2000-06-21June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on June 21,2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241,
County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris;
Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
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 Vice-Chairman, Ms. Thomas, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
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.
Mr. Tom Loach, Crozet resident, suggested that, due to the closing of the ConAgra plant, the Board
consider move forward on the Crozet Master Plan.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to accept items 5.1 and 5.2 for
information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Item No. 5.1. Copy of Draft Planning Commission minutes for May 30, 2000, was received for
information.
Item No. 5.2. 1998 Virginia Assessment Sales Ratio Study as prepared by the Virginia Department
of Taxation.
Mr. Tucker said the Assessment Office study compares assessed values and assessment ratios
between localities. The County ranked very high when compared with other localities, and has exceeded
the minimum rate set in 1993 at 95 percent in each subsequent year. He commended County appraisers
and assessors for their efforts. Mr. Bowerman noted that the County ranked second out of 135 localities in
the state.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-99-74. Townwood Mobile Home Park (Signs #75&76). 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. (Deferred from June 14, 2000.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 1 and 8, 2000).
(Mr. Bowerman left the room at 7:10 p.m. due to a conflict of interest. He had previously filed a
conflict of interest disclosure form, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board of Supervisors reviewed this proposal at its meeting on May 17,2000,
and deferred the special use permit request to allow staff to comment on and provide revised
recommendations for: 1 ) the location of the new entrance on to Townwood Drive; and, 2) establishing a
requirement to provide storage units for each mobile home lot. A revised set of conditions reflecting the
changes suggested by the Board, including conditions for the two issues noted above, was presented to the
Board. He noted that references to Greenbrier Drive in the conditions were changed to its current name,
Townwood Drive).
Staff revised condition B. 2 (Phase 2) a., which addresses the construction of the Townwood Drive
entrance. The condition now states, "Installation of a second entrance onto Townwood Drive at the
northernmost intersection of Tower Court and Townwood Drive. The Planning Commission may approve
the Townwood entrance in the location shown on the application plan if it is determined that this location will
better address issues of grading and visibility of the site, including accommodation of landscaping/fencing.
A Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted for the 14th unit until the second
entrance is constructed. Townwood Drive must be accepted into the state system with the construction of
this second entrance." Mr. Cilimberg said this revision allows the Planning Commission the flexibility to
allow the entrance to be located at one of two locations based on which one will better address the issues
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
of traffic management, grading impacts, and visibility of the site·
The Chief of Zoning Administration had provided comments on the implications of requiring storage
sheds for each lot. In summary, there is concern that such a requirement could have financial implications
to residents, and that it may become a maintenance issue and possible enforcement problem. Should the
Board choose to require storage facilities, the Zoning Department recommended conditions for that
requirement, which are reflected as condition B. 2. (Phase 2) j.
Staff recommends approval of SP-99-74 with the discussed conditions. The Board may wish to
delete condition B. 2. J. (the condition requiring the installation of storage sheds) as recommended by the
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
Ms. Thomas said two items needed to be decided: the rewording of language pertaining to the
entrance, and whether to require storage sheds.
Ms. Humphris said the rewording of the entrance language should be written so that the best
location for the entrance is chosen. Regarding storage facilities, she hopes the County will have a storage
requirement for mobile home parks in the future. However, since this has not been required before, it may
be cost-prohibitive and hard for the Zoning Administrator to enforce. She therefore suggested dropping
condition "2.j".
Mr. Dorrier made the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-99-74, Townwood
Mobile Park, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, including the revised condition concerning the
entrance, and deleting condition "2.j". Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Humphris noted that on the bottom of page 2 of the executive summary, condition "E-1"
contained a typographical error. It should read "4,500 square feet", not "45,000".
Mr. Perkins said that if the Board considers requiring sheds on future applications, it needs to
consider all options, such as storage under mobile homes. Ms. Thomas said mobile home manufacturers
have told her this is not an uncommon requirement in mobile home parks.
Conditions are as follow:
Approval for the addition of 25 units and the internal relocation of the existing units within
Townwood Mobile Home Park. If the owner satisfies the issues identified by the Engineering
Department (2/22/00 memo, Attachment J) and Planning Department (including the
location/design of recreational facilities and the relocation of lot 16) to the satisfaction the Agent
and County Engineer, then up to seven additional lots shall be allowed (for a total of up to 32).
