2000-05-17May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on May 17, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241,
County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry Davis; County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg; and Senior Deputy Clerk,
Ms. Laurel A. Bentley.
Agenda Item No. 1. The Chairman, Mr. Martin, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Martin recognized members of Boy Scout Troop 75, who were observing the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, and
5.6, to remove item 5.3, to deny item 5.5, and to receive item 5.7 for information. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins (voted nay for Item 5.2), Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris,
and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 5.1. Set public hearing to amend Chapter 15, Article XII, Prepared Food and Beverage
Tax for June 7, 2000.
The executive summary states that the 2000 Virginia General Assembly amended the enabling
authority for a county food and beverage tax in regard to alcoholic beverages, and food and beverages sold
at grocery store delicatessens and convenience stores. This amendment requires the County to amend its
Prepared Food and Beverage Tax effective July 1, 2000, in order to comply with the State Code.
The County’s Prepared Food and Beverage Tax currently applies to prepared sandwiches and
single meal platters sold in grocery store delicatessens and convenience stores, and includes a tax on any
beverage sold in conjunction with such items. The amendment to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3833,
effective July 1, 2000, no longer allows the County to tax single meal platters at such sites and prohibits the
tax on alcoholic beverages sold in factory sealed containers and purchased for off-premises consumption.
In addition, Section 58.1-3833 provides that no tax can be levied on “food” as defined in the Food Stamp Act
of 1977 except for sandwiches, salad bar items sold from a salad bar, prepackaged single-serving salads
consisting primarily of an assortment of vegetables, and non-factory sealed beverages.
The proposed ordinance would amend the County’s Prepared Food and Beverage Tax to conform
with Virginia Code Section 58.1-3833, as amended.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize that the proposed ordinance be set for a public hearing
on June 7,2000.
By the above recorded vote, the Board set the public hearing to amend Chapter 15, Article
XII, Prepared Food and Beverage Tax for June 7, 2000.
_______________
Item No. 5.2. Additional FY 1999/2000 Revenue Sharing Funds.
The executive summary states that, pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1[D] of the Code of Virginia, the
County has an opportunity to request additional revenue sharing funds in this fiscal year, which will come
from the state’s unused allocation for FY99-00. If the County desires to participate, it must notify VDOT in
writing by May 19, 2000, indicating the amount of funds requested up to $100,000.
Revenue sharing funds provided by the state must be matched dollar for dollar with local funds.
The County allocated $400,000 for revenue sharing and traffic calming in its FY99-00 CIP. The County
previously received notice from VDOT committing $483,600 in FY99-00, which is being applied to the
Jarmans Gap Road project (Route 691). If the Board of Supervisors decides to request this additional
$100,000 and receives commitment for that funding, it will exceed its CIP allocation by $183,600 and will
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
either need to find additional local funds to provide the match or forfeit the $183,600. Additional revenue
sharing funds would be applied to the Route 651 (Free State Road) bridge replacement project.
Staff is also working with VDOT to resolve some potential discrepancies in revenue sharing
commitments and billings from prior fiscal years. Staff will inform the Board if any further actions regarding
the prior year revenue sharing activity are necessary.
Staff recommends that the Board apply for the additional $100,000 in revenue sharing funds. If the
additional allocation is approved by VDOT, a decision on local matching funds can be made after potential
discrepancies with VDOT are resolved and we are more certain about our year end fund balance. Staff
further recommends that any additional revenue sharing funds be applied to the Route 651 (Free Bridge
Road) bridge replacement project.
Mr. Perkins said taxes should not be used to fund roads. Ms. Thomas added that she did not think
the proposed bridge would be built in Mecklenburg County now that the Meadow Creek Parkway has been
approved.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved application for the additional $100,000 in
revenue sharing funds, and stated that any additional revenue sharing funds will be applied to the
Route 651 bridge replacement project.
_______________
Item No. 5.3.Proclamation recognizing Million Mom March.
This item was removed from the agenda.
_______________
Item No. 5.4. Additional Funding for Positions and Equipment in the Sheriff’s Office for FY 2000/01.
The executive summary states that, under the tripartite agreement for law enforcement between
Albemarle County, the Town of Scottsville and the Sheriff's Office, law enforcement services are provided
on a contract basis by two Sheriff's Deputies. One of these deputies is a County employee assigned to the
Town, and the other is the Town deputy who is being paid through the County's payroll system while the
agreement is in effect. The Town of Scottsville reimburses the County for the salary and benefit costs of
both of these positions, and pays any operating or capital expenses incurred by the deputies.
On May 3, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding terminating this agreement on
June 30, 2000.
As part of the FY 2000/01 budget process, the Sheriff requested three new bailiff positions at the
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court. The Board approved the County Executive's recommendation to
defer a decision on funding the new deputies, pending approval by the State Compensation Board.
The Sheriff also requested funding from the State for new equipment in FY 2000/01. This request,
which totaled $39,230, included funding for a Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) package,
computer equipment, office equipment and furniture.
Upon termination of the agreement with Scottsville, on June 30, the County deputy currently
assigned to the Town will be re-assigned to the County's General District Court. (The Town Sergeant will
remain in Scottsville, and will no longer be reflected as a member of the Sheriff's Office.) Since Scottsville
will no longer reimburse the County for the salary and benefit expenses of this deputy, the FY 2000/01
budget must be amended to provide $36,130 in ongoing funding for the County deputy position from the
Board's contingency reserve. Additionally, a vehicle may need to be purchased for this deputy, if the Sheriff
is unable to provide one from his existing fleet. The $21,475 total cost of a vehicle could be funded from
General Fund balance revenues, if needed.
