1983-09-21September 21, 1983 (Regular Nisht Meeting)
375
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 21, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, 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. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Acting County Executive, Ray B. Jones; County Planner, Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. lA.
Board's information:
Consent Agenda.
The following items were presented for the
Item No. la.1. Letter dated September 15, 1983, from the State Office of Emergency
and Energy Services stating drought designation and formal damage assessment of the drought-
caused crop damage has been initiated.
Item No. la.2. Letter dated September 19, 1983, from the State Office of Emergency
and Energy Services stating Governor Robb formally requested that Albemarle County be
designated a natural disaster area for the purpose of allowing farmers in the County to
participate in any drought-related federal emergency assistance program.
Item No. la.3. Letter dated September 12, 1983, from the Department of Housing and
Community Development stating that the County's single project rated only 651 out of 1000
points, which denies the application for Community Development Block Grant funds.
Item No. la.4. Letter dated September 12, 1983 from the Department of Housing and
Community Development denying the application of the County for Community Development Block
Grant funds.
A brief discussion followed on the denial for the two applications for Community
Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, was present and
stated that someone from his staff will go to the State office to find out the exact reasons
for the low point score, but he understands that there were some changes made in the criteria
used in the review process for the applications. Miss Nash asked if the State had notified
the County of the changes. Mr. Tucker said yes, but the changes were items over which the
County has no control such as unemployment rates. Further, he noted that the unemployment
rate in Albemarle County was not as great this year as in previous years. Unemployment is
based on the entire County and not just the region proposed for housing improvements.
Item No. la.5. Memorandum dated September 20, 1983, from the Jefferson Area Community
Diversion Program stating that the Community Corrections Resources Board have incorporated
as a Nonstock Corporation. This will allow this group to deal directly with the Department
of Corrections in matters of contracts and grant awards.
Item No. la.6. Report dated September 1, 1983 from the James River Alcohol Safety
Action Program containing its Financial Statement for year ended June 30, 1983.
Motion to approve the above receipt of informational items was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYEs:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-83-55. Edith Batten. Request to locate a mobile home on 17.76
acres zoned Rural Areas. Located on the east side of Route 729, 3/10 mile northeast of
intersection with Route 728. County Tax Map 105, Parcel 8C. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on August 9, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, was present, and gave the following staff
report:
~uest: Mobile Home
~ 17.76 acres
Zoning:~ Rural Areas (RA)
Location: Property described as Tax Map 105, Parcel 8C, is located
on the east side of Route 729 about 2,000 feet north of Route 728.
Character of the Area: A mobile home is currently located on this property.
Real Estate Department records show eight mobile homes in this
area in 1981. New residential development is occurring in the area.
376
September 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff Comment: Opposition to this petition comes from nine property owners
in the area representing thirteen properties. Staff offers the
following comments:
1. As proposed to be located, the mobile home would be clearly
visible from Route 729 and other properties in the area. It appears
that the mobile home could be more centrally located on the Property
so as to reduce visibility;
2. The applicant obtained approval to locate a mobile home on
property to the south (Tax Map 105, Parcel 10) in 1969. A mobile
home is currently located on that property. The Commission and
Board may wish to address the purpose of this current request;
3. In the 1969 report, staff noted eight mobile homes 'in the
general area'. Since that time, six mobile homes have been
authorized in the area. It appears that mobile homes have been
transitional uses in the area.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition,
staff recommends the following conditions:
Zoning Administrator determination of mobile home location so
as to minimize adverse visual impact from adjoining properties
and the public road;
2. Maintenance of vegetative buffer around mobile home;
3. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Tucker said at the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Batten indicated that she
intends to locate the mobile home further back on the property than initially thought by
the staff and a condition was added by the Planning Commission to that effect. Mr. Tucker .....
also noted that the existing mobile home is occupied by the original owner of the property,
Mr. Hensley, and he retains a life tenancy to live in that mobile home. Mr. Tucker said
the Planning Commmission at its meeting on September 20, 1983, unanimously voted to recommend
approval of SP-83-55 with the following three conditions:
Zoning Administrator determination of mobile home location so as to
minimize adverse visual impact from adJoininE properties and the public
road; it is the intent of the Planning Commission that the mobile
home be located no closer than 100 feet from any property line
nor closer than 150 feet from the road right-of-way;
Maintenance of vegetative buffer around mobile home to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator;
3. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said the Board may desire to add a condition that the existing mobile home
be removed within sixty to ninety days of its vacancy. Mr. Fisher asked if the existing
mobile home is subject to a special permit. Mr. Tucker said no, therefore the mobile home
could remain on the property since it is not tied to any specific property owner or to any
condition requiring its removal.
