1982-12-01-5 0
December 14 1982 (Regular Night Meeting_S)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, was held on
December 1, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS 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.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Board Chairman, Mr. Gerald Fisher.
At 7:32 P.M., the meeting was called to order by
Mr. Fisher notified the news media that a letter has been received from the City of
Charlottesville regarding the sharing of Watershed Management costs, dated November 24,
1982. Mr. Fisher noted that the contents of this letter will be discussed at the December
8, 1982, regular day meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2. Request for Dance Hall Permit.
letter dated November 11, 1982, from Mr. Ken Meyri:
Mr. Agnor presented the following
"We would like to allow dancing at our restaurant. We plan to designate an
area equal to 1/8 of our dining space for this purpose.
We are a family oriented restaurant and allow no alcoholic beverages on the
previses.
The dances will be geared toward high school and senior high school aged
groups with parents accompanying the youngsters or providing written
permission for them to attend.
The owner of the property (Tax Map 56A(2)-1, Parcel 29) is James F. Slosson.
The name of the person managing the dance hall is Ken Meyri.
is located in the shopping center at Crozet.
The property
Sincerely,
(signed) Ken Meyri"
Mr. Agnor noted that certification of inspection for conformity with the Building
Code and the Albemarle County Fire Prevention Code was made by Robert E. Vaughn,.Building
Official, and Ira B. Cortez, Fire Prevention Officer, in a memorandum dated November 8,
1982 (on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors).
Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present wishing to speak regarding this application.
No one was present wishing to speak either for or against this application. Mr. Fisher
asked Mr. St. John to whom the permit should be issued. Mr. St. John said the County Code
speaks to the operator of the dance hall, not the owner of the property.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the permit is granted, if the operator would be able to apply
for a liquor license or greater floor space. Mr. St. John said the permit is subject to
revocation if any of the conditions of the permit are violated or any statement made at
the time of application is proven false. Mr. Lindstrom said that the application is
actually a statement of limitation on the permit. Mr. St. John said the letter of appli-
cation could be made a condition of the permit.
Mr. Henley said he spoke to families whose children presently visit this establish-
ment, and received comments that it is well operated with no alcoholic beverages served.
Mr. Henley said he would like to see a condition placed on the permit that no alcoholic
beverages be allowed on the premises.
MOtion was offered by Mr. Henley to grant a dance hall permit in the name of Mr. Ken
Meyri, as operator of the Depot Restaurant, in accordance with Albemarle County Code
Sections 3-11 through 3-17; plus one additional condition, that being no alcoholic beverages
to be allowed on the premises, and the permit is subject to all Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-82-13. Martin J. Romanac and George Spathopulos. Request to
rezone 9.530 acres from RA Rural Areas to HC Highway Commercial. Located east side of
Route 29 North. County Tax Map 33, Parcel iA. Rivanna District. .(Advertised in the
Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1982.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the planning staff .report as
well as the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows:
Requested Zoning:
HC Highway Commercial
Acreage: 9.53 acres
Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location:
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Property, described as County Tax Map 33, Parcel iA, is located
on the east side of Route 29 North, about 4,000 feet north of the'
North Fork Rivanna River.
Character of the Area: Adjoining properties are undeveloped and wooded.
Briarwood PRD is across Route 29 North.
This property is developed with a single-family dwelling and two
outbuildings. Herring Branch, which parallels. Route 29 North, has an
extensive flood plain in the area which appears to occupy more than
one half of the property. Since this is mapped as an "approximate
flood plain", an extensive engineering study would be required of the
property owner prior to any filling in the flood plain. In regard to
public utilities, under the Albemarle County Service Authority service
area map, water is available only for the existing dwelling. Sewer is
not available. The existing Camelot Sewage Treat~ment~pi~a~t is near
capacity. A portion of this property is within 500 feet.~of the
Briarwood/General Electric crossover, and therefore a limitation would
be imposed on the location of a commercial entrance.
Comprehensive Plan: Under the ~current Comprehensive Plan, the Piney Mountain
Village is located wholly on the west side of Route 29 North. Under
the proposed Comprehensive Plan revisions, the Piney Mountain Village
would include properties east of Route 29 North. Under the proposed
revisions, this property is shown in an environmentally sensitive open
space area, due to the extensive flood plain of Herring Branch. The
nearest commercial area would be about 1,000 feet south and would be
developed on a new roadway.
Staff Comment: The applicant is attempting to restore a commercial desig-
nation on this property. (The property was zoned B-1 under prior
zoning.) Staff is unaware of any intended plans for development at
this time. Staff does not recommend favorably on this rezoning
request for the following reasons:
1)
The request is inconsistent with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2)
The request is inconsistent with the statement of intent of the
HC Highway Commercial district, which says that HC districts
should be "established on major highways within the urban area
and communities (Hoilymead, Crozet) in the comprehensive Plan.
About thirty-two acres of vacant C-1 land exists on the west side
of Route 29 North, which in Staff opinion is more than adequate
to satisfy the commercial needs of the Piney Mountain Village
area.
Substantial acreages of commercial and industrial zoning in this
area were not recognized on the new zoning map. Approval of this
petition could result in similar speculative rezoning requests.
5)
Staff is concerned that a commercial designation of the property
could encourage filling of the flood plain area.
6)
Staff opinion is that a reasonable use is being made of the
property with a single-family dwelling and palmistry business.
However, should the Commission and Board choose to look favorably on a
commercial designation, Staff would recommend that:
1) C-1 would be more appropriate than HC Highway Commercial;
Only that portion between Route 29 North and the Herring Branch
flood plain should be rezoned, so as to reduce the probability of
filling in the flood plain.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9, 1982,
voted unanimously to recommend denial of this rezoning petition.