The State Compensation Board recently notified the County that it has approved a new Court
Services Deputy position for Albemarle County, effective July 1, 2000. The Sheriff has affirmed that he
would like to assign this position to the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court. The total cost of a new bailiff
position in FY 00/01 will be approximately $63,500, and includes the cost of a new vehicle. The State will
contribute $30,655 toward the new position in salary, benefit and operating costs, for a net local cost of
approximately $32,845.
The City has indicated a willingness to fund its share (50 percent) of the remaining salary and
operating costs of this position, or $4,560, but has not decided on whether to fund the vehicle. If the City
decides not to fund the vehicle, the County's share would be $28,285 (which includes the vehicle). If, on
the other hand, the City agreed to fund the car, the County's share would be $16,400, the same as the
City's share.
The State also has approved $19,755 for new computer and office equipment in the Sheriff's
Office, toward which it will contribute $12,159 in State funds. The County's required share is $7,596, the
balance of the costs.
Staff recommends that the FY 2000/01 operating budget be amended to provide continued funding
for the County deputy previously assigned to Scottsville ($36,130), as well as for the County's share of a
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
new Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court bailiff ($28,285) from FY 2000/01 Board of Supervisors’
contingency reserves. Additionally, staff recommends that the County fund its share of the new equipment
costs ($12,159), as well as the potential purchase of a new vehicle for the Scottsville deputy ($21,475, if
needed), from FY 2000/01 General Fund balance. If approved, these items would be reflected in the
Operating Budget Resolution of Appropriation that will come before the Board for approval on June 7,
2000.
Ms. Thomas asked whether this item could have been funded without the tax increase.
Mr. Tucker said, “Yes. These are carryover funds from this year.”
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved amending the FY 2000/01 operating budget
to provide continued funding for the County deputy previously assigned to Scottsville ($36,130), as
well as for the County's share of a new Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court bailiff ($28,285) from
FY 2000/01 Board of Supervisors’ contingency reserves. Additionally, the Board approved the
County funding its share of the new equipment costs ($12,159), as well as the potential purchase of
a new vehicle for the Scottsville deputy ($21,475, if needed), from FY 2000/01 General Fund balance.
These items are to be reflected in the Operating Budget Resolution of Appropriation to be approved
by the Board on June 7, 2000.
_______________
Item No. 5.5. Request for Resolution from Mecklenburg County to support one percent increase in
the general retail sales tax.
The Board received a letter and resolution (copy on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent part
of the record) from Ms. Polly C. Johnson, County Administrator for Mecklenburg County, requesting the
Board support a one percent increase in the general retail sales tax that is available to counties, cities, and
towns within the Commonwealth.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board wished to consider adopting a resolution similar to that of Mecklenburg
County, staff will prepare said resolution.
It was the consensus of the Board not to adopt a resolution.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5.6. Resolution in Support of Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution in support of the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
RESOLUTION
IN SUPPORT OF RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle formed the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority (the “Authority”) in 1990 for the purpose of providing regional solid waste management and
to, among other things, operate the Ivy Landfill (the “Landfill”) located on approximately 300 acres of land
south of Ivy, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the continued successful operation of the Landfill provides an important public service
supported by the County; and
WHEREAS, to enhance the financial strength and continued successful operation of the Landfill,
the Authority proposes to obtain a line of credit in the principal sum of $2 million (the “Credit Facility”) from
the Bank of America, N.A. (the “Lender”) to support continued operations and to finance the cost related to
the settlement of a portion of a lawsuit brought by certain citizens against the Authority, the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle related to the operation of the Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Credit Facility has been fully discussed with the County’s Board of
Supervisors and the Board supports the appropriateness of the Credit Facility; however, the Board cannot
be legally obligated to appropriate funds to the Authority and believes the Authority should maintain its own
financial credentials; and
WHEREAS, although the Authority is an independent legal entity, the County has the power to
appoint certain directors of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, as a condition to providing the Credit Facility to the Authority, the Lender has requested
that the County express its moral obligation to assist the Authority in repayment of the Credit Facility in the
event the Authority is unable to do so;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby
pledges to the Authority and to the Lender the County’s “moral obligation” to provide the Authority with
sufficient funds for the Authority to make timely payments to the Lender as required by the Credit Facility
provided, however, that the Lender acknowledges that the County shall have no legal or enforceable
obligation to provide such funds and the performance by the County of all undertakings for the payment of
money by the County pursuant hereto is subject to and conditioned upon approval and appropriation by the
Board; and that the approval of any money by the County pursuant hereto is solely for the fiscal year in
which such appropriation is made and is further subject to any prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Executive, or any Assistant County Executive, are
each hereby authorized in the name of and on behalf of the County to execute and deliver such documents
and instruments and to take such other and further actions as may be in any way necessary or appropriate
to effectuate the foregoing resolution and to carry out the purposes thereof, and that the taking of any such
action and the execution by such individuals of any such additional documents or instruments shall
conclusively evidence the due authorization thereof by the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5.7. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for April 4, 18, and 25, 2000, were
received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-00-003. Charlottesville Broadcasting (Signs #51,52&53). Public hearing on
a request to allow attachment of 8’ panel antennas to existing tower on 9 acs. Znd C-1. TM61,P192. Loc off
northern corner of the Melbourne Road/Rio Road East intersec, abutting Meadow Creek. Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent
part of the record. At its April 18, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of SP-00-003 with eight conditions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many panels are located on the tower now. Mr. Cilimberg said there are 15
panels on the tower at this time. However, three existing panels will soon be replaced by six new panels.
The applicant, Ms. Heidi Parker, said she has entered into agreements with four companies to
allow co-location on the tower. By using eight-foot antennas, the tower will be less obtrusive; that is why
she has requested the Board approve the panel length extension without limiting the number of carriers.
Although the tower has been constructed to accommodate four carriers at this time, technology may
change in the future to permit additional users.
The Board had no questions of the applicant.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Martin said the tower has been visible for years, so this change will not be noticeable. Co-
location is a County goal, so he sees no reason to limit the number of providers who can use a tower.
Ms. Thomas agreed, saying the original conditions address any concerns about new towers and clutter.
She suggested the following wording in condition #3 be stricken: “…up to the number existing on the tower
on April 18, 2000”.
Ms. Thomas offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-00-003,
Charlottesville Broadcasting with eight conditions as amended by the Board. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Conditions are as follows:
1. Tower height shall be limited to five-hundred-twenty (520) feet;
The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of a structure failure, the tower and all of its
2.
components will remain within the property;
All antennas located on the existing tower may be relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas
3.
may be attached to the tower as follows:
a. Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height or two (2) feet in
width, shall be of a color which matches the tower and shall be below three-hundred-forty-
five (345) feet in height;
c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited;
d. Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the permittee when the tower is
first constructed without amending this special use permit, provided that all necessary
building permits are obtained from the Building Official and the antennas otherwise comply
with these conditions; and
e. All antennas shall be located such that no portion of the antennas is more than two (2) feet
from the tower structure.
4. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the co-location of wireless
telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the
tower and equipment on site, subject to this condition:
(1) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it
has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal
rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within
Albemarle County;
5. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For
purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps
together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to
connect the lamps to a power supply. All lighting shall be shielded from public roads. Outdoor
lighting, other than the tower lighting, shall only be during periods of maintenance;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
7. The permittee shall obtain Engineering Department approval of the tower design prior to receiving
a building permit. The Engineering Department shall review the tower design to ensure that the
design is adequate due to its location within the flood plain; and,
8.
The guy wires for the tower shall be located in such a manner as to not interfere with the proposed
Meadow Creek segment of the Rivanna Greenway Trails. This shall be verified by Department of
Planning and Community Development review of the building permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-74. Townwood Mobile Home Park (Signs #75&76). Public hearing on a
request to allow 19 add’l mobile home sites on approx 12.6 acs. Znd R-10. TM61,P8. Loc on E side of Rio
Road East, just N of the Rock Store. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 2000.)
(Mr. Bowerman disqualified himself from hearing this item since he has a personal and business
relationship with the applicant. He provided a transactional disclosure statement to the County Attorney and
left the room at 7:35 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent
part of the record. He said some issues have been raised regarding the entrance road and recreation
space within the project. Locating the entrance road off the north side of Greenbrier Drive would require
cutting mature trees and would provide only limited vision. Locating it in Four Seasons would require
extending a road into a Four Seasons parking lot, which would not provide an effective second access for
drivers wishing to reach Rio Road. At its May 2, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of SP-99-74 with 11 conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said that since the Planning Commission meeting, it was suggested that 10,000
square feet of open space be used as a play area for children and outdoor recreational space. The second
tot lot might be eliminated, if that occurs. Mr. Dorrier asked if the open areas are grassy.
Mr. Cilimberg said, “They are wooded.” Since the trailers will be relocated, some trees will need to be
removed; therefore, it is important to require street trees and to preserve a setback area as an undisturbed
buffer. Mr. Dorrier asked if there are other open spaces now. Mr. Cilimberg said there are some natural
open spaces resulting from prior grading activity, but there are no formal recreation areas, except for one
basketball goal near the front.
Ms. Thomas said items “f” and “g”, which were conditions added by the Planning Commission, were
left off the letter to the applicant. One of them had to do with “no waiver for provision of 100 square feet of
outdoor living space”. She wanted to know the impact of that item. Mr. Cilimberg those are the
Commission’s waiver of conditions, and since they are not granted by the Board, the Board does not need
to act on them. This is a zoning enforcement issue, and the items cannot be removed during site plan
review. It applies to both common areas and individual units. If it is not possible to get 100 square feet per
unit, there may be fewer units. Ms. Thomas said those items should still have been included in the letter to
the applicant.
Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, representing the applicant, said the mobile home park has been in that location
for years, and development has taken place around it. The present owner wants to upgrade the
infrastructure, pave the roads, realign the trailers, connect the trailers to adequate water and sewer, and
install a new stormwater system. He is currently installing a domestic waterline to handle water problems,
and has received approval for three fire hydrants. Although he did not request the second entrance that
was suggested by County staff and VDOT, he agrees this is a good idea, for safety reasons. He has
attempted to make the park as unobtrusive as possible, and believes it will be an affordable and nice
housing project when it is completed.
Mr. David Starmer, President of the Townwood Property Owners Association, said he represented
over 500 residents of 140 neighboring townhomes, and presented a petition, on file in the Clerk’s office. He
asked members of the audience who were interested in the park to stand, and approximately 20 people
stood. He said residents are concerned about the quality of life improvements that will be realized by
residents of the park, as well as serious public safety issues not addressed in the plan. The Association is
apprehensive about past lack of regard shown by the park’s owner/manager for establishing open and
honest communication. The owner has only contacted the homeowner’s association when required by law
or by ordinance, and there is no evidence of goodwill, as was stated at the Planning Commission meeting.
The proposed second entrance from the park onto Townwood Drive presents safety concerns to motorists,
pedestrians, and children. In addition, residents are concerned about the logistics and cost of maintaining
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
the portions of Townwood Drive for which the homeowner’s association is responsible. The project is a
windfall for the owner of the park, but a “wipeout” for residents.