Modify Section 31.2.4.4 to allow development improvements to commence within two years of
special use permit approval. This development project shall be completed within two years from
commencement of improvements from such date. The phases and sub-phases are outlined in the
following chronological timeline:
Phase 1:
a. Installation of necessary supporting infrastructure, which must include: 1. Installation of new water lines for domestic consumption;
2. Installation of the new water lines for fire safety (including three new
fire hydrants);
3. Installation of the new stormwater system; and,
4. Widening of the internal road.
a. Construction of the first 13 Lots (Lots 7, 9, 10, and 11 through 20)
as depicted on the application plan. No existing mobile homes
are to be relocated during Phase 1, except by request of any
existing resident or for the purpose of constructing the second
entrance to Townwood Drive;
b. Install a recreation area of 10,000 square feet in size, in a location
to be determined with the review of the site plan; and
c. Installation of Phase 1 landscaping, which includes compliance
with the tree preservation area located within the rear fifty-foot
buffer and cemetery site. Street trees a minimum of 50 feet apart
as typically called for in the ordinance shall be added along with
screening along Rio Road. All trees should be a minimum of 2"
caliper. These additions are minimums and should not in any way
limit landscape treatment that the ARB might impose. If any
subsequent phases present a threat to landscaping shown in
Phase 1, the applicant can bond accordingly the landscaping that
may need to be established during other phases.
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
2. Phase 2:
a.
Installation of a second entrance onto Townwood Drive at the northernmost
Intersection of Tower Court and Townwood Drive. The Planning Commission may
approve the Townwood entrance in the location shown on the
application plan if it is determined that this location will better address issues of
grading, and visibility of the site, including accommodation of
landscaping/fencing. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted for the 14th
unit until the second entrance is constructed. Townwood Drive must be accepted
into the state system with the construction of this second entrance;
Installation of a screening fence that must be entirely on the Townwood Mobile
Home Park property and must span the length of all developed lots adjacent to
Townwood Drive. The new screening fence shall be constructed prior to, or
simultaneously with the removal of the existing screening fence;
Installation of a screening fence that is entirely on the Townwood Mobile Home
Park property and must span the length of all developed lots along the Four
Seasons PUD property line;
Construction of Lots 6, 31, and 23 through 27, as it will not involve realignment of
any existing units;
Realignment of the existing units along Townwood Drive and within the center of
the Park's internal loop road to accommodate construction of Lots 1 through 6 and
Lot 8;
Construction of Lots 1 through 6 and Lot 8;
Installation of the second tot lot, fronting Rio Road West;
Installation of the final surfacing to the internal loop road; and,
Installation of Phase 2 landscaping. Landscaping shall include plantings at the
new second entrance and the new travelway, with major street trees every 50 feet
on both sides along this internal travelway, and street trees approaching
Townwood Drive. If any subsequent phases present a threat to landscaping
shown in Phase 2, the applicant can bond accordingly the landscaping that may
need to be established during other phases.
3. Phase 3:
Realignment of the remaining units that are located along the Four Seasons PUD
side of the subject parcel;
Construction of Lots 21,22, 28, 29, 30, and 32; and,
Installation of all remaining landscaping.
No trees are to be removed within the rear fifty-foot buffer and cemetery site. Preserve
trees along Townwood Drive to the greatest extent possible.
The applicant shall install a street light at the new second entrance onto Townwood Drive.
Staff will review the overall lighting needs for the site during the site plan review process,
and the applicant will provide lighting as recommended by staff.
Planning Commission Modifications of:
1. Section 5.3.3. 1 to allow for the reduction in the 4,500 square-feet area and required 45-
foot width for the 71 existing and realigned units;
2. Section 5.3.4. 1 as noted in Section 5.3.7.2;
3. Section 5.3.4.3 to allow for a reduction to 30 feet distant to two dumpsters for five units. A
screening fence must be installed around both dumpsters;
4. Section 5.3.4.4 to allow for the reduction of the 30-foot minimum distance between the
existing and realigned 71 units. Issuance of the Modification is subject to Fire Official
approval of the Final Site Plan;
5. Section 5.3.5. 1 to allow for a reduction of the 50-foot setback for 12 existing and realigned
homes along Townwood Drive, but not less than 3 feet between the homes and the
property line;
6. Section 5.3.5.2 to allow twenty-one existing and realigned homes, along the Four
Seasons PUD property line, a reduction of the 50 foot setback as follows:
Between Rio Road and new lot 28;
a. Seven homes to 3 feet;
b. Two homes to 13 feet; and,
c. One home to 30 feet.