Mr. Martin J. Romanac was present and said that when he purchased the property with
Mr. Spathopulos in 1968, it was zoned B-1. Mr. Romanac said he was never notified of the
rezoning to RA until he rented the building to a palm reader. When a business license was
denied is when the change in zoning came to the owners' attention. Mr. Romanac said he
has never had a problem with flooding on the property, even though a portion of the land
is designated flood plain. Lastly, Mr. Romanac said he would not want to remove the
present cinderblock structure located near the lake, but would like to be able to sell
this portion of the property for possible development as a recreational area.
No one else was present wishing to speak either for or against this application. Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if recreational
areas are allowed in the RA district. Mr. Tucker said yes, recreational facilities are
allowed by special use permit.
Mr. Lindstrom said that comments from the staff and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission cannot be ignored. Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant can still pursue his
desire of developing the property for recreational purposes by pursuing a special use
permit. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board were to approve a rezoning to Highway Commercial,
it would establish a precedent and cause requests for development along this area of Route
29 North similar to that which presently exists closer to the Charlottesville City line.
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and deny this application. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley,.who stated he totally
agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's statement.
Mr. Butler said he visited this property and felt it was suitable for a small recrea-
tional area. Mr. Butler said he felt it was unfair for the applicant to pay commercial
taxes on this property since it's purchase in 1968 and then find he cannot develop the
land to his wishes. Mr. Butler said he could not support the motion.
Miss Nash and Mrs. Cooke asked for clarification of the uses by right in the Highway
Commercial District~, as well as what is allowed by right and by special use permit in the
Rural Areas District. Mr. Tucker said most recreational uses would be permitted in the
Highway Commercial District, but those same uses are also allowed in the Rural Areas
District by special use permit, thus making a rezoning of the property unnecessary. Mrs.
Cooke said since the applicant said he desired to develop this property for recreational
purposes which are allowed by special use permit under the existing zoning, she agreed
with the motion to deny the rezoning application.
Roll was then called and the motion to deny ZMA-82-13 carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-82-61. Monticello-Skyline Campground, Inc. Request to have
an additional 12 - 22 camping sites on 47.11 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located on Route
250 West, west of Yancey Mills. County Tax Map 71, Parcel 3. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1982.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the planning staff report and
the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows:
Request: Expansion of an existing campground (Section 10.2.2.20 Day Camp,
Boarding Camp.)
Acreage: 47.11 acres
Zoning: Rural Areas RA
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 71, Parcel 3, is the "Safari
Campground", located on the south side of Route 250 West, approxi-
mately one half mile west of the 1-64 Yancey Mills interchange.
Background: In August, 1969, the Board of Supervisors approved Conditional
Use Permit 110 to Robert Albee to authorize this campground. This was
superceded by CUP 116 to Robert Albee on November 20, 1969, containing
ten conditions of approval. (Condition one was subsequently amended
on July 16, 1970, to remove the wording "and that the existing honey-
suckle fence be maintained."):
That four-foot trees be planted along the right of way of Route
250 West and that the existing honeysuckle fence be maintained.
That a deceleration lane be constructed in conjunction with the
activity for a 100 foot length at the entrance onto Route 250
West, or in keeping with the Highway Department requirements for
such facilities, whichever is greater.
That the approval of this campground facility be subject to
Virginia Department of Highways approval on placement of entrance
and the width and construction thereof.
That 24 hour supervision be made available for the activity
during the season of operation.
That the access road from the entrance onto the facility to the
office facility be paved and maintained. Ail other access roads
are to be provided with a dust-proof surfacing and maintained.
That trees be planted for the shade and convenience of the
campers where not existing, primarily north of Stockton Creek.
That the approval of the activity be subject to City-County
Health Department approval on sanitary facilities.
Any addition to the existing proposed facility as shown in the
site plan as submitted with this application shall be reviewed by
the Commission.
In all cases the activity shall adhere to the more restrictive
requirements, be they the County of Albemarle's or Safari Camp-
grounds of America, Inc.
10.
That a 30 foot buffer strip be provided on the west, south and
east property lines which are to be maintained. No utilities or
operations of any kind are to be located within the subject 30
foot buffer strip.
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)~
Conditions one and six were not satisfied. Likewise, Staff has been
unable to find any record that Mr. Albee obtained approval from the
Commission in accordance with condition eight to develop the existing
campsites on the south side of Stockton Creek. This campground was
recently purchased from Mr. Albee by the current applicants, Mr. and
Mrs. Kappes.
Staff Comment: The applicants propose to locate an additional twelve to
twenty-two sites for camping trailers and motorized camping vehicles.
Staff has made field inspection of the site and offers the following
comments:
1)
2)
The area proposed for the new sites is located between Stockton
Creek and the campground office. The Corps of Engineers flood
maps show about one half of this area within the 100 year flood
plain of Stockton Creek. However, it appears some grading of the
area occurred to prepare it for its current use as a playing
field and that flooding may be more extensive than depicted on
the flood maps. Additionally, an adjoining property owner and
the applicants have stated that flooding has occurred almost to
the'office within the past five years. While more detailed
engineering study would be required, it appears that based on
recent flood experience, this area is unsuitable for campsites;
The area south of Stockton creek, from preliminary study does not
appear conducive to RV (recreat±onal vehicle) campsites due to
existing development, steep slopes, and flood plain considerations;
The only other area available for new RV sites would appear to be
along the paved road between the office and U.S. Route 25Q West.
However, location in this area would require variance from the
150 foot setback requirement for scenic highways.
Based on information available at this time, the existing physical
conditions of the site, and on existing ordinance requirements, it
appears that the site has been deve'loped to (if not in excess of) its
capacity.
