is a personal contract is in the "white," and may or may not be enforceable. So, part can be enforced and part cannot, and the Board can choose to take the applicant's word that it will be done. Assuming that it will pass, all that needs to be done is split it off. Mr. St. John answered that that doesn't even have to 4?© April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) LR~_~e 25) be done. It can be left in knowing that it may not be legally enforceable, but it is still in there. Mr. Way stated that even if what is included in the residue property is not enforceable, it still seems to him to be a considerable benefit to the public not to develop the "green" area to its total potential because it very definitely saves the reservoir. Mr. Murray said he would like to change the proffer to resolve this problem. He stated that the contract is a proffer and is an offer from the applicants and not a request from the staff. It was offered in response to Mr. Norris' concern that he would like to see the whole property covered. Mr. Lindstrom said that a proffer is very specific and if it is an ap- proved proffer for rezoning that is one thing. But if it isn't, he wants everybody to understand that Mr. Murray is amending his contract proposal. Mr. St. John said that a proffer has got to be part of the application. Mr. Murray said if Board members would read the letter, his letter uses the word, "proffer." The applicants are proffering a contract, but he thinks they can go beyond that. They are proffering the entire package including the letter of the 21st that has the word "contract" in it. What makes the contract unenforceable and creates this problem is lack of consideration. It is illegal for the County to give as consideration for that contract a rezoning. He has spoken with Mr. Norris, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has a fund of money, a few dollars of which has already been used in this project for fencing. If the Authority will take out of that fund $500, in consideration of that $500, they will enter into the contract in his letter of the 21st, and will not do it for this rezoning. He thinks it should be left out of the rezoning package. That is a separate contract. He said he would do it either way, but if the Board is hung up on the legal technicality, he will take it out of the application and take separate consideration. Mr. Norris said the question was posed as to whether there was a source of funds and he has indicated that there is a source of funds under the 314 project to do fencing, etc. However, the question was who controls the funds and whether the funds will be available. Rivanna controls that money and basically is the approval agency on the use of that money, and the money has been used for fencing. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is aware of this application and has agreed that a 100 foot buffer would improve water quality in this area. He said he had no idea, however, if they would be willing to enter into a contract. Mr. St. John agreed and said the Board cannot predicate the rezoning on whether the Rivanna or Albemarle County Service Authority will agree to this. He said it is a good idea but it is his job to tell the Board about the legal technicalities, but it is the Board's job to "skin the cat". He does not want to reverse those rolls. Mr. Fisher said it has gotten so complex that it appears that too many people have been trying to "skin that cat" for too long a period of time. He mentioned the precedent that this presents for additional kinds of applications. He knows that other people in that area of the County are interested in what happens to this application because they also have property that they wish to develop. He does not believe that however it is done, it will be very enforceable. He is not sure that any staff person two years from now will be able to tell from the recordings of this meeting what was actually being considered and what was approved or disapproved. It is that kind of snarl that seems to him so difficult to review. There are so many people trying to bend over backward to find ways to make something seem like something else. He has lost confidence in this process as a result of the discussions tonight. He does not believe that there can be the kind of finding that the staff has said must be made in order to approve this application. That finding is listed on Page 12 of the Staff Report, and Mr. Fisher read this to Board members: ". . . it is important in terms of precedence to make positive findings that by virtue of the specific aspects of this property location and the plan for development, that there are identifiable, overriding public bene- fits to be gained which outweigh the fact that the proposal does not meet all criteria for review of special use permits .... " He said he would add to that phrase the word, "en- forceable'' public benefits. It seems to him that this has become so convoluted an attempt to prove public benefits that it is no longer a straight special permit request. He cannot honestly make that finding, and he thinks it is important that the Board look at that re- quirement. Mrs. Cooke said this has been her concern throughout this hearing. On the surface this sounds like a good bargain and she in no way questions the integrity or the intent of the applicants. But, it is involved, and the Board is dealing with something she can understands may not be enforceable. That bothers her. In its present state, she is not prepared to deal with the question in a positive manner. There are too many questions in her mind, and there is a looseness that disturbs her. She does not like to approve things where there is no control. She knows the intent of the owners is that they will own the property forever, and their word is their bond. She is not questioning that, but things change, and there are no guarantees. The ownership of this property could change, there would not be that guarantee and there would be no way to enforce it. That gives her a great deal of concern and has nothing to do with the applicant's word and assurance, but with the lack of control. She sees that as a problem. Mr. Way said the alternative is that even though it is not legally binding, if the property is sold and there is another owner, there probably will not be any benefit at all. He understands what Mrs. Cooke is saying, but he is just trying to think the whole thing through, and it is difficult. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that the lots can be divided somewhere on either Parcel I-4 or Parcel V. This~number of lots can be put in without any regard to the reservoir. He was supportive, but what bothered him was the internal discussion with nobody really under- standing what some of the conditions mean. He is not prepared to vote against the request and thinks it is a good offer, but he would like to have a better understanding particularly of Condition One. How is it recorded and what is done with the contract? He would like to have a better set of conditions that are understandable and enforceable. He certainly does not feel inclined to reject the petition. April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (Pa~te~) Mr. Murray said he would be happy to work with the staff and come back to next month's meeting with a concise set of conditions, restrictions, easements and combinations of docu- ments very precisely spelled out that would be acceptable to the County Attorney. His understanding of the Planning Commission's action was that they were leaving that to the County Attorney's judgment. Mrs. Cooke commented that she would like to see that in writing. Mr. Bowie stated that the thing that threw him was that the Planning Commission said leave this with the County Attorney's office, then the County Attorney said this is the wrong way to do it. He would rather have someone tell him this is the way to enforce it and this is the way to do it, and that's the condition. Mr. St. John said the staff will be glad to do that, but unless he is mistaken, what they will end up with are straight conditions like any other special use permit and not a bunch of contracts and easements which must be recorded. It will be the same result, but with fewer conditions. Mr. Fisher said if the Board wants to defer action on this matter pending an attempt to resolve the enforcement mechanisms, that can be done. Because of the Board's schedule, he suggested that this petition be deferred and put back on their agenda at such time as the Clerk receives a final product from the County Attorney's office. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to vote for the deferral, and is willing to look carefully at what is presented, but even if all of the things that have been suggested as enforceable are enforceable, he still has some grave reservations about this request. He sees an 85 percent increase in the number of lots on one of the parcels, and an almost 100 percent increase in density. In exchange, the County gets an embellishment of an existing 100 foot setback from streams. There is simply an acknowledgment that there has been a reduction in the number of development rights, "by-right". They are leaving some of those "by-right" lots on one of the parcels. They have not said anything about special permits, and clearly at some point under different owners than are now there, it would be reasonable to expect to get a special permit application for any or all of these parcels. It is legal and is not precluded by anything that is offered or can be done here tonight. With respect to the Best Management Practices, he is not sure that it is going to be a benefit in the long run. That big parcel is not affected at all in terms of development rights or special permit applications. That land is going to change hands, ultimately. The County may get a few good years out of these requirements. But added to that is the complexity of enforcement. With all due respect to the applicants, even if everything is enforceable, he is not sure there is much in the way of a "public benefit" to offset what he really thinks is a precedent in terms of a significant increase in density by special use permit in the rural areas. He is not saying he will not vote to approve the application when it comes back because he does not know what all of the conditions will look like, but he does not suspect there will be a significant enough change to make him feel it is worth the rezoning requested. Mr. Fisher wanted to also state that no matter how much time is taken, he is not certain he can support this request, but he will vote for the deferral to give it a chance to happen. At this time, Mrs. Cooke offered motion to defer this petition until a new set of conditions can be presented to the Clerk by the County Attorney's office, at which time the petition will be rescheduled. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (At 10:08 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:15 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 12. SP-87-17. Liberty Baptist Church. Allow pre-school to be located in basement of Liberty Baptist Church. Property located east side of Route 20, approximately one-quarter mile north of its intersection with Route 610. Tax Map 63, Parcel 31. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The topography of the area is mostly rolling, and consists of predominately rural residential development with much of the surrounding property in open fields or woodlands. The site has rolling to steep topography. A church building, picnic struc- ture and cemetery currently exist on the site. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a pre-school for 12 to 20 children employ- ing two teachers. The hours of operation would be from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon, Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. As the need arose, the applicant would expand to five days a week for the same time period. There will be two classes, a three year old class and a four year old class. Each class will consist of six children, with no more than 10 children per class permitted. The pre-school will be operated in the basement of the existing church building. Section 5.1.6(a) requires State licensure for a child care center. However, a license is not required for this proposal, based on the ages of the children and the proposed hours of operation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the waiver of this section. The Zoning Administrator concurs with the recommendation. The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and will require that the existing entrance be upgraded to commercial standards. 425 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (Page 27) The required sight distance is currently available. The County Fire Offi- cial has inspected the property and has recommended certain fire safety improvements. In justifying their request, the applicant has stated that 'there is no pre-school in the Stony Point area. Those parents choosing to enroll their children in a pre-school in this area must come into Charlottesville for those purposes. Since the applicant would be targeting the Stony Point area, this would give them an opportunity to work with the Stony Point School and help familiarize the children with the school they will be eventually attending'. The major impact of this use may be increased traffic on Route 20, but as it is likely that local residents will use the facility, this would tend to lessen the impact. Staff opinion is that a day care center would be of service to this area and would not detract from nor substantially change the character of the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1. Health Department approval; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance in accordance with letter March 18, 1987; 3. Fire Official approval; 4. Enrollment to be limited to no more than 20 children per day; Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the waiver of Section 5.1.6(a); This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; Waiver of site plan; planning staff to verify adequacy of site design for proposed use." Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 7, 1987, unani- mously recommended approval of the petition subject to Conditions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 in the staff's report, but amended Number 4 to read "Enrollment to be limited to no more than 12 children per day, three hours per day, five days per week, with expansion to not more than 20 children a day with Health Department approval." Mr. Lindstrom asked what the rationale was for changing Condition Four, and Mr. Horne replied that there were discussions with the Health Department in terms of expansion and what the capabilities of the drainfield were, and they haven't fully resolved those questions yet. The Planning Commission felt that the condition more accurately reflects what the applicant wants to do, with the expansion explicitly to be approved by the Health Department based on further analysis. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Stony Point is a village and how far away it is from the church. Mr. Horne responded that it is designated a village in the Comprehensive Plan, and it is approximately two miles from the church to Stony Point. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Horne saw this coming up in the future as a justification for an increase in density in the rural area, and Mr. Horne replied that he does not, at this level. He said this is quite a small operation and can legitimately be called a service to the existing population. The expansion to 20 children at these hours, he thinks is still a small operation. Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing and Mrs. Carole Hill, one of the co-directors and teachers at the pre-school, said the community of Stony Point is a community-oriented group, and the elementary school there is very small. Many of the parents who would come into town for pre-school would have to stay in town because of the length of stay. They felt that there was a need to provide a service to the community, but it would not be a large opera- tion. She said part of this is due to the size of their church, which is a small country church and could not handle a large group. It is specifically for pre-school, not ever expanding to day care. With no one else coming forward to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve SP-87-17 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. Mr. Lindstrom. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below: 1. Health Department approval; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance in accordance with letter dated March 18, 1987; 3. Fire Official approval; 428 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) LRage 28) ¸7. Enrollment to be limited to no more than 12 children per day, three hours per day, five days per week, with expansion to not more than 20 children a day with Health Department approval; Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the waiver of Section 5.1.6(a); This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; Waiver of site plan; planning staff to verify adequacy of site design for proposed use. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Amend the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to include Tax Map 59, Parcels C, D, and F for J. W. Sieg & Co., Inc. Property located on Route 250 West. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1987.) The following memorandum from Mr. JOhn T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development dated April 7, 1987, was received: "This department has reviewed the request by J. W. Sieg & Company, Inc., to include parcels 23C, D, and F on Tax Map 59 in the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for sewer service. In 1984, there was consid- erable discussion concerning these parcels and adjacent parcels to the west. I have reviewed the Board's minutes from that meeting and it appears that the primary criteria used by the Board in defining this jurisdictional area boundary was the policy decision that sewer service should be provided only to those structure which could be'served by gravity sewer to the Moores Creek Basin. Since 1984, the Planning Commission has approved a site plan for an office building on parcel 23B. Service to that structure will be gravity fed to the Moores Creek interceptor. The sewer line for that project will cross parcel 23 C. This Department has reviewed a topographic survey and sewer line layout plan which confirms that the existing J. W. Sieg building can be served by this line and be gravity fed to the Moores Creek interceptor. That conclusion has been confirmed by the Albemarle County Service Authority staff. Approval of this request would seem to be consistent with the previous policy decision by the Board of Supervisors concerning the need for gravity service to this group of parcels. The circumstances surrounding these parcels seem to be very specialized and, therefore, the staff does not feel that there would be a significant precedent set by approval of this request. Staff would, therefore, recommend approval of the request." Mr. Fisher commented that the Clerk had asked him if this request should be advertised directly or brought to the Board first, and he reviewed it briefly and decided to set the Public Hearing, but it is still the Board's decision as to what to do with the request. Mr. Horne discUssed his memo desCribing this situation, and said the staff recommends approval of this request. He pointed out areas on the map for the Board, and stated that there was a lot of discussion in 1984 regarding these parcels, and whether people would change the grade to make them gravity fed. He said that this building was already in place at that time, so he does not think that took place on this parcel. For the office building, the major portions of the property that were not gravity fed and not in the service area were the rear portions of the parcel. Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Horne left out the fact that the rear of all of these parcels is in the South Fork watershed, and that is why care was taken as to what was being done. Mr. Agnor replied that staff has found that all of these parcels can be totally gravity fed. Their review determined that the remaining parcel of 23D, being served by gravity sewer, is the only thing that needed to be added to the previously approved plan. The approval in 1984 was done before the sewer line was designed or its elevations known. Now, since those are known, the structure that was there in 1984 wants to connect to this line. Staff recommends that Parcel 23D be added to the May 1984 action. Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing and Mr. Carter Hoerr, representing J. W. Sieg and Co., said they were interested in connecting to the sewer line that runs across the front of their property. Mr. Fisher asked if they have plans to build additional structures on that parcel, and Mr. Hoerr said, "no." Since there was no one else in the room wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher stated that these parcels had been hotly debated in prior years because they lie in a borderline area for development, and extending sewer service to these parcels could increase problems to the reservoir. But these are areas where the zoning was recognized during the last major revision of the zoning map because some areas had already developed and prior zoning existed for commercial development. He thinks that leaving this one piece in the middle without recognizing that it has similar qualities to those around it is probably not reasonable. He will support request. Mr. Horne commented that he believes that the official service area maps maintained by his office do show a splitting of Parcel F, too, based on an estimated topographical map that was presented in 1984. So if the Board does this, it would seem consistent to take the remaining portion of F and D, because this building sets on both of them. If J. W. Seig April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) ( P~k9~ e 29) intends to connect this building to the sewer line, it would make it easier for staff to keep the service area maps. Mr. Fisher asked if the water service area already includes all of the parcels, and Mr. Horne said, "yes." Mr. Horne stated again that he is talking about the remaining portion of 23F and all of 23D. Mr. Lindstrom asked if 23F could be added without another Public Hearing, and Mr. Horne replied, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to amend the Albemarle County Service Authori- ty's service area to include Tax Map 23D and the remainder of 2~ for gravity fed sewer service. Mr. Fisher clarified Mr. Lindstrom's motion by a. sking~it was the intent of the motion to be only for structures that can be fed by gravity, and Mr. Lindstrom said, "yes." Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Deferred Compensation Ordinance Amendment. The following memoran- dum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. County Executive, dated April 7, 1987, was received: "In September 1986, you authorized the staff to proceed with the adoption of the National Association of Counties (NACo) Deferred Compensation Plan for County employees. That process involved the amending of an earlier ordi- nance establishing a County Deferred Compensation Plan, and submitting that amended ordinance to the State and to NACo for approval. NACo approved the revision. The State has not acted upon the matter, but the 1987 General Assembly enacted legislation which dissolved the State Deferred Compensation Board and removed State approval of local plans. That legislation has been signed by the Governor with an emergency clause making it effective March 27. With the signing of the legislation, the State's Attorney General advised the County staff that we could proceed with imple- mentation of our local Plan. The final step in the approval process is your adoption of the revised ordinance. It is recommended that a public hearing be set for its adoption at your May 13 meeting." Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set a public hearing on the ordinance for May 13, 1987. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 15a. Appointment: Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Way offered motion to reappoint Mr. Thomas E. Bruce to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors for one additional year, term to expire April 16, 1988. (Note: In accordance with the change recently made by the Board to have six members and to have terms expire immediate- ly after that of the Board member making the appointment.) Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Way suggested that the vacancy on the Library Board be advertised as Mrs. Helen Wieneke does not wish to be reappointed. Mr. Way said that, due to his schedule, he has not been able to attend Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board meetings. He spoke to the Director concerning this. With this Board's permission he would like to resign and if no other member of this Board wishes to fill this vacancy, he would like to recommend the appointment of Mr. James Murray, Sr. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint Mr. James B. Murray, Sr. to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board of Directors. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley offered motion to reappoint Mr. Alan C. Rasmussen to the Jail Board with said term to expire on May 22, 1990. Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint Mr. Lewis R. Fibel to the Community Services Board with said term to expire on June 30, 1990; and to reappoint Mr. Burton M-. Webb to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation with said term to expire on June 30, 1988. 428 April 15, 1987 (Regular - Night Meeting) (Paq~ Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. motion carried with the following recorded vote: Roll was called and the AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: (afternoon), 1986. No minutes had been read. June 12, 1985; February 12 and December 3 Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. No other matters were brought forward. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M.