Between new Lot 21 and the bioretention pond;
a. Eleven homes to 15 feet.
7. Section 5.3.5.3 to allow for 7 homes, of the existing and realigned 71 homes, a reduction
of the 15-foot setback to 5 feet from the internal private street;
8. Section 5.3.5.4 to waive the requirements for lot lines of the 71 existing and realigned
homes. Sheds and other storage structures may be constructed to a common wall;
9. Sections 5.3.6 and 5.3.6. 1 to allow for a waiver of application plan requirements,
conditioned that the County approve both preliminary and final site plans before any
construction activity is permitted. Site plan approval will not be granted unless adequate
parking and outdoor living areas are provided on each existing, realigned, and/or
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
10.
11.
proposed lot;
Section 5.3.7.2 to waive the requirements for all markers for the new, existing, and
realigned lots, conditioned that each mobile home be numbered and posted accordingly
to the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual for E911 purposes;
and
Section 5.3.8. 1 to waive the required six recreational vehicle parking spaces in the
common area.
F. The applicant shall provide screening of the dumpster site from the adjacent cemetery.
G. No waiver for provision of 100 square feet of outdoor living space.
(Note: At 7:30 p.m., Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-00-01. (Crozet Commons) Clifford Fox (Sign #86). Public hearing on a
request to allow residential use in commercial zoning in accord w/§ 18.22.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord.
TM56A2, P1-31, contains 1.37 acs. Located on Three Notch'd Rd (Rt 240) approx 1.2 mls from
intersection of Rt 240 & Rt 250. Znd C-1. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Pro.qress on
June 5 and 12, 2000).
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 30, 2000, unanimously recommended
to the Board approval of the proposal to build a mixed use development on 1.37 acres in Crozet on Three
Notched Road near the Fire Station, with 11 conditions.
Ms. Humphris asked about condition number eight, which allows a convenience store in this
location. She said that a couple of months ago the Board dealt with a convenience store on Hydraulic
Road, and the applicant said he would have to maintain longer hours in order to become a viable business.
She is concerned that this applicant could come before the Board to say the same thing, and this location
is not suitable for mixed-use development. Mr. Cilimberg said the store, if there was one, would not have
gas pumps, and might not even be the same type of store as discussed in the Georgetown request. The
applicant may not even want to have a store in that location, but the Board could always reconsider the
conditions in the future.
Ms. Thomas said she is concerned about the Beaver Creek water supply, and asked if the
stormwater development would be adequate. Mr. Cilimberg said that issue is addressed under the Water
Protection Ordinance and through the site plan process.
Mr. Clifford Fox, the applicant, said he might not even choose to place a store on the site.
However, if he did, he would be comfortable with the hours of 7a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Perkins asked about the location of the buildings. Mr. Fox said that will depend on the market.
Although traffic flow may not be the most desirable, anyone buying the property will know it is a commercial
site.
Ms. Thomas asked about pedestrian access to the stream. Mr. Fox said the property does not
adjoin the stream.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Fox knew what was going to happen to lot number 30. Mr. Fox said he is
considering purchasing the property, but has not yet made a decision. Mr. Perkins said it might be better to
develop both properties at the same time to ensure compatibility. Mr. Fox disagreed, saying that he
thought it would be better to develop the sites individually.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said staff can, at site plan, provide a provision that if anything happens on parcel
number 30, it must match this site. Mr. Cilimberg said that is already being done regarding resident
parking.
Mr. Perkins made the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-00-01, Crozet
Commons, with the 11 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Conditions are as follow:
1. Residential uses shall be allowed in a mixed-use development as generally shown on the
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
concept plan entitled, "Crozet Commons Development Concept" dated 3/22/00;
In keeping with the illustration entitled "Crozet Commons (colored rendering)" dated
3/22/00, the following features of the development will be provided:
· a sidewalk and street trees shall be provided across the public road frontage; and
· a "downtown" type streetscape shall be provided that includes the scale and
alignment of building shown in the illustration.