The public hearing was then opened. The applicant, Mrs. Edith Batten, was present,
and did not have any specific comments. Miss Nash said the address for Mrs. Batten in the
work papers shows as Hydraulic Road. She asked how long she has lived there. Mrs. Batten
said she has had her mobile home at Crenshaw's Mobile Home Court for three months. Mr.
Fisher asked if she is the owner of the property in question. Mrs. Batten said yes.
Next to speak was Mr. James D. Stultz, property owner across from the subject property.
Mr. Stultz said he moved to this area in 1971 and invested in a forty-five acre tract.
Since that time, approximately forty houses have been built in the area with values ranging~
from $45,000 to $150,000. Therefore, the tax base of this area is estimated between two
and three million dollars and tax base is a factor of growth. Mr. Stultz said there are
one hundred and twenty tracts of land including Saddlewood Farm which is a development in
this area. In the next ten years, the estimated tax base should be approximately six
million dollars. Mr. Stultz said since he had lived in this area there had only been one ~
trailer visible and that is two miles away from his property. Since this request was
submitted, another application for a mobile home three lots down the road has also been ~
submitted. Mr. Stultz felt approval of this permit will mean a lot of mobile home activity
in the area. Therefore, a lot of people who have invested in homes in this area and those
that have anticipated building will not care to live near a mobile home development. Mr.
Stultz said Mrs. Batten's property contains seventeen acres but the property is not very
wide along the road frontage. Therefore, another mobile home placed beside the existing
mobile home or within one hundred feet from any property line is not desirable. Mr. Stultz
said he would not object to the mobile home if same were placed behind the existing mobile
home. He also agreed with the recommendation of Mr. Tucker to add a condition requiring
the removal of the existing mobile home upon vacancy by the current tenant.
Speaking next was Mr. Wilson Cropp, III, property owner across from the subject property
Mr. Cropp feared the precedent this approval would establish and the effect on the real
estate values in the area. He noted that Saddlewood Farms has sixty-five tracts of land
and the appraised values are from $65,000 to $115,000. There are thirty-five bUildable
tracts remaining, but the addition of mobile homes in this 'area has affected some of the
building. Mr. Cropp said even though some of the mobile homes are nice and do not appear
to be mobile homes, there are always a few that are deplorable and eyesores. Mr. Cropp
concluded by stating that approval of this mobile home request will affect the tax base of
the subject area.
September 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
377
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Miss Nash said there are eight mobile homes shown on the map distributed to the Board.
She then asked Mr. Cropp if he knew how long those mobile homes have existed. Mr. Cropp
said he has only been familiar with the area since 1975, and all but one of the mobile
homes was located there prior to his buying in the area.
Mrs. Batten noted that there are fifteen mobile homes located between Route 53 and
Route 728.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, had viewed this parcel.
Mr. Vaughn was present. He said no, but if this special permit is approved, then he will
determine the location and visit the site.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked about the topography of the property. Mr. Tucker said he has
not visited the site but understands that the property drops off to the east of Route 729.
However, he cannot say whether the mobile home can be located as specified in condition #1
as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the property is wooded behind
the existing mobile home and he felt the mobile home could be located in a manner that is
not visible to the adjacent property owners.
Miss Nash then asked about the location of a septic field. Mr. Tucker said the new
mobile home would be required to have only one new septic field since the property does not
lie within any public drinking water impoundment. Also, it would not be feasible to use
Mr. Hensley's system. Mr. Tucker said when an application is made for a building permit,
health department approval will be required for septic field location as noted in the third
condition of the Planning Commission regarding compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, if the conditions contained in Section 5.6.2 cannot be met, then the
application is not complete and technically would not be granted.
Miss Nash said since the property has not been seen in terms of where the mobile home
can be located, she offered motion to defer any action on SP-83-55 to October 5, 1983, in
order that the property can be visited to select a location for the mobile home. Mrs.
Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent of the motion is that Miss Nash
will visit the site personally. Miss Nash said she will accompany the staff. Miss Nash
said she desired to know the condition of the vegetation on all sides of the property and
whether the Planning Commission's condition "that the mobile home be located no closer than
100 feet from any property line nor closer than 150 feet from the road right-of-way" could
be met.
Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
...... SP-83-60.
Agenda Item No. 3. /David H. Thacker. Request 'to locate a mobile home on 37.5 acres
zoned Rural Areas (RA). Property is located on the south side of Route 723 and one mile
southwest of intersection with Route 715. County Tax Map 133, Parcel 27. rScottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 9, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
".~eMue~L Mobile Home
Acrea e~i 37.5 acres
Zoning: Rural Areas (RA)
Location: ProPerty described as County Tax Map 133, Parcel 27,
located on the south side of Route 723 approximately 0.8 mile
west of ROute 715.
Chg~acter of the Area: This property is undeveloped and heavily wooded.
Adjacent proPerties are large wooded tracts.
Staff Comment: The mobile home is proposed to be located about 750 feet
from the property of the person objecting to this petition. Staff
opinion is that the mobile home would'not be visible from the public
road or objector's property.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Mobile home to be located as generally shown on plat marked
'SP'83-60 David H. Thacker' and initialled 'RSK 9/20/83'.
3. Maintenance of tree buffer from adjoining properties to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 20, 1983~ unanimousl
recommended approval of SP-83-60 with the above three conditions. Mr. Tucker said letter-
of objection was received from Mr. F. H. Sanchez of Freehold, New Jersey, dated August 9,
1983, with the objection being that the mobile home "would cheapen the area and~damage-all
plans to develop it properly".
Miss Nash asked if there is a road into the propertY.
the applicant had cut a driveway into the property or not.
Mr. TUcker was not certain if
378
September 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Thacker, applicant, was present and said he
does have a temporary driveway. The property is heavily wooded and offers privacy which is
the reason he chose this location. Mr. Thacker said he cannot see anyone else from his
property and no one else can see his.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Miss Nash said this property appears to be deep in the woods and she then offered
motion to approve SP-83-60 with the three 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-83-52. Peggy Foster. Request to locate a nursery for six to
nine children on .5 acre zoned R-2. Located at 17 Jamestown Road in Brookwood Subdivision,
Crozet, off of Route 1204 west of its intersection with Route 240. County Tax Map 56D,
Parcel 0C-3. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 6 and
September 13, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
~uest: Day nursery (Section 14.2.2.7)
Ac~ea. ge: 0.48 acre
~ R-2 Residential
Location: Property described as County Tax Map 56D-0C, Lot 3, is 17 Jamestown
Road in Brookwood Subdivision in Crozet.
Character of the Area: This property is located centrally within Brookwood
Subdivision. Brookwood consists of 90 lots with an average lot size
of 0.30 acre.
Staff Comment: The applicant is seeking licensure from the State to operate
a day care facility for eight children. In addition to the applicant,
one part-time adult supervisor would be employed.
Staff has reviewed this proposal for consistency with the criteria
for issuance of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1) and offers
the following comments:
a) Staff opinion is that a small scale day care facility is a use
normally anticipated and appropriate to areas of substantial
development;
b) Staff opinion is that the proposal would be consistent with the
zoning regulations for day care centers including State licensing;
c) The Fire Official has reviewed and approved in terms of fire
safety the use of the dwelling for day care. Due to a history of
septic system problems in the area, staff suggested that prior to
public hearing the applicant obtain written comment from the Health
Department about the adequacy of the existing system. The Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended that due to
vertical alignment of the public road, no on-street parking be permitted.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Enrollment shall be limited to eight children per day;
2. Permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferrable;
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations;
Staff approval of outdoor fenced play area;
5. County Engineer approval of driveway improvements in accordance
with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments
of August 12, 1983;
6. Health Department verification that existing septic facilities
are adequate for increased usage."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 6, 1983, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-83-52 with the above six conditions. Mr. Tucker said on September
14, 1983, a form letter was received from Mr. Jeffrey McDaniel, Sanitarian of the Health
Department indicating that the site had been viewed and that the existing system is adequate
for the proposed use.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the Health Department letter just mentioned because the
letter distributed to the Board only indicates that there was no evidence of malfunction at
the time of inspection. Mr. Tucker said another letter was received on September 14, 1983,
in which it is stated that the existing system is adequate for the proposed use. Mr.