For the applicant to further pursue campsite expansion, it appears
from information available that additional applications for County
approvals and/or engineering studies would be necessary. Staff has
not encouraged the applicant to incur the time and monetary costs of
providing additional information under this application (i.e. -
engineering field study to determine location and extent of flood
plain in play field area) or to pursue additional applications prior
to public hearing for the following reasons:
Current approval by the County would entail policy decisions by
the Commission and Board regarding:
a. Unmet conditions of CUP 116; and
The extent to which current zoning regulations would be
applied to the existing campground development. For example,
application of current Flood Hazard and Scenic Highway
requirements may result in loss of existing campsites;
2)
While Staff has outlined alternatives to the applicant, Staff's
primary comment on these alternatives are as follows:
Variance from Scenic Highway setback: Developed with 94
campsites and other facilities, this property enjoys sub-
stantially greater usage than surrounding properties.
Therefore, Staff is unable to determine any "hardship" which
would be experienced by compliance with the Scenic Highway
setback;
Amend the Flood Hazard overlay district to permit campgrounds
in the flood plain: Albemarle's flood regulations are more
restrictive regarding uses involving human habitation in the
flood plain than are the requirements of the Federal Register.
However, Staff can determine no legitimate reason to pro-
hibit only certain residential uses in the flood plain and
permit other types of residential usage;
Landfill Permit to raise campsites above flood level:
Generally, Staff opinion is that filling in any flood plain
area should be discouraged and should be permitted only to
the extent of providing a reasonable usage of a property.
The introduction of Chapter 10, Comprehensive Plan Standards,
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan revision states that:
"it is the County's intent that development and other human
activities should adapt to the natural environment rather
than modifying the natural environment with unknown conse-
quences to accommodate development and man's activities".
While these standards have not been adopted by the Board as
yet, adoption of the Comprehensive Plan may precede processing
of additional petitions by the applicant. Other considerations
in review would include "Water supply Watershed" standards
and comments from the Watershed Management Official and
County Engineer.
December !,-1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
ADDENDUM -- SP-82-61 Monticello - Skyline Campground~ Inc.
Additional Information Requested by Applicant:
On Monday, November 8, 1982, the applicant requested that additional infor-
mation be presented at the Commission's public hearing which is not included
in the staff report. This information deals with the approval of CUP-116.
The campground was originally approved under CUP-il0. Subsequently, CUP-
116 was filed to relocate the trailer activity. The staff report for CUP-
116 states that "the camper trailer activity is back before the Commission
and Board by reason of having to relocate the activity because of the
Health Department requirements". The staff report also noted that "the new
revised plan shows a total of 134 spaces".
The revised plan appears to be the southwestern portion of the property,
showing an apparent 103 campsites. Staff could find no complete plan
revision showing the entire tract and what sites were to be relocated. The
site does not appear to have been developed in accordance with either plan.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 9, 1982,
voted to recommend approval of this special use permit request, subject to the following
conditions:
No more than a total of 112 camping sites on property described as
County Tax Map 71, Parcel 3, Samuel Miller Magisterial District,
consisting of 47.11 acres zoned RA Rural Areas;
2. No new camping sites shall be located in the flood plain;
Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission approval of a
site plan;
Fire Official approval prior to Planning Commission approval of a site
plan;
Conditions one and six of Conditional Use Permit 116 shall be met to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning;
Storage of parked trailers, campers and recreational vehicles shall be
in compliance with the Scenic Highway requirement of a 150 foot setback.
There were no questions from members of the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mrs. Susan Kappes, applicant for
SP-82-61. Mrs. Kappes read from a prepared statement (Note: Copy of this statement is on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mrs. Kappes stated several
reasons for the requested expansion of the present campground, mainly to accommodate the
larger, less maneuverable travel trailers.
Mrs. Kappes said that according to the original use permit, Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisor's review of additional sites is required, but.that Zoning Ordinance
Section 31.2.4.5 entitled ,'Prior Special Use Permit", atlows expansion by right as granted
under Conditional Use Permit #110 in August, 1969. Mrs. Kappes said she wished modifica-
tion of some of the conditions which the Planning Commission placed on SP-82-61, i.e., 112
sites approved by Planning Commission, 134 sites allowed by right under CUP-il0. Also,
consulting engineers from W. S. Roudabush, Inc., have been hired to prepare a plan with
sites located outside the 100 year flood plain as determined in 1980 by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for Albemarle County. Mrs. Kappes quoted Messrs. Maynard
Elrod, County Engineer, and Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, regarding use of the
flood plain area for camping, stating that there would be no danger to lives or property
and that camping in the flood plain was permitted by right.
Mrs. Kappes said the location of the additional sites near the present office site is
mainly due to development costs, it will be far less costly to develop the level field
area than it would be to develop the steep slopes of the wooded portion of the property.
Mrs. Kappes said that she is willing to plant additional pines trees to add screening to
the property as required in CUP-116 and Planning Commission condition number six. Mrs.
Kappes said trees were planted several years ago meeting that original condition, but
those planted were dogwoods and maples, which do not provide screening.
Mrs. Kappes requested exemption from the requirement to relocate the storage of
trailers to another site on the property. Mrs. Kappes said the trailers being stored have
been located in the present location since the original conditional use permit was approved
in 1969. Mrs. Kappes said it is essential to have those trailers stored close to the
office for security reasons. Mrs. Kappes noted that because of restrictive zoning laws in
the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, residents are not allowed to store large
trailers or recreational vehicles on private property, and thus many units are stored at
the campground. Mrs. Kappes requested relief from those two restrictive conditions and
overall approval of the 134 sites.
