Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1999-03-17
00047 March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 17, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. !. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by the Vice-Chairman, Ms. Thomas. 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. Ms. Kristen Rembold said a parent support group, Parents for Orchestra, (Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 7:05 p.m.) has worked with the Albemarle County School Division to create a string orchestra initiative which is presently being considered by the School Board. She said that response to this initia- tive has been strong and positive. This week they were contacted by a local citizen working with a Richmond foundation which may be able to help with some funding. They are also applying, jointly with the School Division, for VCA project grant funding for string instrument purchase, and also a VCA arts curriculum development grant to fund concerts at elementary schools. The group has made a commitment to working on fund-raising and plans to do so actively and enthusiastically. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: Medicaid Unit at UVA Hospital, $15,430 (Form #98063). It was noted in the staff's report that in 1989, the Social Services Department entered into an agreement with the Department of Medical Assistance Services, the University of Virginia Hospital (UVAH), and the Virginia Department of Social Services to manage a separate Medicaid unit at the Hospital. The original concept was to determine Medicaid eligibility for inpatient clients at UVAH. The Hospital would like to add two additional eligibility staff at this time to provide more coverage in the Emergency Room, and also provide more outpatient clinics. Since 1989, the unit has added eligibility services to 0B-GYN, the Teen Health Center and Dialysis, and Pediatric outpatient clinics in addition to inpatient clients. These services provide Medicaid revenue to the Hospital that would largely be unavailable due to poor follow-through by patients after they leave the Hospital. The concept was to coordinate with the Admissions Office to ensure that applications could be taken and approved prior to the patient leaving the Hospital. The model has worked so well that the Hospital would like to expand it to more outpatient clinics. UVAH pays the local and State match for the positions and the Federal government supplies the remain- der. Additionally, UVAH supplies space, most office supplies, office equip- ment, training reimbursements, etc. The only cost to Albemarle County is a 20 percent match for liability insurance for staff, and forms. Salary and fringe benefits for the remainder of the fiscal year for two additional staff are $15,430 based on a hire date of April 1, 1999. March 17, 1999 (Regular Night ~lJ~) (Page 2) Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #98063 in the amount of $15,430 for two additional eligibility worker positions at the UVA Medicaid Unit. The positions require no additional local dollars and are funded 50 percent with Federal dollars and 50 percent with State dollars. Liability insurance and forms will be absorbed within the Social Services current budget for FY 1999. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98063 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY WORKERS EXPENDITURE CODE 1000 53O15 11OOOO 1000 53015 210000 1000 53015 221000 1000 53015 231000 1000 53015 232000 1000 53015 270000 DESCRIPTION SALARIES FICA VRS HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE WORKER'S COMP TOTAL AMOUNT $11,850.00 906.00 1,330.00 1,223.00 37.00 84.00 $15,430.00 REVENUE CODE 2 !000 24000 240525 2 1000 33000 330220 DESCRIPTION STATE MEDICAID FEDERAL MEDICAID TOTAL AMOUNT $7,715.00 7,715.00 $15,430.00 Item 5.2. Appropriation: Social Services, $15,115 (Form #98064). It was noted in the staff's report that Title XXI of the Social Security Act, created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, established the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to address the problem of lack of health insurance for children across the United States. SCHIP provided funds to states to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured, low-income children. In 1998, the Virginia General Assembly authorized the creation and funding of its version of SCHIP, the Virginia Children's Medical Security Insurance Plan (CMSIP) which was approved by the Health Care Financing Administration in October 1998. Although CMSIP is separate from Medicaid, the two programs are related in that both are administered by the Department of Medical Assistance Services, but eligibility and enrollment are managed by the Department of Social Services. Health care services for CMSIP are provided through the same managed care systems and provider networks, depending on the locality, established for Medicaid. Children enrolled in CMSIP receive all the health services provided to Medicaid recipients, plus additional benefits for substance abuse treatment. The State provided some funds to localities to assist with program eligibility determination. The State has provided $15,115 to Albemarle to support the implementa- tion of this program at the local level. Although the State has not provided caseload estimates for each locality, a locally developed impact model estimates a potential 797 eligible recipients based on Albemarle's population and the total uninsured children statewide, a figure determined by the Virginia Health Care Foundation. Although program start-up has been slow, the State recently began a public education campaign and it is anticipated that applications will start to increase shortly. State CMSIP funds may be used to assist the locality in paying for staff to determine eligibility for CMSIP and to help manage the caseload. Staff has determined that the most effective use of these additional State monies would help fund an eligibility screener position to screen CMSIP applications, as well as screen applicants for all eligibility programs before they reach the actual application process. Other freed-up funds from Federal VIEW dollars will be used to support the remainder of the position costs for the rest of the current year and into the next fiscal year. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #98064 in the amount of $15,115 to hire an eligibility screener position for the Department of Social March 17, 1999 (R~gular Night (Page 3) Services to be offset by the ~Si~ ~din~ and other Federal funds. There are no additional local funds required f~r this position. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the staff's request, and adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98064 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE CODE 1 1000 53012 110000 SALARIES 1 1000 53012 210000 FICA 1 1000 53012 221000 VRS 1 1000 53012 231000 1 1000 53012 232000 1 1000 53012 270000 1 1000 53012 520100 1 1000 53012 520300 1 1000 53012 540200 1 1000 53012 550400 1 1000 53012 600100 1 1000 53012 601700 1 1000 53012 800200 FUNDING FOR SENIOR ELIGIBILITY SCREENER DESCRIPTION HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE WORKER'S COMP POSTAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEASE/RENT BUILDINGS TRAVEL-EDUCATION OFFICE SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1 1000 53012 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $6,821 00 523 00 765 00 611 00 18 00 48 00 50 00 202 00 450 00 1,000 00 113 00 114 00 2,000 00 2,400.00 $15,115.00 REVENUE CODE 2 1000 24000 240114 CMSIP DESCRIPTIQN AMOUNT $15.115.00 TOTAL $15,115.00 Item 5.3. Adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for continuation of the SPCA (animal shelters). It was noted in the staff's report that Mr. Bowerman had requested staff to prepare a resolution of intent for Board consideration which would initiate a zoning text amendment to allow for the relocation of the SPCA. The Albemarle SPCA, Inc., which serves the City and County is situated on 9.1 acres between Berkmar Drive Extended and Woodburn Road with current access to Woodburn Road. Construction of the Route 29 Western Bypass would take some of the existing building development. The SPCA proposes to reconstruct on the remainder of the parcel and take access from Berkmar Drive Extended (See staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office for a full explanation of staff's recommendation). Staff recommended that an SPCA or similar organization as defined in the Code of Virginia as an ~animal shelter" is an important element to any community, similar to fire/rescue squads, churches, day care centers and other uses which may not be ~public uses," but provide for the moral, education and other demands of the general public. Staff prepared a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for such uses in appropriate zoning districts, should the Board wish to proceed with this matter. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance: RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, an animal shelter is not a use currently allowed in the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the U. S. Route 29 BYlOass project requires the relocation of the existing nonconforming animal shelter located in the County; and WHEREAS, an animal shelter provides a community service and is an important component of the County's animal control program; and WHEREAS, the Board believes there is a public purpose to be served by providing for the relocation of an animal shelter. 