Fisher said if the system changed, would that mean the school had to cease its operation in
the future. Mr. Tucker said the condition could be reworded to mention the future, and a
provision included pertaining to failure of the system. Mr. Fisher felt that should be
considered because these are small lots and this area has a history of septic system problems.
-379
September 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then questioned the Highway Department's comments. Mr. Tucker read the
following comments: "Entrance to the property is located at the top of a vertical curve.
The existing entrance is the only point along the property frontage which has adequate
sight distance. It is recommended that the entrance be widened to allow two vehicles to
pass or park in the entrance. We further recommend that parking be prohibited along the
shoulder and front of the property due to the sight distance problem." Mr. Tucker said
this is the reason for condition #5.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Peggy Foster, applicant, was present. She said
she has received approval from the State and was told that within ten days she could have
the license. Mrs. Foster said this will be a temporary operation because she desires to
operate full-time in the Crozet area because a day nursery is needed. Mrs. Foster further
noted that she could keep five children without obtaining this permit, but has received
numerous requests for this service and that is the purpose of this request.
Miss Nash asked if she had any trouble with her septic field "bubbling up" in her
grass. Mrs. Foster said no.
With no one else present to speak for or-against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-83-52 with conditions 1 through 5 as recommended
by the Planning Commission, and a sixth condition reading: "Health Department verification
that septic facilities are adequate for increased and continuing use." Mr. Lindstrom asked
if the intent of the condition is that should the facilities cease being acceptable for
continued use, that the permit would be revoked. Mr. Fisher said the intent of his earlier
statement was that if such were determined inadequate, then the septic field would have to
be fixed if at all possible. Mr. Lindstrom felt that if the system is determined to be
inadequate, then the system should be corrected or the permit revoked. Mr. Henley s~id the
Health Department would have to make that determination. Mr. Lindstrom said that was
correct, but he was not sure what would happen after that and he did not feel the wording
gives the Board's intentions. Mrs. Cooke thought the Health Department was to take charge
if such problems occurred. Mr. Fisher said from his experience the Health Department has
been very reluctant to ever state that there is a health hazard from a septic field because
then there are other things that the Health Department is required to do in connection with
that statement. Mr. Lindstrom said that is the reason he is concerned, and he felt the
condition should be worded so that the permit would be terminated if there is a problem
which is not promptly corrected. Mr. Henley felt that if the increased use causes a problem,
then certainly the problem would be corrected. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that the sixth
condition be worded as follows: "In the event of failure of the facilities, the failure
shall be promptly corrected or this permit shall be revoked." Mr. Henley accepted the
wording as an addition to his motion with the sixth condition to read: "Health Department
verification that septic facilities are adequate for increased and continuing usage. In
the event of failure of the facilities the failure shall be promptly corrected or this
permit shall be revoked." Mrs. Cooke 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. 5. SP-83-61. Larry Wyant. Request to locate antique and gifts store
on two acres zoned Rural .Areas (RA). Located in southeast quadrant of intersection of
Routes 810 and 614 in White Hall. County Tax Map 41, Parcel 24. White Hall District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 6 and September 13, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
~ Antique and gift shop (Section 10.2.2.36)
~e.age:_ 2 acres
~ Rural Areas (RA)
Location: Property described as County Tax Map 41, Parcel 24, is located
on the east side of Route 810 at its intersection with Route 614 at White
Hall.
Character of the Area: This property is developed with a dwelling and
nonconforming garage buitding~ A country store is located across
Route 614. Other properties in the area are in residential usage.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate an antique and gift shop
in the garage building. Due to limited area between the building and
Route 810 (i.e., less than twenty-five feet), it may be necessary to
provide parking elsewhere on the site. The Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation recommended that a commercial entrance
be required, which may necessitate removal of a hedge and/or fencing
to obtain adequate sight distance. The Fire Official indicated that
inspection of the building should be made to determine structural
soundness and other factors due to the age and construction of the
building.
Staff has reviewed this proposal for consistency with the criteria
for issuance of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1) and offers
the following comments:
a) Historically, antique shops have been viewed as a~low-intensity
business which can be made unobstrusive in an area through conditions
of approval.
b) Possible physical problems have been discussed earlier (commercial
entrance, adequate parking, structural soundness of building). If these
concerns are properly addressed, staff opinion is that an antique/gift
shop is an appropriate use for this building.