Mr. Tony Payne, a resident of Townwood for one-and-a-half years, said he is also the landscape
contractor for Townwood Townhomes. This spring, as he was trimming bushes along Townwood Drive, he
had an excellent opportunity to view conditions of the mobile home lots next to the fence. Items on the lots
included four-wheelers in various states of disrepair, a dead deer, and an old sofa. The owner did not
attempt to clean up the lots until the homeowner’s association brought the matter before the Planning
Commission. It is his understanding that there are no County rules which will require that the park be kept
clean after approval is granted.
Ms. Eliza Schulz, a resident of Townwood for one year, said the park would not really provide
alternative low-income housing. Rent was raised by $100 per lot when the new owner took possession of
the park. At today’s rate, lot rental would be $250, resulting in an annual “cash cow” of $213,000 from the
current 71 lots. Once water meters are installed, Management Services will also require the residents to
pay for using water. This is a dramatic increase in the cost of housing and demonstrates a step firmly away
from affordable housing. She is also concerned about the Rio Road Entrance Corridor, because the park
could be an eyesore. It should be made to comply with entrance corridor requirements imposed by the
Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission. While the owner and manager were not aware of
recent unsanitary conditions and dumping until notified at the Planning Commission meeting, in the past,
conditions have not generally improved until it becomes a zoning enforcement issue. She suggested that
outbuildings be required for every lot, providing residents a place to store clutter. She is also concerned
about residents parking on the roadway, since there will not be space provided for two vehicles per lot.
Emergency vehicles must have adequate room to maneuver.
Ms. Anne Boyce, a resident of Townwood Townhomes, said she is concerned about the second
entrance to the park. While such an entrance is required for safety reasons, over time it will become
increasingly difficult for the residents of the park to turn left onto Rio Road. Neither County staff nor the
applicant have explored access to Four Seasons Drive. She said the neighborhood unanimously asks that
the second entrance to the park be routed through property already owned by the applicant, on the existing
emergency exit. If that does not occur, she suggested two alternatives. The first would be to relocate the
second entrance on Townwood Drive between the Townwood Drive/Rio Road intersection and the first
Townwood Court/Townwood Drive intersection. This option would provide the least impact on Townwood
residents, as there would be no reflection of car lights into any townhomes. It would also be a safe
intersection for residents of the park, if it provides for a stop sign for traffic leaving the park. The other
option would be to align the second entrance with the first entrance to Townwood Court. It would create a
safe intersection; however, it would have a greater impact on residents of Townwood Townhomes, as the
entrance area would be visible to all. This option should also include a stop sign for traffic leaving the park.
The proposed location is unsafe, since it is located at the bottom of two hills, making it impossible to see
traffic coming over the top of the hills. Regardless of the location of the second entrance, it should be
heavily landscaped. She recommended that a community green space of significant size be placed at the
entrance, and that no mobile homes should be visible from the entrance. Any fencing should wrap around
onto the entrance road to provide continuity. No signage other than road signs for E-911 requirements
should be permitted.
Mr. D. J. Manafi, a resident of Townwood for 13 years, said the community is concerned about the
population density within the park. The park currently contains 71 units, and Townwood Townhomes has
140 units. Crime statistics are a good indication of crowded living conditions, and the park’s crime statistics
are twice as high as those of Townwood Townhomes, despite being half its size. The appropriate number
of new lots should be determined by following all County codes and setbacks for mobile home parks, then
subtracting the number (71) of current lots. Residents of the park should be allowed to move into one of the
new, larger lots in Phase I, at the park’s owner’s expense, if they so desire. The entire park should be re-
engineered so that within the 24-month time span allotted for all three phases, all units conform to all
County codes and setbacks for mobile home parks. Because the park is in an entrance corridor, the park
should be nice as drivers pass by, and nice on the interior, as well.
Mr. Paul McKee, a resident of Townwood, said that as a Volunteer Firefighter for six years, he has
made several fire responses to the park area. In 1998, due to the closeness of the units, what would have
been a routine incident when a sofa caught fire on a deck between two trailers, was elevated in importance,
because of the risk of flames contacting both units and creating two residential structure fires. Last
September, a trailer fire broke out in the park. Because there must be two firefighters outside to serve as
potential rescuers of the two firefighters inside, the first three firefighters to arrive had to wait for a fourth
man. Because the park has no fire hydrants, the second unit had to be diverted to an adjacent
neighborhood to find a hydrant and then cut through a fence to bring the hose to the fire. In contrast, during
a fire at the Greenfield Mobile Home Park on Berkmar Drive last year, firefighters were not hampered by
units that were too close together, nor were they distracted by having to improvise a way to get water to the
fire. The current owner is aware of the trailer fire and dumpster fires that have happened since he bought
the park, yet he has made no effort to provide fire hydrants to any part of the park.
Mr. McKee asked that the Board not approve the portion of the request that waives County ordinances
regarding the minimum space requirements for mobile home parks.
Mr. Robert Cantes, a resident of Townwood, said granting the request would decrease Townwood
property values and lead to increased crime. He has had personal belongings stolen by park residents,
and is also concerned because the applicant has not made improvements before now. He asked the
Board to ask the applicant to prove that he is a good neighbor before adding new trailers.
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Lois Tickle, a member of the Townwood Homeowners Board of Directors, said she has been a
resident for seven-and-a-half years. Having previously lived in a mobile home, she understands some of
the challenges and stresses of living in this type of housing. She has also rented property from a
management company and understands the issues of being at the mercy of such companies. The current
owner has made few, if any, substantial improvements to the park. As the result of the fire mentioned
previously, someone’s home was destroyed, which might have been prevented with the addition of fire
hydrants. When the signs for the public hearing were erected, the front entrance was suddenly landscaped
and a new sign appeared. She said it was not until after she provided pictures of trash to the Planning
Commission that trash was cleaned up, so there has not been a good faith effort to improve the quality of
life for park residents. Their quality of life and safety are being used as leverage to compel the County to
allow the enlargement of the park, which will enhance the park’s earning potential. With the additional
funds generated by the new rentals, the owner can afford to make improvements. She asked that the
Board recommend approval of the request only if additional items suggested at this meeting are included
as conditions.
Mr. Doug Caton, Chief Operating Officer of Management Services, said he takes exception with the
statement that he has made no improvements. When he bought the park, there were five zoning violations
because of abandoned vehicles, and he paid to have the vehicles removed. He also installed dumpsters.
He noted that the pictures that had been taken of trash were taken at private trailers and in wooded buffer
area. He plans to put in fire hydrants and a water system, but he cannot do that until the site plan is
approved. Current trailers are crowded now, and must be realigned for maintenance and public safety
reasons. There will be two parking spaces per lot. VDOT and County staff, not Mr. Caton, recommended
the second entrance, but he agrees that the suggested location is the best place for it. Greenbrier Drive
was designed for twice the traffic currently in place, and the park was there long before Townwood
Townhomes was built. He has done his best to improve the park within the constraints of the County Code,
he has distributed a newsletter, he responds to water flow issues, and he mows grass and fills in low areas.
In addition, there is more green space for each trailer than there is for the neighboring townhouse units.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the size of the park. Mr. Caton replied that it contains 12 acres. The
proposed density is 8.3 units per acre, which is less than Four Seasons or Townhouse Townhomes.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much acreage is in the open space area. Mr. Caton said there are not complete
acres of open space; rather, there will be at least 100 square feet per trailer, more in some instances.
There will also be more green space and tot lots.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission stated that no existing trailers are to be relocated during
Phase I, so she wanted to know what would happen if a current resident wants to move to a new site. Mr.
Caton said they could do so. Ms. Thomas asked who would pay moving expenses. Mr. Caton said he
would assist residents with moving expenses. He noted that some trailers will not be moved much at all. A
main concern is that some trailers are closer to the road than 20 feet, which is a safety problem.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg how staff would ensure that Entrance Corridor requirements are
met. Mr. Cilimberg said the site plan would go to the Architectural Review Board.
Ms. Thomas asked whether it is possible to include a condition requiring storage sheds on each lot,
since it is hard to keep things organized if there is inadequate storage. Mr. Cilimberg said reasonable
conditions could be added. Ms. Jan Sprinkle said sheds are not required, but are permitted. Mr. Davis said
sheds could be required as a condition of the special use permit, if the Board thinks sheds are necessary to
accommodate this use in this location.
Regarding the second entrance, Ms. Thomas said she prefers the neighborhood’s third option.
Automobile lights would not shine into people’s homes, and it would be safer, since it would not be too
close to Rio Road. Mr. Cilimberg said it is an acceptable location, but the applicant did not pursue it since
the entrance would then be across the street from corner units.
Mr. Martin asked who maintains the road. Ms. Tickle said Townwood Townhomes is required to
maintain the road until it is accepted into the state secondary road system. Homeowners pick up trash,
remove snow, and fill potholes. Ms. Tucker then spoke, saying that it is VDOT’s responsibility to remove
snow from any state-maintained road, and once the road is accepted into the system, this road would get
the same attention as other roads.
Ms. Thomas asked how many units could fit in the space if they were properly aligned, and whether
existing homes could all be brought up to meet County Code standards. Mr. Cilimberg said existing units do
not, and will not, conform to all requirements that exist for all new mobile home parks. The Planning
Commission granted waivers to remove requirements for old units if they are moved.
Ms. Sprinkle said the effect of the waivers is to lesson the requirements for existing units to be moved to a
different location other than their current non-confirming location. They will conform by virtue of the
modifications that were granted. For example, instead of having 30 feet between each unit, there will be 15
feet between each unit. Mr. Cilimberg noted that those regulations were listed under Item E, 1 through 11.
Mr. Davis said the Commission’s intent was to grant modifications if the special use permit was approved,
so approving the special use permit would be an application of the conditions. Ms. Thomas said one
condition is that the Fire Official must review the site plan. She then asked about Item E-5, which states,
“…but less than three feet…” It should state, “…but less than three feet…”
nownot
Ms. Humphris asked about the open space required for each unit. Ms. Sprinkle said that
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
requirement was not modified, so each trailer must have at least 100-square feet of open space. This will
be dealt with at site plan. Ms. Thomas said that would have to be specifically stated, since this was one of
the conditions that was not included in the letter to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that if the Board
follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation, they include Items f and g, which were left out
inadvertently, to keep the record clear. Mr. Davis said that would then preclude the applicant for asking for
a waiver at the site plan stage.
Mr. Dorrier said the proposal is in keeping with the new Development Area Initiatives Steering
Committee’s infill philosophy. The Board should support efforts to improve and infill neighborhood areas,
and the additional units will not take the park to an unbearable density. The applicant has worked with staff
for at least three to six months and is a man of his word. Staff has examined the Zoning Ordinance to
ensure the development is in compliance, and Mr. Cilimberg said it is in compliance with the modifications
recommended by the Planning Commission. The public health, safety, and welfare of residents will be
improved, and, if properly screened, it may alleviate the concerns of Townwood residents. The County
must offer good conditions for people who cannot afford to purchase a home through other methods.
Ms. Thomas suggested modifications be made to the Planning Commission conditions. Item B1,4A
states that “no existing trailers are to be relocated during Phase 1.” She suggested adding the wording,
“except by request of the resident”. She also suggested requiring storage sheds to ensure storage space,
in Phase 2. Mr. Martin said it is then necessary to define “storage”, because it means different things to
different people. Ms. Sprinkle said storage units are permitted in the common area, and many of the
homes already provide their own storage. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission recommended that 10,000
square feet be kept as green space and for recreational use only. Ms. Humphris agreed that storage must
exist in order to improve the appearance of the park. Mr. Martin said if that is the case, staff would have to
determine what size would be required.
Mr. Tucker suggested recommending that storage be comparable to existing storage. Mr. Martin
said there are varying sizes now. Mr. Davis said that 150-square feet is the maximum allowed for an
accessory storage shed. Ms. Thomas suggested staff examine this issue and bring a recommendation to
the Board.
Regarding the second entrance, Ms. Thomas said going through Four Seasons is not a good option,
and the second proposal made by the neighborhood is too close to Rio Road. The third suggestion, which
would result in an intersection with Townwood Court in Phase 2, is the most desirable. Mr. Martin said that
decision should not be “set in stone”, but that it could be a recommendation.
Mr. Dorrier asked if current residents would be allowed to move their trailers. Mr. Caton said, “Yes.”
He added that requiring sheds on each lot would reduce the amount of available green space. Other
communities are not required to have storage sheds, and everyone may not need a shed to keep things
orderly.
Mr. Davis said it is unclear as to where the recreational area is to be located. Mr. Martin said that
issue would be addressed at site plan. Mr. Davis said condition #B1b states, “Installation of a park and
recreational area more suitable for adults and/or older children instead of a tot lot located in the rear of the
site.” He is not sure that gives staff flexibility. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission had discussed not
designating that area, but, rather, recommended two tot lots, with the rear tot lot being more suitable for
adults or older children, in addition to the 10,000 square feet of open space. Mr. Dorrier noted that there
are also older people living in the park. Mr. Martin suggested leaving the condition as is. Ms. Humphris
asked why the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of May 11 do not match what was sent in
the letter to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg said those were draft minutes, but the action letter reflected the
action taken.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many of the current residents have children. Mr. Caton said approximately
half of the residents have children, and about half of those have children “tot-aged”. Over half of the
residents are retired or disabled so it might be best of noisy activities are confined to the rear of the park.
Tot lots ought to be in areas where mothers could watch the children from their homes. He added that he
is willing to “work things out” with staff. Ms. Thomas said it is important to make sure there is a tot lot and a
flat grassy area.
Mr. Martin said the Board has dealt with the most important issues and should leave the details to
the people who know what they are doing. Staff could bring specific recommendations back to the Board
concerning storage space, the road entrance (the Board’s preference for the alignment into Townwood,
close to Rio Road), etc. Ms. Thomas said since the wording is already in the conditions, it must be
addressed now. Ms. Humphris said she wants to see both a tot lot and/or open space play area, as well as
10,000 square feet of grassy open space. The location would be up to site review. Mr. Davis repeated that
the existing condition on the development plan shows a tot lot at the rear of the site. However, the
Commission’s intent was to have an older children’s play area at the rear of the park, 10,000 square feet of
grassy area in the center, and another tot lot located at the front of the park.
Mr. Dorrier moved that the Board approve SP-99-74, Townwood Mobile Home Park, with
conditions (not given). Before Mr. Dorrier could list the conditions, Mr. Davis suggested that, instead of
doing a bifurcated approval, if the conditions that have been outlined are acceptable, the Board defer
approval to a future consent agenda. He said the request cannot be approved in segments.
Mr. Dorrier modified his motion and moved that the Board defer SP-99-74, Townwood Mobile
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Home Park, to the consent agenda, with the conditions that have been stated by the Board, to include the
relocation of the new road to Greenbrier Drive upon consultation with VDOT and staff, that existing trailers
be able to be moved by request of the residents, that staff look into the storage shed issue, dumpsters
being screened from the adjacent cemetery, and the waiver of the provision for 100 square feet of outdoor
living space. The wording regarding the location of recreation space was deemed to be satisfactory as
written. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 8:30 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-77. Evergreen Baptist Church (Sign #84). Public hearing on a request
to allow conversion of existing farm bldg to church on 10.65 acs. Znd RA. TM46,P38C. Loc off E side of
Proffit Rd (Rt. 649), approx 1,200’ N of RR crossing. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May
1 and 8, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent
part of the record. He said staff is going to suggest that VDOT let the current road be gated instead of
requiring that a new road be built. At its April 25, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of SP-99-077 with 12 conditions.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
The applicant’s representative, Mr. Eddie Howard, had no comments.
With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris noted the importance of the barn, and the fact that the church is willing to maintain it,
due to its historical significance. She suggested the barn be “documented”, and asked whether staff could
do it. Mr. Cilimberg suggested adding a condition #13 that the barn be documented, with the assistance of
staff, before moving forward.
Ms. Humphris moved that SP-99-77, Evergreen Baptist Church, be approved with 13 conditions as
amended by the Board. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Conditions are as follow:
1. This permit is issued for church use only;
2. Total building square footage shall be limited to eight thousand (8,000) gross square feet and have
an assembly area of no more than three hundred (300) seats;
3. No school or day care usage is allowed. Any future school or day care usage will require an
amendment to this special use permit;
4. The church shall not demolish and shall maintain the existing historical barn so as to preserve its
current condition. However, if the barn is damaged by a natural event such as a hurricane or
tornado to the extent that it is a safety hazard, then the church reserves the right to eliminate the
safety hazard including, if necessary, demolishing the barn;
5. The barn may be used for supportive purposes directly related to the church use or activity. Uses
other than storage may require an amendment to this special use permit and/or site plan and
building permit approvals;
6. The building setback shall follow the existing building footprint on the northwest side as shown on
the Site Plan entitled “Preliminary Site Plan for Evergreen Baptist Church”;
7. The applicant shall install screening shrubbery along the southern side of the travelway and
parking areas, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning and
Community Development during review of the Final Site Plan;
8. The applicant shall install screening trees along the northern property boundary in the area of the
proposed building and parking, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Planning and Community Development during the review of the Final Site Plan. This requirement
can be waived if the northern adjacent property owner (Tax Map 46, Parcel 38B) submits a letter
stating that such landscaping is not required;
9. The existing entrance shall be removed entirely and its use shall be discontinued unless VDOT
permits the entrance to remain as a gated entrance. The church shall be accessed only by a new
entrance that is aligned with Payne Jackson Drive and approved by VDOT;
10. The applicant shall install a one hundred (100)-foot right-turn lane with a one hundred (100)-foot
taper as shown on the Site Plan entitled “Preliminary Site Plan for Evergreen Baptist Church”, and
dated March 17, 2000;
11. The applicant shall have two (2) years to begin construction from the approval date of this special
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
use permit. The applicant shall have an additional year to complete the construction once it has
commenced;
12. Health Department approval of well capacity, and primary and reserve drainfields; and
13. Documentation of the historical barn will be done with the assistance of staff before moving
forward.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-00-002. Unity Church (Sign #99). Public hearing on a request to allow for a
church. Znd RA. TM61,Ps4&4B. Contains 4.44 acs. Loc on Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) approx 600’ from
Lambs Road (Rt. 657). Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 24 and
May 1, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file and a permanent part of the record. At its
April 18, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-00-02 with
eight conditions.
Ms. Humphris said VDOT suggested the entrance be expanded to 12-feet, and that the mailbox be
relocated. Mr. Cilimberg said those items would be required at site plan. Regarding concept plan #2,
Ms. Thomas questioned the fact that drain spaces were shown appearing under parking spaces.
Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration, said that is acceptable, adding that the Health Department
requires paving any parking over drain fields.
Ms. Judy Savage, representing the applicant, asked the Board to approve the request.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Humphris moved that SP-00-02, Unity Church, be approved with eight conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Conditions are as follow:
1. Use shall be limited to a maximum 200-seat sanctuary and use of the Existing Building 2
for youth activities normally associated with a church use;
2. Construction of the 200-seat sanctuary shall commence within four (4) years or approval
for the new structure shall expire;
3. New approval of septic system from the Health Department;
4. The church will be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan attached to the
staff report;
5. The property may not be further divided;
6. There shall be only one residential dwelling on this property;
7. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities, or structures outlined in this staff report
shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; and,
8. Development shall be subject to review of and issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness
by the Architectural Review Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-00-006. University of Virginia Community Credit Union (Signs #42&43).
Public hearing on a request to operate bank w/a 3-lane, drive-up teller facility on approx 1.289 acs. Znd PD-
MC & EC. TM78,P20C. Loc at SE corner of Rt. 250 E & State Farm Blvd. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file and a permanent part of the record. At its
April 18, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-00-006 with
two conditions.
Ms. Allison DeTuncq, representing the applicant, said the Credit Union serves 35,000 citizens and
needs to increase access in the Pantops area.
Ms. Thomas asked if the window request is needed as described. Ms. DeTuncq said, “Yes.”
Ms. Thomas said lighting has been an issue on Berkmar Drive. Ms. DeTuncq said that will not be a
problem in this area. Ms. Humphris noted that the Planning Commission minutes stated that its vote was
6-1; it should have read 6-0.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-00-006, University of Virginia Credit Union, be approved with two
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Conditions are as follow:
1. Drive-through windows will be limited to four (4) (three traditional and one ATM window); and
2. Screening shrubs shall be planted along the residential side of the parking area (along Route
250).
_______________
(Note: The following two items were heard simultaneously.)
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-00-008. Blue Ridge Garden Market-Country Store (Sign #45). Public
hearing on a request to reestablish country store. Contains .68 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM71,P4a1. Loc on S
side of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt. 250W) approx .5 ml W of intersec w/I-64. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 2000.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-00-009. Blue Ridge Garden Market (Sign #46) -Outdoor Storage (Sign
#46). Public hearing to allow outdoor display in Entrance Corridors. Contains .68 acs. Znd RA & EC.
TM71,P4a1. Loc on S side of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt. 250W) approx .5 ml W of intersec w/I-64. Samuel
Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff reports, which are on file and a permanent part of the record.
At its April 25, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
SP-00-008 with five conditions, and approval of SP-00-009 with three conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked about the setback. Mr. Davis said that would be addressed at site plan.
Mr. and Mrs. David Atwell, the applicants, said they are in a predicament. They want to rebuild
after a fire, but cannot afford to comply with VDOT’s recommendations. In addition, they do not want to
make it easier for other people to move into the area and change it. They are therefore asking the Board to
deny the request and allow them to revert to the grandfathered non-conforming use.
Mr. Dorrier asked why withdrawing the request would make any difference. The applicants said
denial would set a precedent for future requests.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scott Peyton, a member of the Scenic 250 Committee, said he applauds the couple’s
commitment. He then asked the Board to deny the request as the applicants had requested.
Mr. Clifford Fox said the Board would be opening a Pandora’s box if it approved the request.
Ms. Thomas thanked the Atwells for their commitment to maintaining the character of the road.
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas moved that SP-00-008, Blue Ridge Garden Market – Country Store, and
SP-00-009, Blue Ridge Garden Market – Outdoor Storage, be denied. Ms. Humphris seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Morgantown Road Closure.
Mr. Cilimberg said the residents of Morgantown Road (Route 738) between Grassmere Road (Rt.
679) and Route 250 are concerned about the speed and cut-through traffic on their section of Morgantown
Road. Morgantown Road is located in the Ivy area of the County and is parallel to Route 250. The
residents have been working with the County and VDOT to resolve these problems.
VDOT has recommended the County proceed with the VDOT Cut-Through Policy (on file in the
Clerk’s office and a permanent part of the record). The County has responsibilities it must complete before
VDOT can begin their evaluation. Additionally, staff had provided the Board a copy of the County’s
responsibilities, along with comments.
Staff recommends that the Board allow staff to complete the cut-through policy evaluation and
present a report in the Fall 2000.
Mr. Perkins said that, contrary to what is stated in the executive summary, this is not the intersection
of Grassmere Road, which goes into the Grassmere Subdivision. The road is in the vicinity of the
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
intersection of Morgantown Road and Route 250. He added that wording should have stated “closure of
Morgantown Road, with location to be determined”. Ms. Thomas said she thought the Board was talking
about closing the road at the eastern end. Consultants proposed closing the western end of Morgantown
Road. These are two different issues.
Mr. Martin asked for the history of this item. Ms. Thomas said the Board received a petition from
residents of Morgantown Road who asked how VDOT would proceed when closing a road.
Ms. Angela Tucker, representing VDOT, said they would first have to do fact-finding. Ms. Thomas said she
agrees there is a problem, but is not sure that closing the road is the solution. That is why she put the item
on the agenda for discussion.
Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to see a picture of the area.
Ms. Irene Jordan, a resident of the area, presented a map of the area. She said she is concerned
about safety in the area. The road is not designed for highway traffic; Route 250 was built to replace
Morgantown Road. Residents consider themselves living in a neighborhood, but the road separates the
central part of Ivy and the surrounding area. Having the road there has also made it difficult to comply with
new building standards. The Police Department has said there will not be increased traffic patrols. Ms.
Tucker said VDOT will not reduce the speed limit in the area.
Mr. Dorrier asked where the school is located. Ms. Thomas showed him on the map. She said the
school zone would become safer if the road speeds were reduced, and that buses could still access the
school.
Ms. Tucker said using the cut-through policy is the best solution. It requires that the problem first
be identified, and public input then obtained. One of the cut-through conditions states that cut-through
traffic must represent 40 percent of the total traffic between two stated termini. If Route 778 and 776 are
those termini, that standard is not met. Nor does the road meet the minimum of 150 one-way trips in one
hour; there are about 1,400 trips per day.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted to ask County and VDOT staff to complete the cut-through evaluation
and present a recommendation to the Board. This same situation may apply in other locations as well. Mr.
Martin said he will abstain from voting since he always tells his own citizens that parallel roads are needed
for emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Bowerman said the situation is the same on Huntington Road, between the Northfields and
Carrsbrook subdivisions. Application of the cut-through policy provides for a way to lower speed limits,
which then allows traffic-calming measures to be put in place. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would need to
evaluate the situation first.
Mr. Perkins said that if Morgantown Road is closed to Grassmere Road, drivers would have to go a
long way around to get to school. He thinks it would make more sense to examine the intersection of
Morgantown Road and Route 250 for reconfiguration. Ms. Thomas said citizens have stated that, until the
Tilman Road intersection is improved, they do not want Morgantown Road to be closed.
Ms. Thomas then said she still needs to know what can be done to help a neighborhood deal with
cut-through traffic. Ms. Tucker said there are passive remedies that can be followed (enforcement, signs,
warning, pavement markings, etc.), but effectiveness of these methods varies. Other actions can be taken
to redirect traffic. If speeding is a problem, there are other remedies. She added that VDOT has suggested
that this is a speeding problem, which is different from a cut-through problem.
Mr. Martin suggested the road be studied for cut-through and speeding issues. Ms. Humphris
agreed it is important to keep parallel roads, and that staff should complete the examination of the cut-
through policy and report back to the Board. Mr. Perkins said he does not want the public to get their hopes
up, since it does not look like this is a cut-through situation.
Ms. Humphris moved to follow staff’s recommendation to conduct an evaluation to determine
whether this is a cut-through or speeding problem, and to recommend appropriate actions.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: January 5, February 9, and March 1, 2000.
None were read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Davis said a recent storm caused many trees to fall. He has provided the Board a resolution
that would waive the applicable permit fees required under Section 6-203 and 6-407 of the Albemarle
May 17, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
County Code for open burning of debris waste. He suggested adoption of the resolution. Mr. Perkins made
the motion to adopt a resolution waiving burning permit fees occasioned by the May 13, 2000 storm. Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
The resolution is as follows:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 27-97, has adopted the
Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code as set forth in Section 6-200 of the Albemarle County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is authorized by Virginia Code Section 27-98 to establish
such procedures or requirements as may be necessary for the administration and enforcement of the
Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is authorized by Virginia Code Section 27-98 to levy fees in
order to defray the cost of such administration, enforcement and appeals; and
WHEREAS, the storm that occurred in Albemarle County on May 13, 2000 caused considerable
damage in numerous areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes it would be in the public interest to promote the safe and
economical disposal of debris waste caused by the storm without undue financial expense or hardship to
affected residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby waives the applicable permit fee(s) required under sections 6-203 and 6-407 of the
Albemarle County Code for open burning of debris waste occasioned by the May 13, 2000 storm.
_______________
Mr. Dorrier then suggested the burning policy be considered for future discussion. Mr. Tucker said
staff is working on this and will bring a recommendation to the Board.
_______________
Mr. Perkins said the Crozet Fire Department worked long hours to clean Route 250 after the storm,
and suggested the Board send a letter of appreciation. Ms. Humphris said other people did things too. Mr.
Tucker said staff will try to gather a list and put a resolution on a future consent agenda to recognize
everyone who assisted in the aftermath of the storm.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials