1983-06-01June l, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June l, 198~ at ?:50 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nasho
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at ?:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZTA-83-1. Gerald L. and Annette Kirby. Request to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to allow "motor vehicle sales" by special use permit in the C-1 District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the
following staff report:
"Gerald and Annette Kirby have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
amend Section 22.0, C-1 Commercial District of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance to allow motor vehicle sales. The C-1 Commercial
District is intended to permit 'selected retail sales, service and
public use establishments which are primarily oriented to central
business concentrations.' In terms of the zoning map, C-1 is intended
to be established 'only within the urban area, communities, and
villages in the Comprehensive Plan.'
While motor vehicle sales may not be considered a classic (CBD) Central
Business District type of use, downtown locations are not uncommon.
Staff opinion is, however, that motor vehicle sales would not be
compatible to the village scale of development. Historically, commercial
uses in village areas have been intended to be of a small-scale
convenience nature.
Staff recommends the following amendment:
22.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the
urban area as designated in the comprehensive plan."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 3, 1983, recommended
approval of ZTA-83-1 as recommended by the staff.
The public hearing was then opened. Mrs. Annette Kirby, applicant, was present and
stated that she had operated a gift shop for years in this building until her injury in
October 1982 and was not aware that the zoning had been changed on this property. She and
her husband are both crippled and she feels that Mr. Dewey Morris who is requesting use of
this property for automobile sales would be a good tenant. She noted that no objections
have been received from the adjacent property owners. Mrs. Kirby said this operation will
be an up-to-date business and nothing will occur on the property that will be detrimental
or devalue adjacent properties. She also noted that no washing of automobiles will occur
on the property. Mrs. Kirby said the adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, have
stated that they do not desire any fences, trees, etc., to divide this property from their
property.
Mr. Fisher noted that if this change is made in the zoning, text automobile sales
operations will be allowed on all C-1 property in the County. Mrs. Kirby said she was
aware of that and she did not object as long as the property is kept~presentable and with
an up to date operation.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.~
?
Mr. Lindstrom said he gathered from the staff's recommendation that there is nothing
wrong with this type of activity in the C-1 district since allowing this use only by
special use permit gives the ability to discriminate as to particular location. With that
understanding, he then offered motion to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 22.2.2 by adding #8 reading "Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities
and the urban area as designated in the comprehensive plan." Miss Nash seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
June l, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-83-19, Dewey Morris. Request to locate late model used car
lot on about one acre zoned C-1. Located in Clover's Airport Acres in closed gift shop
and service station, west side of Route 29 North at intersection with Airport Acres Road,.
County Tax Map 32A, Parcel 01-B-1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May l? and May 24, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
".R.e que st h
Z. oning :_
Location:
Auto sales (ZTA-83-1)
I acre
C-1 Commercial
Property, described as County Tax Map 32A-01-B-1, is
located on the west side of Route 29 North, south of and
adjacent to Airport Acres Road in Airport Acres.
Character of the Area:
Staff-Comment:
This building has been used in the past as a
service station and gift shop. Properties to the south
and across Route 29 North are commercially developed.
Airport Acres is to the north and west. This building
is visible from one dwelling in Airport Acres.
Staff has reviewed the proposed auto sales use for
consistency with Section B1.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and recommends that with appropriate conditions of
approval the auto sales:
a) would not be of substantial detriment-to-adjoining
property;
b) would not substantially change the character of the
area;
c) would be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and with the public health, safety and
welfare.
Staff recommends apProval, subject to the following conditions:
Staff approval of either stockade fencing (six feet in height)
or white pine plantings (five to six feet in height; 20 feet
off center) along northern and western boundary lines;
Staff approval of parking plan.
displayed only on paved areas;
Vehicles shall be parked and
3. No pennants, streamers or strings of lights shall be permitted.
Note: In regard to Condition 3, 84 Lumber, Better Living and
-other uses along Route 29 North make use of pennants and the like;
however, those uses are not located adjacent to residential areas."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 3, 1983, recommended
approval of SP-83-19 with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Tucker said after
the Planning Commission meeting, a letter dated May 10, 1983 was receiVed from Mrs.