S80
September 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval;
2. Fire Official and Building Official approval of building and of
safety provisions for existing grease rack;
3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of one
or more commercial entrances;
4. No outdoor storage or display;
5. No auctions.
Note: Condition one should not be construed to preclude the Planning
Commission from granting a site plan waiver at any future date."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 6, 1983, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-83-61 with the above five conditions.
Mr. Fisher asked if the intent is to use the existing garage building.
said yes. Mr. Fisher said that is not included in any of the conditions.
the Board may desire to add a condition to that effect.
Mr. Tucker
Mr. Tucker said
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Wyant, applicant, was present and said the
building was a garage at one time and licensed as such. However, some of the people in the
area recall that the building when used as a garage was unsightly. Mr. Wyant said the
building belonged to his grandparents and now belongs to his father and the desire is to
use the building in a manner that would be attractive to the community.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher said in order to clarify that the existing garage is the building to be
used and not an expansion of another facility on the property, he would suggest the following
words be added as condition #6: "Usage be limited to the existing garage building." Mr. r
Henley then offered motion to approve SP-83-61 with the five conditions recommended by the:
Planning Commission and the addition of condition #6 as suggested by Mr. Fisher. Mr.
Butler 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. 6. ZMA-83-12. G. Benton Patterson. Request to rezone 17,500 square
feet out of 6.543 acres from Light Industrial, LI to Highway Commercial, HC. Located at
the intersection of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and Rio Road (Route 631). County Tax Map
45, Parcel 22 (part of). CharlotteSville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on.
September 6 and September 13, 1983.)
Mr. Fisher said notification has been received from the applicant's attorney addressed
to both himself and Mr. Tucker as follows:
"Dear Mr.. Fisher and Mr. Tucker:
The applicant has instructed me to request withdrawal of his rezoning
request number ZMA-83-12 at the intersection of State Routes 743 and 631 in
Albemarle County, Virginia. I hereby make the request for withdrawal of the
rezoning application without prejudice on behalf of my client.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED BY)
Edward~H. Bain, Jr.
Attorney for G. Benton PatterSon"
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the request
for withdrawal of ZMA-83-12 without prejudice as requested in the foregoing letter. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley, and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. ~ Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
There were none presented.
Agenda Item No. 9. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel.
At 8:27 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn into executive session to
discuss legal and personnel matters. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the legal matter should be
specified. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Lindstrom then noted that the legal matter is in
regards to an appeal of the recent Board of Zoning Appeals decision regarding the River
Heights Hotel. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adjourn into executive session to
discuss legal and personnel matters. Mrs. Cooke 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.
September 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The Board reconvened into open session at 9:13 P.M. Mrs. Cooke immediately offered
motion to authorize the County Attorney to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals concerning the River Heights Hotel, Inc. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on Suggested Uses for the McIntire School Property.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September I and September 8, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker said the staff report on the McIntire School property was presented to the
Board at itS'~ meeting on August 4, 1983. The report contained some potential uses of the
McIntire School property. At that time, the Board decided to hold a public hearing to
receive comments from interested persons or groups for the use of same. As part of the
identification of the alternatives, an informal survey of community resource persons was
undertaken to assess identified community needs. The persons contacted represent the
Charlottesville Departments of Parks and Recreation, the Charlottesville Community Develop-
ment Department, the County Departments of Parks and Recreation and Social Services, the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Monticello
Area Community Action Agency, YMCA and the Jordan Corporation. Factors to be considered in
the.evaluation of the alternative uses include, but are not limited to, needs of the community
for services and facilities, the real estate market in the area, the size and configuration
and condition of the building and location in relation to surrounding land uses, legal
implications for the owner, cost of renovation and operation of reuse, etc. Mr. Tucker
said some of the alternative uses presented at the August meeting were an office and
maintenance facility for JAUNT, Economic Development and/or employment center, day care/nursin
home, human services organization center, YMCA recreation center, and various alternatives
for housing. Mr. Tucker then summarized four memorandums received in response to the
staff's survey. One letter was from Mr. Cole Hendrix to the City Council which is basically
a report of the City's Department of Community Development. Listed in the report were
several alternatives such as public and semi-public uses, in particular the YMCA, training
and educational center, a neighborhood community facility, day care and other social
services. Mr. Tucker said the conclusion of the City's report was that "In overview, we
feel the back part if not all, of the site, should be used for housing and any other use
should be of low intensity so as not to have a significant adverse impact on the character
of the residential area and to minimize impact on the traffic and safety concerns." Mr.
Tucker said the report does speak to and recognize that there are problems with traffic
circulation and access into this property.
Mr. Tucker also noted a memo from the YMCA which proposes to lease the property for
five years with an option to renew at one dollar per year. Also indicated in that corre-
spondence is that agreements could be arranged to provide space to several nonprofit social
service agencies such as the Food Bank, Children's Museum, and the American Red Cross..
Additionally, the YMCA indicated that they would continue to use the facility as its central
branch of operations providing cultural, recreational, social and fitness programs to its
membership of 5,000 persons.
Mr. Tucker then noted letter dated September 15, 1983, from Mrs. Rebecca B. Richardson,
Director of the Charlottesville Center for Dyslexia, which has expressed an interest in
occupying several rooms in the school. This organization specializes in the diagnosis and
teaching of persons with specific language difficulties. The Center is currently housed at
the YMCA but more space is needed and it is the feeling that the Center can work satisfac-
torily with the YMCA. Lastly, Mr. Tucker noted correspondence from Mr. Patrick Mullaney,
Director of the County's Parks and Recreation Department, supporting the continued use of
the building by the YMCA.
Mr. Fisher said when the School Board declared this building as surplus property for
their uses and the ownership reverted back to the Board of Supervisors, there were several
options discussed such as selling the property to provide funds for other County projects
such as schools. There are a number of people who would like to see the building used for
other purposes and that is the reason the Board desired to hold this public hearing. Mr.
Fisher then asked for public comments.
Mrs. Karen Lilleleht, President of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation was present
and read the following memorandum dated September 21, 1983:
"We wish to respond to your request for comments from community groups
on suggested uses for the McIntire School property with the following
proposal:
The Jordan Development Corporation which has acted as your agent in
development and management of assisted housing for county residents and
the Charlottesville Housing Foundation which supports Jordan, AHIP and
has as its aim the creation of opportunities for housing for low and
moderate income families, would ask that the county give serious considera-
tion to the use of the McIntire property for residential purposes.
A most appropriate use of the building and site, considering the
surrounding neighborhood, would be a mix of residential housing types.
This use would provide the most intensive use of the property. The
school building lends itself to rehabilitation as rental apartments with
townhouses, garden apartments or even single-family detached dwellings
located on the open land surrounding the school. A planned unit
development concept for the entire twelve acre tract would be preferred.
382
September 21, 1983 (ReguLar Night Meeting)
The Housing Foundation needs time to explore the feasibility of a
residential planned unit development on this site which will be tailored
to the needs of low and moderate income families.
Our feasibility study will include:
(1) Professional site planning analysis to determine the most
appropriate placement of housing to be purchased through interest-subsidized
mortgages and thorough analysis of the potential for rehabilitating the
school structure into residential apartments for elderly persons.
(2) An analysis of several alternative approaches to project
development and ownership including private development and ownership
including private sector participation, nonprofit ownership, long-term
leasing and combination of these approaches.
(3) An exploration of potential financing of alternative develop-
ment approaches such as Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA)
single-family mortgages and rental rehabilitation financing, a Section 212
loan available to nonprofits, tax exempt bond financing, syndication and
the potential for rent subsidies.
We would expect to complete our study in three months and make it
available to you with a recommendation of the best alternative to be chosen.
Before the Foundation is willing to invest its effort and money
looking at the possibilities, we will need an assurance of your interest
and a commitment not to proceed to dispose of or otherwise commit the site
and structure to another use.
We will need to know we can call on county planning and community
development help to assist us as well as the engineering department and
others as we proceed to develop the feasibility.
We feel that a residential design of the type we envisage is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan and policies for development and with
the existing neighborhood and we will work closely with city staff as
we proceed.
We would not preclude other uses on the property of a recreational or
community service nature if the county wishes these to be considered.
We trust you will give this proposal serious consideration and we look
forward to cooperating with you in any way."