A maximum of 10 dwelling units shall be allowed in the mixed-use development;
Residential uses may be mixed with other C-1 uses within buildings or may be in separate
buildings;
If residential uses are mixed with other C-1 uses within a building; there shall be no
commercial uses on floors above residential uses other than home occupations;
The following uses shall not be allowed on the parcel because of incompatibilities between
residential and nonresidential uses (See Section 22 of Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in effect on 5/23/00 (copy on file in the Clerk's office):
a. funeral homes
b. movie theaters
c. automobile service stations
d. fire and rescue stations
e. automobile truck repair shop
f. medical center;
A medical office may be allowed provided the office hours are between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m.;
A convenience store may be allowed provided the hours of operation are between 7:00
a.m. and 11:00 p.m.;
Interparcel vehicular and pedestrian access to the adjoining parcels shall be provided at
locations shown on the conceptual plan or otherwise approved by the Planning Director;
A condominium regime will be established for unified ownership and maintenance of the
real property; and,
The concept plan referenced in these conditions is not considered a "site plan" meeting the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, a subsequent site plan is required.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-00-005. Trinity Presbyterian Church (Signs #40&41). Public hearing on a
request for change in conditions for clearing & screening of SUP for church on 17 acs. TM76 Psl 7C&17C1
is located at 3101 Fontaine Avenue. Znd R1. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Pro.qress on June
5 and 12, 2000).
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 2000, unanimously recommended
to the Board approval of SP-00-005 with five conditions.
Mr. Dorrier asked about drainage and runoff. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant must meet erosion
and water control requirements. The grading got out of hand and there has been a violation of grading
limits. Ms. Humphris asked if the contractor is responsible for the violation. No one responded.
Ms. Thomas said if this is a stormwater detention basin, and a playing field is put in place, the
church will still need to handle water runoff. Mr. Bowerman said there is a "fall" down the field.
Mr. Cilimberg said the field will be piped.
Mr. Tom Lancaster, a member of the church committee, said the church needs a playing field. The
University Research Park offered them fill material to help fill in the back. The church took the dirt, which
created a dirt pile on the lot. A special use permit was approved to move the dirt to the back; however, the
church's long-range planning committee architect thought expansion should occur in the other direction, so
the pile was not moved. There is now vegetation growing on the dirt pile. Additionally, the storm sewer for
the church is under the pile, and the pipe is not designed for that load. Two years ago, the church's building
committee proposed plans for a new addition, approved by the Board last year, and found that the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir water line encroached on the proposed building site. A new architect discovered the
proposed plan works better for the church, but the special use permit does not provide for the dirt to be
moved. A silt trap was proposed, and subsequently approved by the Engineering Department, to control
erosion. The church wanted to move the silt trap 100 feet downstream and to install a berm to control
water flowing into the basin. This required cutting trees. No one flagged the grading limits, and the
contractor cleared about 50 feet too much. The project is now $300,000 over budget.
Ms. Thomas asked about the implication of the zoning violation. Mr. Lancaster said the church is
not allowed to do any further work at this time. The Engineering Department asked the church to seed the
area below the silt trap, and they have done so. In addition, drainage standards have been met.
Ms. Humphris said she is disturbed about the Zoning Department's part in the problem. The
applicant asked permission to increase the size of the area before site plan review. The Zoning
Department told the applicant that exceeding limits of clearing required a special use permit, but the church
went ahead and did it without a special use permit. Mr. Lancaster said he was not involved in those
discussions. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission is also very concerned about the violation.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the plan is to put 50 trees on the site. Mr. Lancaster said that is what was
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
recommended by the Engineering Department, and the church has agreed to do so.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Terry Burns, Church Administrator, said the number of youth involved in the church's activities
continues to grow. This is now a regional church handling large groups, and they often have to rent land in
order to accommodate the number of participants.
With no else rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas asked Zoning staff to describe the violation. Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning
Administration, said the violation consisted of going beyond the limits when clearing the land. The remedy
would be to amend the special use permit. Mr. Davis said if the Board denies the request, the other option
is to pursue the violation and make the church return the site to its original state.
Ms. Humphris said Trinity is a growing church, yet she is frustrated. The Board has dealt with
similar situations for years, and this appears to be a blatant violation.
