1998-05-13May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000 43
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 13, 1998, 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, 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. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris,
seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept the
remaining items as information. Roll was called and> the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item No. 5.1. Temporary/Part-time Position - Addressing Intern.
Staff from the Department of Planning & Community Development and the
County Executive's office has identified the need for additional staff
resources to support the County's Enhanced 911 addressing initiatives. A part
time/temporary Addressing Intern position is being proposed to work at up to
40 hours per week through August, 1998 at $7.50 per hour.
The less than satisfactory performance of our Enhanced 911 consultant's
work in the areas of field verification, mapping and address assignment has
necessitated that staff verify and clean up a tremendous volume of data.
At this time, there are approximately 2,000 rural addresses that have
not been assigned street style addresses by the consultant. Staff has been
working to perform the field work required to verify many of these addresses
and has made significant progress (staff has assigned approximately 4,600
addresses since receiving operational control of the Building Locator System
in November, 1996), but finds that additional manpower is warranted to bring
closure to the project in a reasonable amount of time.
The funds required to compensate the proposed temporary position would
be collected from the 911 revenues designated for this project.
A total of $4,840 (15 weeks = 600 hours x $7.50/hr + FICA) is required
from Enhanced 911 revenue to cover the Addressing Intern position through
August, 1998, at which time the impact this position has had on addressing
initiatives will be reevaluated to determine whether or not it is necessary to
secure additional funding to continue the position.
Board approval using available Enhanced 911 surcharge funds to supple-
ment costs associated with staffing the aforementioned position.
The Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation, by the
above shown vote:
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000244
(Page 2)
FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98
NI3MBER: 97060
FUND: GENERAL/E911
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR E911
ADDRESSING INTERN.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 81017 130000 PART TIME WAGES $4,500.00
1 1000 81017 210000 FICA
344.00
1 1000 81017 270000 WORKER'S COMP. 8.00
1 4101 31042 930000 FUND TRANSFER 4,852.00
TOTAL $9,704.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 19000 190212 RECOVERED COST Egll-PLANNING $4,852.00
2 4101 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 4,852.00
TOTAL $9,704.00
Item No. 5.2. Surplus Donation - Request by Town of Scottsville for
County to donate spare vehicle.
Staff has received a request from Sara Genthner, Town Administrative
Official for the Town of Scottsville, requesting that the surplus vehicle that
was recently removed from service in the Sheriff's Department be donated to
be used as a spare by the Town of Scottsville for its Sheriff's Deputies. The
vehicle has in excess of 130,000 miles on its odometer and has been stripped
of all of its police equipment by the Sheriff's Department. The vehicle has
been determined to be designated as surplus by the County Sheriff's Department
and would normally be auctioned at the County's next regular auction of
surplus items. The Town does not want to use it as a front-line vehicle given
the extensive mileage, but is looking for a spare vehicle when one of their
two cruisers need to be in the shop for repairs.
Staff has no objection to this request and recommends that the Board
donate the vehicle to be used by Scottsville as a spare vehicle.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the request to donate the
surplus vehicle to the Town of Scottsville, as recommended by staff.
Item No. 5.3. 1998 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, Was received for informa-
tion.
The report indicates that during the first quarter of 1998, 142 permits
were issued for 142 dwelling units. In addition, nine permits were issued for
mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500 for a
total of $22,500.
Item No. 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes of April 26, 1998,
was received for information.
Item No. 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Board of Directors meeting of March 23, 1998, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-97-41. U.S. Cellular Red Hill (Signs#76,77&
.................... , ..... ) (DEFERRED TO AUGUST 12, 1998.)
No action required.
Mal; 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
000245
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-98-01. Western Ridge Phase 2. (Signs #93&95).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone approx 14.5 acs from R-4 w/ proffers to
PRD. The purpose of this rezoning is to modify the front setbacks permitted &
to allow use of Zero Lot Lines. TM56,P93 (pt). Located w/in Western Ridge
Dvlp on S sd of Rt 240 in Crozet. (This area is recommended for Neighborhood
Density Residential [3-6 du/ac] in the Community of Crozet.) White Hall Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff raised two concerns
regarding the PRD which they tried to address in the staff report: the impacts
of modifying the previously approved plan of development by which new residen-
tial development have relied on in their purchase decisions and the use of the
PRD as a possible circumvention method of previous zoning decisions to provide
for zero lot line style of development. Staff expressed concern that this is
an inappropriate use for a PRD, in that this is just a portion of the larger
development, but they noted that this is a physically separate portion of the
development, separated from Western Ridge by Park Ridge Drive. The request
allows for zero lot lines in the zoning text amendment, which was deferred by
the Board. Staff recommends approval of this request, subject to acceptance
of the applicant's proffers, provided the Commission and Board are satisfied
that the use of the PRD approach in this case is not circumventing prior
decisions made regarding the use of zero lot lines.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 17, 1998, unanimously
recommended approval of ZMA-98-01 subject to acceptance of the applicant's
proffers, dated May 11, 1998. At the Planning Commission meeting, zero lot
lines were discussed but it was not felt that there was any conflict with the
work of the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee.