Next to speak was Mr. George Gilliam, Director of the YMCA. Mr. Gilliam said there
have been a number of informal meetings with the YMCA, American Red Cross, Children's
Museum and the Food Bank about the joint use of the McIntire School building. Therefore,
he is present to speak on behalf of those agencies. As all are aware, the YMCA has been
using about one-half of the space in the building for recreational programs and would like
to continue to do so. The other agencies mentioned could make compatible use effective
with the YMCA in the remainder of the building. Mr. Gilliam said the cost of maintaining
the building is estimated to be about $40,000 per year. The agencies have agreed on a
method to share that cost. Therefore, the County would be relieved of the maintenance ·
costs during the usage by these agencies. Mr. Gilliam said it is desired to have a lease
and the longer the lease offered the more the agencies can spend on improving the building
for such items as air conditioning and other renovations. Mr. Gilliam said he would urge
that the Board consider granting a five-year lease to the YMCA with the details to be
worked out at staff level with the understanding that the users would pay all the costs of
maintenance and upkeep. Mr. Gilliam said that during that fiwe-year period other uses of
the building which may produce revenue for the County could be discussed, but until the
Route 250 by-pass is upgraded and other contemplated uses more fully developed, the request
now is to continue allowing the YMCA to use the building. Mr. Gilliam then distributed to
the Board a petition containing several hundred signatures urging the Board to approve the
YMCA's proposal to lease the building and property for a period of five years with an
option to renew at $1.00 per year (The petition is on file in the Clerk's Office.).
Speaking next was Mr. Bill Daggett, resident of Birdwood Road. Mr. Daggett said as a
resident of the subject neighborhood, he would urge support for the YMCA to continue using
the facility because this organization has been a good neighbor and provides services to
low and middle income City and County residents.
Ms. Regula Evitt, a teacher of aerobics, for the YMCA, spoke next in support of the
YMCA being continued to use the McIntire School property.
Speaking next was Ms. Rebecca Hitchner, also an employee of the YMCA. She said the
YMCA is involved in other programs other than recreation and noted that she operates the
"Latch Key-After School" program which serves about one hundred and fifty families. The
programs are now being held at area schools because there is no central site available, but
such a site is the goal in order that anyone in the County will have the availability of
the service. She also noted the program known as "Please Teach Me" which is for parents of
preschoolers. In conclusion, Mrs. Hitchner said the YMCA is involved in educational programs
as well as recreational programs.
Next to speak was Mr. John Conover, City Councilman. He noted that the City's position
has been summarized by Mr. Tucker. Since this property is in the heart of the City, and
is located in single-family residential, the City would like to see the property considered
as an entire unit and used according to its low zoning density.
SeP~tember 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
!: '383
Mr. Fisher expressed appreciation for the comments in this matter, but he said the
Board will have to discuss this matter further. He personally would encourage the ~
Charlottesville Housing Foundation and other potential developers of the property to look
at the property and see what might be done with same. Mr. Fisher said the Board must look
at this property from the standpoint of being a community resource as well as a source of
capital improvements money. The County's citizens invested their tax dollars when this
school was built for the County. Mr. Fisher suggested this matter be placed on the October
12, 1983, agenda for further discussion.
Mr. Daggett then asked if there have been inquiries from any development group other
than those represented tonight. Mr. Fisher said he was not aware of any such inquiries.
Mr. Ray Jones, Acting County Executive, said there have been two who have expressed an
interest if this property is put out to bid.
Miss Nash asked about the zoning on the property. Mr. Conover said the property is
zoned R-1 which is generally family residential.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher that this matter needs to be discussed further
because this is a valuable piece of real estate. However, other than being a community
resource, the very unique location of the property may be more valuable than money that
could be obtained from the sale of same. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should decide what
specific information is desired for the next discussion. He presumed one item of interest
would be the value of the property as a piece of real estate compared to its value as a
community resource. Other information needed would be the types of residential and commercial
uses that could be made of the property as well as access in terms of the Route 250 by-pass.
Mr. Henley felt the impact on the by-pass should be considered if the property is to be
used as a resource center. Mr. Lindstrom agreed and felt that there will be traffic on
Route 250 regardless of the use. Miss Nash said that may be true, but personally she felt
the Charlottesville Housing Foundation proposal was a good use of the building. However,
she questioned if that use would meet housing needs for the City and County.
Mr. Butler felt the matter should be studied further in regards to the benefit for the
the community and the county.
Mr. Fisher then requested that further discussion of this matter be held at the
October 12, 1983, meeting.
Agenda Item No. 9. At 9:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, Seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at ll:15 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjournment. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn until
October 5, 1983, at 4:00 P.M. in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6. Mrs. Cooke 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.
CHAIRMAN