Mr. Burns said when the over-clearing was first noticed, he made an attempt to flag the limits, but
the trees were already gone. Ms. Humphris asked if a local contractor performed the work. "Yes," said
Mr. Burns. Mr. Bowerman noted, however, that the contractor would have to have been working from a
plan.
Mr. Dorrier said he was surprised to see this happen since Trinity exercises such control in
everything else they do. He suggested the Board put the matter behind it and resolve the situation.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Board had held up the site plan for Monticello High School due to
similar concerns for the safety of youth using the facilities.
Mr. Dorrier offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-00-005, Trinity
Presbyterian Church, with the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called
and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Conditions are as follow:
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan
Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 including a maximum of 105 new parking spaces and
incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment,
and walkways (approved with SP-99-063) and the modified area of disturbance with
recreational areas shown on the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed
Building Expansion dated 5/15/00;
Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on
the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed Building Expansion dated 5/15/00.
Applicant will present a clearing and grading plan to the Engineering Department that
minimizes clearing to the greatest extent possible;
Continuation of the preschool activity for up to 60 children five days a week shall be
allowed (approved with SP 99-063);
Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the plan entitled:
Master Plan Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 (approved with SP 99-063); and,
Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound
amplification shall occur in this area (approved with SP 99-063).
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-00-13. Lisa Carter Floodplain Crossing (Sign #31). Public hearing on a
request to allow fill in the floodplain to construct driveway across Slate Quarry Creek in accord w/§
30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning Ord. TM103, P32A, contains 25.18 acs, on Rolling Rd (Rt 620) approx 2.5 mls
from intersection of Rt 795 & Rt 620. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Pro.qress on
June 5 and 12, 2000).
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record, utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6,
2000, unanimously recommended to the Board approval of SP-00-013 with seven conditions.
He noted that significant reconstruction would be required in order to meet all the recommended
standards. He also added that the applicant has said that other crossings in the area experience washout
from storms.
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Bowerman asked what the Engineering Department would require for prevention of culvert
flooding during a ten-year storm. Mr. Cilimberg said the owner would have to increase the size of the
culverts. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible to secure the crossing in such a way that water can pass over
them without destroying them. Mr. Cilimberg said that might be possible, but the crossing will not do any
good if the driveway is constantly having to be replaced because it is lower than the culvert. He noted that
condition number four addressed this issue.
Mr. Perkins asked about drainage from acreage located upstream from this site. Mr. Cilimberg
said he did not know the specifics, but the issue was addressed by the Engineering Department, and was
reflected in the Commission's conditions.
Ms. Thomas said since there are two development rights, another house could still be located on
the site. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could remove the development right as part of the conditions, if it so
desired.
Ms. Carter, the applicant, was present to answer questions, but did not address the Board.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the area near the creek is wooded. Ms. Carter said if she built another
house and barn, she would have to put them in the woods in order to meet FEMA flood plain guidelines in
the pasture area. She added that the majority of the property is located on the far side of the creek, and
that she would not have purchased the land, if she had known it could not be used as she hoped.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the driveway is constructed of gravel or asphalt. Ms. Carter said it is now
gravel, but she plans to add concrete on both the driveway and crossing.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman suggested adding the word "reasonable" before "measures" in condition number
four. Mr. Davis suggested the Board leave that up to the Engineering and Planning Departments, since
they know what the Board would like to see. There was brief discussion among Board members
concerning the wording of the condition.
Ms. Thomas asked why the Board would want to limit the crossing to one residence, if it desires
more open space. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could remove condition number one. Mr. Davis said the
Engineering Department reviewed the request based on a driveway for a single residence only.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is not normally a concern, but the Engineering Department said future owners
should know about potential flooding in the area.