Ms. Humphris asked what the differences were between the past proffers
and the one they had today. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the prior proffers,
dated March 4, 1998, listed a 25 foot setback (under 10a) for the front yard,
which was intended to be, and noted by the staff to be, 20 feet. Also, under
10b, which is further clarified in subsections 1 through 6, in the side yard
lists, it is now noted that the setback may be reduced to zero feet on only
one side of the house. Mr. Davis stated that one further difference was that
the proffers were now properly signed by the owner-in-fact, Highlands West
Ltd., Partnership. Mr. Martin stated that the proffer now requires that the
house could not be placed in a corner of the lot and could only abut the
property line on one side; Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
Mr. Marshall then asked if the applicant had any comments to add.
Mr. David Petit was in attendance on behalf of the applicant and stated
that Mr. Cilimberg had succinctly represented what the applicant wants. Mr.
Petit pointed out that the subject property is isolated by a railroad on the
north, is bounded on the east by Park Ridge Drive which is significantly
higher than the development, on the south by a continuation of Park Ridge
Drive and on the west is the proposed Route 240/250 connector, and as such,
the property is a self-contained parcel of land. The property is presently
zoned R4, which provides for 25 foot front setbacks and 15 foot side yards
which can be reduced to 10 feet if certain fire standards, which are met in
this case. Under present zoning, 58 single-family attached residences could
be constructed on this property. The applicant is requesting a PRD with
certain proffers, a reduction of the front yard setback to 20 feet with
permission to include an attached garage within that setback no closer than 10
feet of the front property line and no openings other than the front garage
door. They are also requesting a side yard modification to allow one wall of
residence to be located within the side yard limitation, including on the lot
line itself, with the other side having an unchanged setback of at least 10
feet. The applicant would, under the requested zoning, be able to reduce the
side yard setback as described, provided he complied with all building and
fire protection requirements. Any wall located within three feet of the lot
line would have no openings, except as permitted by the Building Code and
there would be a minimum separation of six feet between each building. In any
case where a building was within six feet of the lot line, the developer would
create a six-foot wide easement adjacent to the building for access for fire
protection, maintenance and other purposes. As originally contemplated in the
development, the residents of Phase II would have access to the amenities in
Western Ridge, such as a pool, clubhouse and tennis courts.
Mr. Petit explained that the applicant wants this rezoning because home
000: 46
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
buyers prefer detached homes. The developer can develop this property as
approximately 48 detached homes, under the current zoning. The requested
zoning would permit the developer to create 58 single-family detached homes on
this parcel, which is the same as was contemplated by the original zoning with
attached homes, so it does not increase density.
Mr. Petit stated that the rezoning would allow the growth areas and
infrastructure to be more effectively utilized, helping the Western Ridge
Subdivision achieve the density which the Board of Supervisors required for
this development. This rezoning is not inconsistent with the expectations of
the adjacent homeowners, as the original R4 zoning would have allowed for
either detached or attached homes to be built. This plan has been discussed
with the Western Ridge Homeowners Association and he is unaware of any
opposition to the plan. The only impact on the Crozet area is that it will
efficiently utilize the growth area, helping achieve the density that the
Board of Supervisors desired. Mr. Petit did not see the use of PRD with other
conventional zoning as a problem, as it is consistent with other actions in
Forest Lakes or others containing a mix of PRD and conventional zoning, and
the tract of land is separate from the rest of Western Ridge. Nor did he see
this as a circumvention of the Board's decision to defer action on the zero
lot line zoning text amendment, but rather as a request that the Board utilize
existing authority to modify setbacks in a planned development context. In
summary, if the Board approves this request, the developer will have the
flexibility to build what home buyers would like to buy, the developer would
have the ability to meet the density requirements which the Board previously
requested and this site would be effectively utilized in the growth area.
Ms. Thomas noted that there appeared to be a lack of any buffer along
the connector, although that might be due to it being a conceptual sketch.
Mr. Petit answered that the developer had yet to provide any plans about a
buffer. He stated that there is a 110 foot right-of-way reserved on that
property, which provides some buffer on either side of the paved area itself
and this issue should be brought up at the site plan approval stage. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that any lots which would abut the right-of-way would be
double-frontage lots, requiring additional screening of the rear side. Mr.
Perkins pointed out Proffer 7. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that proffer might
satisfy the situation. Mr. Davis noted that what was contained in the proffer
was the minimum buffer, that more might be required.
Ms. Thomas mentioned a need for playground and sidewalks. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that sidewalks are indeed something that can be required as part of
the platting and that there exists a path that runs on the western side of
Park Ridge Drive, creating an opportunity for anything developed in this
section to be connected to that path. Ms. Thomas asked whether there was a
requirement for a playground for this number of lots and was informed by Mr.
Cilimberg that there was no such requirement in the County's ordinances,
although the development provides for recreation areas.
Mr. Perkins asked what the anticipated price range of these homes was.
Mr. Petit answered that the price range was estimated to be $135,000 on the
low end and $210,000 on the high end, although this is just a general outline,
and that is certainly lower than the traditional single-family homes.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing and asked for
comments.
Mr. Richard Berman, a resident of western Albemarle, stated that he did
not understand the difference between R4 and PRD and that it seemed to him
that the rezoning would allow the developer to put homes back to back to give
them more side room on the outside. As he understood it, the builder had
originally said that he would build some lower-priced homes and he wanted to
know how many of those lower-priced homes had been built, and if not, how can
we take their word on anything else. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he did not
know anything about price, but that, because it was part of the zoning, we can
count on everything that had been proffered. Mr. Berman stated that he saw
zero lot lines as a way of increasing density and did not want to see Route
250 West look like Route 29 North.
Mr. Martin stated that, as far as he knew, the only places in Albemarle
that you can buy a new dwelling for less than $100,000 is in Briarwood, which
are t'ownhouses with zero lot lines running right into Route 29. He then
stated that, if you are going to live in Albemarle, affordable housing is in
the $100,000 to $120,000 range. Mr. Berman then said the increased housing
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
was going to increase costs to the taxpayers from infrastructure needs and
such.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Humphris noted that the staff report and proffers mention the front
and side yard, with no mention of the back yard. Mr. Cilimberg replied that a
rear yard setback is mentioned at the end of the proffer (6c), listing a
setback of 20 feet.
Mr. Perkins noted that the rezoning does not appear to make a lot of
difference in the overall scheme of things, that the development will probably
still have problems reaching the minimum set by the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to
approve ZMA-91-01 subject to the eleven proffers submitted by the applicant.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 5-11-98 ZMA# 98-01 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 56E. Block 1, Parcel A
(Portion)
14.5 Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the
owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the condi-
tions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These
conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed
that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and
(2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.
The following proffers (1-4, 6-9 & 11) are the same as proffered and approved
by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors for ZMA-94-14 on March 20, 1995.
Owner will reserve a 110 foot strip of land in the approximate location
shown on the Plan as "proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector," (the
"Reserved Area") and will dedicate the Reserved Area to public use
without compensation at such time as the County of Albemarle or the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has acquired the balance of
the right-of-way required to build the proposed Crozet Route 240/250
connector road utilizing the Reserved Area. Reservation of the Reserved
Area shall not be deemed to prohibit owner, successors, and assigns from'
constructing a vehicular access at grade across the Reserved Area
sufficient to permit the full development and use of the adjacent parcel
labeled "INDUSTRIAL SERVICE" on the Plan. Reservation of the Reserved
Area shall not be deemed to prohibit owner from constructing a two-lane
road in the Reserved Area in a manner which would not interfere with
future construction of the connector road, or making other temporary use
of the Reserved Area not inconsistent with such construction, as
determined by VDOT and then-existing County ordinances. No residential
driveways will access directly onto the 110 foot right-of-way,
Owner will construct a soccer field in the approximate location shown on
the Plan. Owner may provide recreational facilities in lieu of soccer
field at owner's option, subject to administrative approval of the
County of Albemarle Planning Department. (As of March 4, 1998, this
proffer is completed).
Owner will clean and repaint (interior and exterior, excluding attic)
the existing two-story residence building on the property, and place all
heating, electrical and plumbing systems therein in good working order,
trim shrubbery and clean up the yard, and convey such building to the
Homeowner's Association for use as a clubhouse, to be operated and
maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The two-story house may be
used as a sales center/clubhouse until all lots are sold. (As of March
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
5o
8 o
000248
4, 1998, this proffer is completed).
10.
Owner will reserve an average of a 50-foot wide greenbelt along each
side of the stream in the area identified as "GREENBELT" on the Plan, to
the extent that the greenbelt would be within the boundaries of the
property. No buildings shall be constructed or erected within the
greenbelt without the consent of Albemarle County and it shall be
preserved in its natural state except for the building of pedestrian
trails and general beautification including, but not limited to, the
clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, planting of
trees and shrubs, cleanup of the stream and use for utilization for
stream crossing for pedestrian or vehicular access in accordance with
VDOT standards to adjacent properties. Owner does not proffer to
maintain the greenbelt, and may convey the greenbelt to the Homeowners
Association subject to the reservation set forth herein. The proffer
shall not be interpreted to prohibit the location of utilities and
easements therefore in the greenbelt. The reservation of the greenbelt
will provide that at such time as the County of Albemarle commits to
establish and maintain a public area, park or pathway, and assumes
responsibility for maintenance thereof, the greenbelt area, upon request
of Albemarle County, will be dedicated by owner or its successors to the
County, subject to the right of use for pedestrian trails by residents
living on the property and subject to the right to cross the greenbelt
for vehicular access and underground utilities and easements by owner or
its successors.
Development within the Western Ridge development will be limited to a
maximum of 277 single-family attached and detached dwelling units on the
property. The attached and detached units will be located approximately
in the areas shown on the Plan. The number of units permitted in the
area of Tax Map 56E, Block 1, Parcel A shall be limited to a maximum of
199 units.
Internal roads on the property will be located approximately as shown on
the Plan, Additional internal roads will be located pursuant to normal
subdivision review.
Owner will plant at such time "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector"
is built, or before, two rows of white pine trees 15 feet on center
(four feet to five feet tall) along the east side of the "Proposed
Crozet Route 240/250 Connector" 110 foot ~'right-of-way", which is
contiguous with single-family attached or detached as is shown on the
Plan.
The reservation set forth in paragraph one above and the possibility
that a four lane road will be constructed within the Reserved Area shall
be clearly disclosed in the subdivision covenants and restrictions and
on the subdivision plat for all lots adjacent to the Reserved Area.
Owner will develop the property to accommodate a minimum of 230 units,
when combined with any units included in the existing Western Ridge
subdivision.
The setbacks within the area shown as Phase 2 on a plan titled "Western
Ridge" prepared by Muncaster Engineering and last revised 2/13/98 shall
be:
So
Front: 20 feet except that the front yard may be reduced to 10
feet for attached garages for a maximum lineal distance of 28 feet
provided that there shall be no openings except for garage doors
in any exterior wall of the enclosed structure parallel to the
street between 20 feet and 10 feet from the front lot line.
b°
Side: 10 feet except that the side yard may be reduced to zero (0)
feet on one side in accord with the following provisions:
Ail such structures for which separation and/or side yards
are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with the
current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Budding
Code;
In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire
official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
000249
insure compliance with the provisions of this proffer,
inclusive but not limited to deed restriction disclosures,
and other such instruments and the recordation of the same
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
County;
No structures shall encroach on any emergency accessway as
may be required by the Albemarle County fire official;
No structures shall encroach on any utility, drainage or
other easement, nor any feature required by the Zoning
Ordinance;
5o
The wall of the dwelling unit, parallel to the zero lot
line, located within 3 feet of the lot line shall have no
windows, doors, or any other type of openings unless permit-
ted by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code;
As necessary in a particular case a perpetual wall mainte-
nance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the
zero lot line property such that, with the exception of
fences, a total width between dwelling units of six feet
shall be kept clear of all structures. This easement shall
be shown on the final plat and incorporated in each deed
transferring title to the property. Roof overhangs may
penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of
twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be designed,
with standard gutters, such that water runoff from the
dwelling placed on the lot line is directed to standard
downspouts on the front and back of the dwelling. Building
footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a
maximum of eight (8) inches.
c. Rear: 20 feet.
11.
The proffers contained herein supersede and are offered in lieu of all
previous proffers offered by owner with regard to the property. All
previous proffers are withdrawn.
Highlands West L.P. by
Craig Enterprises, Inc. (Partner)
Hunter E. Craig (Signed)
Signature of All Owners
Hunter E. Craig
Printed Names of Ail Owners
5-11-98
Date
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-10. Charles Pietsch - The Meeting Place (Sign
#90). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to use an existing fac for a supporting
commercial use [27.2.2(14)], as an off-site meeting fac for area businesses.
Znd LI. TM32,P17E. Located at intersec of St Rt 649 (Airport Rd) & Doble Ann
Dr in the Community of Hollymead. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The staff has recommended
approval of the request with conditions. The proposal meets the Zoning
Ordinance requirements as a supporting commercial use when the land encom-
passed in the light industrial district as a whole is considered to be the
primary use.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 7, 1998, unanimously
recommended approval with conditions. Since the Commission's meeting the
conditions have been elaborated upon and are reflected in a letter to Mr.
Pietsch of April 27, which lists conditions intended to cover the nature of
this particular use as a supporting use in that industrial location.
Ms. Thomas asked about condition 3b, that private nonbusiness events are
prohibited. Her impression of the Planning Commission minutes imply that the
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
0002S0
Commission did not think the use should be limited. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that the condition is there because the Ordinance does not allow for that type
of use in a LI District as a private nonbusiness type use. Under Section Nine
of the Ordinance, when someone is in an industrial district and proposing a
secondary use such as this, the use is to be supportive of the industrial
activities and business activities of the area. The Ordinance does not allow
the use to be used for a general Commercial facility. The language was
specifically added to make sure the applicant was aware of those conditions.
As he explained to the Commission, this language was originally written with
the anticipation of application to new uses, not existing uses. For this to
operate in a totally commercial nature, it would have to be rezoned.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant can engage in nonprofit activities, if
they do not charge for an event. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is a use
issue, not a charge issue, so the Zoning Administrator would determine it
based on the use.
Ms. Humphris noted that there may be a conflict between the second and
third conditions, unless language is added to the second condition that
~except that only those uses allowed in condition #3 will be permitted." Mr.
Cilimberg suggested added that language to condition #2.
At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to speak. The
applicant declined to make any comments.
Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing and asked for any comments.
No members of the public wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed and
the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve
SP-98-10 with the four conditions as approved by the Planning-Commission and
the adjustment to condition two that would include uses only as identified in
condition three. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Applicant shall comply with all site development plan requirements
of Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited
to provision of septic/sewer, parking and fire protection;
Facility shall be operated in general accord with the applicant's
justification dated 2/23/98 and initialed "SET (Attachment C)",
except that only those uses allowed in condition #3 will be
permitted;
3 o
The facility shall be used only to support uses which are located
within the Industrial Service, Office Service or the Institutional
Land Use areas within the Community of Hollymead as designated in
the Land Use Plan adopted June 5, 1996:
The uses of the facility authorized by the special use permit are:
Meetings, including training and other business related
activities, such as award ceremonies, business breakfast,
lunch and/or dinner functions, and sales meetings held by
any of the occupants of the above-cited land uses; and
Professional association meetings. These meetings are not
required to be hosted by current occupants of the above-
cited land uses but must be associated with the permitted
uses therein.
Private or non-business events such as weddings, religious ser-
vices or private parties are prohibited;
Facility shall be limited to 2,000 square feet in size.