Next to speak was Mr. Tom Gale of W.S. Roudabush, Inc. Mr. Gale said the County
Engineer has scheduled the Army Corps of Engineers to visit this site to more accurately
determine the exact flood plain location. Mr. Gale said the Health Department has issued
a permit for additional septic tank hookups to be located outside of the flood plain area,
noting that sewage from additional sites would have to be pumped to the existing septic
field.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, spoke next stating that he recommended the site
be viewed by the Army Corps of Engineers because of present inadequate information in this
area. Mr. Elrod said that although flooding conditions probably would not create a threat
to life, property damages could result to land or mobile homes.
December 1~ 1982 (Regular Night Meetin~g~
No one else wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if a reView of the site by the Army Corps of Engineers
would make a difference in approval of this permit as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tucker said it would not because of the way the condition is worded, i.e. "no new
camping sites shall be located in the flood plain".
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if, in his opinion, this special use permit request
is proper and whether or not the request triggers new zoning ordinance regulations on this
property. Mr. St. John said he has not reviewed the underlying files of the old condi-
tional use permit, but felt that. Mrs. Kappes is correct in that the conditional use permit
issued on a particular piece of land is still valid according to the present zoning
ordinance regulations, which allow a use which would otherwise be authorized by special
use permit to expand to the limits of the piece of land on which it was originally author-
ized. Mr. Tucker noted that a problem exists in that a copy of the original plan is not
in the Planning Department's files, and the only site plan which does exist is undated and
unsigned. Mr. St. John said he felt-the County can require that the conditions of the
original use permit be fulfilled. Mr. Tucker said the original conditional use permit
allowed 134 camp sites, but technically this permit has not been complied with because
what has actually been developed does not correspond with the unsigned plan on file. Mr.
St. John said it is his judgment that the applicant has elected to file an application for
this special use permit, but if they have vested rights, the fact that they have elected
to file in the form of a special use permit does not mean they have abandoned their vested
rights. Mr. St. John stated that it is his opinion that the applicant does have a right
to 134 units and that those rights are fixed. Mr. Fisher asked if those fixed ~±gh~s~-are
allowed as long as the conditions of the original permit were complied with. Mr. St. John
said the question of noncompliance of certain conditions could either trigger a forfeiture
of the permit or trigger the County's right to demand compliance. Mr. Tucker said there
is no record as to inspections of the site by County staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the
County could apply its current ordinances to the new. sites under the old conditional use
permit. Mr. St. John said he felt the County could apply new conditions to the old permit
as long as it does not constitute a forfeiture of the present vested rights. Miss Nash
asked if the new sites could be placed in the flood plain. Mr. St. John said if there is
nowhere else on the site, the applicant has the right to place the new sites in the flood
plain. Mr. St. John clarified his statement by adding that to do so would be at the
applicant's own risk, but they have a right to put the sites there the same as they would
have had before the flood plain ordinance was enacted; but if the sites can be put some-
where else on the tract without violating the current flood plain ordinance, the Board can
require the applicant to do that.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP-82-61 with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission with additional wording on number two stating "No
new camping sites shall be located in the flood, plain as determined by the Army Corps of
Engineers". Also, by changing number six to read: "No new camping sites or additional
storage of parked trailers, campers and recreational vehicles within the 150 foot setback.
New and additional vehicles shall be in compliance with the Scenic Highway requirement of
a 150 foot setback". Miss Nash expressed concern that the motion was ignoring the advice
of counsel. Mr. Henley said the applicant can develop sites on the wooded 35 acres and
not move into the flood plain at all.
Mr. Fisher said to establish campsites in the flood plain is not a good idea, and
that he would support the establishment of 12 to 22 new camp sites but that they be
located outside of the flood plain and that stored campers and trailers not be allowed in
the 150 foot scenic highway setback. The motion was then seconded by Mr. Butler. Mr.
Henley asked for a clarification of condition six as stated by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom
said the condition is that no new camping sites or additional storage of parked trailers,
campers or recreational vehicles shall be within the 150 ~attScenic Highway setback, so as
not to rule out what is already there.
Roll was then called and the motion to approve SP-82-61 as recommended by the Planning
Commission and with conditions as amended by Mr. Lindstrom was approved by the following
recorded vote:
No more than a total of 112 camping sites on property described as Tax
Map 71, Parcel 3, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, consisting of 47.11
acres zoned RA Rural Areas;
No new camping sites shall be located in the flood plain as determined by
the Army Corps of Engineers.
Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission approval of site
plan;
Fire Official approval prior to Planning Commission approval of a site
plan;
Conditions one and six of Conditional Use Permit #116 shall be met to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning;
No new camping sites or additional storage of parked trailers, campers and
recreational vehicles within the 150 foot setback. New and additional
vehicles shall be in compliance with the Scenic Highway requirement of a
150 foot setback.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley*, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
(*Mr. Henley commented that he would have supported the total 134 units
requested by the ap. plicant.)
None.
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
At 9:05 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess~
9:20 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-82-64. Albemarle Baptist Association. Request to locate
a church on 5.087 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located at the intersection of Hydraulic
Road and Route 657. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 6. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation
as follows:
Request: Church (10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery)
Acreage: 5.087 acres
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcel 6, is located on the
west side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) north and adjacent to Lamb's
Road (Route 657).
Character of the Area: R. E. Lee Construction Company and United Parcel
Service abut this property. The Albemarle High School complex is
across Lamb's Road. Properties across Hydraulic Road, located within
the Urban Area, are primarily in commercial usage.
This property is undeveloped and wooded. ~A stream surfaces on this
property and travels about 3,000 feet to the South Fork Rivanna River.
Small areas of steep slope occur adjacent to the stream. The average
slope of this site is calculated at 11.5%.
This property is not within an Albemarle County Service Authority
service area, and therefore public water and. sewer are not currently
available.