Bessie Lloyd, property owner directly behind the subject property and in the only dwelling
visible from the subject property. Mrs. Lloyd has indicated that she does not feel there
is any need for a fence or row of trees along the property line as required in condition
#1. Mr. Fisher asked if that changed the staff's recommendation. Mr. Tucker said basically
if an adjoining property owner does not feel there is any need for screening, the staff
will not object. Mr. Tucker said the staff's only concern would be different property
owne~s~n .th~ future. However, the staff and Planning Commission condition is for the
screening along the western and northern boundary .and Mrs. Lloyd is only speaking to the
western boundary. Therefore, Mr. Tucker felt the Board may still want to consider the
screening along the northern boundary line which abuts Airport Acres Road.
Mr. Fisher said in looking at the subdivision plat of this area, it appears that Lot
i and Lot lA are either part of the Airport Acres Subdivision or were originally part of
that subdivision. He gathers that the C-1 zoning recommendation is only because of the
historic use of the parcel. Mr. Tucker said Lot i belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Kirby and it
was zoned B-1 prior to 1980. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan does recommend C-1 in
this area.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Dewey Morris, applicant, was present and
stated his intentions are to improve the property and keep the property clean and nice.
With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-83-19 with the three conditions of
the Planning Commission. With respect to condition #1 regarding the screening requirements,
he felt that over and above protecting the Lloyd's property, this will also serve as
protection to the adjacent residential property. This commercial use is an intensive use
and merits giving protection to the adjacent properties. Miss Nash seconded the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
June_~l 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-83-17. Meta Kelley. Request to establish commercial kennel
on 29.40 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located south side of Route 250 West, about ! 1/2 miles
east of Mechums River. County Tax Map 57, Parcel 81B. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Commercial kennel
29.4 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as County Tax Map 57, Parcel 8lB, is
located on the north side of Route 738 at its intersection with
Route 708 near Ivy.
Character of the Area: Properties in the area are generally open, rolling
pasture. Three dwellings are located across Route 738. The
applicant's family owns.property adjacent to the east, which is
developed with three dwellings. These three dwellings would be
closest to the proposed kennel.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a 2,400 square foot boarding and grooming
kennel with 20 single and four double runs and an indoor facility
for cats. The applicant has obtained signatures of support from
several adjoining property owners, including the two properties
closest to the proposed kennel location. Staff has received no
comment or inquiry from other property owners in the area. (Mr.
Tucker said some comments from adjoining property owners were made
at the Planning Commission meeting.) While there appears to
be no curren~ concern, staff would recommend conditions which
would provide flexibility to require additional measures should
the same be necessary in the future.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with 31.2.4.1
and recommends that, given the support or neutrality of property
owners in the area, the kennel would not be of substantial detriment
to other properties in the area. Staff opinion is that concerns of
the general public health, safety and welfare can be addressed by
conditions of approval. As currently proposed, the kennel would
not conform to all requirements of 5.1.11, Supplementary Regulations;
however, staff would recommend a condition to require conformance
in the future should the same prove necessary (see condition three).
Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
Building OfFicial and Health Department approval to insure the kennel
is designed in such fashion that all washdown water is directed to an
approved septic system for sanitary disposal;
Building Official approval of building soundproofing measures in
accordance with 5.1.II(b) (i.e. - sound measured at nearest agricultural
or residential property lines will not exceed 40 decibels);
e
The Board of Supervisors may require sound attenuation fencing in
accordance with 5.1.11(c) at any future time at which the same shall
be deemed reasonably appropriate-to protect the public interest;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation entrance approval;
Kennel shall be located at least 200 feet from any adjoining
residential or agricultural property line in accordance with 5.1.ii(a);
Ail animals shall be confined wit.hin the building from 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m.;
Staff approval of parking area to consist of six customer parking spaces
plus one parking space per employee;
8. Kennel limited to 20 single and 4 double runs."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 10, 1983 recommended
approval of SP-83-17 with the conditions of the staff but changing conditions #5 and #6 to
read as follows and with the addition of condition #9:
Kennel shall be located at least 200 feet from any adjoining residential
or agricultural property line in the general location shown on the plat
approved for recordation by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., on December 15, 1982,
surveyed by Frank A. Gregg, County Tax Map 58, portion of Parcel 8.