Mr. Bowerman suggested striking condition number one. Ms. Humphris said she did not want to do
that, because in the past, public safety has been top priority, and it would not be a good situation if the
driveway was unpassable for long periods of time. Mr. Cilimberg said condition number one would not
allow a second residence, according to zoning standards. Mr. Davis said the Board could eliminate that
condition if they do not care where houses are located. He suggested the Board state that any dwelling unit
should be on the stream side of the property, if the goal is to preserve the road frontage. Ms. Thomas said
that was extreme. Then, said Mr. Davis, the Board should strike the condition.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve SP-00-013, Lisa Carter Floodplain Crossing, with the seven
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, adding the word "reasonably" in paragraph 4 and
rephrasing the second sentence in condition number one to state that any additional residence beyond the
stream crossing shall be subject to reapproval by the Board. Mr. Perkins added that the staff report should
be changed to say "Route 602", not Rt. 620. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Conditions are as follow:
The driveway shall be limited to serve a single residence on the opposite side of the stream
from Route 602. Any additional residence beyond the stream crossing shall be subject to
approval by the Board of Supervisors;
The Special Use Permit shall not become valid unless the applicant demonstrates that the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Marine Resources Commission and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have approved a permit for the culvert to remain in
place. The applicant shall have 180 days to provide evidence of this approval to the
County Engineer. This approval is commonly known as the "Joint Permit" and any
approval conditions imposed by the approving government agencies in their permit shall
become approval conditions of this Special Use Permit;
The applicant shall provide to Engineering a Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan that brings the
stream buffer into compliance with the County's Water Protection Ordinance. This plan
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
must be approved by Engineering within two months of receiving the above mentioned
Joint Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all
improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within three months of
receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year;
The applicant shall provide end treatments for stabilization of the culvert and adjoining
stream banks. These improvements shall be part of an Erosion Control Plan approved by
Engineering and shall include additional measures determined to be reasonably necessary
by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing the proposed driveway. This plan must be
approved by Engineering within two months of receiving the above mentioned Joint Permit.
The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all improvements shown on
the plan must be implemented in the field within three months of receiving approval unless
modified by Engineering due to the time of year;
The applicant shall be expressly prohibited from placing any additional fill in the floodplain
unless it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Engineering this can be done without
increasing the 100 year water surface elevations. The applicant shall be allowed to
perform routine maintenance on the driveway and culverts provided there is no additional
fill in the floodplain;
The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the
purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been
placed and the stream crossing remains stable; and
In the event the applicant is required to substitute a bridge for the culvert as a condition of
the Special Use Permit. Engineering recommends this bridge be approved subject to the
following conditions:
a. This bridge shall have the lowest elevation on its span set above the stream banks;
The stream bank next to the bridge abutments shall be armored to protect the
abutments from erosion;
The bridge design shall be approved by Engineering prior to starting construction
of the bridge or its approaches and must include structural design computations
that demonstrate the structure can safely carry the vehicles that use this bridge;
and,
The applicant shall provide stabilization of the culvert and adjoining stream banks.
As part of this work, the applicant shall reconstruct the culvert stream crossing.
The reconstruction shall include lowering one culvert pipe such that the pipe invert
is at least six inches below the stream invert and shall include sufficient separation
between the culvert pipes that proper compaction of the fill material can occur.
These improvements shall be part of an Erosion Control Plan approved by
Engineering and shall include additional measures determined necessary by
Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing the proposed driveway. This plan must
be approved by Engineering within two months of approval of this Special Use
Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all
improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within three
months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of
year.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-00-14. The Hawksbill Pottery (Sign #29). Public hearing on a request to
allow home occupation for pottery making business in accord w/§ 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM62 B1,
Block C, P12 in Key West Subdivision, contains 1.918 acs. Located on Key West Rd (Rt 1445). Znd RA.
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and 12, 2000).
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent
part of the record, utilizing a PowerPoint presentation. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on
June 6, 2000, unanimously recommended to the Board approval of SP-00-014 with six conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended that condition number six end at "Environmental Quality".
Mr. Scott Zukraner, the applicant, said the trial period ran through May 25, not just through
March 1. This has been a very uneventful year, and neighbors have said they noticed no impact at all.
Ms. Humphris asked if this constituted a full year, as required when the special use permit was
approved in August 1999. Mr. Zukraner said final approval was not issued until September 24, due to
number of investigations, but the nine-month period, as listed, is representative. He said he had only one
assistant during that time, but added that a second person will not make any significant impact. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the assistants are apprentices. Mr. Zukraner said assistants have a variety of skill
levels, and some need more training than others do. They are not left to operate on their own without his
supervision.
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve SP-00-014, Hawksbill Pottery, with the six conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission, with condition number six amended by the Board.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Conditions are as follow:
Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside on site;
The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday;
The home occupation shall be limited to the basement area as it currently exist (1,614
square feet);
Equipment associated with this use is restricted to four (4) indoor electric kilns;
No permanent signs shall be posted on the property; and,
Use shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, and shall verify compliance with all applicable waste handling/disposal and
water control regulations, including regulations for septic disposal of the Virginia
Department of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing to receive comments on the proposed sale of the District
Home property consisting of three parcels of 24.027 acres, 106.907 acres, and 5.657 acres, respectively,
and the improvements thereon, located in Waynesboro, Virginia, and jointly owned by the counties of
Albemarle, Allegheny, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge, and the cities of Charlottesville, Covington,
Lexington, and Waynesboro. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 14, 2000).
Mr. Tucker said that in October 1999, the District Home held an auction to dispose of the District
Home real and personal property. Although the highest bid received for the property was $425,000 from an
adjacent property owner, Ms. Sheri Smith, subsequent to the auction, the District Home Board ultimately
negotiated a purchase price with Ms. Smith for $600,000. Based upon the County's participation rate, which
has been minimal, plus some operating expenses that have been paid out of the assets over the past two
years, the County does not expect to receive a large settlement from the property sale.
Staff had provided a resolution to be signed after the public hearing, which authorizes the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute the deed to Ms. Sheri L. Smith on behalf of the County.
Staff has also provided a deed of conveyance and a signature page to be signed by the Chairman.
Staff recommends that the Board hold a public hearing to receive comments on the sale of the
District Home property and approve the resolution authorizing the Chairman to execute the deed.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris moved to adopt a resolution authorizing the Chairman or the Vice-chairman to
execute the deed for the sale of the district Home property in Staunton. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Martin.
The resolution is as follows:
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING SALE OF DISTRICT HOME PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the District Home Board has recommended that the District Home properties jointly
owned by the counties of Albemarle, Allegheny, Augusta, Bath and Rockbridge and the cities of
Charlottesville, Covington, Lexington, and Waynesboro be sold; and
WHEREAS, the District Home Board has negotiated with Sheri L. Smith, Trustee of the Sheri
Legendre Smith Revocable Trust Agreement to reach an agreed purchase price for the properties; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to receive comment on the proposed
sale on June 21,2000.
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the sale of the District Home and authorizes the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman to execute on
behalf of the County the Deed, attached hereto, to effect the sale of the property to Sheri L. Smith, Trustee
of the Sheri Legendre Smith Revocable Trust Agreement.
The deed is as follows:
"THIS DEED, Made and entered into this the 25th day of April, 2000, by and between the Counties
of ALBEMARLE, ALLEGHANY, AUGUSTA, BATH, ROCKBRIDGE, Virginia, and the Cities of
CHARLOTTESVILLE, COVINGTON, LEXINGTON, and WAYNESBORO, Virginia, parties of the first part,
hereinafter referred to as Grantors; and SHERI L. SMITH, Trustee of the Sheri Legendre Smith Revocable
Trust Agreement as Amended and Restated on October 31, 1999, party of the second part, hereinafter
referred to as Grantee, whose address is Quiet Entry Farm, Post Office Box 947, Waynesboro, Virginia
22980;
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum often Dollars ($10) cash in hand paid and other good and
valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and pursuant to authority granted by the
governing bodies of the respective counties and cities, the said Counties of ALBEMARLE, ALLEGHANY,
AUGUSTA, BATH, ROCKBRIDGE, Virginia, and the Cities of CHARLOTTESVILLE, COVINGTON,
LEXINGTON, and WAYNESBORO, Virginia, parties of the first part, Grantors, hereby grant, bargain, sell
and convey, with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, unto the said SHERI L.
SMITH, Trustee of the Sheri Legendre Smith Revocable Trust Agreement as Amended and Restated on
October 31, 1999, party of the second part, Grantee, the following described real estate:
All those certain lots or parcels of land, to.qether with any and all improvements thereon
and all ri.qhts, privile.qes and appurtenances thereunto belon.qin.q or in anywise appertainin.q,
lyin.q and bein.q in the City of Waynesboro, Vir.qinia, includin.q: (1) Parcel A of Twenty-four and
Twenty-seven Thousandths (24.027) acres by survey; (2) Parcel B of One Hundred Six and
Nine Hundred Seven Thousandths (106.907) acres by survey, both as shown on a certain
"Waiver of Subdivision Plat For District Home Farm, Waynesboro, Vir.qinia," dated October 5,
1999, by Brenneman Engineering, Stuarts Draft, Virginia, a copy of which plat is attached hereto
and made a part hereof as Attachment "A"; and (3) Parcel C of Five and Six Hundred Fifty-nine
Thousandths (5.659) acres by survey, as shown on a certain "Plat For District Home - Parcel C,
Waynesboro, Vir.qinia," dated October 5, 1999, by Brenneman En.qineerin.q, Stuarts Draft,
Virginia, a copy of which plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment "B".
The said Parcels A and B hereinabove referred to being a part of the real estate conveyed to the
District Board of Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge Counties, the successors to which
are the Grantors hereinabove first set forth, by deed of Fred Driver and Daisy E. Driver, his wife, dated
March 1, 1927, duly of record in Deed Book 229 at page 187 of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of the
County of Augusta, Virginia, reference to which deed and the aforesaid plat (Attachment "A") is hereby
made for a more particular description as well as derivation of title; and
The said Parcel C hereinabove referred to being the same real estate conveyed to the District
Board for Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge Counties, and the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia, the successors to which are the Grantors hereinabove first set forth, by deed of G. H. Branaman,
Trustee, dated May 26, 1945, duly of record in Deed Book 330 at page 436 of the Circuit Court Clerk's
Office of the County of Augusta, Virginia, reference to which deed and the aforesaid plat (Attachment "B") is
hereby made for a more particular description as well as derivation of title.
The parties of the first part include in this conveyance to the party of the second part the cemetery
lot shown on Attachment "A" as containing Three Hundred Seventy-five Thousandths (0.375) acre,
surrounded by the aforesaid Parcel A, shown on said Attachment "A", on the express condition that the said
cemetery parcel shall remain in its natural state, used for natural recreation or grazing purposes, and not
otherwise be disturbed or used for any other purpose or cultivated except as pasture, nor shall any structure
of any kind be constructed thereon.
This deed is made and accepted subject to the easements, conditions, reservations, and
restrictions of record contained in the chain of title to the property herein conveyed which have not expired
by reason of the limitations therein contained or otherwise become ineffective."
Ms. Thomas advised the Board the Senior Statesmen organization is interested in this because of
Medicaid and Medicare. Mr. Tucker said a subsidy for the four or five County patients will still be provided
for private care. Ms. Humphris added that the County's arrangement with Our Lady of Peace helps the
situation. Mr. Bowerman said new JABA initiatives will help even more, and a request from Rosewood may
be coming to the Board soon.
Agenda Item No. 12. Cancel July 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Bowerman moved to cancel the July 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors meeting. Ms. Humphris
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
June 21,2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes:
April 19, 2000.
None were resd.
February 9, March 1, March 20 (A), April 12, and
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Perkins said the closing of the ConAgra plant in Crozet has led to many rumors in the
community. In addition, he has heard rumors that QuickFile may also close. He wondered if there is
anything the County can do to assist. Mr. Tucker suggested drafting a letter to ConAgra asking what their
plans are, and offering to help in any way the County can. Mr. Dorrier suggested that the Central Virginia
Piedmont Technology may be of some assistance. Mr. Tucker said the Chamber of Commerce and the
Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership are both aware of the situation. It was the
consensus of the Board that the County Executive write ConAgra.
Mr. Bowerman asked about demographics of employees and how the loss of revenue will impact
the County. Ms. Humphris said if it is true that QuickFile may close, the presence of that much land in that
location may provide an opportunity to facilitate master planning, even though it is not supposed to begin
until 2001. Mr. Tucker said if the Board wants to pursue this, they would have to look at staff's work plan to
provide time to examine this issue. Mr. Bowerman said it is important to have ConAgra's participation in the
process, and suggested it might be worthwhile to visit corporate headquarters in Nebraska to discuss reuse
of the property due to its importance to the County. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is an employee workforce
group at ConAgra, suggesting that County Human Resources staff could assist them. He added that it has
not yet been determined whether Crozet will be in the master plan.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials