Loading...
2002-07-10July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 10, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:00 p.m.), Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No.4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There was no one present who wished to speak at this time. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Item 5.1 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept Item 5.2 as information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. __________ Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: February 6, May 1, and May 15, 2002. Mr. Dorrier has read the minutes of May 1, 2002, pages 1 through 16 (ending at Item #7), and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of May 15, 2002, pages 1 through 15 (ending at Item #11), and found them to be in order. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes noted as being read. __________ Item 5.2. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for June 18, 2002, was received for information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2002-005. Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (Sign #76). Public hearing on a request to allow elderly care facility in accord w/Secs 22.2.2.6 & 18.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ord. TM61W, Sec 2, P 2 (portion) contains 5.566 acs. Znd C-1. Loc on S side of Greenbrier Dr (Rt 866) at intersec of Greenbrier Dr & Pepsi Place (Rt 1340). Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 2002.) (Note: At 6:15 p.m., Mr. Rooker excused himself from hearing this item as he has a potential future interest in a piece of property which adjoins this property.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of == the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant (Smith Packet Med-Com, Inc.) proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing and rehabilitation center on the southwestern corner of the Greenbrier Drive/Pepsi Place intersection. This facility is intended to assist elderly patients with transition from hospital to home, or to another residential facility. The western wing will be designed to serve dementia patients. During peak operating hours, it will have 35 staff members. Visiting therapists will come to the facility to work with patients on an as-needed basis. A few of the patients will actually drive up. Mr. Cilimberg said this facility will be located in an area where there are similar or associated types of facilities. To the north across Greenbrier Drive is Rosewood Village. To the east on Pepsi Place is the Senior Center. Beyond this area lie other assisted-living facilities and complexes. A certificate of public need and demand for this facility has been granted by the Virginia Department of Health. As designed, the building is a one-story brick structure with finished slopes created between the sidewalk and building foundation which do not exceed a 3:1 slope at the steepest point at the corner of Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place. Parking has been consolidated and located away from the side of the building with the greatest public exposure, Greenbrier Drive. The applicants plan shows more parking then required, 52 = versus 30 spaces. That is to meet the demands anticipated with some of the services, such as physician visits on the site. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicants plan calls for disturbance of the critical slopes located to the back = July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) (west) of the parcel, thus necessitating the granting of a waiver by the Planning Commission. He said the waiver is also before the Board tonight as an appeal of the Commissions decision. Staffs fundamental == preference would be to avoid the need for constructing the retaining wall by leaving the slope undisturbed. As an alternative, a two-story structure might achieve the same 120-bed capacity with a smaller footprint. However, the applicant is committed to an operating plan based on a one-level facility. Mr. Cilimberg said staff gave information in its report about some of the Neighborhood Model elements which do or do not apply to this application. They also say that certain institutions and specialized uses often have characteristics which make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully meet the expectations of the Neighborhood Model. The nursing and rehabilitation center and its commitment to a standard building configuration and operating plan are an example of such a use. In view of these institutionalfactors, and the fact that it may be unrealistic to expect that all twelve Principles are reflected A@ in the design of every site, staff finds that the size of the building and its consequent impact on site planning represent the proposals most serious weakness relative to the Neighborhood Model. In staffs opinion, this == weakness is outweighed by other positive factors. Staff has recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3:2, recommended denial. They supported the use and felt the use was appropriate in this location, but had concerns about the building, its parking area, the overall amount of impervious surface, and its impact on critical slopes. With no questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Bruce Hedrick, Vice-President of Smith Packet, was present. He said they have developed over 100 long-term care facilities over the last 20 years, and work with various operating partners to operate their facilities. A partner from Columbus, Ohio, will operate this facility for them. He said they have done comparable projects in Radford and Roanoke. He said when Jefferson Park Center closed two years ago it took 73 beds from the pool of nursing home beds, particularly for Medicaid beds. A great percent of those patients had to be located outside of this Planning District. Mr. Hedrick said the local hospitals are still having problems discharging patients to local nursing homes. Patients do not get their preference for a nursing home, which causes their families to travel greater distances. This project is an attempt to fill this void, including the provisions of 60 percent as Medicaid beds. The project has been approved by the Department of Health. Mr. Hedrick then presented photographs of the initial plan presented to staff for approval, and explained the lay-out of services. He said there were several issues raised by the Commission, one having to do with the amount of green space on the property. They also suggested having a two-story design. There are several reasons which prohibit that configuration from an operations perspective. First is the safety and well-being of the residents, the majority of which are non-ambulatory. Fifty percent or more are either in wheelchairs or bed-ridden. During a fire, there would be a tremendous risk trying to evacuate people from the second story of a building. Accessibility is also compromised. If people have to use an elevator, it becomes a hindrance, and they tend not to go to the first floor to socialize, so end up being more isolated lessening their quality of life. Mr. Hedrick said another issue to consider is cost. Because over 85 percent of their residents come from revenues provided by the government, they have to be cost-effective in their delivery of care. Their system is no longer cost-based reimbursements, but a perspective payment system based on average costs. If they provide an overly expensive building, they are penalized and not fully reimbursed for those additional costs. Unfortunately, Virginia is in the bottom 15 percent of nursing home reimbursements nationwide. Mr. Hedrick said there are two issues which they have to deal with on the cost side for a one-story versus a two-story building. First is the building cost. In a two-story structure, they would have to use different materials. Then there is the elevator, and additional stairwell square footage. That would be an additional $460,000 for the building. He said the Commission suggested that they build a split-level building which could be accessed on two levels. He said there were still the same cost issues as with a standard two-level building, and the added cost of additional excavation. The second issue concerns additional staffing. For a single-story building, when there is an increased care level, or lack of staff, the operator has the flexibility to shift staff around to care for additional patients. In a two-story structure, staff cannot be split between two floors. Additional staff would be needed for a two-story structure because of vertical transportation, i.e., dining, kitchen, activities, therapy are on one floor, and the residents are on the other floor. Mr. Hedrick said their operator determined that they would need two additional supervisors, one CNA per shift, and an additional housekeeper to cover the needs in a two-story facility. That would cost about $250,000 per year for the added staff. With all of that added together, a two-story facility does not make sense. Also, the elderly prefer the first floor. There are the added risks of potentially falling down the stair wells. Mr. Hedrick said they made some comparisons with facilities which are near theirs. They have 48 percent open space. The facility across Greenbrier has 51 percent. The Senior Center has 39 percent. If they were doing by-right planning, a restaurant or an office building, they could do 47 percent. Also, five of the existing seven nursing homes in Charlottesville provide their nursing services on a single floor. Another issue had to do with parking. They are staff intensive to deal with the frailty of these older adults, so need July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) additional parking. The County set a minimum requirement of 30 spaces for a 120-bed facility. They want to handle their needs on site and not utilize on-street parking, especially if Pepsi Place becomes part of the Hillsdale Drive connector. He said their staffing during peak hours is actually 52 including therapists, and the additional staffing needed in the Alzheimers unit. They need the additional parking when the second = shift comes on between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. There are an additional 16 hourly people coming on which need the transition time. Also, there is an additional need on weekends because of visitors. There is a secondary user for the parking, and that is the Senior Center. They have overflow needs occasionally, and they have a letter of agreement from Jack Alcott, COO of the partner who will be operating this facility, to share those parking spaces. Mr. Hedrick said as to stormwater management, they have met quality standards. In doing so, they over built their quantity (to serve a one hundred year storm instead of a two-year storm). They will proffer that they can increase their volume capacity by ten percent, but also quality of water management by doing several things. One is to increase the depth of the pond. Two, increase the bio-filter area or French-drain system. Third, look at porous pavement as an option for their parking stalls. They would like to work with County Engineering on this to establish them as a pilot program for the design, the cleaning and their annual maintenance. Mr. Hedrick said that in summary, there is a growing need for this type of facility. They believe they meet that need. They have a model that addresses the Neighborhood Model and they has been open to meet some of the concerns and challenges of the Planning staff. He also believes it meets recommendations on in-fill development recommendations. He offered to answer question. Mr. Robert Metsker said he is president of the Brookmill Homeowners Association. He said = construction began in their subdivision 12 years ago. Upon completion, 20 of the 74 houses were built on the perimeter of Meadow Creek and in a flood plain. Since then, the County authorized the building of the JABA building, a real estate office building, Rosewood Manor, and Branchlands has built out their subdivision. As a result of the asphaltizing of all of this land, stream water runoff has basically eaten up A@ the back of Meadow Creek and water overflows into their backyards threatening their homes with every downfall. In 1999, the County spent over $100,000 to straighten the portion of Meadow Creek that runs through Brookmill east after it turns from a southerly flow. Nothing was done to the portion of the stream that runs south. The Board is being asked to approve another building which will pour water into their stream, and further jeopardize their homes. In the future, the Board will be asked to approve the mega- contracts on the Sperry property, and that water will also runoff into the stream behind their homes. He said they do not oppose the facility, but are concerned about the stormwater runoff. He asked the Board to give attention to this destructive force of water that will be turned into their stream. He asked that the Board protect their homes from this catastrophe. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he knows there have been a number of approvals in the Branchlands area. He knows Brookmill has been concerned about the height of Meadow Creek where it flows in the rear of that property. He said he was a member of the Planning Commission in 1983 when the Four Seasons, Carrsbrook, Wakefield and Branchlands area received ten inches of rain over night. It moved a house off of its foundation on Commonwealth Drive and resulted in a major drainage basin study which was completed in 1984 or 1985. He said all of the water from Wakefield to the south of Rio Road and then the Hydraulic/Rio loop, all drains into the Branchlands facility, or into Meadow Creek. That area receives a lot of runoff. At the time the basin study was done, Branchlands was in the process for approval. At that time, the County did calculations on how much water would be received in the stream that goes through Branchlands and the contribution to Meadow Creek. There were a number of upstream basins added and there were some which were improved. He asked about the basin in Birnam Wood. Mr. Davis said it is still in the planning stage. Mr. Bowerman asked about the basin near Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives. Mr. Tucker said that basin has been completed. Mr. Bowerman said Four Seasons was recently dredged so it would have more capacity. All of these were designs to insure that the amount of runoff received in Branchlands, going by the Branchlands community and Brookmill into Meadow Creek, would meet the one hundred year flood limit requirements for flooding as determined by the Corps of Engineers. When the Board approved Brookmill, it had all of these figures available to it. At that time, the Corps of Engineers identified the one hundred year flood plain of Meadow Creek and the adjacent stream, and the developer was required to put all foundations at least one foot higher then the one hundred year storm. That was as much as the Board could do based on State limitations. Since Brookmill was built, he has been there on four or five occasions after major rainfall events, the worse being about three inches of rain over a twenty-five minute period. That was about three or four years ago. On July 4, six or more years ago, there was four-plus inches of rain and scattered storms. He said this topic has been on the mind of the Board and the County Engineering staff, when making approvals in that area. Additionally, JABA, Rosewood, the real estate building, were built in the area, and County ordinances require that post-development to have runoff which is no greater than it was prior to development. That means the water leaving the site has to be retained on site in a detention basin, so the incoming pipes are bigger than the out flowing pipes. That limits the volume of water hitting the streams at peak times. The water does run longer and higher, but it does not reach the peak. Mr. Bowerman said he went through this long discussion from his memory because this situation has been on the minds of the Board members for a long time. He has seen the water in Brookmill come to July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) within a foot or two vertically of the foundations there. Horizontally, it was a greater distance. He has been on site during and after rainfall. He knows it is disturbing when looking out into your backyard and see a lot of water there, but he is comfortable that the studies done, and the development as it occurred, and the steps the County took, are sufficient to, in all but a severe act of God, result in no flooding to Brookmill and to Branchlands. He is comfortable with the requirements that the County has for development of this site, including the applicants proffer to increase the size of the facility by ten percent. = Ms. Thomas asked where the Board legally incorporates the offer of things called French-drains, the increase in the size of the stormwater facility, and the porous paving. Mr. Cilimberg said it should be included in the conditions of this special use permit. Ms. Thomas said since the Board did not get advice from the Planning Commission on this permit, she is looking at Page 7 of the staffs report entitled Recommended Action. In recommended Condition =A@ No. 2 it says ... location and nature of stormwater BMP facilities (shall remain essentially the same) .... A@ She said that is not what the Board should be considering now. Mr. Tucker said he thinks there would need to be additional conditions to tie in the approval of additional stormwater facilities as approved by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. He thinks the Boards discussion tonight was about the = items the applicant mentioned that they would be willing to do. He thinks Engineering will understand what the applicant proposes. That would give staff some flexibility to work with the applicant if Engineering is allowed to actually review those items and approve them prior to site plan approval. Ms. Thomas asked for wording of this condition. Mr. Martin suggested discussing the other issues while staff rewrites that condition. Mr. Bowerman said he knows the Engineering staff has had some skepticism regarding pervious surface treatments in parking lots. He knows this applicant has discussed only putting the impervious surface in the actual parking areas and not on the travelways because of the weight of the vehicles. The applicant also has a plan to clean them annually so the porous nature of them does not get clogged. He would like to put a reference to that in the conditions and let Engineering staff work with the applicant. He asked that Mr. Davis write a condition to that affect since it has been offered. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working without having advice from Engineering on these conditions. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Cilimberg was suggesting that the Board give directions on these conditions, and maybe have the actual wording come back at another meeting. Mr. Davis said it depends on how detailed the Board wants the wording to be. There could be a condition reading: An enhanced stormwater A management plan providing for these special things subject to approval of Engineering." could handle it. If the Board wants greater assurance as to what Engineering recommends, and what the applicant is specifically willing to provide, staff could do a more detailed condition, but would need more time to write that condition. Mr. Tucker asked if the applicant would like to be more specific in what Engineering puts together in terms of a condition and let that come back to the Board for approval. Or, would they rather have a condition which would cover all those areas but which would be much more flexible. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Engineering and Public Works, would come forward and give the Board some advice. Mr. Graham said they have been working with the applicant on a conceptual understanding. They have a good understanding of what is trying to be accomplished. The general language can accomplish that. Ms. Thomas said it has been said that the more general wording of the condition would allow the applicant to continue working with the Engineering Department rather than tieing it down completely. She asked if the applicant agrees. Mr. Hedrick said the applicant is accepting of a condition tonight on the proposal, and then working out the details in the form of a correspondence with the County Engineer on the specifics. Ms. Thomas said the Board will have some words in a few minutes which will be read to the applicant to be sure it embodies what has been agreed to. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to speak about the other issues raised by the Planning Commission. He is satisfied with the explanation of the need for a one-story building instead of a two-story building. He is satisfied with the redesign of the site plan, particularly moving parking away from Greenbrier Drive. He had asked the applicant about Rosewood Manor, which is directly across the street, being a two- story structure. The applicant said the requirements for the Rosewood type of residence allow them to build with wood on the first and second floors; they do not need to use concrete and steel as does the Albemarle Nursing facility. He said it is not up to this Board to discuss economics with an applicant as to its suitability from a land use point of view. But, from the communitys point of view in providing these types of = beds, he thinks it is germane to look at that. He has looked at this and accepts the one-story design. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the critical slopes in the rear are man-made critical slopes. Mr. Cilimberg said yes. Mr. Bowerman said in that case he is not as concerned about the slopes as if they A@ had been natural. He is satisfied that County Engineering can adequately address the 3:1 slope. Mr. Bowerman said the request for additional parking sounds reasonable as laid out by the applicant. Letting the Senior Center use their parking lot seems to be an odd situation, but the applicant stated that their corporation is willing to deal with the liability. That is a mitigating factor, as well as the pervious surface they are proposing. He respects the Planning Commissions decision, but thinks the = Board has more information than the Commission had. He is satisfied with the efforts made by the July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) applicant to meet the Commission's concerns. Ms. Thomas mentioned the bus pull out and the bike lanes." She appreciates those being a part A@A of the recommended action. Mr. Dorrier said he drives by this parcel almost every day. The location of this facility is good due to the amenities in the nearby area. He thinks the applicants request is a good one, and he is in favor of = approving the request. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis had some suggested language for the Board. Mr. Davis said Condition #6 would read: "The final site plan shall include enhanced stormwater facilities which shall include an enhanced on-site stormwater detention facility for increased capacity, an enhanced on-site drainage facility, and porous pavement parking lot improvements all subject to the acceptance and approval of the Director of Engineering." Mr. Bowerman asked if the recommended action, the six items, the language is acceptable to be conditions. Mr. Davis said yes. A@ Mr. Martin said he thinks the 60 percent of the beds which will be used by Medicaid patients is something this community needs. He is more than willing to go along with the one-story concept just to make sure those beds are provided. He does not see a problem with the amount of parking. In looking through the Neighborhood Model, he came across Regulated Parking which says that parking will meet A@ only the reasonable needs of the proposed use. He believes this applicant has proved reasonable need. The main issue for him had to do with stormwater. Ms. Thomas asked for a motion. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-2002-005 with the five conditions recommended by staff, plus the sixth condition stated by the County Attorney. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Maximum capacity shall be one hundred-twenty (120) beds, with a maximum of thirty-five (35) regular staff. Any increase to capacity or staffing shall require amendment of this special permit; 2. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation Center Site (Concept) Plan (dated June 2, 2002), Architectural Elevations (dated June 4, 2002), and Sections/Elevation (dated June 7, 2002). This accord with the above-cited documents is of particular importance in the following areas: the elevation difference between the sidewalk and finished floor (shall not increase), location and nature of stormwater BMP facilities (shall remain essentially the same), distance between the nursing and rehabilitation center structure and Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place (this distance shall not increase), and three-to-one (3-1) slope between the building wall and sidewalk along Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place (shall not increase in steepness); 3. The application shall be responsible for constructing sidewalks along the property frontage on Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place. Along with frontage improvements on Greenbrier Drive, adequate spacing for bike lanes and a bus pull-out at the existing bus-stop location or as specified by Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) shall be provided; 4. The final site plan shall include a pedestrian path or sidewalk connecting the public sidewalk on Pepsi Place to the entry at the south side of the building; 5. The nursing and rehabilitation center shall be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit justification ("LPDA Application for Special Use Permit, Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation Center") dated January 22, 2002; and, 6. The final site plan shall include enhanced stormwater facilities which shall include facilities for enhanced on-site stormwater detention capacity, enhanced on-site drainage facilities, and porous pavement parking lot improvements, all subject to the acceptance and approval by the Director of Engineering. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Denial of critical slope waiver request for SP-2002-05 - Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to overturn the Planning Commissions decision to deny the critical slope waiver. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the = following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker. (Note: At 6:45 p.m., Mr. Rooker returned to the meeting.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2002-017. Marks Construction (Sign #37). Public hearing on a request to allow for custom furniture shop in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(31) of the Zoning Ord. TM 22, P 28A, contains 5.134 acs (3.619 acs in Albemarle County & 1.515 acs in Orange County). Znd RA. Loc on NW side of Burnley Lane, approx .25 mls NE of Burnley Station Rd (Rt 641). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested approval of a special use permit for a Home Occupation-Class B, to allow for the operation of an existing custom-made furniture shop. If the request is approved, it would bring the shop into compliance with the County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant would not have any employees. However, a subcontractor is occasionally used to help with installations. The nearest residence is approximately 375 to the east on Burnley Lane which provides access to seven residences. Of these, one resident makes handcrafted violins and the other is a woodworker. There would be no one-site sales. Design work would take place at the clients location or in an architect/ contractors == office. Most materials would be purchased from local mills and suppliers, and transported by the applicant back to the applicants shop for production. Some supplies would be delivered by UPS/ FEDEX a couple = times a month. The applicant would deliver the finished product to the customers location. There is no = need for outdoor storage. The hours of operation are proposed to be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The location of the proposed shop would not be visible from any adjoining property. Mr. Cilimberg said staff found the following factors to be favorable to the application. The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The level of intensity of the proposed custom-made furniture woodworking shop would be consistent with the character of the Rural Area. Staff did not find any factors which are unfavorable, so recommended approval subject to six conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2002, recommended approval by a vote of 4:0, subject to the same six conditions. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Bill Marks presented photographs of his property. When he began this process he thought he had all the necessary permits and had met all requirements. Obviously, he misunderstood the Class B license issue. When he purchased the property, there was a provision allowing for this sort of business, it basically said the making and selling of violins and the making of baskets and cabinets, weaving and/or other home occupation pursuits. He did not think he was violating any deed restrictions or anything. Ms. Thomas said it turned out that the property is partly in Orange County. Mr. Marks said that is correct. Ms. Thomas asked if he was told that if Orange County did not require a special use permit, he would need one in Albemarle. Mr. Marks said Orange County does not require such a permit. After having a survey of the property, it was found that a portion of the County line goes through the shop. If the shop had been 30 feet further into Orange County, this would never have been an issue. Mr. Geoffrey Pitts said he is a close neighbor, although not the closest neighbor. He said they have lived on Burnley Lane since 1985. Sometime around 1988 Jill and Bill Marks became their closest neighbors being less than 500 feet from their house. They have always been solicitous about the Pitts = privacy and peace and quiet. Bill has been a woodworker most of his life, and continued his craft after moving on Burnley, both as a personal craft and for business. He eventually turned his garage into a small shop and has made furniture and cabinets there every since. It has never been a problem for the Pitts. There have been no traffic problems. There is rarely any noise. There is no appreciable dirt, dust or pollutants. The impact on the neighbors has been zero. His family and his business are an asset for this small community. They encourage the applicable authority to grant whatever permits are required. Mr. Oded Kishomy said he is a neighbor. He will confirm what Mr. Pitts has said. He supports the request. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve SP-2002-017 subject to the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. There shall be no on-site sales; 2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials; 3. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of, in accordance with all applicable hazardous July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) waste regulations; 4. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the designated workshop; 5. The workshop shall not exceed 1,152 square feet, as shown on Attachment A (on file in Clerk's office); and, 6. The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Clearance for this use within sixty (60) days of approval or this special use permit shall expire. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2002-019. Clifton Inn Amendment - Expanding Seating (Signs #21 & 22). Public hearing on a request to allow increased seating from 80 persons to no more than 200 persons for special events in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(27) of the Zoning Ord & to allow for shared parking w/Stone Robinson Elemen School (TM 79, P 23B) in accord w/Sec 4.12.4 of the Zoning Ord. A waiver to Sec 4.12.3.4(b) of the Zoning Ord is requested to allow for parking that is greater than 500 feet from the proposed use. TM 79, Ps 23B & 23C, contain 10.36 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 729 approx 0.25 mls from its intersec w/Rt 250. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 2002.) At the request of the applicant, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer this public hearing until September 11, 2002. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2002-020. Pine Crest Orchids Amendment (Signs #38 & 39). Public hearing on a request to allow for Home Occupation-Class B to cultivate & sell orchids, in accord w/Sec 18-10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. The applicant proposes to construct a greenhouse. TM 61A, P14, contains 1.020 acs. Znd R-4. Loc on Penn Park Lane (Rt 1481) at intersec of Rio Rd & Penn Park Lane. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant proposed to amend an existing Home Occupation-Class B permit by construction of an additional greenhouse to cultivate and sell orchids. The applicant is requesting a waiver for the size of the Home Occupation to construct an additional 1540 square feet greenhouse to create a total of 3124 square feet. The applicant had been given administrative approval for two greenhouses. The third greenhouse would be connected to the existing greenhouses. It would not intensify the current Home Occupation, but give existing plants more room to grow. The existing home occupation has been in existence for 17 years with no complaints from neighbors. Mr. Cilimberg said the majority of the applicants sales are from wholesale buyers. A very small = part of the sales are retail. Normal operating hours for the current home occupation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and generate approximately seven to ten customers per week. Access is gained solely from Pen Park Lane. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval subject to three conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2002, unanimously recommended approval subject to the same conditions. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Larry McElwain said he was present to speak on behalf of the applicant. Pine Crest has been in this location for 17 years. One of the problems they face is that have been around for so long (orchids require ten years to cultivate from seed to a flowering plant) and have been so successful that they need more room. They will not be increasing sales. They do not anticipate this request generating any increase in traffic. The additional greenhouse is totally shielded from both the road and neighbors. The greenhouse will be behind the living structure, and to the east of the existing two greenhouses, and it will be protected by a significant fence. He said there has been no objection to the existing home occupation over the entire time of its existence, and there is no objection from the immediate neighbors. There will be no additional noise, waste or light from this activity. The only reason they are making the request is due to the size of the plants they are growing. They are basically hybridizing plants, trying to make new species of orchids. Mr. Dorrier said 10 years seems a really long time. What do the plants become in those ten years? Mr. McElwain said the plants are rather unattractive until they bloom; it takes that long for orchids to bloom. There are over 65,000 species of orchids. These people hybridize and create new orchids. Some orchids take longer than ten years before producing a flower. These plants can live for hundreds of years. Some of the plants created right here on Rio Road have won statewide and nationwide awards. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. (Note: Mr. Perkins arrived at the meeting at 7:00 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman immediately offered motion to approve SP-2002-020 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. The entrance to the parcel containing this home occupation, Tax Map 61A, Parcel 14, along Route 631 (Rio Rd) shall remain permanently closed; 2. The home occupation shall be limited to the greenhouses and the retail area, and shall not exceed three thousand-five hundred (3,500) square feet; and, 3. The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-2001-021. Carriage Gate Apartments (Sign #69). Public hearing on a request to rezone 2.742 acs from R-6 to R-15 to allow apartments w/a density of 14 du/ac. TM 45, P 91. Loc on Woodbrook Dr approx 1/4 mls from intersec of Woodbrook Dr & Berkmar Dr. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional, recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Density uses & non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service & Office Service. Urban Density uses are 6-34 du/ac (if this applies) in Neighborhood 1.) Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of == the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the request is to rezone about 2.7 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15 Residential with proffers to allow apartments with a density of about 14 units per acre. This property is located to the west of the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive in an area designed in the Comprehensive Plan as Transition. Mr. Cilimberg said when the Planning Commission first reviewed this request in March, 2002, they asked the applicant to redesign the site to better fit the principles of the Neighborhood Model with specific regard to relegated parking, more accurate grading information, and a central amenity. A revised plan and proffers was provided by the applicant. They proffered elevations for the buildings. The new plan relegated almost all of the parking and provides a central amenity. There are three buildings with two anticipated to be four-stories tall, with one being three-stories tall. These buildings have an architectural element to break up the massing and also work better with the terrain. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the proffers which include a plan of development and elevations. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2002, unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning request subject to the proffers. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Steve Melton said he represents Berkmar Land Trust in the rezoning portion of this application. He said the Planning Commission unanimously approved the plan. He said since this application was made on December 17, 2001, a lot of work has gone into it to get to an acceptable plan. They ask that the Board grant its approval. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowerman said this land does lie in his district, and he did read the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. The Commission was satisfied with the changes made by the applicant, so he would move approval of ZMA-2001-021 subject to the proffers as reviewed by the County Attorney. Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is good that a residential use is coming into this area. Mr. Martin agreed and seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The proffers are set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 7/10/02 ZMA# 01-021 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 45-91 2.742 Acres to be rezoned from R-6 to R-15 with Proffers Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 1. Development of the property shall be in general accord with the application plan entitled, "Rezoning Application Plans for Carriage Gate Apartments" (herein referred to as the "Application Plan"), dated December 17, 2001, and last revised June 3, 2002. Residential buildings, parking areas, and the recreational area are identified as essential features for the purpose of being in general accord; 2. Architectural features of the building shall be consistent with the elevations entitled, "Carriage Gate Apartments Elevations", "Right Elevation (Left Elevation Mirror Image)", "Front Elevation", and "Rear Elevation", prepared by Keeney and Co. Architects, dated May 28, 2002. "Architectural features" means building forms and elements, including roofs, windows, door, materials, colors, textures, and scale; 3. The owner shall install screening materials satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community Development for the entire length of the southern property line that adjoins school property and fencing materials satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community Development around the stormwater facility. Installation of the screening shall occur prior to the issue of a certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings or shall be bonded. Installation of the fence shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate occupancy for any of the buildings; 4. The pedestrian path shown on the Application Plan on the southern boundary of the property creating access to the school grounds shall have a 5-foot wide mulched surface and a 10-foot wide clear zone on either side of the mulch path for safety and visibility. The installation of the pathway shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings; and, 5. The owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand of the County of Albemarle, a 20-foot right of way, as shown on the Application Plan, for the future extension of Woodbrook drive to Tax Map 45, Parcel 90. (Signed) Charles W. Hurt Charles W. Hurt June 20, 2002 Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date (Signed) Shirley L. Fisher Shirley L. Fisher June 20, 2002 _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 3, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, 3-204, Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District, to extend the ' district upon the 10-year review of the district. The District consists of 25 parcels totaling 3,865.024 acs. The property, described as Tax Map 35, Parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29, 31, 32A, 43; Tax Map 36, Parcels 6A, 9, 20; Tax Map 49, Parcels 4A5, 24; Tax Map 50, Parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B, and Tax Map 51, Parcel 13. All properties in the District are zoned RA and are designated as RA in the Comprehensive Plan. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of == the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this district was originally created in June, 1986. At the time, it included about 1136.08 acres. It is located east of Route 20 just south of the Orange County line and now includes 3864.024 acres in 26 parcels. Until this time, the district has been on an eight-year review cycle. Staff recommends that this be increased to ten years in order to conform to the Countys current practices. = Mr. Cilimberg said this district protects other agricultural land and other valuable resources, and has successfully expanded since it was established, staff recommends renewal of the Blue Run District for a ten-year period. The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission has also recommended renewal of the district. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3-208, Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District to continue the district for not more than ten years, to be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(3) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By amending: Sec. 3-208, Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29, 31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986, for not more than eight (8) years, since amended at its last review on July 10, 2002, to continue for not more than ten (10) years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012. (5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), ' 8-8-01; Ord. 02-3(3), 7-10-02) _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. CPA-2002-01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan (deferred from July 3, 2002). Ms. Thomas said this item had been deferred by the Board at last weeks meeting. It was brought = to the Board after at least four meetings. She suggested the amendment be discussed in general terms to see if it will be necessary to go through it page-by-page. She said a motion can also be made to start the discussion. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it should be discussed. He thinks that basically the staffs = recommendations are good. He is not sure Mr. Rotgins thoughts about this being an alternate style of new = development are correct. It looks like the Board is putting the Neighborhood Model front and center as far as development in the future of the County, and is supporting it wholeheartedly. He is not sure it is an alternate style of development, but a restyle. Mr. Rooker said he would like to elaborate on that thought. He said a lot of work has gone into reviewing this amendment. When it first came to the Planning Commission it has something in it called a transect which had been recommended by DISC I. The transect basically said that every development in A@ the urban growth areas would follow the transect. That was removed, so the Neighborhood Model is left with the 12 principles. He said there is a statement in it that says no development will necessarily meet all 12 of the principles, but it is preferable. He said there are cases where one principle may be more important than another depending on the context of the land. He thinks staff has done a good job. He said DISC II went through the recommended changes (he, personally, had 18 pages of recommended changes which he gave to DISC II, and they made some of those changes, but not all.). He said the changes recommended by Mr. Rotgin do not really substantially change what was proposed by DISC II. The question is whether the Board accepts what was recommended by DISC II or if it wants to go through the language recommended by Mr. Rotgin that was not added. He doesnt have an opinion one way or the = other at this point. Mr. Martin said he tends to agree with Mr. Rooker. This has been a long, long process. Having served on DISC I for almost three years, he was very tired of it. The report went to the Planning Commission and the Commission sent it on to the Board. The Board in turn sent it back to the Commission. It came back to the Board who approved several things, but the Board put it back out on the table for DISC II and others to work out some of the language. In looking at the different versions the Board has received, it seems this final version is a good compromise. He also thinks people on both sides of the issue have a great deal of fear. Some people think that if this amendment is not adopted, the County will never adopt anything. Others think that if it is adopted, it will be the beginning of the end. He does not see either one of those extremes taking place. When passing a new law, it takes a while to work out the bugs. A@ He thinks this Board has the ability to work with all individuals using this to get where it wants to go. He does not think the Board will be moved by any individual to one side of the issue, or the other side of the issue. He said it is important to move forward, but he has a couple of questions. Mr. Perkins said he was confused by the staffs report at the last meeting where page numbers did = not match the Boards material, and the photocopying did not come out right, so you could not tell what was = being proposed. He said it seemed that some of the things proposed by Mr. Rotgin addressed some problems. Ms. Thomas said she would prefer that nothing specific be picked out to discuss until the Board had decided if it wants to discuss the amendment further. Mr. Perkins said the bottom line is, what does this do, and where does staff take it from here? July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Every principle of the Neighborhood Model cannot be used in every situation. He rode along St. George Avenue recently and there are homes there which are close to 100 years old, a very mixed use neighborhood. There are nice homes and some mobile homes, and there are larger lots, most everyone has a garden. Is that a lifestyle that people will want, or is everybody just going to be stacked on top of each other? He thinks there will be a market for that size lot so people can have more than just a place to hang their hat at night. He thinks there are some places where every principle of the Neighborhood Model will not work. He wonders how to keep from doing that? If there is a market for a three-quarter acre lot, how does the County provide that? Mr. Rooker said that unless a developer is seeking a rezoning, they can continue to exercise their by-right use rights on the property as they see fit. Unless there is a rezoning, this does not come into play. It does not impact existing zoned uses of property. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board should be concerned that 60 percent of the building permits are still occurring in the Rural Areas. Mr. Rooker said the whole goal of this is to try and entice more people to move into the Development Areas by creating a better, more livable, more attractive form of development in those areas. Mr. Martin said if this does not move toward achieving that goal, it will explode in everybodys face. = He said courses can be changed if need be. The developers will not build using these principles if the market is not there, or if they cant sell the units. There have been so many things done on the Federal = level where the goal was x, the strategies where put into place leading toward y and no one was willing A@A@ to say the strategies were not achieving the goals. He does not think this Board will let that happen. Mr. Bowerman said he prefers the staff's copy of the amendment. It is more positive. That is the copy which has been through four meetings with DISC II and then presented to this Board. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin wishes to speak about the things he wanted to clear up. Mr. Martin said he can bring them up to discuss or not. If the members feel that a motion and approval will finish this subject tonight, then he is willing to do either one. Mr. Dorrier asked the future of DISC II. Will they continue to monitor this amendment? Ms. Thomas said yes. A@ Mr. Rooker said he would move approval of the Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan as presented to the Board by staff. Mr. Cilimberg said it should be identified by calling it the DISC II recommendations. Mr. Rooker said as given to the Board by staff and incorporating the changes made by DISC II (set out in Attachment A to the July 3, 2002 Executive Summary). Mr. Dorrier gave second to the motion. Ms. Thomas said in the newspaper today there was an article about Arlington County and how they are meeting their planning goals which they started on 40 years ago. When she was in Portland, she saw places that had taken 13 years for their strategy to work. She said things take a while, but sometimes the Board has to take some action and make it clear to the community what direction it will take. She appreciates all of the work done by DISC II. Mr. Bowerman said back in 1980, 15 percent of the lots were in the urban area and 85 percent were being created in the rural area. He said people forget how far the County has come in that period of time, when it is now nearly 60 percent in the urban area. He thinks the ratio should be improved. Mr. Rooker said the Architectural Review Board is having a positive impact on this community. The entrance corridors are dramatically improved over what they were ten years ago. It is a long, continual process. Mr. Dorrier said this will not substantially change the proffer process. Mr. Cilimberg said anything in the Comprehensive Plan provides a basis for the review of proposals, and does provide the basis for proffering, but it does not change the process at all. Mr. Tucker said he has asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the next step in this process. Mr. Martin suggested voting first. Ms. Thomas asked that the roll be called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. __________ Mr. Bowerman said he would like to point out that this whole amendment grew out of the Boards = not enlarging the Growth Area. That was the genesis of this whole thing. Mr. Perkins said one thing Mr. Rotgin wanted put into the amendment was that the Growth Area would be enlarged. He does not think there is a need to do it now, but some day there will probably be that need. July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the next step. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will be working on the Zoning Text amendments which are intended to take the conventional districts and give them a better opportunity to be developed according to the Neighborhood Model, making them more flexible. Now, it is hard to implement some of the principles based on current zoning in conventional district. He said the Master Planning has begun in Crozet, and having this as a Comprehensive Plan basis for that master planning is important. The Board will also be seeing a new Neighborhood Model Zoning District which is a Planned Development District. It will be discussed with the public in just a couple of weeks. He said a variety of things are taking place now. Ms. Thomas asked what the Board will get next in this process. Mr. Cilimberg said it is probably the Neighborhood Model Zoning District. It has been initiated with a private application. Staff wants to get that to the Board as soon as possible. There will be Crozet Community activity with their master planning, which he hopes the Board will participate in. The design consultant is scheduled to work with the Community by early August. Mr. Rooker asked if there is an updated time line on this process. Mr. Tucker said it will be available in August. Mr. Rooker said until the new Zoning District is enacted, there are several proposals waiting for review. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is trying to work with one of the applicants within an existing district to the extent possible. He thinks the new zoning district will work much better for all of those applications. He said some part of the parking amendments which have been under development will go to public hearing before the Commission this month, and then will come to the Board soon. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Mr. Martin nominated Ms. Lisa Dockery-Boyce to the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Committee Citizens Advisory Committee for a term which will run from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005. Mr. Martin nominated Mr. Rob Jiranek to the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Committee Citizens Advisory Committee for a term which runs from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2004 (Mr. Jiranek replaces Mr. John Bunch who had resigned). Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Cilimberg said the ACE Committee has asked if the next closing date for application acquisitions can be moved from August 1 (as stipulated in the ordinance) to September 1. They want one more month in order to give them more time to get the word out about this opportunity, and get more interest in applying. They thought it would let them take advantage of the publicity surrounding the first round of awards which will be noted at a presentation on August 8. The presentation will be on the Powell property, and the Secretary of Natural Resources, Tayloe Murphy, will be attending. It is a notable event for the County. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to move the application deadline for the ACE Program from August 1 to September 1 for the year 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. __________ Mr. Perkins said he had read the minutes of May 1, 2002 (Page 15 (beginning with Item #7 to the end), and found them to be in order. He then offered motion to approve those minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. __________ Ms. Thomas showed to the Board a proclamation signed by the President of the United States concerning the Lewis and Clark Celebration. This was received at a ceremony which she attended last week. __________ July 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Ms. Thomas said she received a telephone call at 2:00 a.m. on July 5 about the young man who drowned at Chris Greene Lake. She said the Hispanic community is proud of the fact that among themselves they raised enough money to send his body back to Mexico. However, all of the Mexican restaurants on next Saturday will be passing the hat around to collect funds. They have opened an account at First Virginia Bank in his name if anyone would like to contribute. She was called at that time of the morning because with all of the language barriers, no one knew where the body had been taken. __________ Ms. Thomas said she has received a letter from Charlottesville Mayor Maurice Cox regarding his ideas, and the Board can discuss them at a later time. _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 09/04/2002 Initials : EWC