6~
Ail animals shall be confined wi-thin the building from 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.
9. Staff approval of trees for sound attenuation and screening.
Mr· Tucker said as indicated on the plat, an area is shown with four foot white
pines, 50 foot off center for screening purposes. Mr. Fisher asked if ~that was for sound
attenuation or visual screening. Mr. Tucker said the screening is basically for visual
purposes. He did not feel that much sound attenuation would be provided by the plantings.
Therefore, condition #3 was required for sound attenuation for future needs.
June 1, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting~
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. John Little, attorney for the applicant,
Mrs. Meta Kelley, was present. Mr. Little said at night or when an attendant is not
available, the dogs will be secured in a sound proofed house. The dogs will be let out
twice daily for exercise and elimination. The kennel will be modeled after the existing
Wakefield Kennel. The experience at Wakefield has been that there is a great need for
another public kennel. Mr. Frank Kessler~ owner of Wakefield Kennel, remarked at the
Planning Commission meeting that sometimes there is a three week waiting period for use of
the kennel. Mr. Little said Mr. Kessler could not be present for this public hearing but
he would like to share two points Mr. Kessler made at the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Kessler stated that having operated Wakefield Kennel in Earlysville for eight years,
he does not feel a kennel is as much of a nuisance as some people feel. The animals taken
to a kennel are normally house pets. Mr. Kessler also noted that many times there is a
misconception that real estate will be devalued with a kennel in close proximity. However,
this is not true and in particular, Earlysville ForEst which is located in front of
Wakefield Kennel does not have any lots available until January 1984. Therefore, a kennel
is not detrimental to surrounding properties. Mr. Little said the applicant is willing to
comply with the staff recommendation for a pine tree buffer. Also, there is an adequate
safeguard for sound protection with the condition regarding the sound attenuation fence.
Mr. Little said Mr. Kessler also commented that the trees will not only provide visual
screening but lessen the sound to some degree.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher said this property is in his district. Based on past business operations
of the Kelleys', he does not have any problem ~with the request and as long as the neighbors
do not object, he will support the request.
Miss Nash then offered motion to approve SP-83-17 with the nine conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and MiSs Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-83-21. Robert H. and Marta Ramsey. Request to establish
nursery school on 6.365 acres zoned Rural Areas. LOcated north of Route 250 West, off
Route 677 about 1 3/4 miles from its intersection with Route 250. County Tax Map 59,
Parcel 7D. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 17 and May
24, 1983.)
Mr. Lindstrom said he will abstain from discussion of this petition since the firm he
is associated with represents the applicant.
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Request:
A~reage:
Zoning:
Location:
Nursery School (10 2 2 7) ~ - ~
6.365 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as County Tax Map 59, Parcel 7D, is located
on the west side of Route 677 aboUt 1 1/2 miles north Of Route
250 West·
Character of the Area: Two dwellings are located on this property. The private
road which serves this property appears to serve seven other
properties. Entrance road is located on the west side of Route
677, about 300 feet northwest of Ivy Creek.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a nursery school for 15 students
for five days a week. Based on the Virginia Department of Welfare
regulations, staff would recommend two adult supervisors be present
at all times during operation.
Staff has reviewed this special use permit petition for consistency
with 31.2.4.1 and offers the following comments:
ae
The use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
As stated earlier, this property is served by an access easement
which also serves other properties. Operating with 15 students,
the nursery school would increase traffic on this road by about
60 vehicle trips per day. Staff cannot recall any requests for
uses of a commercial nature on private roads in the past. In
order to protect the interests of other road users, appropriate
maintenance agreements should be required, if this petition
is approved.
The use will not change the character of the district. Historically,
child caring facilities have been opposed by other residents in
subdivisions. In this case, staff has received no comment or
inquiry from other property owners in the area. Staff would
note that lot sizes are much greater in this case than in past
petitions in subdivisions.
June 1, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The use will be in harmony with the Purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance, etc. Among the stated purposes of the
zoning ordinance (see Section 1.4) is 'to reduce or prevent
congestion in the public streets' and 'to protect against
danger and congestion in travel and transportation.' Rout~'~77
(Old Ballard Road), listed by the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation as a nontolerabte road, had a traffic count
of 448 vehicle trips per day in this area in September, 1980.
Traffic increased to 535 vehicle trips per day in August, 1982.
While staff has calculated about 60 vehicle trips per day at
the public/private road intersection, some of these trips may
not be 'new traffic' on Old Ballard Road (i.e. - inbound work
trips). Also, these trips would be generated during non-peak
hour periods.
Regarding the question of harmony with other uses in the area, staff
does not believe child caring facilities to be inappropriate to
residential areas. To the contrary, staff would prefer that child caring
facilities be located in residential areas as opposed to commercial sites,
provided such uses can be accommodated in a harmonious manner. In this
case, due to the low density of development, staff does not believe the
use would be inconsistent to the area.
Regarding supplementary regulations, the applicant would not be licensed
by the Virginia Department of Welfare; therefore, should the petition be
approved, waiver of 5.1.6(a) would be required. In lieu of licensure,
the applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with certain standards.
Staff opinion is that this rural location would be an appropriate setting
for a nursery school. The applicant has indicated receptiveness to meeting
standards as are usually recommended by staff (i.e. - commercial entrance,
developed outdoor recreational area, etc.). Most issues, such as maintenance
of the private road, could be addressed by conditions of approval. However,
one issue which the applicant cannot correct is the condition of Route 677.
The nursery school could potentially increase traffic on this segment of Old
Ballard Road by ten percent over 1982 counts. Approval of a use of a
commercial nature could make rejection of similar requests or requests for
more intensive residential development difficult in the future, particularly
since the Zoning Ordinance is 'designed to treat lands which are similarly
situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable
consideration for the existing use and character of properties ... the
transportation requirements of the community' and so forth (see Section 1.6).
Developed with two dwellings, staff opinion is that the applicant enjoys
reasonable use of the property under existing zoning conditions. Additionally,
the applicant could operate with five or fewer students without requirement
of a special use permit.
While staff has no problem with the proposed use per se, the potential precedent
created in this area could encourage additional impact on OId Ballard Road.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends
the following conditions:
1. Permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferrable;
Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations; Section 5.1.6(a)
is waived;
Staff approval of outdoor play area and parking;
County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private road;
e
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation entrance approval;
Enrollment limited to 15 students. Two adult supervisors shall be
present at all times when operating with more than ten students;
Fire Official and Building Official approvals;
Health Department review to insure adequacy of septic drainfield
for increased usage."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 10, 1983, recommended
approval of SP-83-21 with the above conditions but changing condition 4 to read as follows:
"4. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private road, pro rata, based
on lots." and the addition of condition No. 9: "Private road to be paved by applicant
from Route 677 to his driveway/entrance, prime and double seal, sixteen foot width, subject
to County Engineer approval and in accordance with Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker also noted the following comments dated May 3, 1983 from Mr. W. B. Coburn,
Jr., Assistant Resident Highway Engineer: "Request to locate a nursery school along
Route 677 should not create increased traffic in this area. We would expect with the
existing residential development and planned development that a large percentage of the
nursery population would be captured from existing traffic. A commercial entrance will be
required to serve this property."
194
June 1, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked the existing condition of the private road. Mr. Tucker said the
private road is gravel and the Planning Commission felt with the increased usage from this
request that the road Should be upgraded. The condition of the Planning Commission relating
to the road was based on the number of vehicle trips used as a standard in the Subdivision
Ordinance.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Ed Bain, attorney representing the applicants,
was present. Mr. Bain said Mrs. Ramsey has provided information regarding her plans for
the facility as well as her qualifications in terms of teaching (Copy of this information
is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Bain said the applicants are willing to abide by
the Planning Commission conditions. As the Board can see, with the requirement for the
paving of the private road and the commercial entrance, the applicant is expending a great
deal of money for just ten extra children when the applicants could have five children by
right in their home. The applicant feels there is a need for a facility of this nature in
the subject area. In reference to the adjoining properties, most of the lots are from
four to six acres in size. Mr. Bain then distributed to the Board letters from all the
neighbors with the exception of one person who lives on this particular road. The letters
are supportive of the request providing all state and local regulations are met and one
letter supported the request providing the road is improved per the Planning Commission
recommendations and the limitation on the number of children being fifteen with morning
hours of operation only. (Copies of these letters are on file in the Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Bain then referred to the comments from the Highway Department noting that the feeling
is that there will not be an adverse impact on Route 677 from this request. Mr. Bain also
noted that due to the large lot nature of this subdivision, there will not be a problem
with this being a heavily traveled area as would be the case of a smaller lot subdivision.
Next to speak was the applicant, Mrs. Marta Ramsey. She noted that she is the mother
of a two year old child and through her child she became a teacher this past year in the
Mothers Morning Out Program at the First Presbyterian Church. Mrs. Ramsey said through
this program, she has seen the need for a part-time friendship circle for children of this
age group, 2 1/2 through four years old. Mrs. Ramsey said the children she has seen this
current year have been those of nonworking mothers who are seeking some friendship for
their children. Because of the support from the Church and the waiting list of that
program and the addresses of at least fifty percent on the list being from the western
part of the County, she decided to pursue the special permit for this facility. Mrs.
Ramsey then emphasized again the need for this type of program. She also noted her qualificat
of teaching for eight years, four being in Albemarle County Schools, a Sunday School
teacher and has always been and will be interested in children. Mrs. Ramsey said society
now especially with well-educated parents show desires to be with children and yet the
mothers also want to stay home with the children. This nursery school will provide two to
three mornings a week for children to be with friends.
With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Bain mentioned the one letter from an adjacent property owner for
this operation to be limited to a morning operation. However, a condition has not been
recommended for that but the request submitted by the applicant specifically noted the
morning hours of operation. Mr. Fisher asked if the request from Mrs. Ramsey were filed
with the special use permit, if that would be adequate to satisfy this concern. Mr.
Tucker said yes and noted that the Department of Welfare would only allow the one-half day
type of operation since that is what Mrs. Ramsey applied for.
Miss Nash asked the meaning of condition #2 regarding the waiver of Section 5.1.6(a).
Mr. Tucker read this section which is related to the licensing by the Department of Welfare
for a child care center. However, Mrs. Ramsey will only be operating on a half day basis
and does not need to be licensed. For that reason, the staff did not feel Mrs. Ramsey
could comply with that section.
Mr. Fisher said he was familiar with the area and if the residents of the subject
area are satisfied with the manner in which the road situation has been taken care of, he
would recommend approval with the conditions of the Planning Commission.
Miss Nash then offered motion to approve SP-83-21 with the nine conditions of the
Planning Commission and with the proviso that the application from the applicant be attached
to the file particularly regarding the hours of operation. Mr. Henley seconded the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 8:25 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-83-22. Peggy M. Boland. Request to locate gifts, antiques
and crafts business on .930 acre zoned Rural Areas. Located eastern side of Route 29
North across from General Electric plant entrance. County Tax Map 33, Parcel 1G. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"Request:
Acreage:.
Zoning:
Location:
Gift, craft and antique shop (Section 10.2.2.36)
0.93 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property described as County Tax Map 33, Parcel 1G, is located on
the east side of Route 29 North across from the entrance to the
General Electric plant at Piney Mountain.
ons
June 1, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
History:
In the past, a palmistry was located on this site. In July, 1982,
Blue Ridge Memorial obtained a zoning clearance for a sales office
for retail sales of monuments and tombstones; however, it was never
occupied due to a restriction on outdoor display.
Staff Comment:
ZMA-82-14, T. E. Wood, a rezoning request from RA Rural Areas to HC
Highway Commercial, was denied on February 16, 1983. A similar
request (ZMA-82-13 Romanac and Spathopulos)on adjoining property
was also denied.
Character of the Area: The majority of this site is mapped by the Corps of
Engineers as 100-year flood plain of Herring Run. In regard to
public utilities, under the Albemarle County Service Authority
service areas map, water is available only for existing structures;
sewer is not available. The existing Camelot sewage treatment plant
is near capacity.
The applicant proposes to use the existing dwelling solely for the
gift and antique shop with 670 square feet of display area. The
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that
the existing entrance is adequate. Parking is also adequate; therefore,
no site plan is required. Staff has reviewed this special use permit
for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends that with appropriate conditions of approval:
ae
the use would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property;
the character of the area would not be changed;
such use would not conflict with other uses in the area nor be
contrary to the purpose and intent of zoning in the area;
such use would not be contrary to the public health, safety and
general welfare.
The possibility of flooding should be emphasized. From the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers mapping, it appears that the dwelling is within the 100-year flood
plain. Detailed engineering study including field work is necessary to
determine more accurate limits. While use of this building for commercial
purposes as opposed to a dwelling may reduce potential hazard to life, risk
of property damage, should be considered. In December, 1980, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency converted Albemarle County's status under
the National Flood Insurance Program, thereby substantially increasing
coverage for buildings and contents. Information about this insurance program
may be obtained from any licensed property And casualty insurance agent.
Both the applicant and property owner are encouraged to investigate this
insurance program.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Written acknowledgement from the applicant and property owner that the
approval of this special use permit shall not create liability on the
part of Albemarle County or any officer, agency or employee thereof, for
any flood damage which may occur;
2. No outdoor display;
3. No auctions or yard sales."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May t0, 1983, approved SP-83-22
~the above three conditions.
Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant intended to build on the property. Mr. Tucker said
that would not be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and a building permit could not be
obtained for any expansion of the building since this property is in the flood plain.
However, a condition could be imposed to alleviate that concern. Mr. Fisher said perhaps
that should be done in order to avoid any potential conflict.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Bernard Boland, applicant, was present. He
said the intent of this request is to create a job for his wife and a hobby for himself.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered mo'tion to approve SP-83-22 with the conditions of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion
included the exclusion of any expansion on the property. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the
Zoning Ordinance eliminates that concern. Mr. Fisher then requested that the minutes
reflect Mr. Tucker's statement that expansion on the property would not be permitted under
the current Zoning Ordinance because the property lies in the flood plain. Mr. Fisher
said the reason he is requesting that this be included is to alert the applicant of this
restriction before any investment in the property is made. The applicants then stated
that they had no intention for any expansion. Roll was then called on the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Jmne 1, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. Selection 1982-83 Auditors. (Deferred from May 18, 1983).
Mr. Fisher said the County staff had received proposals from five firms for the 1982-
83 County Audit. This matter was presented to the Board on May 11, 1983, and even though
the staff had a recommendation on that date, there was some concern among the Board members
as to the recommendation. A .committee comprised of Mrs. Cooke and himself has reviewed
the proposals and recommends the acceptance and appointment of the firm of Price Waterhouse
for the Fiscal Year 1982-83 County Audit. Mr. Fisher said it is the opinion of the committee
that two of the firms bidding did not seem to be in compliance with the request for proposals
as far as the scope of the work proposed. Three of .the firms did comply with the County's
request for proposals. Ail of the firms agreed to the timeframe allowed to complete the
audit. Mr. Fisher said the firms showed varying levels of experience in this type of
work. Key personnel selected by all three firms to do the work are certified public
accountants. Mr. Fisher said as to the size and Structure of the firms, no substantial
amount of information was provided in the proposals, but all three firms are believed to
be capable of performing the work. Mr. Fisher said the costs in the proposals ranged from
$25,000 as a maximum fee to $34,500 as an estimated fee. The committee recommends the
selection of the Price Waterhouse firm and recommends that the firm be notified in writing
that this selection and appointment was based on its proposal to perform all the work as
specified in the County's Request for Proposal, without exception, at a maximum fee of
$25,000. Mr. Fisher said there is a request from the staff to make this appointment as
soon as possible and he hopes that some action can be taken tonight.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to appoint the firm of Price Waterhouse to perform
the 1982-83 Fiscal Year County Audit subject to final contractural papers being drawn up
and executed by the appropriate County official. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. St.
John asked who is the appropriate County official. Mr. Lindstrom said the County Executive.
Mr. St. John said the motion should designate the official. Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke
accepted that inclusion in the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Amend Ordinance Establishing Albemarle County Police Force.
Mr. St. John said this amendment is necessary in order to change the appointment of
the police officers from the date of June 1, 1983, shown in the adopted ordinance to a
date on or after June 1, 1983, but not later than July 1~ 1983. The reason for this
amendment is because Mr. Agnor has to go through ~he process of advertising and receiving
applications and then processing same and time did not allow that procedure from May 11 to
the June !, 1983, deadline. Mr. St. John said that restriction was overlooked when the
ordinance was adopted in May.
Mr. Lindstrom said since this new department becomes effective on July 1, 1983,
perhaps the ordinance should state not later than June 30, 1983. Mr. St. John said that
would be a safe assurance.
Mr. Fisher said this is presented to the Board as an emergency ordinance and he
requested that action be taken tonight with a public hearing being ordered and the ordinance
being reenacted within sixty days. Mr. St. John said the public hearing should be scheduled
as soon as possible.
Mr. Agnor said even though he was aware of. the advertising and processing time involved
in taking applications for the police officer positions, he did not interpret the ordinance/i
to mean that the employment of the officers had to be made on a specific date. However,
after the adoption of the ordinance and while discussing this further with Mr. St. John,
it was obvious that the language was restrictive. Therefore, he had requested this ~.~
amendment in order that the officers could be employed during the month of June but not on~i
a specific date as previously stated. Mr. St. John said he had personally thought that
five deputies presently working in the Sheriff's Department were to be transferred to the
Police Force.
Mr. Lindstrom said the nature of the emergency ordinance is evident and he offered
motion to adopt the following ordinance on an emergency basis, and to request that the
advertisement of this ordinance for public hearing be done as soon as possible to make
this amendment permanent. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he will not
support the motion because he did not vote to adopt the Ordinance the first time and felt
the establishment of a police force is a mistake as he has previously stated. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY POLICE FORCE
BE IT ORDAINED by.the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
A police force as defined in Virginia Code Section 14.1-84.2(L) is hereby
established which shall be responsible on and after June 1, 1983, for the prevention
and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and
property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws,
regulations and ordinances.
197
June 1, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
This police force shall be and hereby is designated the Albemarle County
Police Force and shall consist of a chief of police and five full-time police
officers.
The chief of police and all other personnel of the Albemarle County Police
Force shall be appointed pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-598 and shall
constitute a division of the County's Department of Law Enforcement under
Virginia Code Section 15.1-608. Ail initial appointments to the positions
established hereby shall take effect on or after June 1, 1983, but not later
than June 30, 1983. The salary scale for members of the Albemarle County
Police Force shall be prescribed from time to time by the County Board of
Supervisors within the regular budgetary and appropriation process.
It is the intent of this ordinance that the Albemarle County Police Force
shall be jointly responsible with the Sheriff's Department for Law Enforcement
in the County, and this ordinance is not intended to diminish the present
authority or responsibility of the Sheriff.
An emergency being declared to exist, the foregoing amendment shall
take effect upon enactment, to be reenacted within sixty (60) days after public
notice and hearing.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Lindstrom said after talking with a citizen and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney, about the proposed Agricultural and Forestal District Ordinances, he
realizes that the language does not carry out his intent with respect to subdivisions of
property. He felt the language would permit family divisions of property into twenty-one
acres or more without a special use permit and any other division of land would require a
special use permit. However, the ordinance refers to a subdivision as defined in Section
~8~22 of the Subdivision Ordinance which is a division of land creating parcels of five
acres or less and parcels of five acres or more would be exempt if there is 250 feet of
frontage on a state maintained road. Therefore, he is concerned that this would mean a
number of subdivision lots could be created without a special use permit in an agricultural
and forestal district provided the lots were five acres or more and had frontage of 250
feet on a state maintained road. Mr. Lindstrom said the orginal intent of the motion to
create an agricultural and forestal district was to eliminate the possibility of subdivisions
in such districts unless the division was for a family member or the division was for
parcels of twenty-one acres or more. Mr. St. John agreed and said if the Board desires
such language in the ordinance, same should be available before the public hearing on,.June
8, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the ordinance could be adopted at that time with thi~ '
amendment or would this make the ordinance more restrictive. Mr. St. John said this i~
different from a zoning text amendment and he did not feel there was any problem. Mr.
Fisher asked that the County Attorney determine what procedure is necessary before June 8,
1983, in order to include the recommendation by Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 10. At 8:47 P.M., without any further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.