0000 0 March 17, 1999 (Regular Night ~e[[~g) (Page 4) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, the Board of County Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to: define "animal shelter;" provide for "animal shelter" by special use permit in the C-i, Commercial, HC, Highway Commercial, and RA, Rural Areas, zoning districts; and provide supplementary regulations applicable to "animal shelter." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission is · requested to hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to return its recommendations to the Board at the earliest possible date. Item 5.4. Proclamation designating March, 1999 as National Professional Social Work Month. Mr. Martin read the proclamation into the record, signed it, and then presented it to Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director, Albemarle County Social Services Department. By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved: NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL WORK MONTH March, 1999 WHEREAS, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) initiated National Professional Social Work Month in 1962 as a time to honor social workers and raise the public's awareness of the critical and often unappreciated and overlooked contribution they make both to individuals and families and to the well-being of the entire community; and WHEREAS, each year in March the National Association of Social Workers actively promotes this month by educating the public on pressing social issues; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County citizens are well-served by the professional and compassionate services of the county social workers that work on their behalf every day to increase self-sufficiency and promote human dignity; and WHEREAS, county social workers are dedicated to helping people help themselves for the overall betterment of all local residents; and WHEREAS, county social workers specifically within the social services department are often called upon to deal with dangerous and highly complex situations involving the lives of families; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby commend and offer sincere appreciation to all social workers in Albemarle County for a job well done and recognize the month of MARCH, 1999 as NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL WORK MONTH and call upon all County residents to join in acknowledging their public service and contributions on this !7th day of March, 1999. Item 5.5. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for February 2, February 23 and March 2, 1999, were received for information. Item 5.6. Letter dated March 1, 1999, addressed to the Honorable Charles Martin, Chairman, from Louise Finger, Environmental Engineer, Department of March 17, 1999 (Regular Night ~t[~g) (Page 5) Environmental Quality, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0025470, to the Rivanna Water and Sewer authority for the Scottsville Sewer Treatment Plant, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Request to establish Central Sewage and Well System at Cooper Industries Facility, located on Tax Map 31, Parcel 2lA, one mile south of Intersection of Route 660 and Route 743, in Earlysville. Rio District. Mr. Steve Bowler, Watershed Management Official, said the applicant is in the process of purchasing the Cooper Industries facility. He plans to convert the facility to a warehouse, doctors' office and leased commercial (warehouse) facility. He wishes to continue use of the existing well system and have it approved as a central~water system. Mr. Jim Moore of the State Health Department has approved the reopening of the water system, and has said that the wells provide a good water supply. Mr. Bowler said the Cooper facility treated sanitary sewage from up to 950 employees via an on-site treatment plant capable of processing 25,000 gallons per day. The treatment unit is estimated to be 32 years old. The new facility would have far fewer employees than the Cooper facility. The septic system is sized for use by up to 120 people per day. Mr. Jeff Loth of the Thomas Jefferson Health District reported that conditions at the site are good for a septic permit and he provided a plan for treatment of approximately 1200 gallons per day. Mr. Bowler said the facility is located near Earlysville and is in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Previously, the treated effluent drained directly to the reservoir via a ditch. Attempting to process 1200 gallons per day in the oversized 32-year old treatment plant could be ineffective from a pollution treatment perspective and inefficient from a cost perspective. An effective and well-maintained septic system of this scale is likely to provide better protection to the reservoir than the existing plant. He said it is worth noting that due to a leaking underground storage tank that was detected under previous ownership, the State Department of Environmental Quality enforced a consent order for groundwater treatment, recovery and monitoring on the site, and has been doing so for over ten years. This treatment system is not part of the central sewage or water system that is the subject of this request. By agreement with the applicant, the former site owner, Cooper Industries, must maintain the ~pump and treat" system under DEQ regulations. Mr. Bowler said a review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was required because the new sewage system will be technologically different from the former package treatment plant and because both the water and sewer systems will now serve three or more users. On March 2, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the condition that ~the existing wastewater plant will no longer be in service after the septic field becomes operable." Also, because there are three connections for both water supply and sewage removal, approval of the central water and central sewage systems by the Board is required under Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle. Mr. Davis said this is not an advertised public hearing, but the Code does call it a hearing. He suggested the Board hear from the applicant, and then take whatever action it desires to take. Mr. Donnie Foster, the applicant, said he asks for the septic system to accommodate 120 people at the present time. He does have 90 acres of land in case the system needs to be enlarged. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to approve the central sewage system and central water system for the former Cooper Industries facility subject to the following condition: (1) Approval is for the proposed septic system capacity of 120 users per day, as designed by the Health Department. Future expansions must be reapproved by the Board of Supervisors. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris who said she assumes the Board subscribes to the statement on page 2 of the staff's report which says: ~Staff opinion is that this request, although not entirely consistent with the principles and recommendations (in the Comprehensive Plan), is not contrary to the Plan's overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide March 17, 1999 (Regular Night ~ing) (page 6) 000052 for the protection of the Rural Area and its associated resources ..... Although the proposed facilities are technically classified as new central systems, they are actually either an existing system (well system) or a replacement to an existing system that serves a developed property. The proposed systems do not facilitate an intensification of the use of the buildings or property. In fact, the proposed central septic system has less capacity than the 25,000 gallons per day treatment plant it will replace, and could serve to limit some future uses." Mr. Martin said approval of this request will reduce the actual number of connections to the system in the future. He asked that the roll be called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING on request by the City of Charlottesville that the County grant to the City a permanent natural gas line easement across property jointly owned by the County and City and identified as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 007 and Parcel 008, located within the Ivy Creek Natural Area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 9, 1999.) Mr. Tucker said the City of Charlottesville has requested that the County grant it an easement to enable the placement of a gas transmission line across two parcels of property jointly owned by the City and the County in the Ivy Creek Natural Area. These lines are to be placed alongside existing lines and the easement will generally follow the paths of existing City-owned gas lines. The Code of Virginia requires that the County hold a public hearing prior to authorizing the granting of an easement. Currently the City is contesting the Zoning Administrator's determination that the gas line to be placed in the easement is, in fact, a gas transmission line. It is the City's position that it is a distribution line. A transmission line would require a special use permit from the Board whereas a distribution line would not be subject to further County review. This matter will be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 6. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board hold the public hearing tonight, but since there is another action pending concerning this matter by another agency, the Board may wish to delay its decision until after the Board of Zoning Appeals has acted on the appeal. Mr. Martin asked if there were anyone present to represent the City. There was no one present. He then open the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was immediately closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to defer action until April 14, 1999, to allow the Board of Zoning Appeals time to make a decision on an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination that the gas line is a transmission line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-51. U.S. Cellular (Goodlow Mountain) (Signs #97 & 99). PUBLIC HEARING on a proposal to remove & reconstruct an existing tower on Goodlow Mountain in accord w Sec 10.2.2(6) of the Zoning Ord. TM36, P19. Property consists of 121 acs & is loc on Goodlow Mountain on existing Columbia Gas pipeline easement. Znd RA. (This site is not located within a designated growth area.) Rivanna Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He began by handing out some photographs of the site area. These photos were taken last week. He said this application was originally March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1997, and recommended for approval by a vote of 4:3. The Board held its hearing on December 10, 1997, but referred the petition back to staff to revise some of the proposed conditions of approval. Following the Board's hearing, it was determined that the property owner had not consented to the filing of the application for a special use permit, therefore, the request was not properly before the County. No further action was taken at that time. The applicant has obtained the owner's consent and this request is now properly before the County. ~Mr. Cilimberg said that originally, there was a nonconforming 123-foot tower on this site. Part of that tower collapsed in October, 1996. At the time the Commission and the Board originally reviewed this proposal, the nonconforming tower could have been restored to its original height because it was within two years of the tower collapse. Some work began within one year, which is required by the ordinance, and it was within the two-year period that the entire 123-foot structure could have been restored. At the Commission's last public hearing on this request, it was indicated that this had occurred to a height of 120 feet. A field investigation shows that the tower has been restored to 60 feet with an additional pole extending approximately 40 feet above that tower, so that is now the legal nonconforming tower. Mr. Bowerman asked if the 60-foot tower is a lattice tower. Mr. Cilimberg said ~'yes." Mr. Bowerman said extending above the 60-foot lattice tower there is an approximate 40-foot pole. Mr. Cilimberg said ~yes," but, it is just an estimated height above the 60 feet. He has discussed the facts of the case with the County Attorney. The Board has a recommendation from the Commission to not approve the request at the 120 feet. Staff originally recommended approval of the request so there is not significant analysis regarding a height less than 120 feet. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that the Board defer this request and allow it to do further analysis of an alternative of a lesser tower height in proportion to that which exists now, or if the Board decides to deny the request. He said the consultant working with the Tower Policy was contacted about this tower. There were two types of sites identified in a work session held on this subject. One is an ~opportunity" site, which is one where there is an existing tower which might be able to have collocation. The second is an ~avoidance area" where new towers would not be desirable because of sensitivity or policies established in the Comprehensive Plan. This particular site could be considered as both types of sites. Mr. Kreines had no clear recommendation other than to identify the site as such because the structure is one that may or may not provide good collocation opportunities. That lessens the significance of this site as an opportunity site. Mr. Martin said he wanted to be clear on the recommendation. The Planning staff recommends approval based on the assumption that it was a much larger existing tower. Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct. Mr. Martin said the Commission voted in opposition also thinking this was a much larger tower. Mr. Cilimberg said at the time the Commission heard this request, it was presented to them as 120 feet. Mr. Martin said in between the Commission's denial of this request and today, it has been found that the current height is much less than that 120 feet. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Steve Blaine said he represents the applicant. He said there is already substantial information on the record supporting this application, which includes the staff's report. There was testimony at the other public hearings, and the Board made a preliminary finding at the last Board meeting on this question. In essence, the proposed tower is designed to provide coverage in the northeastern Albemarle area, specifically, the northern sections of Route 20 and Route 231. The record already reflects that there is poor service in that area through U.S. Cellular. The proposed site is to correct this inadequacy in service. Mr. Blaine said he has propagation information (contained as Exhibit 1 in the paperwork for this hearing) which was also submitted at the prior hearing. He has an RF Engineer, Jeff Barlow, who is present to answer questions in that regard. He said the issue of the nonconformity is a ~red herring." Information on the height of the tower was conflicting, so he went out with Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, last Friday to inspect the site. He agrees with Mr. Fritz'a conclusion that it is a 100-foot structure. The six, ten-foot March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) sections on the lattice portion lead one to contend it is 60 feet tall, and then he has a receipt from a contractor that the pole that was added is approximately 40 feet. He agrees with staff's conclusion that it is a 100- foot structure. He said the nonconformity would be an issue if they proposed to use the existing structure, but the applicant has said that the existing structure will not support its proposed antennae and the existing whip antennae. The applicant proposes a replacement tower. Mr. Blaine said it may have been easier for some members of the Commission and the Board to support this application knowing that if there had been a restoration in compliance with the nonconformity, the tower could be reused at that height anyway. The existing tower and that structure is significant in getting some perspective on what the proposed tower will be, as well as providing evidence as to minimal impacts of the proposed tower. Mr. Blaine said this tower is owned by C&S Microwave, an affiliate of Columbia Gas System. They used this tower for their communications internally. C&S has had a license for this tower since 1964 with the landowner. Before filing the application, US Cellular entered into a lease agreement with C&S Microwave. That license agreement, going back to 1964, was binding on the landowner. Just before the last public hearing with this Board, the applicant was advised by County staff that because the owner did not sign the application, the application was incomplete. The applicant has worked with the owner and addressed the owner's concerns, and gotten the owner's consent to the application and a letter is on file in the Planning Office in support of replacing the existing tower. Mr. Blaine said this was a 120-foot tower until 36 months ago when it was damaged. Existence of this tower for over 30 years at this location supports the finding of the criteria for the issuance of the special use permit. There is no evidence that the 120-foot C&S tower poSed any detriment to adjacent properties for those 30 years. The nearest dwelling is approximately 2300 feet away and it was constructed after the tower was already on the site. There is no evidence to show that the tower posed any significant effects on the agricultural and forestal uses of this property or any adjacent properties. The tower predated the enabling legislation in 1977 that created the agricultural forestal program. The tower predated the historic designation of the Southwest Mountains. It has been part of the character of this area for this period of time. That is what is relevant for the special use permit. Mr. Blaine then showed some photographs to the Board of the tower. He said they do have some options as to what could be used to replace the tower. An existing lattice structure, which is guyed, is there now. The company can replace it with a guyed tower that has a little wider base, or it can use a self-supporting tower without using guys. Mr. Blaine's time for making his presentation had expired, so Mr. Martin asked if any Board members had questions. Mr. Perkins asked the elevation where the current tower is located. Mr. Blaine said it is at 1380 feet. With no further questions, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Balheim said he lives in Keswick and is speaking on behalf of the Southwest Mountains Coalition. They ask that the request be denied. This tower, as originally built, would not be allowed today. It was grandfathered. Because it was nonconforming, he thought there was a two-year period in which to essentially restore the tower after damage. That two-year period is over, and the tower has not been restored to any semblance of what it was. Part of the tower is left, and something has been stuck on the top of that. There is some concern that what was done, was not done within two years. The original purpose of this tower seems to no longer exist. If it did exist, he believes it would have been rebuilt immediately. Two years later it has been ~jerry rigged" into something to meet a technicality that it was never intended for. If the applicant were to ask for a cell phone tower in this location on a ridge top in an historic district, he does not believe the Board would approve such a request. He said looking at the request within the guidelines of the proposed Mountain Ordinance, it does not fit within those guidelines. Mr. Balheim said the Southwest Mountains Historic District is one of the largest such districts in Virginia, containing about 8000 acres of land in permanent open space easements. There are additional thousands of acres in agricultural and forestal districts. The land under easement is in March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000055 perpetuity. They think the Board owes it to the citizens of the County to respect the integrity of this area. Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a statement which is on file with the records of this meeting. She learned today that the tower in question has probably not been rebuilt to it's original height within the two years allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Reconstruction was not verified until last Friday, which was four and a-half months after the deadline necessary for the tower to keep its legal status as a nonconforming structure. Ms. Thorpe said when the Commission first reviewed this application in 1997, five nearby property owners expressed concern about the project, its impact on the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and their property values. It is clear from their minutes that at least two Commissioners may have voted for approval because they thought the tower could be restored legally to its reputed height of 120 feet. When the Board reviewed, and all but approved this request, in 1997, it had before it a determination from the Zoning Administrator stating that the tower was a legal, nonconforming use which could be rebuilt to its pre-accident height. Judging from the draft minutes of that meeting, at least one Board member viewed this as an existing tower upon which U.S. Cellular could locate a panel. That may no longer be the case if the applicants have lost their legal right to rebuild a 120-foot tall tower. Now, the County should be free to consider this tower as if a tower of this height did not exist on Goodlow Mountain, one of the highest peaks in the Southwest Mountains District. Ms. Thorpe said she does not believe the Board has approved a new tower in the Mountain Overlay District identified in the County's Open Space Plan unless that tower was clustered near other towers already in existence. The only tower the Board has approved in a Rural Historic District was a much shorter structure near the substation at Cash's Corner. The Board has refused to approve towers near land under permanent conservation easement. It would be consistent with Board actions in the past to deny this request. Residents of the Southwest Mountains are doing their part to keep this place open and unspoiled by placing thousands of acres in conservation easements and they have given up most of their development potential for all time. She asked that the Board support that commitment and deny this request. She asked when the 40-foot piece of pipe was added to the structure. Mr. Hal Young said he lives on the Peters Goodlow Dow Chestnut Mountain, and has dedicated his life to it. Ail of his acreage is in scenic easements. He wrote a letter to the County last year, and then learned that the applicant had never notified the County about the tower. He wrote a second letter last week, and then County staff members went out to view the site. After the Planning Commission meeting, he went up and observed the tower and then he called Bill Fritz and Amelia McCulley. He asked Ms. McCulley'several times to contact the Chairman and Bill Fritz, and volunteered to take all up to see the tower and what was in existence there. When he did not hear from her the second time, he went up to document the footage and wrote the letter. He swears that as of March 1, the only thing that existed on the site was a 60- foot lattice tower and a small white whip tower above that. There was a two- inch galvanized pipe lying on the ground, but there was nothing above what he saw. He believes that if the applicant denies that this token extension was put up after March 1, that is a serious offense. He said he appreciates the time, devotion and commitment of the Board members to the County. Mr. Bowerman showed Mr. Young a picture, and asked if that is what he saw on March 1, 1999. Mr. Young said he did not recall seeing two pieces. He only remembers seeing one piece, the whip tower. He said the galvanized pipe was lying along the edge of the clearing, and he thinks he can prove that. He offered to take the Board members to the site. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Young was saying it was the shorter pipe with the whip that he saw. Mr. Young said it was just the 60-foot structure with a whip extension with a small red dot on top of it. Mr. Martin asked how tall that extension was. Mr. Young said it is hard to estimate, but he thinks it might have been ten feet. With no other member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Blaine said the facts are not in dispute. The applicant has a contractor's receipt showing that 40 feet of PVC pipe about one and one-half inches in diameter was installed in October, 1998. Ms. Thomas asked how that purports with the draft minutes of the last meeting when Mr. Blaine said the tower was extended to 120 feet and he had a contractor's receipt on that. Mr. Blaine said he had been told the lattice portion of the tower was 80 feet, so it was concluded that adding 40 feet brought it to the 120 feet. He had never been to the site so he went with Bill Fritz to determine what was actually on the site. He was told that before November !, the whip was not erect, it was flopping down. Sometime between the end of October and when he and Bill Fritz viewed the site, the whip was attached in an erect position. Ms. Humphris asked if the antenna is functional when it is flopped over as seen in the photos. Mr. Blaine said it has limited function, but apparently has function. Ms. Humphris said she assumes the gas company did not care enough about its use to do anything about it for a period of time. Mr. Blaine said he does not know what that period of time was. The point is that what is shown in the photos is what is there now. Whether it was like that in October of 1998, or on March 1, or March 17, does not have a bearing on the special use permit. The logic of those speaking is that because there may or may not be a legal right to restore the tower under the nonconformity rules, that the tower does not exist. But, the tower is there. Whether or not the special use permit is denied or approved, that tower will stay where it is. What the Board has before it tonight is an application that would allow this tower to be replaced with something that is functional. Something that will provide wireless services to an area that has been denied wireless services. That is the issue before the Board tonight. Mr. Martin said this property lies within his district. He does not believe there has ever been a public hearing where three people spoke and he could take word for word out of their mouths and just say ~ditto". Given the recommendation, he hopes a Board members will make a motion to defer this request. Mr. Bowerman said he would like for staff to have an opportunity to review the application again in light of the site visit conducted last week. He does not know if the application should go back to the Commission or not. He does not think this petition is ripe enough to have the Board make an informed decision tonight, so he would move for deferral. Mr. Marshall said he also needs additional information, so he would second the motion. Ms. Thomas said she would also like additional information. She said when the Commission made its decision based on its being told something that was not accurate, she wonders if the petition has to go back to the Commission. She said the earlier vote of the Commission was based on erroneous information which seems to make quite a difference. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the staff can recommend whether this petition should come directly back to the Board, or if it is substantially different enough for the Commission to re-review the request. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission's recommendation to the Board is denial based on what Mr. Martin summarized. There are different facts now in terms of the existing tower, but the basis for their recommendation for denial would not likely change. The real question is what staff needs to establish in terms of the facts and the analysis and whether the Commission and the Board both need to see that. Mr. Davis said once staff has developed further information, a recommendation will be made on what the process will be. MS. Thomas asked staff to do a propagation study of the effective service that could be provided if the antenna was attached to the existing 60-foot tower. Mr. Martin said it had been moved and seconded that this petition be deferred until staff can report back. Mr. Marshall asked how long to make the deferral. Mr. Tucker said 60 days should be adequate. Mr. Bowerman said he would include 60 days in the motion. Mr. Marshall, as seconder, agreed. Roll was then Called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) O000S? AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-57. Vintage Market (Sign #56). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow an existing country store to become conforming which would allow expansion in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.22 of the Zoning Ord. TM102, P27C. Property consists of 1.9 acs & is loc on Rt 20 (Scottsville Rd) approx 5.1 mi S of intersection with Rt 742 (Avon St). Znd RA & EC. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is proposing to add a 12' x 58' retail addition onto the south side of the existing store, a 14' x 59' storage addition to the rear of the store, to relocate the main entrance into the store to the south side of the building, and to relocate the canopy that covers the gas pumps. Mr. Cilimberg said the market on this property was established in the 1940s. The proposal would allow the existing nonconforming use to come into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The location of a canopy with gas pumps would be subject to site plan approval. The applicant proposes that the existing house on the site be used for storage, and staff has recommended that residential use not be reinstated. This site is located in an Entrance Corridor and on a State Scenic Byway. The ARB will review the project for compliance with their guidelines during the site plan process. It is staff's opinion that the proposed expansion of the store would not be detrimental to the area, or otherwise inconsistent with the criteria in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said that on March 2, 1999, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-57 subject to conditions. Ms. Thomas said she read in the Commission minutes that staff was to look at the landscaping plan before this petition came to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said that is part of what will be done when approving the site plan. Staff has no additional recommendation for landscaping other than what is contained in the conditions. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Jamie Lewis said he is the owner of the Vintage Market. They purchased the store last year, and have taken a country store and updated it internally, and outside. They have made substantial improvements to the building. They propose to improve the site to give a better traffic flow on the property, to beautify the road in front of the property, and to change the location of the entrance of the store from the east side of the building to the south side of the building. They plan to make substantial improvements to the structure. They have eliminated a trailer which was being lived in on the site. Currently, there are residents in the block building behind the store. They will be leaving soon. That structure will be used for storage and not for residential purposes. Mr. Lewis said in the initial site plan submissions, they submitted quite a substantial landscaping program. Trees will be along the Entrance Corridor spaced at 35 feet as per the ARB recommendations, and 40 feet around the perimeter of the asphalt on site. There will be low density area lighting which is well within the requirements of the ARB. It is a type of lighting which has been used in other projects around the County. They propose to give their customers better access and egress to the facility to reduce the possibility of accidents. In front of the store now is a ditch which the Department of Transportation refuses to deal with. They will be covering that up, putting in new culverts and beautifying that whole area. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Willie Mae Perkins said she has been working with Mr. Lewis on this application. She owns property near the store, so frequents the store often. She said while Mr. Lewis was on vacation she worked in the store, so was able to hear comments from the customers. No one made a negative comment. March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) O0005S Everyone is pleased with what has already been done, and supports what Mr. Lewis has planned. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Marshall said he went out and visited with Mr. Lewis. He looked at the plans for the new store. His family (Mr. Marshall) has owned property about one-half mile from that store for a very long time, that is now Marshall Manor. His farm is about one and one-half miles from this store. Back in the 1940s when he was a young boy, the Wood family took up most of that area. They built that store, and then the Woods sold to Ms. Tilman, and Ms. Ti!man sold to the Thomas' and now Mr. Lewis has bought the property. What Mr. Lewis has done is extraordinary. The market was a small, dark cubby hole, and now there is a nice deli and it is a wonderful place to visit. He said Mr. Lewis wants to get the gas pumps off of Route 20 and put them on the side of the building. For EPA reasons, it will be a better situation than what is there now. He needs a canopy over the gas pumps in order to compete. The extension to the building will allow him as a small businessman to compete with the Food Lion that is being built in the area. Mr. Marshall said there is no one in that neighborhood that is opposed to this store. It is an asset to the community. He hopes the Board will support the request. Mr. Marshall then offered motion to approve SP-98-57 subject to the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis said for consistency, in condition #3, the word "may" should be replaced with the word ~shall." The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 3 o 4. 5. 6. Approval of a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board prior to site plan approval; Approval of site plan, which shall satisfy, among all other applicable requirements, the recommendations of VDOT stated in its 2/22/99 letter from J. H. Kesterson to Juandiego Wade (copy on file); The existing house shall not be used as a residence; The size of the country store shall not exceed 4000 square feet; Removal of the wooden storage building adjacent to the store; and The landscape plan shall meet staff's satisfaction to give adequate screening to the Burton property adjacent to the store. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 8:06 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-65. Snow's Business Park (Sign #91). PUBLIC HEARING on.a request to establish contractor's outdoor storage & display in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2B of Zoning Ord. Property consists of 5.7 acs & is loc on E side of Rt 742 (Avon St) opposite Mill Creek South. 7%490, P35X. Znd LI & EC. Scottsville Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to utilize an existing fenced area on the property for outdoor storage and display. It is anticipated that the site will be used by contractors to store bulky materials such as pipe, wire, vehicles and other materials. This use is by special use permit because the property lies in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The use is permitted by right in the underlying LI district. The ARB reviewed the request for its impact on the Avon Street Entrance Corridor. They expressed no objection to the proposed use as long as any conditions imposed on the 000059 March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)~ (Page 13) special use permit did not limit the ARB's review of the final Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 2, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-65 subject to one condition. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak first. Mr. Robert Snow said this started about two years ago. He had a piece of vacant land where he thought he might build four small buildings, and put some people to work. He did, and the buildings are well screened. In a couple of years, the buildings will not be seen from Avon Street. Mr. Marshall noted a sentence under "Site Plan" recommendations reading: "The western side of the chain link fence would benefit from additional landscaping to screen its northern end from view along the Entrance Corridor." (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 8:09 p.m.) Mr. Snow said he has already addressed that requirement. He has started planting pine trees, on the rise, which are eight to ten feet tall. They already appear to be of a huge size. Ms. Humphris noted a letter dated February 19, 1999, stating the ARB's recommendations for site plan approval. No. 7 states: ~The chain link fence shall not be fitted with green slats." She said the ARB's staff report (Attachment D to the staff report), on page 4, No. 2 says: ~The addition of green slats in the chain link fence would help screen the items being stored," and the answer was: ~The chain link fence is identified as a 'green slat privacy fence'." Mr. Snow said when he met with the ARB they said it made the fence too monotonous with the green slats in it and asked that they be taken off. Mr. Cilimberg said the report Ms. Humphris is reading is the staff's report to the ARB. The ARB's recommendations are actually in the letter dated February 19, 1999. Ms. Thomas asked how many contractors will be able to take advantage of these buildings. Mr. Snow said it will be four people. Ms. Thomas said when there are home occupations which are not appropriate to where they are located, it is a good idea to have storage in a place such as this. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-98-65 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.) Use shall not commence until approval of a site plan which complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) as stated in a letter dated February 19, 1999 (copy attached). Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-68. Brown's (Sign %44). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow construction of a 24' x 42' canopy to cover existing gas pumps in accord w/Sec 6.4.2 of the Zoning Ord which allows for the expansion or enlargement of an existing building or structure. TM128, P92A. Property consists of 2.055 acs & is loc at 2724 Irish Rd (Rt 6) about 300' from Rt 627. Znd RA & located in EC. (This site is not located in a designated growth area). Scottsville Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He began by handing out photos taken after the Planning Commission meeting. He said the area is rural in character. It is located on March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 000060 a primary road with no other businesses in the immediate area. Route 6 has been designated as a State Scenic Byway. He said the applicant was required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to replace the gas storage tanks, so is taking this opportunity to protect his petroleum customers from the weather by construction of a canopy. The gas pumps will shift slightly back from Route 6 to allow the canopy to be centered over the pump islands and cover vehicles on both sides of the island without encroaching into the right- of-way. The ARB has approved the location of the canopy. Mr. Cilimberg said at the Commission's meeting, a property owner to the north of the property expressed concern about visibility of the canopy from his home. The Commission added a second condition to'help address this concern. That condition was not correctly stated in the letter to the applicant, but actually should read: ~White pines be planted in a 15-foot double, staggered row of four to six-foot height along the edge of the pavement behind the canopy, or that an equal number of trees be planted off- site on the adjacent property owner's property if that is mutually agreeable to Mr. M~Cauley, Mr. Brown and the staff." The Commission then recommended approval of SP-98-68 subject to two conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said since the Commission's meeting on March 2, staff had found that there has been no'mutual agreement as to planting on the adjacent property owner's property, so any planting would need to occur on the edge of pavement behind the canopy. He said the photos show that it is a limited area. Mr. Bowerman asked the width of that area. Mr. Cilimberg said it is probably no more than five feet and would not take a double, staggered row of trees. It is also fill dirt so one has to be cognizant of the trees ability to survive in such a location. It may require that the planting take place at the base, or below that fill area, which would require much more growth in order to provide screening. It would take a much longer time for the screening to be obtained. Ms. Thomas asked about the letter from the Virginia Department of Transportation which is not mentioned in any of the staff's recommendations. She noted that the letter recommends that ~islands be constructed to define entrance and the pump fueling station be at a minimum of 12 feet from the right-of-way line.~ Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has agreed to the moving out of the right-of-way, and while VDOT did recommend the islands, after discussion with VDOT staff, they agreed that it would be acceptable without the islands as long the pumps were moved out of the right-of-way. Ms. Humphris said in the minutes she had seen the difference in the condition Mr. Cilimberg just reported to the Board, and the letter to the applicant. She asked if Mr. Cilimberg was saying that since there is no agreement among the parties, the condition needs to remain as stated in the letter and not as stated in the minutes. Mr. Cilimberg said the effect is that the Commission's recommended condition gives the option, but because there is not an agreement, that option does not exist. Mr. Bowerman said it could be one row of pines. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks one row will be the only alternative. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Cilimberg to reword Condition No. 2. Mr. Cilimberg said because there is no agreement, he would suggest that there be one single row of pine trees spaced at ten-foot intervals. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak first, and opened the public hearing. Mr. Seth Warner said he is the architect who worked with Mr. Brown on the ARB submission. He has talked to staff about the tree issue. There is not much space behind the pavement, and there is a lot of grade, falling off dramatically. It can be stabilized, but to have the best effect from those trees, one would need to make that decision on site. Mr. Wade of the Planning staff is familiar with the location. Mr. Donald McCauley said he is the adjacent property owner to the rear of Brown's Mini-market. There has been no agreement on the trees because he was not notified until last week that there was going to be anything done on the site. He is a builder by profession, and bought his house (built in 1911) seven years ago and spent three years redoing it. He took a property that was an eyesore and sunk a lot of money and sweat into it. It is losing it's 000061 March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) country atmosphere. He does not particularly want the trees on his property, but the best place for them is at the top of his hill. That is the only way that a four or six-foot tree would block his view in the next ten years. Mr. McCauley said there is 18 acres of land adjoining him and there was a special use permit issued for family field recreation on that site. Some information provided by the County's Parks & Recreation Department was erroneous. The County donated material to be used on that property, so Mr. McCauley now has a scoreboard and a backstop for four months of the Summer within 45 feet of his house. With this new canopy, he is losing the whole country feel of his house. When he brought up the question of the field before this canopy became an issue, he was told by one of the Supervisors that he should sell his property before it lost any more value. 'Tf the trees are planted on his property, who would be responsible for them? If the trees are planted on his property in the double row for 15 feet, there is a section that would block off view of the store. He will get an estimate from Waynesboro Nursery, and if he is the one that has them planted, the Nursery will guarantee that the trees will grow. If the trees are not on his property, and he has to see the store, his lawyer will handle the next phase, although he hopes it will not come to that. He loves the store and understands the reason they need a canopy. It just seems that every time something goes on in the neighborhood, he is the only property owner who is adversely affected. Mr. Mike Brown said he and his wife purchased the store in 1984. The property was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Townsend Carey for about 50 years. In the early 70's they turned the store over to their son, who continued to operate the store for about 10 years. Then, Mr. Brown purchased the store. The prior owner had allowed people to loiter and drink on the property, so it was not a ~bed of roses." They also had a hang out place across the road, but with the help of the Albemarle County Police they were able to get that resolved. His heart goes out to Mr. McCauley who is concerned about the family field, but he has nothing to do with that property. He also disagrees with that use. He said Mr. McCauley does not live there, it is a rental property. He understands people being concerned about the value of their property. When you turn property into rental property, it is devalued somewhat. Mr. Brown said he has worked closely with County staff and tried to work closely with the ARB. The Planning Commission suggested that pines be planted, and he is willing to agree to work with staff to have those trees planted. He asked that the Board approve the permit. Ms. Thomas said from looking at the photos, it appears that it will be hard to plant any trees on the Brown property that will do any shielding. She asked if Mr. Brown would consider actually having the trees planted on the neighboring property. Mr. Brown said he had not thought about having the trees planted on Mr. McCauley's property. He knows that along the edge of the pavement is not a good spot for planting. He then showed some photographs to the Board members. Mr. McCauley asked to make another statement. He said he does not live on his property. It is rental property. He wants to state that the reason he does not live there, and it has been reported to the Police, is that when he objected to the field, a young man called his house and threatened to rape a woman in a white house on the hill. Objecting to anything in the neighborhood is not what he wants to do since it is not in his best interest to do so. That is why they moved. Mr. Brown said they circulated a petition that was handed to the Planning Commission at its meeting. There were 405 signatures of customers who come in the store daily, and others living in the community, who strongly support this petition. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowerman said the issues being discussed are site plan issues. The request before the Board tonight is a request for a special use permit for the canopy. Mr. Davis said it is a nonconforming use now, so the permit is for the use with a canopy. He asked if this request would receive administrative' approval, or go to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Cilimberg said he was not sure, but it is subject to site plan review. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. McCauley agreed to have trees planted on his property and they were the same cost as trees planted on Mr. Brown's property, March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) OOO062 and the two of them agreed, could such an agreement be accommodated? Mr. Cilimberg said he believes that since the intent is to have screening on the back, there should be a condition in the special use permit specifying either planting along the rear or along the property line. Mr. Bowerman said he did not want to be specific since he did not know what would happen. Mr. Cilimberg suggested saying ~an equivalent planting either on the rear of the paved area or on the adjacent property, to meet the satisfaction of staff." Mr. Marshall said he does not see what good it will do to plant trees on Mr. Brown's property. Mr. Martin suggested that they be planted on the second knoll next to the road. Mr. Bowerman said he did not want to address anything that specific because he does not know what would be correct. Ms. Thomas asked if wordings'as worked out is agreeable to Mr. Brown[ Mr. McCauley and staff. Ms. Humphris said that is not exactly what Mr. Cilimberg said. He was not addressing a mutual agreement, he was addressing what would satisfy staff. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board wants the screening, the condition can be worded so as to provide for either that screening behind the paved area, or an equivalent amount of screening on the adjacent property. That would be provided to the satisfaction of staff. Mr. Martin said he would not say "behind the paved area", but rather, ~in the direction of the paved area." He thinks the second knoll near the road might be an appropriate place to plant. Mr. Cilimberg said it could state "to the north of the paved area on the property." Mr. Marshall said he does not believe that trees will grow high enough in that area to block the store from view. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Marshall would care to make a motion based on how he sees the situation. Mr. Marshall said he would first like to say that Mr. McCauley is his nephew, but that will not stop him from doing what he thinks is right. He has known Mike Brown and he has been a good neighbor and solved a lot of problems in that area. This store is a definite asset to this community. He would hope that Mr. Brown and Mr. McCauley could come up with something to plant up on the hill. He thinks Mr. McCauley's real problem is with APC© and not Albemarle County. He does not think the Board can put a condition on Mr. Brown requiring him to legally plant trees on Mr. McCauley's property. He then offered motion to approve SP-98-68 with only Condition No. 1 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Martin asked the Clerk to call the roll. Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris said they wanted further discussion of this request. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Marshall felt there should be no screening required. Mr. Marshall stated, ~no." Before adding a condition requiring screening, first make sure the requirement will work. Why plant trees that do not screen? Mr. Bowerman said that is why he left it flexible so staff, at site plan stage, could handle it when information was available. Mr. Marshall said if it can be worked out that is fine. He knows the land and does not believe it can be worked out. Ms. Humphris said that is why she felt the condition as stated by Mr. Cilimberg the very last time, was correct. It will be to the satisfaction of the staff. After studying it, if the staff finds it cannot be done, then staff will say, ~it's to our satisfaction that it not be done." Mr. Marshall said he would agree with that. He would amend his motion to leave it to the staff's approval. Ms. Humphris suggested using the wording that Mr. Cilimberg gave the last time. Mr. Marshall said if it can work, okay. If it can't work, then it won't. He does not believe it will. Mr. Perkins said he thinks trees can be grown in that area. Mr. Martin asked the County Attorney if there was enough information in the record in the event there were possible lawsuits in the future, that the intentions of this second condition are clear enough. Mr. Davis said ~yes." Mr. Martin said there is a motion on the floor that SP-98-68 be approved with two conditions, the second condition as outlined by Wayne Cilimberg. He asked that the roll be called. Roll was called, and the motion carried by t.he following recorded vote: March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 000063 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Improvements shall conform with those listed on the plan approved by the ARB dated 1/27/99; and Screening to the north of the paved area behind the canopy or equivalent plantings on McCauley property (Tax Map 128A2, Parcel 2) to the satisfaction of staff. (At 8:45 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 8:52 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 12. SP-98-69. Blue Ridge Community Church (Signs ~41 & 40). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend SP-86-42 to allow construction of 4000 sq ft sanctuary bldg in the future on the site of the former Camp Lake Saponi in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM21, P32B. Property consists of 19.679 acs & is loc at the end of Lake Saponi Terrace, E of Rt 29 N near the Greene County line. Zoned PA. (This site is not located in a designated growth area). Rivanna Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progess on March 1 and March 8, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is requesting permission to expand an existing special use to allow 250 people to attend church at the site, for approval to construct a 4000 square foot sanctuary building in the future, with the existing buildings being used for supporting uses. The apartments will be used for offices, Sunday school rooms, and one apartment for a watchman. The existing, detached home will be used as a fellowship hall. is the church's plan to move into this facility on or about April 1, 1999. It Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 2, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-69, subject to the five conditions recommended by staff. With no further questions for staff, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak first. Mr. David Butt, Pastor of the Blue Ridge Community Church, spoke. He said he was formerly the Pastor of Christ Community Church in Charlottesville, and there were about 70 people making the commute into town from the Ruckersville and Earlysville areas every Sunday. They decided to plant a church in the area so they would be a local church rather than a commuter church. They have been meeting at the Ruckersville Elementary School while looking for property. This site has been used by two different congregations in the past as a church. They found that there was a special use permit on the property, and they have pursed that permit. It is their intent to use the structures as they exist for church usage, and to eventually construct a sanctuary connecting the two existing buildings. They desire only to be a local church. Mr. Martin opened the public hearing at this time. Mr. Bill Bailey said he is a Realtor and has been marketing portions of Lake Saponi for about ten years. Lake Saponi was designed by Fulton Bishop many years ago to have multi-uses. It has duplexes with commercial at the front of the property. There was a school for handicapped children on the property at one time. The portion of the property in question tonight was for a meeting house and a campground. It has covenants. It was specified that it be used for multi-uses, such as churches, or places of worship. He knows the people who wish to buy the property and knows they will be of no detriment to the community. He encouraged the Board to approve this application· Mr. William Washington said at one time he lived in a low-income neighborhood, but when the church came into the neighborhood, it was a blessing. It changed the neighborhood when people starting going to church, and the criminals moved out. He said Mr. Butt helped him financially when he was unemployed, so he has nothing but good things to say about what the church wants to do. March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 00006'4 Mr. Butt asked the people who came with him to this meeting in support of the request to stand (about 15 people stood). With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin said this property lies within his district. He would like to support the request and asked that a Board member make a motion for approval. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-98-69 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms Thomas, Mr~.-Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 2 o 3 o No building permit shall be issued without prior written approval of the septic disposal system by the Health Department. The septic disposal system shall be designed to adequately serve a congregation of 250 persons; The sanctuary building shall not exceed 4000 square feet. The actual size of the sanctuary building shall be subject to, and may be limited by, the parking space-to-fixed seats or area of assembly ratio applicable to churches set forth in Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; The construction of the sanctuary building shall commence within five years after the date of approval of this special use permit and shall be completed within one year after construction is commenced; Ail residential uses, except for the use of one apartment unit to provide housing for a watchman, shall be discontinued prior to the issuance of a building permit; and This special use permit authorizes only the construction of a 4000 square foot sanctuary and an increase in the size of the congregation from 100 to 250 persons. Any other use including, but not limited to, a child day care facility, shall require a separate special use permit or an amendment of this special use permit. Agenda Item No. 13. SP-98-72. International Center for Jefferson Studies (Sign %39). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow establishment of private research library associated w/existing residential & research facilities, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ord which allows for private schools in the RA. 77492, Pl. Property contains 78.5 acs & is located on the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Rt 53) approx 2 & 1/2 mi from its inters w/Scottsville Road (Rt 20 S). Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation proposes to construct a 15,000 square foot research library at Kenwood, formerly a private residence that has, since 1992, housed the International Center for Jefferson Studies. Mr. Cilimberg said the Monticello research department currently occupies the gatehouse at Monticello, which at approximately 700 square feet has become too small for this use. Under the special use permit proposal, the five research department employees would move to the new library, which would also provide office space for five library staff and ten scholars involved in the on-going Jefferson Papers project. The location and design of the library (connected by a breezeway to the main house) would allow visiting scholars to conveniently use it while working and/or staying at Kenwood. Between eight and ten visiting scholars are anticipated to be the maximum and they would be provided with study carrels at the library. The Center's regular staff of four or five, and eight interns, would continue to use the main Kenwood residence, which would also host various Center events. A maximum of 40 people are expected to use the facilities at Kenwood on a regular basis. c March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Cilimberg said Kenwood was constructed between 1939 and 1941 as a private residence and weekend retreat for Major General and Mrs. Edwin M. Watson. Soon after, the ~Roosevelt Cottage" was constructed for visits by President Franklin D Roosevelt, whom the General had served prior to retiring from military service. In 1970, upon the death of Mrs. Watson, Kenwood was left to the University of Virginia with stipulations addressing future ownership by the University, education use and a life estate to the remaining family member, Ms. Ellen ~Enie~ Nash. In 1992, a lease was negotiated allowing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation long-term use of the property, and a general upgrade commenced in 1993. In 1995, the International Center for Jefferson Studies began as a joint venture between the University and Memorial Foundation; plans were initiated for a new library at the site in 1996. The property was transferred to the University Real Estate Foundation in 1998. The property is eligible for Historic Register designation, and the owner and lessee have indicated that it is under consideration. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed two-story library has been designed to appear as a single level from the vantage point of Kenwood and the adjacent property to the west, the points from which the upper portion will be most visible. Although both levels will be visible from Route 53, the building is not anticipated to have a significant visual impact since the vertical and horizontal alignment of the road do not allow for prolonged viewing of the site by motorists. Staff notes that in the event of regularly scheduled conferences or large meetings where the number of participants exceeds available parking, the applicant has indicated that buses or other vehicles could be used to transport participants to and from the site. Under those circumstance, additional parking could be made available at Monticello or the Visitor's Center, thus avoiding the need to use overflow parking. The elevation of the terrain makes it visually undesirable to park vehicles outside of the designated lots although this has been done in the past without negative reaction from the neighbors. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 16, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-72 subject to the five conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak first. Mr. Dan Jordan said he is the President of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation which owns and operated Monticello. He is present tonight with their landscape architect, Will Rieley, and they will answer questions. At the outset, he commended the Planning staff, and especially Susan Thomas. He said they were outstanding to work with. They believe the staff report is very detailed, and they endorse the staff's findings. Mr. Jordan said the Foundation's mission is preservation and education. That mission rests on good research, and that requires a library. The current library is in the gatehouse as one enters the grounds, and it is very small and inadequate. The proposal is to build a new library which is virtually next door to Monticello. The University of Virginia owns the property, but they have leased the property to the Foundation on a long-term basis. He believes this will do a lot of good for Monticello and for the community, and they would appreciate the Board's support of this request. Mr. Bowerman asked if there were provisions in the lease agreement that could continue the use beyond the 50 years. Mr. Jordan said it is a 35 year lease with a rollover provision, so it could go up to 99 years. He said that was very important for them in consideration of putting money into the project. It was also important in seeking outside support. Mr. Martin said he spent many afternoons at Kenwood, and is glad to see Ms. Nash's home going to something as nice of this proposal. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed befOre the Board. Mr. Marshall said he thinks this is a wonderful thing for the academic community, not only locally, but through the states. He then offered motion to approve SP-98-72 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 000066 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 4 o The International Center for Jefferson Studies, including the proposed research library, shall be operated in accordance with the Attachment to Application for Special Use Permit for The International Center, for Jefferson Studies dated December 14, 1998, and initialed "SET 1/11/99," and the letter from Michael B. Merriam dated February 2, 1999, herein included as Attachment B;. No subdivision of the property shall occur without amendment of this special use permit; A turn and taper lane shall be constructed from the entrance to the western property lane, in accordance with the January 14, 1999, letter from VDOT; and All uses associated with the International Center for Jefferson Studies shall comply with the commercial setbacks set forth in Section 21.7 and the lighting requirements of Section 4.17.2(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 14. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, Sec 3-224, Panorama Agricultural and Forestal Dist, to add 7.12 acs. TM31, P21E. Loc on the E side of Reas Ford Lane (Rt 661) near Earlysville. Znd RA. Rio Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a request to add 7.12 acres to the Panorama District which contains 265+ acres in eight parcels. It is a wooded area with the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed which is being added. It has been recommended for approval by the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee, as well as the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Kervin Ridgley said he and Sharon Davis own the property they want to add to the district. They want to contribute to the County's effort to have open space. They grew up in places like this which are no longer anything like this. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article 2, Districts of Statewide Significance, Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 3-224, known as the Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. (The Ordinance is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 99-3 (3) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE 2, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article 2, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby Approved by the March 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) amended and reordained by amending Section 3-224, Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 3-224. Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the ~Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 31, parcel 21E; tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 12Q, 12X, 12Y, 12Z; tax map 45A, section 1, parcel 27. This district created on April 20, 1988, for not more than ten years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008. (6-14-95; Code 1999, §2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(3), 3-17-99) Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: August 19, 1998. No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. There were no other matters presented. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn to March 22, 1999, 1:00 p.m. With no further business to come before the Board, at 9:15 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn this meeting until March 22, 1999, at 1:00 p.m. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Cha i rman