Comprehensive Plan: Prior to April, 1980, this area was shown in the
Comprehensive Plan as a part of the Urban growth area. The Board of
Supervisors, as a reservoir protection measure, deleted this area from
the growth area plan. Though urban type development exists, this area
is currently designated as a rural area, indicating that future urban
uses should be discouraged.
Applicant's Proposal: The Albemarle Baptist Association is evaluating this
property as a future church site. (The request does not include any
cemetery usage). The applicant retained a consultant to determine the
maximum building area which could be accommodated on the site. Assuming
public water and sewer were made available, the consultant estimated
that the site could be developed with a 25,000 square foot building
and parking for 175 autos (see September 30, 1982 letter from John W.
Greene to Dr. Roy Thomas). The building is envisioned as consisting
of a 5,000 square foot sanctuary and 20,000 square feet devoted to
classrooms, offices, and the like. Both the sanctuary and educational
areas would have seating capacities of 500 persons.
Staff Comment: In approval of a special use permit, the zoning ordinance
states that the Board of Supervisors find that the proposed use "will
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character
of the district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be
in harmony with the pur.pose and intent of this ordinance, with the
uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations
provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health,
safety and general welfare."
Subst:antial detriment to adjacent property~ .character of district will
not be changed: Staff has received no comment from adjoining property.
owners nor any member of the public regarding this special permit
request. Staff opinion is that a church in this location would not be
of substantial detriment to the adjoining industrial uses or the
public school complex. Staff opinion is that a church on this site
will not change the character of the immediate area.
Harmony with purpose 'and intent of zoning ordinance: Staff has
reviewed this application for consistency with the statement of intent
of the RA district, and it is staff opinion that the statement of
intent is generally inapplicable to this property, given the character
of surrounding development. While the Comprehensive Plan recommends
rural uses for this area, uses of adjoining properties in staff
opinion are deterrents to agricultural or residential usage, of the
property (while staff opinion is that the property is not highly
suited to residential use due to the long hours of operation of R. E.
Lee and particularly United Parcel Service, it should be noted that
two duplexes were recently constructed adjacent to these uses).
Public health~ safety and welfare: The rural areas statement of
intent says that "it is intended that such development occur in.
locations and at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of
the land and to the availability of public utilities and facilities to
support such development."
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
In terms of intensity of development, the initial feasibility study
envisioned availability of public water and sewer. Staff could not
support a use which would require public utilities in order to be
accommodated on the site, since that would be clearly contrary to the
rural area intent and the Comprehensive Plan.
Subsequently, the applicant has submitted a preliminary plan to
demonstrate that the site could be developed without requiring public
utilities. Also, it appears from preliminary review that all ordinance
requirements could be satisfied including the runoff control ordinance.
No land or vegetative disturbance is proposed within one hundred feet
of the stream, which is consistent with the Watershed Management
Official's October 15, 1982, memorandum.
Under the plan, building coverage has been reduced from 25,000 square
feet to 15,000 square feet which staff considers a substantial improve-
ment in terms of reduced impervious coverage. Also, this building
coverage is more consistent with existing development. (The total
building area of R. E. Lee is about 15,000 square feet, the school's
vehicular maintenance facility is about 14,000 square feet and UPS is
about 5,500 square feet.) No comparison of total impervious coverage
has been made.
Summary: As stated earlier, except in regard to reservoir protection,
rural area zoning does not appear particularly suitable to this
property given surrounding development. Absent church ownership,
staff would expect requests for some rural area usage of a comparable
or more intensive nature (i.e., country store, public garage, private
school, day care center). Due to infrequency of use, the church would
likely generate less traffic and have less sewer demand than some
other rural area uses, staff opinion is that a church is an appro-
priate use for this property.
Should the Board choose not to provide public sewer to this site,
staff would recommend more extensive study of the physical capabilities
of the site including delineation of two drainfield locations and
written Health Department comment prior to making a final recommen-
dation.
Should the Board choose to make public sewer available, staff recom-
mends approval subject to:
1)
Only those areas intended for development shall be cleared. Ail
other areas shall remain in a natural state. The site develop-
ment plan shall reflect this condition as well as the October 15
and November 2 memorandums of the Watershed Management Official;
2)
Access to the property shall be restricted to Route 657 in
accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation comments of October 19, 1982.
Mr. Tucker stating that at its meeting of November 9, 1982, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of this special use permit subject to the following two conditions:
0nly those areas intended for development shall be cleared. Ail other
areas shall remain in a natural state. The site development plan shall
reflect this condition as well as the October 15' and November 2, 1982',
memoranda of the Watershed Management Official;
*Set out in full below
Access to the property shall be restricted to Route 657, in accordance
with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments
contained in letter of October 19, 1982.
~"To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Ronaid S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning
William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official
October 15, 1982
SP-82-64 Albemarle Baptist Association
Tax Map 61, Parcel 6
The property being considered for the construction of a church at the intersection
of Hydraulic Road and Route 657 is located within the immediate drainage area
of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed.
A strong spring area is located within the property being considered. There is
a good flow of water leaving the site by way of a small stream which exists
near the b-ck side of the property and then travels a short distance into the
reservoir proper. Due to the apparent strength of the spring, an extensive
subsurface examination should be made of the property to determine the extent
of the spring recharge area. Care should be taken to confine all construction
and earth disturbing activities out of those areas that supply water for
the spring. Also the area immediately adjacent to the spring, its recharge area
and the stream flowing from the site should be maintained in natural vegetation
for a distance of 100 feet on either side of the stream and spring as a watershed
management area to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Extreme caution should be taken during any construction or earth-disturbing
activities on the site to assure that no runoff enters the spring area or the
streams on, or immediately adjacent to, the site. Requirements of the Runoff
Control Ordinance will have to be adhered to. Until plans for the proposed
structure, and the grading and drainage plans for the site are made available
for closer examination, this special permit application should not be approved."