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-11. Southgate (Signs #43&44). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to extend SP-96-32, originally approved on October 9, 1996, to
permit excavation in the flood plain in order to reestablish a pond on approx
12.009 acs. Znd HC (30.3.5.2). TM76,P12A. Located on N sd of Fontaine Ay
Ext (Rt 29 Business), near the intersect of Rt 702 (Reservoir Rd). Samuel
Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The actual special permit
(SP-96-32) expired on April 9, 1998. There have been two changes since the
initial application was approved: a change in ownership and the impact to the
wetlands has been reduced from 0.9 acres to 0.56 acres. The original condi-
tion five is also no longer applicable as that element has been satisfied.
The recommendation from the staff and the Planning Commission is for approval
with four conditions.
At the Commission's meeting they added language to condition one which
calls for a safety shelf and an addition to condition three to include survey
or biological resources. The request is recommended to the Board for approval
with four conditions.
At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any
comments.
Mr. Michael Matthews, President of Brinkman Management and Development
Corporation, began by sayin9 that he was here 18 months ago asking to reestab-
lish a pond, and has now returned to seek reapproval. The only reason they
have not yet started is that they have taken up time with the approval process
and studying the watershed. He stated that the safety shelf condition was
sprun9 at them at the Commission meeting, and asked that latitude be given
them to work with staff in this context of the wetland pond to come up with a
plan that makes 9ood sense and that is a safe pond for how it is planned to be
used.
Ms. Thomas asked how he would envision a safety shelf requirement that
was not a safety shelf requirement. Mr. Matthews stated that he hopes the
pond grows up naturally and is surrounded by vegetation. The pond is not
designed as a stand-alone storm pond, but as a natural area and a safety shelf
would be an unnatural addition.
Ms. Thomas then stated that the condition require the Engineering
Department to approve the plans and details of the dam and there may be some
latitude, but there is still a requirement for something that the Engineering
Department would regard as a safety shelf, even if the width varies in places.
She also noted that there was a residential neighborhood nearby, makin9 the
safety shelf a necessity to safeguard young children. Mr. Bowerman then asked
why ten feet was considered a magic number in this case to which Ms. Thomas
replied that the exact number wasn't an issue as much as the existence of some
sort of safety shelf. Mr. Matthews added that, at this time, it was impossi-
ble to even get within ten feet of the pond itself, due to the foliage
surrounding it, making it much less necessary than with your average storm-
water pond.
Mr. Martin suggested the Board leave the condition as is, and let the
applicant see if he could work out something with staff. Ms. Humphris asked
if the Engineering staff would mind if the condition was left open as to the
definition of a safety shelf, to let them work with Brinkman to determine what
it should be. Mr. Cilimber9 said that he thought they needed to consider the
intent of the requirement, that in the usual case of a dammed stream, you are
9oing to have a new ponded area in which you are artificially adjusting the
waters' edge, so that if someone falls off the bank, they can stand up. Since
this is a wetlands area that is not immediately accessible, it would require
some additional activity in the area to create a safety shelf, and he is not
sure how important that safety shelf is, in comparison to the disturbance to
the area.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Ms. Humphris' suggestion be followed, to put a
period after the words "safety shelf" and let staff work out the definition.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the words ~safety shelf" may lead Engineerin9 to
require a ten foot shelf, to which Ms. Thomas suggested using the phrase
"safety provisions" instead. Mr. Davis asked if there would be a site plan
required for the construction of the dam and facilities. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that he did not think a site plan would be required for the dam,
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000; 5
although Engineering plans would be required.
Mr. Davis suggested that since the Planning Commission has initiated the
requirements, the safety shelf condition could be made waivable by the
Commission as a part of the Engineering plan. Ms. Thomas replied that would
still make the applicants have to make one more trip back to the Planning
Commission, and suggested just requiring Engineering approval and safety
provisions. Mr. Martin added that they could just have Mr. Cilimberg bring
this issue back on the consent agenda, as well, after talking to the Engineer-
ing staff.
Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing and asked for any comments.
There being no members of the public wishing to speak, the public hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve
Sp-98-11 with the change of wording from "safety shelf" to "safety provision"
in condition one. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Albemarle County Engineering approval of plans, details and supporting
computations for the proposed dam and safety provision;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of computations and documentation
to verify effects on the existing FEMA delineated flood plain;
3 o
Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Mitigation Plan in accordance
with the Water Protection Ordinance, including a survey of biological
resources; and
Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-05. Farmington Country Club (Signs $72&73).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend existing SP-97-28 to locate indoor tennis
bldg on 273.472 acs. Znd RA [10.2.2(4)]. TM60E2,P1. Located on N sd of Ivy
Rd, Rt 250 W. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April
27 and May 4, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The applicant is request-
ing permission to add an indoor tennis facility to Farmington Country Club.
This area has been designated for some time as a rural area and the Club
itself is on the Virginia Landmark Register. Staff does not feel the request
to add the facility negatively affects resources or existing services in the
rural areas. There could be an affect on water supply resources which can be
addressed as part of the site plan. Staff does not see any substantial
detriment to the surrounding golf course, as it is sited to minimize impact to
adjacent properties. Since it is in an area of lower elevation, the building,
although it will be 39 feet high, will only be approximately 16 feet above Old
Mill Road. This is not a new proposal for a golf/tennis club; it already
exists there and the area has been non-agricultural for some time and is
expected to continue. Staff finds this request to be in compliance with the
special use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and approval is recommended
with two conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at ~s meeting on March 24,
1998, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-05 s~bject to the two condi-
tions suggested by staff
Ms. Humphris noted that she was a member of Farmington, but felt that
she could deal with the issue fairly and would participate.
At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any
comments. Mr. Peter Sheeran, from Sheeran Architects, stated that Mr.
Cilimberg had done a good job in describing the project. He said that he had
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000;853
examined a number of other sites in significant detail and noted that although
this is an indoor facility, Farmington's membership is limited membership, as
the maximum number of people at one time are 24 people. He stated that they
had gone to great lengths to work with adjacent property owners and keep them
informed concerning what sites they were looking at. He felt that this site
is the preferable one of the three sites considered. He stated that they are
proposing an extensive landscaping plan and this project will be a great
addition to Farmington. He has been working on this project since 1992, and
the project has been scaled back what was approved on a preliminary basis by
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the water and sewer issue were linked to such an
extent that the tennis facility without the extension would not be a viable
alternative for the Club. Mr. Sheeran stated that they were not linked, if
the jurisdiction area request was denied, this request could still proceed
forward.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Planning Commission mentioned a mutually
agreed-upon landscape plan with the adjacent owners. Mr. Sheeran replied that
there are three homeowners relatively adjacent to the property and they have
met numerous times with all three. There is currently an eight-foot high
fence that encompasses and screens the maintenance facility. As part of the
solution for the site plan, the gate will be closed seven days a week with the
exception of deliveries. Another complaint is that overflow summer employee
parking occurs above the upper-most building. They plan to make a continua-
tion of the fence that will screen those cars from the sight of those driving
by. They have also had comments about the design of the fence. While they
are not going to replace the fence, but they will include a fence that will
effectively screen the entire left side of facility and will match the color
of the building.
Mr. Marshall noted that the land slopes down considerably from the
highway. Mr. Sheeran replied that they were presently building an earth berm
that will screen the maintenance facility from houses on the other side
Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing and asked for any comments.
Mr. George Dygert rose to speak on behalf of the Phillip and Karen Ryder. Mr.
and Mrs. Ryder owns the home that is closest to this proposed facility. They
are not opposed to the proposal; however, they are concerned about the lack of
landscaping and screening on the north side and behind the maintenance
facility near their property. He noted that there is an existing fence in
that area, but that it far less attractive than the one that will be built on
the other sides. He also noted that there is almost nothing between the
facility and the Ryders' property in the way of landscaping. Mr. Ryder would
like to see substantially more landscaping on the north side of the mainte-
nance area, which is between his property and the facility, the existing fence
replaced by a more attractive fence and the maintenance area thoroughly
cleaned up as part of this project. His other concern was for the width of
the road that passes by the tennis facilities, that the increased traffic may
cause a problem.
Since no other members of the public wishing to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas noted that the preliminary site plan was already approved by
the Planning Commission, so asked what was within the Board's ability to do
with regards to what the Planning Commission referred to as a mutually agreed-
upon landscape. Mr. Davis replied that the Board has the ability to impose
conditions, but the conditions need to be reasonably related to the use being
approved and establish a nexus between the proposed use and any landscaping
that would screen an existing building. The nexus would have to be connected
to this tennis facility. He does not believe that staff's analysis have made
the nexus. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the special use permit and site plan
were before the tennis facility and that this issue is somewhat off-site from
that; the staff focused on the tennis facilitY.
Ms. Thomas noted that the conditions did not address any site plan
issues, because those were part of the site plan for the tennis facility. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that they were talking in this instance about associated
development to the north that was not part of this plan. Ms. Thomas stated
that it seemed like an internal matter the Club needed to settle with its
neighbors, not something that should be addressed here. Mr. Marshall stated
that he felt this was something that Farmington should address, to which Ms.
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
000254
Thomas and Mr. Davis agreed.
Ms. Thomas stated that she might have some hesitancy about this, because
it is an intensification of use, but since it's happening after adoption of
the Water Resource Ordinance and they are going to have very extensive run-off
control from the facilities, she does not see any real damage to the watershed
from this change.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to
approve SP-98-05 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NOne.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
This permit is for the indoor tennis facility. Any future intensifica-
tion of use would require an amendment to this special use permit; and
2 o
Use of the indoor tennis facility shall be for Farmington Country Club
members, families and guests under the same by-laws of other club
facilities in Farmington.
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING on request to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to the
proposed Indoor Tennis Facility at Farmington Country Club, located on
TM60E2,P1. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg said currently water and sewer service are provided to the
Farmington Club facilities several hundred feet to the west of the tennis
facility. The clubhouse complex was designated for water and sewer service in
1980. The tennis facility, however, is only designated for water service.
These designations all took place prior to the establishment of the current
policy regarding the extension of public utilities to the rural area. Cur-
rently, the clubhouse has privately maintained sewer line and pump station,
which traverses the proposed tennis facility's property and connects to the
Morey Creek interceptor. This request, also is to connect to the Morey Creek
interceptor, not the Crozet interceptor. This property can accommodate septic
fields, so under policy, the request does not meet the County's policy for
extending public utilities in the rural area. The existing club, however, is
within the jurisdictional area for both sewer and water and that this particu-
lar tennis facility can be considered an expansion of the club facilities.
Should the Board feel that this is unique enough to justify amending the
jurisdictional areas, the staff recommends a limited service designation be
provided for this indoor tennis facility only.
At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any
comments. Mr. Peter Sheeran, from Sheeran Architects, stated that Farmington
looked at three sites as far as potential locations. The other sites were in
the ACSA jurisdictional area, however this site will have the least impact on
the historic nature of the club and the surrounding residential areas. The
existing sewer line runs within 50 feet of this building down to the pump
station where it goes to the Morey Creek interceptor. It is a private line
that is owned and maintained by Farmington. In all respects, the tennis
facility is just an extension of the existing facilities. The sewer lines
from the existing maintenance building also tie into the sewer system; if
anything, there was an error in the delineation of the jurisdictional map to
include the maintenance building. When you look at the two conditions under
which the Board can expand a jurisdictional area, the fact that it is adjacent
to existing lines and that there is no danger to public health and safety
argues for tying into the sewer line, rather than putting a septic field in
for a lot more money. In fact, when this project came before the Planning
Commission in 1992, it was the County Attorney"s (Mr. St. John) opinion that
this project would not even have to go before this Board as a jurisdictional
matter, since it was just an extension of existing facilities at Farmington.
This is a unique situation. It will not increase growth. The Health Depart-
ment has already approved a septic system. The demand on the sewer lines from
twelve people to 24 people maximum is negligible.
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
000255
Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing and asked for any comments.
Since no members of the public wished to speak, the public hearing was closed
and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas noted that it is against County policy to have a sewer hookup
in a case like this, and particularly to the Crozet interceptor. This is
unique in that it is to the Morey interceptor. She does not agree that there
is any sort of vested right to a hookup. This is also somewhat unique in that
there are alternative locations where this building could have been placed,
and some of them would have been right next to the present clubhouse and
hence, within the jurisdictional location, but the chosen location is more
preferable from the neighborhood's point of view. The reason to not allow
sewer hookups is that the Board does not want to encourage more impervious
surfaces. Since the decision made above already puts an impervious surface
into the watershed, then it makes more sense to have a sewer hookup to capture
what sewage there is, instead of putting it into the ground. In this particu-
lar case, the septic system is the more damaging decision for the watershed.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to amend
the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional area to provide sewer
service designation to the proposed indoor tennis facility only at Farmington
Country Club.
Ms. Humphris asked what distinguishes this decision from others, other
than being club property. Mr. Davis replied that this decision does not allow
any additional development and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Also, since septic tanks are not favored in the watershed, this is an extenu-
ating circumstance to justify approval of the least environmentally detrimen-
tal way to develop the property.
Ms. Humphris then requested that language be included. Mr. Martin said
this site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not detrimental to
the watershed. He agreed with what Ms. Thomas said, in that there were two
other sites available that has jurisdictional area, but the applicant chose a
site that was a better site. There are not going to be many times when an
applicant can choose between two sites where jurisdictional area is available
but the other is better for other reasons. Ms. Humphris noted that there were
no more people involved, it is the same people using a different facility.
She would, however, be more comfortable if the motion were more inclusive to
protect the Board from having this used as precedent.
Ms. Thomas then suggested amending her motion to state that the permit
would be limited to the one building whose construction had already been
deemed acceptable by the Board's vote. Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not
like that argument. Initially, he was told that there was no linkage between
the approval of the facility and the approval of the sewer hookup. Now, he's
being told that the first approval makes the second a more accommodating use.
He said that this discussion should have been held during the special permit.
Ms. Thomas stated that she regarded the special use permit as regarding
the surface realm, and that with the new Water Ordinance, she was comfortable
with adding these new impervious surfaces that she would not have otherwise.
Now that the building is there, the best way to deal with the sewage coming
from the people using the building is a sewer line. Mr. Bowerman replied that
this sounded somewhat circular to him and both discussions should have been
held together.
Ms. Humphris noted that this was the best site of all possible ones,
because the other ones had a negative impact on peoples homes and historic
preservation. She agrees with Ms Thomas' logic. Mr. Bowerman replied that
this assumed the Board would have approved any of those sites. He would have
been much more comfortable if the special use permit was not being used as a
justification here. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the argument can be made for
any location that if a septic system could be put there, then a house could be
built on that location and that, hence, the ability to hookup to a sewer line
has no influence on the decision to build a house. He stated that the special
use permit needs to be judged on its own merits; the tennis facility could
happen with or without the sewer hookup. If the Board wants to judge the
jurisdictional decision on its own, you need to look at the unique attributes
of the location, separated from the rest of the club facilities which have
full service, with a private service line 50 to 100 feet away, going to the
Morey Creek interceptor.
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
0002:56
Mr. Bowerman suggested that any reference to the special use permit
should be left out of the justification for this decision, so that it stands
on its own merits. Mr. Martin added that part of the justification is that
Farmington had two properties that they could have built on that had jurisdic-
tional area. Mr. Davis stated that he saw a difference between development
that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that which was inconsis-
tent and that approval of this development does signify its consistency with
the Plan. Allowing this property to connect is not contrary to the Board's
policy. Mr. Martin asked whether Mr. Davis saw a problem with the Comprehen-
sive Plan being so inclusive and comprehensive that there are times that it
contradicts itself. Mr. Davis replied that, under the law, the Board is the
one charged with making the final determination of what is and is not consis-
tent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Humphris stated that the motion needs to include some ingredients to
make sure the Board is protected from establishing a precedent. Mr. Davis
replied that identifying the practical circumstances of this location:
existing sewer within 50 to 100 feet of the proposed facility, the property is
in a reservoir protection area better served environmentally by a sewer line
and it is serving development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
as opposed to development which is not favored. Ms. Thomas added that this
hookup would also be to the Morey Creek interceptor, rather than the Crozet
interceptor. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Perkins agreed to add these statements as
amendments to the motion.
Mr. Bowerman noted that, with the Kirtley property, the sewer line was
there, it was in the drainage area of the watershed, however, the existing use
that was there was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the connection
was to the Crozet interceptor, and that would distinguish these two. Ms.
Humphris concurred.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None
(The following justification was used to approve the sewer service
connection to the indoor tennis facility on:)
1)
There is an existing private sewer line within 50 to 100 feet of the
proposed facility and is available to facility;
2)
This property is in a reservoir protection area which is better served
from an environmental standpoint by a sewer line rather than a septic
tank;
3)
The sewer line serves a development which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as opposed to development which is not favored by the
Comprehensive Plan; and
4)
The sewer line connects to the Morey Creek Interceptor rather than the
Crozet interceptor.
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and
reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Section 2.1-4(h)
known as the Hardware Agricultural & Forestal District to add 11.971 acs to
the District. Znd RA. TM88,P29. Located on W sd of Rt 29 S (Monacan Trail
Rd) approx 2 mi N of Rt 708 (Red Hill Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff and the Agricul-
tural/Forestry Advisory Committee have recommended approval. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on April 7, 1998, unanimously recommended approval
of the request to add 11.971 acres zoned Rural Areas to the Hardware River
Agricultural/Forestal District.
Ms. Thomas noted that the property is not located in the Rivanna River
watershed, as was stated in the staff report.
000257
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Marshall then Opened the public hearing and asked for any comments.
No members of the public came forward to speak, so the public hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to amend and
reordain Chapter 2.1 Agricultural and Forestal Districts known as the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal Districts to add 11.971 acres to the District. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 97-2 . 1 (2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section
2.1-4(h), Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(h)
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39B, 4lA, 4lB1,
41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; tax map 74, parcels
26, 28; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F,
27; tax map 87, parcels 3, 10, 13A, 13E (part consist-
ing of 89.186 acres); tax map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A,
6A, 23, 24, 26B, 40, 4lA, 42, 42A; tax map 99, parcels
29, 52. This district, created on November 4, 1987
for not more than ten years and last reviewed on
November 12, 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to
November 12, 2007.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: June 12 and June 19, 1996,
and February 9(A), 1998.
Mr. Perkins stated that he had not read his assigned minutes.
Ms. Thomas stated that she had read the minutes of February 9(A), 1998,
and found only a minor typo, but they were otherwise acceptable.
Mr. Marshall stated that he had read the minutes of June 19, 1996, pages
1-15 (end at Item #10) and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Ms. Thomas asked what happened with the request to the Planning staff
for information on how to make agricultural/forestal districts more valuable.
Mr. Tucker replied that he would look into it.
Ms. Thomas added that next week the Board would be discussing a lot of
cellular towers and asked about the status of the cellular tower consultant.
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
0002Z5
Ms. Humphris stated that the staff is in a price negotiation process with the
consultants selected by the committee.
Ms. Thomas stated that it is becoming evident to her that someone is
needed to deal with water resources outside of the Rivanna Reservoir water-
shed. The Rivanna Authority has requested that David Hirschman work inside
the watershed and not, therefore, deal with things like wells discussed last
week, constructed wetlands, contaminated wells, Key West or the like. The
County, therefore, is relatively unprotected by staff specialty in those
areas. She would like the Board to at least be aware of this or get staff to
cover these rather serious matters.
Mr. Tucker replied that nothing has been finalized yet, the Rivanna
Authority is developing a work program for Mr. Hirschman. Before that final
determination is made, the other area they was looking at is the fees that
they might be amending with the Water Resource Ordinance and Soil Erosion
Ordinance; that might generate additional revenue. A half-time position has
been expanded, in order to add additional staffing to help Mr. Hirschman. The
County may have to look for additional help. He does not have a final
recommendation until he sees the final work program from Rivanna.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had received word from his Albemarle County
Service Authority appointee that the Rapidan Service Authority in Greene
County is presently extending their sewer down Route 29. At some point, they
are going to have to expand their capacity in Greene County, either to build a
new sewage treatment plant or they have been investigating the potential
purchase of the Briarwood sewage treatment plan. He suggested a work session
at the day meeting in June, to discuss the policy implications of these
issues. Consideration is needed in order to tell the appointees to the ACSA
whether they should be considering this or not with Rapidan.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 8:49, motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to
adjourn into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of
Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to boards and commis-
sions, and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters relating to a service agreement and a
cooperative agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
MS. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
At 9:35, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris,
that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board
member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard,
discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None
May 13, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
000259
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. Adjourn. At 9:35, there being no further
business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Approved
by Board
Date ~l~/q~
Initials