Loading...
1985-09-18September ~85 (Regular Night Meet_ing) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 18, 1985, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. Johr (arrived at 7:50 P.M.); Deputy County Executive and Acting Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way, to approve Item 4.1 and accept the remaining items as information. the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Roll was called Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses, in which the Compensation Board participates, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of August, 1985 were approved as presented: Item 4.2. The County Executive's Financial Report for July 1985 was received in accordan¢ with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. The following memorandum dated September 12, 1985 from Melvin A. Breeden, Director Of Finance, to Guy B. Agnor, Jr., accompanied the report: "Attached is the County's financial report for the period of July 1, 1985 to July 31, 1985. As normal for this time of year, this report shows very little revenue being received in July which can be attributed to two factors. The months of July through September are not months when any major tax revenues are due, there- fore, the only collections from local revenues are permits, earnings on investments, etc. In addition the actual receipts of state and federal revenues are normally one month after the period to which they apply and the modified accrual basis of accounting requires the accrual of these receipts at the year end (June 30th). This results in july showing very few revenues while receipts for June show approximately twice the normal amount. Expenditures for July reflect, as would be expected, approximately 1/12 of the annual appropriation. The only major exceptions to this are expenditures for Public Safety in the General Fund, and Transportation in the School Fund. This results from the purchase of vehicles in the Police Department; disbursement of the annual appropriations for the yolunteer Fire Companies & Rescue Squads; and the purchase of school buses. The cash balances of the General Fund and School Fund are as follows: Fund 06/30/85 07./31/85 Variance General Fund School Fund 12.,599,277 .2',005,102 10,663,021 4,101,903 1,936,256- 2,096,801+" Mr. Agnor said he was asked how the General Fund Balance went down by $1.9 million and th School Fund went up by $2 million. Mr. Agnor said that July is a month in which revenues entel into the General Fund, yet there are expenditures of the General Fund that goes to various places. The School Fund has very little expenditures during the month of July, and it receive~ a $1.5 million transfer from the General Fund, but did not have to spend the money. He was al~ asked how to take revenues and expenditures in those funds, in terms of the budgeted reports that occur, and relate to the change in the fund balance. That cannot be done. The fund balance is a cash report. The budget report is the expenditures of funds and the encumbrances of those funds for which disbursements have not yet been made. The Financial Report is an accrual report relating expenditures to appropriations, and is not a cash report. Item 4.3. information. A copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 3, 1985 was received as Item 4.4. Letter dated September 6, 1985 from H. Benson Dendy, III, Special Assistant to Governor Robb was received: "Governor Robb has asked me to thank you for your letter of September 5 and the copy of a Resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors seeking a disaster declaration because of the severity of weather conditions in January, 1985. September 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) By a copy of this letter, we are requesting the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Mason Carbaugh, to proceed with the necessary applica- tion to the State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Office to conduct a damage assessment for Albemarle County." Item 4.5. Letter dated September 5, 1985 from Harry Frazier, III of Hunton & Williams re: ~1,800,000 Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority Bond Anticipation Note was received: "In connection with the above-referenced financing, I enclose for filing on behalf-of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority a copy of United States Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 relating to private activity bonds. While it is not clear that the above Note would be considered a private activity bond, we are filing Form 8038 out of an abundance of caution." Agenda Item No. 5. SP-85-60. Nettie Marie Jones. To subdivide parts of three existing parcelS zoned RA, into 12 lots. Property located on east side of Rte. 677, north of its intersection with Rte. 250W. Tax Map 59, parcels 7B1, 20 and 28 (part of). Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 3 and September 10, 1985.) Mr. Tucker said a letter dated September 11 was received from the applicant's attorney requesting withdrawal of this petition. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to allow SP-85-60 to be withdrawn. 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. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-62. Donald L. Wyland. To locate a double-wide mobile home on property zoned RA. Located on east side of Rte. 630, north of its intersection with Rte. 721. Tax Map 126, parcel 10 (Part of) L-2. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 3 and September 10, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Double-wide mobile home Acreage: 2.0 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Character of the Area: The site has been cleared except for some larger trees. The mobile home would be clearly visible from Rte. 630. The applicant's brother has recently located a double wide mobile home on property adjoining on the south (SP-85-55 Andy Wyland approved administratively in August 1985). Other properties in the immediate area are heavily wooded. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes location of a double-wide mobile home similar to his brother's dwelling. Staff opinion is that the mobile home would not be visible from the complainant's property due to heavy woods and a curve in the road. Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 17, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-62 subject to the condition as recommended by staff. Mr. Tucker said a letter of opposition dated August 24, 1985 was received from Mr. Edwin F. Sharp, an absentee adjacent property owner in Rutland, Vermont. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Donald Wyland, applicant, was present. He said he doe~ think his mobile home will do damage to Mr. Sharp's property, as there are two old houses, ready to fall, adjoining Mr. Sharp's property. Mrs. CooKe asked Mr. Wyland if he was planning to reside in the mobile home. Mr. Wyland replied yes. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Wyland if his brother residing in the other mobile home. Mr. Wyland said not yet, the mobile home was just recently completed. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve SP-85-62 subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher inquired if a double-wide mobile home must be placed on a permanent foundation as a conventional home and must meet the normal setbacks and requirements of a conventional home. Mr. Tucker replied yes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 621 September 18L 1985 (R:egular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-57. Marshall D. McKenzie. To locate a single-wide mobile home on property zoned RA. Located on north side of Rte. 614, west of its intersection with Rte. 8] Tax Map 41, parcel 37C. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September and September 10, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Acreage: Single wide mobile home 13.042 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Character of the Area: This property, developed with a single family dwelling, is located over 1,200 feet from Rte. 614. The mobile home would be located west and adjacent to the existing dwelling and would not be highly visible from Rte. 614 due to distance. Staff Comment: The applicant has requested this mobile home for parental use, but does desire restriction on occupancy. Due to heavy woods and topographic changes, staff opinion is that the mobile home would not be visible from the Moormans River nor from the property of the complainant. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition staff recommends: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 17, 1985, by a vote o 6-1, recommended approval of SP-85-57 subject to the condition as recommended by staff, and condition two as follows: "Use of the mobile home is restricted to the applicant's mother and father-in-law and upon vacation of the unit by the mother and father-in-law, the unit shall be removed within ninety (90) days." Mr. Tucker said at the Planning Commission meeting Mrs. Coo) requested information on the number of mobile homes in the area. 'There are two other mobile homes in the general area which were approved administratively in 1976. At that time a provis~ was in the ordinance that permitted mobile homes to be approved administratively when occupied by a lineal relative. Mr. Bowie asked if either of those two mobile homes can be seen from thc road. Mr. Tucker said they are visible. Mrs. Cooke said, at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated he would like to keep the mobile home even after the parents no longer needed to use it, possibly for rental or perhaps for visiting relatives. Mrs. Cooke said the Board, in the past, has stipulated on single wide mobile homes being used for parents, that wh~ the parents no longer need the home, the mobile home could not be used for rental purposes, which is the reason for the second condition of the Planning Commission. She said she thought the Planning Commission needed to know about that action by the Board. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Tucker if the two other mobile homes are in compliance.. Mr. Tucker said no one had time t~ go out to the location, but that can be checked. Mr. Tucker said opposition to this request w~ received from Mr. James R. Hahn in a letter dated August 27, 1985 to the Zoning Administrator. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Marshall D. McKenzie, applicant, was present. Mr. McKenzie said the reason he requested a single wide mobile home is because it fits the topography. He presented photographs of the area (on file) to the Board. He said the site is well back from the highway and is impossible to see from the Moorman's or complainant's proper He said he was told at the Planning Commission meeting that under no circumstances could the mobile home be rented once the intended occupants no longer lived there. He therefore asked i he could keep the mobile home on the property for use by his children, and not rent. Again he was told no, after the demise of his in-laws the mobile home would have to be removed within 9 days. Removing the mobile home would be a tremendous hardship. This is a $35,000 plus invest ment and there is no market for used mobile homes. When asked if he would rent the mobile he replied possibly although he has no plans to do so. Mr. McKenzie said he has no intention downgrading the value of his property and he does not think it will downgrade other property. Mr. Fisher said the Board is trying to find a way to accommodate a reasonable need by an applicant, without creating problems for others. Mr. McKenzie said he will be happy to stipu- late that the mobile home would not be rented to anyone, only family members will have use of it. Mr. James R. Hahn, a resident of Earlysville, addressed the Board. Mr. Hahn said a singl~ wide mobile home does devalue an area. A mobile home is considered by most people as not a pleasant attraction. In this particular case, if the in-laws need housing, there is a need. does not feel the mobile home should remain for an indefinite period of time for family use. His understanding from the Planning Commission meeting is that part of the mobile home will seen from Rte. 614, which is a very scenic route and it is a bicycle route. If it is not necessary to have an "eye sore", then it is better to put limitations on the use, so that it does comply with a definite need. Also, a very nice permanent structure could be assembled $36,000, particularly when one owns the land. He feels there are more attractive ways to improve an area. Mr. Dan Maupin, a resident of White Hall adjacent to Mr. McKenzie, addressed the Board. Mr. Maupin said when leaves are off the trees, the mobile home will be visible part of the yea from his residence; presently it is not visible. He has no problem with the mobile home being used by the in-laws, but not as a permanent fixture. Mr. Maupin said, in response to the compliance of the two other mobile homes in the area, he thinks one of the homes is in compli- ance and the other is not. 622 September 18, 1985 (Regular Nig. ht Meeti~ )~~ Mr. McKenzie again addressed the Board. He presented photographs (on file) of the propert to the Board and explained them to the Board. The mobile home is proposed to be approximately 3200 feet from the highway. The mobile home is to be located in the clearing beyond the swimmi pool. If a cyclist stops and looks, he may get a view of the mobile home. The photographs are all of the south side of Rte. 614. He said it does not matter if the mobile home is single wide or double wide, the costs are essentially the same. With proper landscaping, it will be a nice looking unit. Mr. Hahn requested that he be able to view the photographs. In one of the photographs he pointed out a building that belongs to him. The area should be cleaned up and made attractive but it will be taken care of. · With no one else from the public to speak for or against this petition the public hearing was closed. ' Mr. Bowie asked Mr. McKenzie how far the mobile home will be from his present home? Mr. McKenzie said the mobile home will be approximately 100 yards from his home, beyond the swimming pool. Mr. Henley said, since he has been on the Board, he does not remember the Board ever approving a mobile home for rental purposes. He said he is willing to change recommenda- tion number two to include use by Mr. McKenzie's children, which has been done in the past. Mr. Fisher noted that the condition usually states owner or lineal relative. Mr. Bowie said he can support Mr. Henley's recommendation. Mr. Way asked the definition of a lineal relative? · St. John said lineal relatives include direct ancestors or direct descendants, brothers and sisters are not included. Mr. St. John said if the Board wants to provide for siblings or in-laws, it should be so stated and not said in terms of lineal relatives. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-85-57 subject to condition %1 as recommended by the Planning Commission and condition ~2 changed to read as follows: "Use of the mobile home is restricted to the applicant's mother and father-in-law or children and upon vacation of the unit the mother and father-in-law and children the unit shall be removed within ninety days." Lindstrom said he could support the motion if it just stated "it cannot be rented". Henley said he would go along with Mr. Lindstrom's recommendation. Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion. Mr. Fisher restated the conditions of approval for the applicant's benefit. %2 will now state: "Use of the mobile home is restricted to the applicant's mother father-in-law or children and the unit shall not be rented." Mr. McKenzie stated he under- these conditions. Mrs. Cooke said she cannot support this motion. She said she remembers past discussions matters such as this, and this Board has required that a condition such as %2 state the of the occupants and when those occupants no longer needed the home, the mobile home had to removed within ninety days. At the time these decisions were made, there was fear of settin¢ precedent and having multiple homes dotted all over the area. She has no doubt Mr. McKenzie do as he says, but this sets a precedent for the area that anybody who comes in now and to place a mobile home for the use of their parents, can get approval and if the Board not put any restrictions on the use, the mobile home will be rented eventually. It is very to monitor these situations, and there may be a violation of one mobile home permit permitted in the area. Unless the condition can be stated as recommended by the g Commission, she will not support the motion. Mr. Henley said the Board could list the 's names in the condition. Mrs. Cooke said on a previous petition, the Board stated the of an applicant's son, so that when the son no longer had use of the mobile home, the home to be removed within ninety days. Mrs. Cooke said she just does not want to open up a in a neighborhood where so far there are only two mobile homes. She does not see how condition can be enforced. Mr. Lindstrom said he tended to support Mr. Henley's motion because of the applicant's and then the requirement that the mobile home be removed. The Board"s general rule been that the home be occupied by the owner, however an exception has been made in cases of p where family members need to be taken care of. Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Cooke persuaded that the Board could be getting in over its head if it makes too wide of an exception. Mr. "asked if the Board will be able to enforce the condition on this mobile home in an area iother mobile homes are not in compliance. Mr. Lindstrom said the other mobile home can be ht into compliance. Mr. Bowie asked what happens if Mr. McKenzie sells his home and there Ls a new owner. He said in the length of time he has been a Board member, the Board has home for certain people and said when those people no longer need the mobile home, it oes off the property. Mr. Bowie said he admits pictures of Mr. McKenzie's house tend to sway, possible future owners of the mobile home could create problems. He said he believes Mrs. is correct, this is changing the way this Board has consistently voted since he has been a · The mobile home should be provided for family members and when no longer needed, it be removed. Mr. Henley said he thought that is what he said. Mr. Bowie said the condi- Should be for a specific relative, not anybody in the family who wants to live in it. Mr. Lindstrom related an experience to the Board-concerning his wife's parents. The live in Monterey California. Everyone lives on very small lots. Housing in the area is expensive. An ordinance was passed about a year ago that allowed for "granny houses". the cost of housing was so expensive, City Council passed a law that allowed everybody had a lot, even if less than one-quarter acre, to build a small house for the exclusive use parents who needed to be cared for. There are a number of these houses springing up and the ~nt is nonexistent. Essentially the Council allowed every house to have another house the lot regardless of size. The house that has been built next to his in-laws is within five ~eet of the lot line. It may be that this Board is doing the same by virtue of the Planning ion conditions, creating an exception. Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with Mr. McKenzie providing a mobile home for his tn-laws, but to go against past conditions is not fair to previous applicants. She does not ~eel the Board has a responsibility beyond allowing the mobile home. Mr. Henley then withdrew llS previous motion and and offered motion that SP-85-57 be approved subject to the following :onditions: 6Z3 · e .~ember ~8 ~985 (Regul..ar Night Meeting) 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Use of the mobile home is restricted to the applicant's mother and father-in-law and upon vacation of the unit by the mother and father-in-law, the unit shall be removed within ninety (90) days. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by ~ollowing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-56. Andrew J. and Silvia Mills. To allow for a child day care center. Existing use is residential and related out buildings on 12.382 acres zoned RA. Property located on south side of Rte. 53 near Simeon. Tax Map 92, parcel 54. Scottsville istrict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 3 and September 10, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Day care facility (10.2.2.7) Acreage: 12.382 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 92, parcel 54, is located on the westerly side of Rte. 53 about 1.4 miles east of Rte. 795 and is known as ~Cardinal Acres.~ Character of the Area: This property is developed with a four bedroom dwelling, mobile home, and two outbuildings. The applicant proposes to operate the day care use in one of the outbuildings. All of these buildings are located toward the front of the property on about four acres, raising concerns as to adequacy of septic facilities. Four lots to the north of the proposed day care use range from 0.43 acres to 1.0 acres in area. Therefore, adjoining dwellings are compara- tively close to the proposed day care use. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a day care use for a maximum of 25 children in an existing 720 square foot building. In the past, staff has employed the following standards for day care uses: MINIMUM STANDARD & SOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR 25 CHILDREN 35 feet23of floor area/child (Fire Prevention Officer) 200 fee~ indoor airspace/child (Va. Dept. of Welfare) 25 feet2 indoor play area/child (Va. Dept. of Welfare) 75 feet developed outdoor play area/child (Va. Dept. of Welfare) 1 parking space/10 children plus 1 space/employee (Zoning 'Ordinance) 1 adult supervisor/10 children (Va. Dept. of Welfare) 875 feet~ 5,000 feet2 625 feet2 1,875 feet 5 parking spaces 3 adult supervisors Under these standards, the building would be adequate to accommodate 20 children as opposed to 25 children (this number could be further reduced by installation of restrooms, heating, etc.). Ultimate enrollment should be determined by Fire Official or Virginia Department of Welfare. This use could generate an additional 80-120 vehicle trips per day to Rte. 53 (dependent on enrollment of 20-25 children). Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended installation of a commercial entrance with a minimum 550 feet of sight distance in both directions. Sight distance is easily obtainable to the west by trimming of tree limbs within the right-of-way. To the east, however, only 410 feet of sight distance currently exists and to obtain a 550 foot sight line would require substantial vegetation removal and possibly fence relocation and sight distance easement on three or four properties across Rte. 53. In past reviews of child care facilities, staff has emphasized concerns of safety (i.e. - commercial entrance) and compatibility to adjoining uses (i.e. - noise, traffic). An assumption by staff is that noise from outdoor activities is difficult to control. While located in a rural area, a-cluster of dwellings are adjacent to this property. Noise could pose a problem in the area, which in staff opinion could not be overcome by conditions of approval. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance including a minimum of 550 feet of sight distance; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Building and Fire Official approval; 5. Staff approval of site plan; 6. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; 7. Enrollment shall not exceed 25 children." 624 September 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meetin ) ~~ee~ln ; . _ ..... Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 3, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-56 subject to conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as recommended by the staff, with 95 and ~6 changed to read: Condition 95 changed to read: Condition #7 changed to read: Planning Commission approval of site plan. Enrollmenu shall not exceed 30 children. Mr. Tucker presented a hand sketch of the site plan (on file) to the Board. Mr. Fisher that in the staff report it states the existing building is capable of accommodating 20 children, yet enrollmenu is not to exceed 30 children. Mr. Tucker said the applicant is planning to expand the building. Mr. Fisher said there is nothing in the staff report to indicate any expansion. Mr. Tucker said expansion came out at the Planning Commission meeting. There are two other outbuildings, a mobile home and the applicant's home located on the property. Route 53 is located on the bottom of the sketch. Mrs. Cooke asked who occupies the mobile home. Mr. Tucker replied he did not know. The public hearing was opened and the applicants, Jack and Silvia Mills, addressed the Board. Mrs. Mills said her daughter presently occupies the mobile home, but in the future the mobile home will be occupied by one of the day care employees. Mr. Mills said they are also purchasing the property near their present property. Mrs. Mills said they met with the neigh- bors before making plans, and the neighbors are in agreement with the plans. Mr. Mills said there is a great need for a day care facility in this area and the location is wonderful, and there are no problems that he feels cannot be corrected. The property is adjacent to only two other properties. Mrs. Mills said the Highway Department had already requested her neighbor to remove the fence referenced in the staff report and the fence has been removed. Mr. Fisher asked what the applicants plan to do with the outbuilding. Sometimes people make an investment in property that does not pay off, and in a rural area, that could create a problem as people try to change the use to something else. Mrs. Mills said the cinderblock building is the building to be expanded. Before expanding the building they are waiting to fin~ out how many children will be allowed to enroll. If they are allowed to enroll thirty children, the building will be expanded twelve feet longer,, which will meet the minimum space for a day care center. Mrs. Mills said there is plenty of space and no problem with sewage disposal because the land is leveled properly. Mr. Bowie said he was somewhat confused because the standards show the building will hold 20 children, staff recommends 25 children, and the Planning Commission recommends 30 children, and yet nobody states how all of these children will get into the building and nobody requires the building to be expanded. He said he assumes the Health Department approval will take care of that. Mr. Tucker said the Welfare Department will enforce that decision. Mr. Bowie then asked which of these recommended conditions insures that the building will be large enough for the children. Mr. Tucker said the building requires Fire Official approval and compliance with Section 5.1.6 is the State Welfare Department requirement Mr. Tucker said all those conditions and standards appear to already have been done. Mr. Way then asked the point of having condition 97. Mr. Fisher said that condition is to keep from further expansion and that condition sets a limit. With no one else from the public to speak for or against this application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-85-56 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance including a minimum of 550 feet of sight distance; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Building and Fire Official approval; 5. Planning Commission approval of site plan; 6. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable; 7. Enrollment shall not exceed 30 children. Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion. ~ollowing recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-58. Lesco, Inc. To allow for addition of dry cleaning pickup to existing LESCO laundromat. Located on north side of Hydraulic Road, west of intersection with Rte. 29. Zoned C-1. Tax Map 61W, parcel 3-32. Charlottesville District. Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 3 and September 10, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Drive-in window addition to existing laundromat/dry cleaning use. (22.2.2.10) AcreaGe: 0.'85 acres Zoning: C-i, Commercial Character of the Area: This property is developed with a laundromat/dry cleaners, self-service gasoline pumps, and two-bay car wash. Other properties in the area have commercial or industrial zoning. Staff Comment: Uses involving a drive-in window are reviewed with emphasis on traffic safety and also for compatibility to adjoining uses (i.e. - continuous operation, headlights, noise). Staff opinion is that a drive-in window would not be ~ 18~ 1985 Re ular Ni h~ Meetin_q/__) 6¢5 objectionable in this location. Regarding traffic safety, staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal (Plan A) and recommends minor modifications (Plan B) to avoid traffic conflicts. The additional concrete bumpers recommended by staff are necessary to separate dry-cleaning traffic from car wash traffic, since the building blocks view of on-coming vehicles. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of revised site plan (submit five copies) Showing: a) Additional concrete bumpers as recommended by staff on Plan B as well as method of securing the same in place; b) 'As-built' features of the site including curbing as it exists, location and number of fuel dispensers, parking layout, and other features not shown or improperly shown on Plan A; 2. No building permit shall be issued until staff has approved a site plan in accordance with Condition 1. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the drive-in window addition until concrete bumpers are secured in place and directional arrows provided as shown on Plan B." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 3, 1985, unanimously .ecommended approval of SP-85-58 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff. Mr. Tucker said the applicant has already revised the site plan in conformance with staff recommendations. The public hearing was opened and Mr. David Ripley, the applicant, addressed' the Board. Mr. Ripley said this business has been in operation since 1970. They are attempting to utilize some unused space in an existing building. As indicated, the plan has been amended to comply with staff recommendations. Mr. Fisher asked if this addition is for people to drop off and pick up laundry. Mr. Ripley said yes. The construction includes a door to be opened to allow the clerk to have access to the customer's car. With no one else present to speak for or against this 'application, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke offered motion for approval of SP-85-58 subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of revised site plan (submit five copies) showing: a) Additional concrete bumpers as recommended by staff on Plan B as well as method of securing the same in place; b) "As-built" features of the site including curbing as it exists, location and number of fuel dispensers, parking layout, and other features not shown or improperly shown on Plan A; 2. No building permit shall be issued until staff has approved a site plan in accordance with Condition 1. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the drive-in window addition until concrete bumpers are secured in place and directional arrows provided as shown on Plan B. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-21. Percy H. Faulconer, Estate. To rezone 28.29 acres from R-1 to R-15, with proffer. Property located on east side of 250 Bypass, accessed from Old Ivy Road. Tax Map 60, part of parcel 24. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 3 and September 10, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoninq: R-15, Residential (PROFFER) Acreage: 28.29 acres Existing Zoning: R-I, Residential Background: In 1979, rezoning petitions were submitted on this and other properties in the area simultaneously. Requests were for high-density residential and commercial designations. The condition of Old Ivy Road was a major concern in regard to: Adequacy of the existing roadway to accommodate additional development; Problems occasioned by the railroad underpass at the eastern end of the road; Substantial pedestrian traffic along the road. The issue was studied in detail by the applicants, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and staff including a traffic study developed for the applicants by Wilbur Smith & Associates. During this period, the Hylton case was being construed as a prohibition to requiring a developer to make off-site road improvements. Likewise, Section 15.1-491.2 was added to 626 September 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) the Code of Virginia stating that proffered zoning 'conditions shall not include payment for or construction of off-site improvements' to roads. The applicants were not prepared to improve the road prior to obtaining zoning approvals and granting zoning approval prior to road improvement was also discarded as an alternative. With no apparent workable solution the rezoning petitions were denied. ' As a result of this rezoning action, residential properties along Old Ivy Road were designated as low-density on the 1980 zoning map (this was actually an 'upzoning'). Old Ivy Road remains as the only area in the Urban Area which is recommended for high-density residential development in the Comprehen- sive Plan and is not zoned accordingly. APPLICANT'S PROFFER The applicant has requested rezoning from R-1 Residential to R-15 Residential with a proffer that 'the property's development under the proposed R-15 zoning be limited to the number of units currently allowable under the present R-1 zoning until Old Ivy Road is improved to the satisfaction of the County of Albemarle.' In regard to the applicant's proffer, staff offers the following comments: 1) The off-site road improvement prohibitions have not been violated since the.locality has not required the applicant to improve the road and the applicant has not offered to improve the road. The applicant has simply restricted development until the road is improved. 2) The applicant may subsequently improve the road if he so chooses and automatically obtain additional density or he may wait for Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation improvement and obtain increased density at :that time. No additional zoning action is required. 3) Prior to road improvement, the applicant may develop 27 to 41 apartment units on a small portion of the property, thereby realizing use of the land in the interim while reserving land for future development. There- fore, the property owner benefited at time of rezoning due to the change in dwelling type. 4) Whether the road is or is not improved in the foreseeable future, the owner has enjoyed a wider selection of dwelling unit types, has main- tained original density through the rezoning action, and may maintain a reserve of land for future development. The County could benefit from such an approach too. Under current zoning, if the property owner chooses to develop only single-family dwellings on + one acre lots would be permitted which in staff opinion would be contrary To the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. 5) An approach similar to this was undertaken in ZMA-79-03, Stevenson & Martin, a rezoning from residential to commercial in which the applicants proffered not to exceed a certain traffic generation until U. S. Route 29 North had been improved to six lanes. 6) While this approach may not be applicable in all cases, it may prove of some utility in dealing with the current road improvement dilemma. As outlined above, this approach appears to have advantages and no disadvan- tages to the developer. STAFF COMMENT: Traffic on Old Ivy Road from the Rte. 29 Bypass ramp to Rte. 250 has increased from 2,123 vehicle trips per day in 1978 to 4,011 vehicles trips in 1984. Development of this property under R-15 zoning could represent an additional 2,970 - 3,960 vehicle trips per day. Under current circumstances and standards the roadway could be improved/realigned as a two-lane facility and achieve a tolerable status (level of service has not been considered). Under existing conditions, staff opinion is that necessary improvements would be as follows: Upgrading Rte. 601 from Rte. 29 Bypass ramp to Rte. 250E to an urban cross- section with curb and gutter. Two, 12-foot lanes would be provided with 30 feet face-of-curb to face-of-curb. Realignment of Rte. 601 under the railroad underpass. Provision of sidewalk on one side (preferably north) of the roadway. Again, this should be viewed as a general guide since traffic conditions are likely to change in the future. To exceed 7,500 vehicle trips per day and maintain a tolerable status would require additional lanes and may occasion reconstruction of the railroad overpass as well as additional right-of-way. Therefore, maximum development under R-15 zoning may not be realized. Staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffer as submitted." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 3, 1985 unanimously approval of ZMA-85-21 subject to the following proffer dated July 26, 1985, signed by Timothy M. Michel: e tember 18 1985 Re ular Ni ht Meeting_____ "July 26, 1985 Mr. Ron Keeler Deputy Director Department of Planning County office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: P.H. Faulconer Estate 28.29 acres on the east side of the 29 Bypass, said parcel being a portion of Parcel 24, tax map 60. Dear Mr. Keeler: The P. H. Faulconer Estate has instructed me to resubmit our previous application. As their agent I have been authorized to make the request for rezoning to R-15 with proffer. The proffer is that the property's development under the proposed R-15 zoning be limited to the number of units currently allowable under the present R-1 zoning until Old Ivy Road is improved to the satisfaction of the County of Albemarle. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Timothy M. Michel" Mr. Lindstrom referred to page three of the staff report, and asked Mr. Tucker to explain the statement "Under current circumstances and standards the roadway could be improved/realigne as a two-lane facility and achieve a tolerable status." He also referenced the statement existing conditions staff opinion is that necessary improvements would be as follows:" He if this m~ans that if the property were fully developed to R-15, the roadway would not exceed 7,500 vehicle trips. Mr. Tucker said this means that under existing circumstances, and with ~current zoning, and the anticipated traffic count with improvements that could be made within the existing right-of-way, it could accommodate up to 7,500 vehicle trips. Once 7,500 is exceeded, the road would have to be expanded beyond .the two lanes that now exist, realigned and improved at the railroad underpass. If the property were to be developed fully to the R-15 density, that would generate more traffic than at present. The staff is stating that the applicant may not be able to develop the property fully to R-15 and improve the road as the staff has suggested. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that in order for the applicant to develop the parcel to R-15, the applicant would have to do at least the three items listed in the staff's comments. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said even if the does the three items, he cannot fully develop the property and expect to get by with just these improvements. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Staff does not think the applicant will be able to fully develop the property at R-15 density. Mr. Fisher said in the mean time, if other properties develop, then these conditions may be totally inadequate. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. If some of the other vacant properties develop at the R-1 density, that could increas~ the existing traffic count and limit what the applicant could do on his property. Through his proffer, the applicant is saying he is willing to wait until these improvements are made, assuming the property can be developed at R-15. Mr. Tucker said the applicant can develop the property at its present zoning of R-1. Mr. Fisher said the Board is being asked to approve the rezoning far in anticipation of actual road improvements. That is quite different from what people in other fast growing jurisdictions has advised him to do. Once a zoning is allowed to occur, other changes and circumstances cannot affect that zoning; it is already there. He is concerned that this is a method of dealing with inadequate facilities in the whole urban area or perhaps in other parts of the County. He is also concerned about the prospect of developing just a part of the proper' to R-15 now. What happens in future years when the road is still not built correctly, and the land is subdivided, and a new owner is involved. This petition provides the possibility of an indefinite period of time before this property can be ready to be developed, and then all of thc "aces" are in the hands of the owner, and the Board does not know what other property owners will be doing. Mr. Lindstrom said the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the R-15 density is what the County ultimately wants in the area, and this property lies in an area where the utilities, in particular, such that the property has not actually been zoned consistent with the Plan. Essentially, the developer is asking the Board to lock that zoning in, leaVing it up to him as to when the property will actually be used rather than to the County, since regulations may change in the future. The question is: if the land has not actually been developed, is the zoning vested should there be a decision to change the zoning in the future, or does the proffe~ give this land some extra special rights that would make it immune to change through a compre- Rensive rezoning? Mr. Tucker said that is an issue that he cannot legally answer. Mr. Lindstrom said essentially the applicants have the right to develop if they can build a roa~ that satisfies the County, and the County cannot be unreasonable in what it considers satisfac- tory. If the Board grants the zoning which furthers what is now on the Comprehensive Plan, and if the Plan is changed in the future, has a zone been created under a comprehensive rezoning that has some extra special rights that a regular zone does not, assuming the property is not developed or utilized. Mr. Tucker said it is assumed that what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan shows for that area now is basically correct. Most of the surrounding area is developed to tha density currently. This gives the applicant an alternative if he chooses to upgrade the road, and the County reviews that road improvement and finds it satisfactory for the additional density. If another person develops land in the area, that development would be adding additio nal traffic volume to the road. This applicant is taking a chance, because when the road is September 18, 1985 (Re ular Ni ht Meetin upgraded he may get only a R-6 density. Mr. Tucker said the way he understands the proffer is that the County would make that determination. The applicant could also just wait and see if the.Highway Department and County will put the road improvements in the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a letter of recommendation from the Highway Department on this application? Mr. Tucker said there is no letter. Mr. Fisher said this is such an unusual arrangement, he feels the Highway Department's opinion should be solicited. Mr. Lindstrom addressed Mr. St. John. He said, assuming the applicant has not done those things that as current State law stands would give a vested right to the zone, is there anythin about this proffer or a proffered rezoning that would make it more difficult to change that zoning under a comprehensive rezoning. Mr. St. John said he believes there is, although he is not familiar with any cases on this in Virginia. When the developer has acted in reliance on zoning, other than just paying taxes or buying the land, such as a substantial outlay on the land, he is in diligent pursuit of something permanent. His doing what he can do initially witl the R-1 would be in reliance on that zoning. To the applicant it is a long-range package deal and he would not go to the trouble of building under the R-1 density unless he had assurance, felt he had been given assurance, that he could do the rest, provided he did his part. Mr. St. John said he feels the Board is locked into this from the time it is approved. It seems to him this technique is legal, not legally unsound and it is very similar to the Ramapo, New York, type of growth management. In Ramapo, when they put their comprehensive zone on the p, they have a published point system for each area, and when the developer gets to fifteen points, he can develop to a R-15 density (R-15 would need water and sewerage, schools, roads, parks, etc.). Under the Ramapo system, the owner of the land has an option at any time he wants to, to put roads through and put in water, or he can hold the land and wait until Ilpublic funds are expended to the point where the land has fifteen points. It is a point system Idepending on the public services that are there. It would be more difficult for a locality wit~ Ithe Ramapo system to totally revise or take a second look at their long-range comprehensive plat ,once it is put into place, then it would this Board since the County does not have that point lilsystem. The Board has gone beyond Ramapo in dealing with one particular tract of land. This lnot a comprehensive point system and the Board is telling the person in advance what he can do land if he does his part, he can get the R-15. The applicant can then say that he never would Ihave gone into this venture but for the fact that he coUnted on getting the long-range fruits Ihis investment with the R-15. He said he feels the Board should act as if it is locking itself lin right now, and if it is not willing to do that, then legally maybe the application should not e approved. Mr. Fisher said he is not so worried about the question of whether this is the ight zoning, but the totally indefinite nature of when that road will ever get built. r. St. John said the term "the satisfaction of the COunty of Albemarle" used in the applicant's roffer is also indefinite. There are no standards for that, there is no point system. The atisfaction of the County of Albemarle" presumably means the Board of SuperviSors, but it might llal~nclude.~he n~ec~o~ of Planning, the Planning CommiSsion or the Zoning Administrator. He IsalG ne quesulons une Geriniteness of that phrase. That ~ould be more for the developer to look lout for if he wants to place himself at some future Board s arbitrary decision without standards las to whether the roads are constructed satisfactorily. It is pretty indefinite. L At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the Faulcon~ ~state, addressed the Board. He said the objections to rezoning this property and some other ~arcels six years ago all centered on'road problems, and as the staff reported were the adequac~ If the road, the underpass, and the pedestrian traffic problems. The Hylton case came along and ~laced limitations on the governing body as to what it could do and limitations on the proffers ~hat could be accepted. Those two items stymied any solutions to the three problems Pointed ou~ ~n the original request. The applicant feels that this application with the proffer as worded ~rovides a workable solution. Some orderly development can occur at the present zoning level o~ IDY dealing with a known allowable density, plans can be developed and negotiations for coopera- tive action among the other owners ~n the area can be taken to deal with the road improvements at a level that would be compatible to the development being sought. The approval of the request makes it feasible for the owners to expend money to develop solutions. At this point in time, the Highway Department has no plans to upgrade the road, and the applicant is not aware of ~ny plans of the County to place the road on a priority list for improvements, and it is ~ertainly not going to be a self-improvement project. Someone will have to initiate action to improvement the road to any level of service. The applicant feels the traffic will continue to increase, even if this request is denied. There are other undeveloped parcels in the area whic~ ~re primarily zoned for commercial use or University-owned, institutional-type property with no ~uch proffers attached to their use. Even if the developer chooses to proceed with limited levelopment under current allowable density, the housing types that this request would allow, ~ould be compatible to the long-range projections for usage in the area. The applicants are ~till not prepared to make the road improvements prior to the rezoning request, therefore this ~ppears to be the only solution. What is being asked is similar to the special permit that was recently granted on Hydraulic Road where the density of the apartment project was set at the current zoning level until road improvements are made. The applicant feels this is the same sort of application for usage to road capabilities. The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and all the utilities are available. Everyone will agree that the use of the property should be R-15 or institutional, and it is not appropriate for R-1 usage. The area is separated from other R-1 areas, everything else in the area is high density or commercial zoning. As pointed out by Mr. Tucker, it may not be feasible to achieve the R-15 density, but ~t least granting this request would give the owners some flexibility in dealing with whether or ~ot they can expend the money for the road improvements and would give them the go ahead to investigate what needs to be done. At this point no one knows what improvements would be ~equired to support R-10, R-15 or even R-1. This assures the County that anything above the ~urrent zoning of R-1 would have some control by the Highway Department, and some level of improvement could be designed to anticipate the traffic volumes. Mr. Lindstrom said the proffer relates to road improvements and he asked Mr. Roudabush to ~larify those with regard to the railroad underpass. Is the railroad bridge included in the load improvements? Mr. Roudabush said if the railroad bridge is considered to be one of the limiting factors so far as traffic is concerned. The railroad underpass, the road itself and )eing able to handle pedestrian traffic were the three big items of concern in 1979, so he would ~ay that the underpass is a road problem. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if Mr. Roudabush felt the ~pplicant would have any problem considering a rewording of the proffer, in the place of "... to ~he satisfaction of the County of Albemarle" reword to state: "... to the satisfaction of the ~oard of Supervisors"? Mr. Roudabush said he does not think that would be a problem. September 18 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Bowie said he read the proffer as relating to the staff comment in regard to the upgrading of Rt. 601, realignment of 601, the railroad underpass, and the provision of sidewalk: Is the proffer not addressing those items? Mr. Lindstrom said he does not take the proffer as being limited that much. He understands it as being limited to road improvements that would be necessary to satisfy the Board of Supervisors which could include, if the traffic generation wa~ such, not only realignment of the road under the bridge, but a reconstruction of the bridge if four lanes were needed. Mr. Bowie asked if that would be covered by the words: "... to the satisfaction of the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors"? Mr. Lindstrom said yes, according to Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher said the real issue is that this will not happen this year or next year, maybe not this decade or next. The circumstances are what is on the road at the time this application may actually come into play, which may require something entirely different than what is here. He said he thinks the Board must be careful about making any assumptions as to what road improvements might be required. Mr. Roudabush said this would give the owners an incentive to go ahead and find out what is currently needed, and of course, that would have to be upgraded as time goes on according to current needs. Mr. Timothy Michel, also representing the applicants, addressed the Board. Mr. Michel sai the applicants are attempting to address a long-standing problem with Old Ivy Road, and a significant piece of property which all think should be a high density piece of property. This is the only way the applicants felt they could approach the problem that would allow the family to consider improving the road without interfering with the Hylton case. It was his under- standing that the staff did speak to the Highway Department at length to come up with this list but they could not get a letter because that implied problems. It is also his feeling that the wording of the proffer truly throws the piece of land at the Board's mercy. He would prefer th~ been known to be disagreements Board of Supervisors to make the decision because there have between the Engineering Department, the Planning D~partment, and the Board. The applicants are trying to be creative in a situation where a road is not going to be improved in the near future. There is going to be additional development in that area over which they have no control. This petition allows for a mechanism for a private owner to go ahead and make improve- ments that will not be done otherwise. Mr. Bill Heischman next addressed the Board. He said he has as much at stake on Old Ivy Road as anyone else with Ivy Gardens, Huntington Village, etc. He said he does not have any problem with this application. He would like to point out that if the owners of the Faulconer property do not get some relief from this Board, all of this will become academic, because the University will purchase the property, which will take it off of the tax rolls. Mr. Fisher said he sees no guarantee that that will not happen even if the Board approves this application. Heischman said there is no guarantee, but there is a better possibility. With no one else to speak for or against this application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he has some serious questions about the lack of any written comments from Highway Department, and the fact that the scale of this sort of advanced zoning agreement i so vastly different from anything the Board has addressed in the past, he would like to suggest that the Board defer this application in order to get a written comment on the whole concept of this from the Highway Department and a report from the County Attorney as to his considered opinion as to whether or not the Board should take this precedential step, and if this is the right way to go forward with planning in the County. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if there have been any communications with the University about this petition. Mr. Tucker said he does not think the University is going to comment. Mr. Bowie said he thought there was a reason given as to why the Highway Department did no~ include a letter. Mr. Tucker said staff did work with the Highway Department. In fact, the criteria listed came from the Highway Department. He thinks in a situation such as this, the Highway Department is reluctant to put this is writing, they do not like to tie themselves down Mr. Bowie said he has no problems with this application as it stands. The applicant is not asking for more houses than they can build, they are not offering to do anything or asking the Board to do anything. What bothers him about the whole package, is that none of these things are tied together. The staff lists items it feels should be done, but these are not addressed by the proffer. The Board already has from the Highway Department the minimum needs, so he doe ~ot know what good it will do to get a long letter from them. Mr. Fisher said it is typical ~ith every rezoning and site plan to get some comment from the Highway Department in writing. An application such as this with vast implications for properties all over the County and not have any input from the Highway Department seems to be unusual. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem requesting further information. This is a new idea ~nd he said this is really asking the Board how serious it is about the Comprehensive Plan. He understands some of the concerns mentioned, but he has always felt particularly uneasy about th~ Old Ivy Road area, because its character is clearly established by what has already happened out there. The area has understandably been designated as high density and has all of the utilitie~ with the exception of roads, is close to the University, is not in the watershed, it has access to the Route 250 bypass, relatively good transportation access except for the bottle neck at the railroad bridge. Given the fact that the State is not springing forth with more money, the Board needs to be open to some innovative approaches to the problem. He does not feel particu- larly uncomfortable with the designation of this, but there are certainly some things that might cause the Board to change the designation, although that would be highly unusual. He feels there is a stalemate unless some innovation is allowed in procedures. He does not know of any other way of putting the responsibility on the developers shoulders, other than something of this nature. The Board has committed to only putting water and sewer in the area, and it will be difficult to ever rescind that commitment, and now the remaining link (roads) must be added. He is therefore willing to try this approach. Mr. Fisher said he also has some interest in this area. He thinks Mr. St. John should think about this proposal and give his opinion. This has been in the making for six years. Mr. St. John said this has been looked at from different angles ever since the Hylton case, and then the proffer statute was added to the State Code. He can give an opinion in writing. 63O September 18, 1985 (Re ular Ni ht Meetin ) Mr. Michel again addressed the Board. He said the impetus for this actually came from Ron Keeler.in a memorandum sent out concerning off-road improvements, and that got the applican~ ~ back on this track. Mr. St. John said that the memorandum was looked at carefully and his office helped to formulate the ideas in it. Mr. Fisher said with regard to a proffer of this magnitude, he still has concern about who can legally bind the owners of an estate, whether it should be the owners signing the proffer, or the attorney for the owners, but for agents, employees, consultants, land planners or other personnel signing these proffers makes it a very indirect route if one has to go back and try t¢ hold some future owner's "feet to the fire". He thinks the Board should pay some attention to tightening that control on proffers. He would feel much better if the owners themselves signed proffers. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this property is owned by a corporation. Mr. Michel said thi~ property is owned by the estate which is why Mr. Fishbach is present. Mr. Michel said he has authorization in writing appointing him as agent to represent the estate'on this proposal or other like it. Mr. Fisher said he feels the form of the proffer is also important which includi traceability back to the owners. Mr. Fisher asked how much time it will take to get a response from the Highway Department and Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John said the Board could have his response in writing by October 9. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer ZMA-85-21 until October 9, 1985 in order to receive written comments from the Highway Department, and a legal opinion from the County Attorney regarding the concept of' advanced planning implied by the proffer, and an opinion also on whether this is the correct method of going forward with planning in the County. Mr. Fisher also indicated concern as to who can legally bind the owners of an estate, other than the themselves, to a proffer. Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and ZMA-85-21 was deferred until October 9, 1985. NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Not Docketed: At 9:11 P.M. the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:29 P. Agenda Item No. 11. Legislative Matters - Impact of Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Agnor said the staff was requested, at the September 11 meeting, to draft a resolution to be sent to both NACO and VACO relative to the impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Garcia case, determined that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to local governments; and WHEREAS, the interpretation by the Department of Labor of the provisions of this act impacts local government employees in their choice between taking compensatory time and being paid overtime, and impacts the County as an employer in scheduling employees and disbursing overtime wages; and WHEREAS, the limitation on the activities of employees who participate as volunteers in community organizations such as fire departments and recrea- tion programs has a negative effect on encouraging citizen involvement in community activities; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has for years budgeted for overtime expenses and managed extra work time with fairness to employees and appropriate regard for costs without Federal intervention; .NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County supports legislation which would exempt localities from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to Senators John W. Warner and Paul S. Trible, Jr., Congressman D. French Slaughter, Jr., and the Executive Directors of the National Association of Counties and the Virginia Association of Counties. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed FY 86-87 Budget Schedule. Mr. Agnor said this is provided primarily for information. It has been indicated that fou sessions is a rapid method of going through a complex document, and he does not want to sc a schedule for next March without the Board's knowledge. He is requesting that Monday and ay, two weeks in succession, be set aside for going through the budget as has been done in previous years. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with that and if needed, more sessions can scheduled. He said the Board has talked about having public input before December, and he like the Board to give staff some definitive guidance on limitations and what the Board ~ to do. Mr. Agnor said the budget is scheduled as an agenda item for discussion on r 9 on revenue projections and guidelines for the staff to have built into their instruc- Mr. Agnor said he did not realize the Board wanted an advertised public hearing. Bowie said the Board had a hearing last Spring before the work sessions began and that is included in this schedule. Mr. Lindstrom said he assumed the Board would have this work and before the work sessions, there would be a public hearing on staff proposals and the final public hearing. If there is a general public hearing asking for opinions, more September 18, 1985 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) 631 than likely there will be fewer comments than if there was a document for the public to talk about. Mr. Way said that was done last year and it is a good idea to do so again this year. Mr. Bowie said he agrees, the public should have an opportunity to comment On the budget after it is prepared, but he did not hear anybody at any public hearing talk about anything other thai $5 or $10 thousand, the issue of larger dollar programs was never addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said he assumes the discussion on October 9 will be a work session, not a public hearing, but a time for the Board to try to establish some general guidelines on items that are significant. Mr. Fisher said it sounds to him like the Board wants a general discussion on October 9 before work sessions and an opportunity to take public comments on the proposed budget on March 5. ~Mr. Agnor said March 5 will actually be an introduction of the proposed budget. Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments. Mr. Fisher said he and Mrs. Cooke need to schedule another session to discuss appointments iMrs.. Cooke said if the Board has any comments or recommendations to pass along, it would be helpful. I1 Mr. Henley said the Board received a recommendation from the City for an appointment to Jail Board and asked if this appointment had been discussed. Mr. Agnor said he understood tha~ ' the person, discuss this with Mr. Henley and IIMr. Fisher and Mrs. Cooke were going to interview Ithen make a recommendation for appointment. Mr. Henley said he wanted to meet with Mr. Fisher land Mrs. Cooke when this person is interviewed. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. At 10:00 P.M., Mr. Agnor requested an executive session on the acquisition and/or disposi- tion of property matters. Mr. Bowie offered motion for the Board to adjourn into executive session for discussion of acquisition and/or disposition of property. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~AYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:05 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn to September 25 at 4:00 P Meeting Room ~5. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. CHAIRMAN