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
518
*"To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning
William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official
November 2, 1982
Preliminary Site Plan
SP-82-64 Albemarle Baptist Association
Tax Map 61, Parcel 6
A review of the Preliminary Site Plan for the Proposed Baptist Church (Thursday,
October 28, 1982) indicates that this site could accommodate a church of this
size.
Even though water and sewer facilities could be located on the site, a septic
system sized to the proposed church would require a large portion of the lower
end of the lot and could, if it were to fail, have detrimental effects on the
tributary stream on and adjacent to the site. These small streams join to form
a tributary to Ivy Creek, a major tributary to the South Fork Rivanna reservoir.
The preliminary site plan indicates that if the church were to locate on this
site that a 100 foot buffer would be established along the tributary stream and
spring on the site. This should be done following the guidelines for watershed
management areas contained in the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
This site should be required to have public sewer facilities. However, if
public sewer facilities are not available, then the applicant should re-evaluate
the site and redesign the proposal to take into account the environmental limi-
tations of the site. More detailed studies should show that the site can accom-
modate not only a church of the size proposed, but also a septic field and
replacement area sized to serve it. If the site will not accommodate sufficient
septic field and replacement areas while adhering to the watershed management
area along the stream for a building of the size proposed, then the building
size should be reduced. Unless the proposed church is designed to suit both the
physical and environmental limitations of the site or unless public water and
sewer are required, this special permit application should not be approved.
Mr. Fisher asked if the septic field was proposed to be located under the parking
area. Mr. Tucker said that is the way it is shown on the preliminary plat. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if the parking surface was proposed to be impervious. Mr. Tucker said new Health
Department regulations require the ground surface of a parking lot to be impervious if it
is located above a septic system, and the septic system must be placed at a greater than
normal depth. Mrs. Cooke asked if any recommendation was received from the Fire Official.
Mr. Tucker said in a letter dated October 11, 1982, from Ira B. Cortez, that the following
recommendation was made: "The owner should have an engineering survey to ensure adequate
fire flow at this site. If a 25,000 square foot building is to be erected, the fire flow
requirement could be as much as 2,000 gallons per minute at twenty pounds per square
inch."
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Fisher-declared the public
hearing opened. First to speak was Dr. Roy Thomas, representing the Albemarle Baptist
Association. Dr. Thomas read from a prepared statement which noted the Association's
reasons for selecting this particular site, the fact that a geological feasibility study
has been conducted by E. O. Gooch and Associates; W. S. Roudabush, Inc., has completed an
engineering feasibility study and prepared a preliminary site plan; and the Thomas Jefferson
Health Department has given preliminary approval of the proposed septic tank and drain-
fields. (Note: Copy of this statement dated December 1, 1982, is on file in the office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) ~ ~
Next to speak was Ms. Martha Martin speaking on behalf of the League. of Women Voters.
Ms. Martin read a prepared statement noting that the League has consistently opposed
intensive development in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, and would urge
the Board to deny this application. (NOTE: Copy of this statement dated December 1,
1982, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
No one else from the public, either for or against this application, wished to speak
and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion Was offered by Mrs. Uooke to approve the application as recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about the County Engineer and the Watershed Manage-
ment Official's recommendation to use public sewer and water. Also, Mr. Lindstrom stated
his concern about the potential long-term intensity of use created by a church. Mr.
Lindstrom said he could not support this application.
Miss Nash said the proliferation of housing in this area of the County Which would
occur if public sewer were available is probably something not considered by the County
Engineer at the time his recommendation was written. Miss Nash said she would support the
application.
Mr. Henley said he felt this use would create even fewer problems than a residence
because Of the less frequent use.
Mr. Fisher expressed concern that if the well or septic system become unusable in
several years, the applicant will come back before the Board of Supervisors~seeking public
water and sewer. Mr. Fisher said this is a marginal site which just barely meets ordinance
requirements and he would not support approval of this application.
Roll was then called and the motion to approve SP-82-64 with the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
519
December 1, 1982-(Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6. Albemarle Baptist Association. Request to amend the project
areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Parcel 6, Tax Map 61 for
water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November
24, 1982.)
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated November 24, 1982, from Roy S.
Thomas, III, Chairman of the New Work Committee for the Albemarle Baptist Association as
follows:
"I am writing on behalf of the Albemarle Baptist Association to request with-
drawal without prejudice of our petition to amend the Albemarle Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area to include Parcel 6 of Tax Map 61. We respectfully request
that this item be therefore removed from the agenda of the December 1 meeting of
the Board of Supervisors."
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the request for
withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was calledand the motion carried by _the following
recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-82-16. Request from Barry Dofflemyer to permit indoor kennels
only by special use permit in the HC Highway Commercial District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1982.) _ ._
Mr. Robert W. Tucker~ Jr., Director of Planning, read the Planning Staff Report as
well as the Planning Commission recommendation as follows:.
ZTA-82-16. Indoor Kennels by Special Use Permit in the HC Highway Commercial District.
Barry Dofflemyer has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend the
HC Highway Commercial district to provide for "indoor kennels" by
special use permit.. Commercial kennels are currently permitted in the
RA Rural Areas and HI Heavy Industrial districts by special use permit.
Staff recommends favorably on the proposed amendment for the following
reasons:
1. Section 5.1.11 of the supplementary regulations is primarily
intended to control noise. These regulations are fairly restrictive;
2. Since the use would be by special use permit, additional conditions
could be added, or if appropriate, the use could be denied;
3.Since the proposal is for indoor kennels, noise problems can be
more easily controlled;
4. The amendment does not appear inconsistent with the intent of the
HC Highway Commercial district.
Staff recommends the following wording:
Add to Section 24.2.2 a number (11):
Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11)
This amendment would also permit this use in the PD-MC District by special
use permit.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 9, 1982,
voted to recommend the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Staff.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing open and first to speak was Mr. Craig White,
representing Mr. Dofflemyer. Mr. White said the reason for this requested amendment is to
make a commercial kennel more accessible to the public. Mr. Fisher asked if a specific
site is being considered. Mr. White said no specific site is under consideration at this
time, but the amendment is being requested for future consideration.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher asked if this could cause a
problem where Highway Commercial Districts adjoin residential districts. Mr. Tucker said
that is the reason this would be allowed by special permit only, to give the Board and
Planning Commission the opportunity to place conditions on a request or deny the request
completely.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to amend and
reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by adding to Section 24.2.2 a number (11)
reading: "Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11)", with said amendment
becoming effective on January 1, 1983. 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.
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 8. STA-82-4. Amend the Subdivision Ordinance to authorize the County
Engineer to certify completion of private roads in accordance with approved plans and to
require inspection fees for the same and to require marking of private road right-of-way
by the developer. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Staff and Planning Commission at its meeting of
November 9, 1982, unanimously recommended the following amendments to the Subdivision
Ordinance:
Section 18-36. Private Roads.
Under subsection (c) (6) the following words were deleted: " .... the.
filing with Director of Planning of a statement, certified by a
licensed professional engineer or a certified land surveyor, licensed
professional engineer, or a certified land surveyor, licensed under
Section 54.17.1(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that
such road has been completed in accordance with the plans approved
therefor" and the following words were added: "...inspection and
approval by the County Engineer." ~,
Under subsection (c) add a subparagraph (7) with the following words:
"Prior to or during construction, the subdivider shall cause to be set
by a registered professional engineer or certified land surveyor
permanent monuments along at least one side of the right-of-way of
such road, placed at all points-of-curve, points-of-tangent and at
distances not to exceed two hundred feet on tangents, and at other
locations as may be approved by the County Engineer. Such monuments
shall consist of one-half inch diameter iron rods not less than three
feet long, or such other material as may be approved by the County
Engineer as being of equal or superior stability and permanency. In
lieu of setting monuments, the County Engineer may accept a letter
from a registered professional engineer or certified land surveyor
containing the following statement: "Ail road, drainage and other
improvements shown on plans for (Subdivision Name), dated ( ) and
approved by the County Engineer have been constructed within the
rights-of-way and easements shown on the recorded plat for this
subdivision."
Under subsection (c) add a subparagraph (8) with following words:
"The County Engineer shall inspect any such road upon request of the
subdivider and upon receipt by the County Engineer of a statement by a
registered professional engineer or certified land surveyor that the
right-of-way monuments required by this section have been set together
with a plat showing the locations thereof. If, upon inspection, the
County Engineer finds such road to have been completed in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter therefor, he sh~ll certify the
same, in writing, to the Director of Planning. If
to be deficient, he shall promptly notify the subdi
defects found.
In Section 18-43, Fess, under subsection (b)3, add the f.
" .... dedicated to public use, or any private road,
Mr. Tucker further noted that the local surveyors associ
amendments.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to
County Engineer. Mr. Elrod stated that originally this was a
who requested that landscape architects be allowed to make su
Elrod said the suggestion to have the County Engineer's offic
made at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Elrod said the '
amendment would be very small, that i't would not cost the Cou
would be charged as part of the subdivision application fee,
to accepting this new responsibility.
2e finds such road
rider of the
~llowing words:
;he subdivider..;"
Ltion supports these proposed
speak was Mr. Maynard Elrod,
request from Mr. Max Evans
Ih road inspections. Mr.
a conduct the inspections was
~ork anticipated from this
aty any money since a fee
and that he had no objection
Mr. St. John said the collection of an inspection fee as part of the cost to sub-
divide is allowed under the Code of Virginia.
No one else was present wishing to speak either for or against these proposed amendments,
and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the
following ordinance:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, Subdivision of Land, be
amended as follows:
Section 18-36. Private RoadS
(a) (same)
(b) ( same )
(c) (same)
(1) (same)
(2) (same)
,521
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meetin~
(3) (same)
(4) (same)
(5) (same)
(6)
(7)
Upon approval of such road, the same shall be bonded in accor-
dance with provisions of Section 18-19 of this chapter and shall
be constructed in accordance wi~h the plans as approved. Such
road shall be deemed completed upon inspection and approval by
the county engineer.
(8)
Prior to or during construction, the subdivider shall cause to be
set by a registered professional engineer or certified land
surveyor, permanent monuments along at least one side of the
right-of-way of such road, placed at all points-of-curve, points-
of-tangent and at distances not to exceed two hundred feet on
tangents, and at other locations as may be approved by the county
engineer. Such monuments shall consist of one-half inch diameter
iron rods not less than three feet long, or-such other material
as may be approved by the county engineer as being of equal or
superior stability and permanency. In lieu of setting monuments
the county engineer may accept a letter from a registered pro-
fessional engineer or certified land surveyor containing the
following statement: "Ail road, drainage and other improvements
shown on plans for (Subdivision Name), dated ( ) and approved
by the county engineer have been constructed within the rights-
of-way and easements shown on the recorded plat for this subdivision."
(d) (same)
The county engineer shall inspect any such road upon request of
the subdivider, and upon receipt by the county engineer of a
statement by a registered professional engineer or certified land
surveyor that the right-of-way monuments required by this section
have been set, together with a plat, showing the locations
thereof. If, upon inspection, the county engineer finds such
road to have been completed in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter therefor, he shall certify the same, in writing, to
the director of planning. If he finds such road to be deficient,
he shall promptly notify the subdivider of the defects found.
Section 18-43. Fees
(a) (same)
(b) (same)
(1) (same)
(2) (same)
(3)
In addition to the foregoing, in the case of any plat on which is
shown any road to be dedicated to public use, or any private
road, the subdivider shall pay to the County a fee equal to the
cost of the inspection of the construction of any such road.
Such fee shall be paid upon completion of all necessary inspec-
tions, and shall be deemed a part of the cost of construction of
such road for purposes of Section 18-19 of this Chapter.
These amendments shall be effective on and after January 1, 1983.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation for Broadus Wood Renovations from the Capital
Improvements Fund in the amount of $77,140. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22,
1982.)
Mr. Agnor noted that this appropriation is for the architectural planning for the
Broadus Wood School renovation project. Mr. Agnor said this appropriation does not authorize
the actual project, only the planning and design work.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this appropriation, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $77,140 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital
Improvements Fund and transferred to Code #9700-1050 for Broadus Wood
School Renovations (architectural planning costs).
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
§ 22
Mr. Fisher said he presumed that this planning would be done with the options as
discussed on November 10, 1982. Mr. Agnor said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said he
would not vote in favor of this appropriation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 10. Report of Tourism Committee. Mr. Agnor said he would preSent
this report on behalf of Mrs. Cooke and Miss Nash, who represented Albemarle County on
this committee. The committee was comprised of six members; two from Albemarle County,
two from the City of Charlottesville and two from the Chamber of Commerce and was appointed
sometime ago to decide what would happen to the Visitors Bureau when the present Bicentennial
Center Building reverts to the State (and then to Piedmont College) at the end of 1983.
Mr. Agnor said three recommendations are made by this committee:
1. The Visitors Center operated by by the Thomas Jefferson Tourism Bureau
should continue to operate in the existing building.
Activities at the Visitors Center should be expanded at the present location
when the Bicentennial Program ends on December 31, 1983.
3. The present deficit under which the Visitors Center is operating should be
assumed by the City of Charlottesville (two-thirds) and Albemarle County
(one-third).
Mr. Agnor said if the Visitors Center is to continue operation in the present building,
a strenuous effort must be made to lobby the General Assembly to appropriate additional
funds to Piedmont Virginia Community College for the expansion of the College's present
facility in a location more immediately adjacent to the College proper. Also, permission
must be sought for a long-term lease of the present building from the Commonwealth of
Virginia for use as a Visitors Center.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any indication that the response from the State to a
request for funds for Piedmont College and use of the Visitors Center would be any dif-
ferent this time than the response has been in the past. Mr. Agnor said the present
administration has not been approached regarding use of the Bicentennial Center facility.
Mr. Agnor said an expanded effort to resolve this matter comes from the deadline established
as the end of the Bicentennial Program, which is December 31, 1983. Mr. Agnor said once
the Bicentennial Program ends, the building will revert to Piedmont College.
Mr. Fisher said although he is concerned about actually being able to obtain use of
the building, his greatest concern in reading the committee report is the very low percentage
of funding expected from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Fisher said it was his understanding
that the public sector would eventually fund fifty percent of the costs to operate the
Visitors Center~d the recommendation from the committee is only for ten percent. Mrs.
Cooke was also concerned about the apparent unwillingness of private business to support
the Center but felt that without greater public support a tourist bureau can not operate.
Mr. Agnor said the Chamber of Commerce has said it is financially unable to contribute any
greater percentage to this program at the present. Mr. Agnor also noted that most hotel
and motel operators'feel they are already contributing to this program through collection
of the transient occupancy tax. Mr. Fisher said he is not interested in increasing public
funding if there is no public support.
Mr. Henley felt the public and private sectors would get more for their money if
there were no building expenses. Miss Nash and Mrs. Cooke said the building does draw a
great deal of business, both on the site and for local merchants.
Miss Nash commented that every other city in Virginia of comparable size to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area has a visitors center or tourism bureau, which for the most
part are solely operated by that city.
Mrs. Cooke suggested that a public hearing be held in order to receive comments about
the Visitors Bureau. Mr. Fisher said this will be placed on the agenda for the December'
8, 1982, meeting and he hoped the news media would publicize this hearing, and ~t ~s up to
the public to support this project financially.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Fisher complimented the Clerk to the
Board for the fine job of bringing the minutes before the Board.
Mr. Butler reported having read the minutes of September 1, 1982, and found no
corrections necessary. Mr. Butler asked as a followup if the County had received appro-
vals for applications for HUD Block'Grant funds. Mr. Fisher said both applications for
Community Development Block Grant funds were denied.
Messrs. Lindstrom and Fisher and Mrs. Cooke reported that the minutes of September
15, 1982, day and night meetings, were not read.
Mr. Henley reported having read the minutes of October 20, 1982, and found no corrections
necessary.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the minutes
of September 1 and October 20, 1982, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
December 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 12, Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he
wished the Board to take special note of the schedule for the 1983-84 budget work sessions.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an invitation to the members of the Board of Supervisors
to attend the opening of the Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation office building on Route
250 West on December 4, 1982, at 4:00 P.M.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the owners of Greene Gardens Inc., pro-
testing the issuance of permits for wayside stands. Mr. Fisher said the letter states
that such stands compete unfairly with regular businesses, and should be required to go
through normal legal channels to establish themselves. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Agnor to
investigate the present ordinances governing the issuance of permits for wayside stands.
Miss Nash thanked the members of the Board of Supervisors for the lovely flowers sent
to her during her recent stay in the hospital.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of an invitation for the Board of Supervisors to attend an
open house of the new municipal building for the city of Roanoke on Saturday, December
1982, from 9:00 a.m. through 2:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 11:00 p.m., there being no further business, Mr.
Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman