1998-06-1700000:I.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 17, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium of the
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: Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II, County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. t. 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. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Ian Wood and several young men from the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints presented a plaque to the Board of Supervisors in special
recognition of Father's Day and thanked the Board for their actions in
supporting families in Albemarle County. He asked their fathers in the
audience to stand, and thanked them for the examples they had set. Mr.
Marshall thanked the young men and said that it was quite an honor.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve
Items 5.1 through 5.3, to defer Item 5.3a and to accept the remaining items on
the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Appropriation: Comprehensive Services Act (Form #97066).
It was noted in the staff's report that on March 4, 1998, staff brought
information to the Board concerning the status of the Comprehensive Services
Act (CSA) Fund and the probable need for additional local dollars to match
State funds for the mandated CSA population, particularly foster care
children. At that time, it was estimated that additional local funds in the
amount of $250,000 might be needed by the end of the fiscal year.
In March, the projected costs for the fiscal year were based on 101
foster care children under Department of Social Services (DSS) custody at an
average cost of $200,000 per month with an additional eight children projected
to come into care by the end of the year. However, since March 4, 13 children
have come under the Department's custody, many of whom are currently in high
cost emergency shelters or residential placements. Monthly costs are now
running approximately $250,000 per month and, as of the first week of June,
the Department had received approximately $20,000 in additional invoices for
services to these children. The average number of children in foster care for
FY 1997 was 63.6. The average for FY 1998 is 90.7.
Although the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) has taken
several measures to curtail spending in this program, the number of children
entering foster care continues to increase, as does the severity of the
children's emotional and behavioral problems. The percentage of cases
requi~ing specialized care has grown steadily since 1994 costing the system an
average of $30,000 per year per child. Temporary care for seriously
emotionally disturbed children with a history of aggressiveness, chronic
runaway behavior and/or suicidal behavior can cost as much as $300 per day to
maintain them in a secure setting in order to stabilize them enough to
transition to a less restrictive and less costly setting.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night. Meeting)
(Page 2)
000002
To provide these State-mandated services to children, the CSA requires
that localities match State funds at the same ratio as their Health Department
matching rate. For Albemarle, the match rate is 45 percent local funds, 55
percent State funds. Each year the State allocates a pool of funds at the
beginning of the fiscal year to each locality based on a 1994-95 base year
with slight adjustments for growth. For FY 1997-98, Albemarle's initial pool
fund for mandated services was $1,349,307, $603,114 in local funds and
$746,193 in State funds. Since most localities are not able to meet the
mandated services within their initial pool allocation, the State allows
localities to submit supplemental funding requests based on the CPMT's best
estimate of projected costs for the remainder of the year. For FY 1998, the
CPMT submitted a supplemental funding request in March to the State for an
additional $1,077,847 to address the dramatic rise in Albemarle's foster care
caseload. The required local match for those State supplemental funds is
$485,031 or 45 percent of $1,077,847. A second supplemental request of
$150,000, which requires another 45 percent local match of $67,500 is now
needed to address the increase in volume and intensive services in the foster
care caseload for the remainder of the fiscal year. Therefore, the combined
first and second supplemental requests to the State require an additional
$675,316 in State funds matched by an additional local-mandated share of
$552,531 for the FY 1998 fiscal year.
For the required local share, the County has $127,696 in local funds
that were budgeted over the original pool match requirement in the Department
of Social Services FY 1998 budget and have been kept in the fund as a reserve.
Therefore, the remaining local dollars that the County needs to appropriate
from the General Fund prior to the end of the fiscal year are $424,835. The
Department estimates that it will be returning approximately $140,000 in local
dollar savings to the County's General Fund at the end of fiscal year 1998,
which can be used to replenish this General Fund appropriation to CSA.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #97066 in the amount of
$1,100,151, which includes $675,316 in additional State funds and $424,835 in
additional local matching funds from the General Fund Balance for mandated
services provided under the CSAo Although the necessity of this year-end
appropriation brings the CSA issue before the Board at this time, staff is
Prepared to present a full overview of the CSA program and its issues and
problems at a day board meeting, if the Board so desires.
(Ms. Humphris said the Board was told in March the number of children in
foster care under Social Services was escalating at such a rate that the
County would have to allocate $250,000 more. As the end of the fiscal year
nears, there are an additional 13 children in care, many of whom are currently
in high cost emergency shelters or residential placements, which will require
an allocation of over $424,000 as the County's share. It is unknown why there
is such an increase in the number of children entering the system. Ms. Thomas
suggested discussing this matter in depth at a day Board meeting, since it is
the fastest growing item in the budget and the County has no control over the
funds the State has mandated that the County spend.)
By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation
was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98
NUMBER: 97066
FUND: C.S.A.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMPREHENSIVE
SERVICES ACT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1155153120581101 RES THERAP FC IV-E
1155153120581102 RES THERAP FC OTHER
1155153120581401
1155153120581501
1155153120581601
1155153120581701
1155153120581801
1155153120571221
RESIDENT SPEC ED
NON-RESIDENT FC PREVENT
NON-RESIDENT SPEC ED PRIV DAY
SERV-RESIDENT
SERV-NON RESIDENT
RESERVE MANDATED SERV
TOTAL
$580,000 00
305,000 00
25O,O0O O0
81,204 00
50,000 00
(6,030 00)
(32,327 00)
(127,696.00)
$1,100,i51.00
000003
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meetlhg)
(Page 3)
REVENUE
2155124000240609
2155151000512016
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
STATE C.S.A.
TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
$675,316.00
424,835.00
$1,100,151.00
Item 5.2. Pilot Family Support Program/Bright Stars Program at Cale
Elementary School.
It was noted in the staff's report that a major goal of the County's
Human Services Plan has been to design and develop prevention and early
intervention programs that will begin to provide more long-term solutions to
the rising increases in child abuse and neglect cases, foster care children
and juvenile delinquency cases witnessed in the County. In 1995 the Board of
Supervisors approved the Bright Stars program, an early intervention program
for '~at-risk" four-year old children and their families that attempts to
increase learning opportunities by addressing risk factors that affect school
performance. At risk factors are based on a variety of criteria that include
such things as parental illiteracy, poverty, domestic violence, substance
abuse, chronic illness, criminal activity, developmental disabilities and
behavior, oral language, social or personal difficulties. The Bright Stars
program now operates in three elementary schools, Stone Robinson, Agnor Hurt
and Greer.
In FY 1996-97, during the budget process, the Board approved in addition
of one Family Support Worker in the Department of Social Services to work with
at-risk children and families in the elementary schools, primarily at Stone
Robinson and Greer.
At this time, the Department of Social Services in collaboration with
the School Division, has an opportunity to move forward with an expanded
prevention and early intervention pilot program focused in the elementary
schools with a particular concentration on the schools that have Bright Stars
programs. This program and a request to expand the Bright Stars program to
Cale Elementary School is the subject of the staff's report which is on file
in the Clerk's Office.
No additional funds are required for this pilot program, since existing
State and local dollars will be used to draw down the Federal dollars.
Although the program is still in its developmental stages, staff estimates
that approximately $500,000 in Federal funds can be drawn down using existing
State and local resources, such as those currently funding the Bright Stars
program and other prevention programs (such as Growing Healthy Families).
A second component linked to the pilot project is a request to the Board
to fund the local share of a fourth Bright Stars program at Cale Elementary
School. State preschool initiative funds in the amount of $22,376 are
available to initiate a new program, which would.require local funds in the
approximate amount of $45,000. Similar to the other three Bright Stars
programs, the Cale program would serve 16 at-risk children and their families
by providing educational opportunities for the children and wrap-around
services to the parents, if needed. The School Division will provide
transportation, food service, maintenance and classroom space within the Cale
school facility. Cale Elementary has the highest number of eligible four-year
olds whose families are on TANF, as well as 36 percent of the students on the
free and reduced lunch program and 20 percent of the students in special
education.
Concerning the addition of a fourth Bright Stars program at Cale
Elementary, staff requests Board approval of approximately $45,000 in Fund
Balance revenues to fund the local share of the program costs. If the Board
approves, an appropriation form will be submitted in July, along with the
pilot family support program appropriation. If the Board does not wish to
move forward with the pilot Family Support Program, staff would withdraw the
request for the fourth Bright Stars program at Cale. However, the Family
Support pilot program can move forward without the addition of the Cale
program, although the Federal matching funds for the total program would be
reduced by approximately $67,000.
(Mr. Perkins said it might be cheaper if the County provided
scholarships to existing day care programs rather than expanding the program
into the school system. Ms. Humphris said the Board would have to carefully
consider such a decision, since obtaining additional State funds may come
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
forth only if the program is in the School system,
00C004
but that this may le worth
|
looking into. Mr. Martin said he would like to see the program in every
elementary school. Mr. Marshall said that he agreed with both Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Martin and asked Mr. Huff to have staff investigate the County's Options.)
By the above recorded vote, the staff was requested to present i
additional information concerning this subject at the Board's meeting!of July
1, 1997.
Item 5.3. Resolution to take Forest Lakes South, Aspenwood (SUBZ92-087)
into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following
resolution was adopted by the recorded vote shown above:
RE S 0 LUT I Oin
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision,
Aspenwood (SUB-92-087) described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated June 17 1998 fully incorporated herein by
· ·
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet
the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South
Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated June 17, 1998, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution
be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
2)
3)
Aspenwood Road from Station 0-10, right edge of
pavement of Ashwood Boulevard, State Route 1670
(Station 48+73), to Station 11+29.84, rear of cul-d
e-sac, 1139.84 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded
5/11/93 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book
1307, pages 43-58, with a right-of-way width of 60
feet, with additional sight easement recorded
10/10/97 in Deed Book 1647, page 430, for a length
of 0.22 mile.
Banyon Court from Station 0+17, right edge of pave-
ment of Aspenwood Road (Station 6+08), to Station
1+84, rear of cul-de-sac, 167 lineal feet as shown
on plat recorded 5/11/93 in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 1307, pages 43-58, with a right-of-way
width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.03 mile.
Foxtail Pines from Station 0+10, right edge of pave-
ment of Aspenwood Road (Station 8+90), to Station
2+81.97, rear of cul-de-sac, 271.97 lineal feet as
shown on plat recorded 5/11/93 in the Office of the
000005
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, in Deed Book 1307, pages 43-58, with a
right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.05
mile.
4)
Alder Road from Station 0+17, left edge of pavement
of Aspenwood Road (Station 7+26), to Station
3+33.17, right edge of pavement of Indian Laurel
Road (Station 2+42), 316.17 lineal feet as shown on
plat recorded 5/11/93 in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Book 1307, pages 43-58, with a right-of-way
width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.06 mile.
5)
Indian Laurel Road from Station 0-40, rear of cul-
de-sac, to Station 8+60.53, left edge of pavement of
Mahogany Lane, 900.53 lineal feet as shown on plat
recorded 5/11/93 in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed
Book 1307, pages 43-58, with a right-of-way width of
50 feet, for a length of 0.17 mile.
6)
Winterberry Court from Station 0+13, left edge of
pavement of Indian Laurel Road (Station 4+10), to
Station 2+36.46, rear of cul-de-sac, 223.46 lineal
feet as shown on plat recorded 5/11/93 in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1307, pages 43-58,
with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length
of 0.04 mile.
7)
Mahogany Lane from Station 0-45, rear of cul-de-sac,
to Station 3+00.75, rear of cul-de-sac, 345.75
lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 5/11/93 in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe-
marle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1307, pages 43-
58, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a
length of 0.07 mile.
Total length - 0.64 mile.
Item 5.3a. Proposal to address areas of concern, re: ZTA-98-03,
Lighting Ordinance (Deferred from June 10, 1998).
The Board members did not have a final copy of the amended Lighting
Ordinance in front of them, so deferred action on this agenda item until the
end of the meeting.
Item 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 5, May 13 and
June 2, 1998, was received for information.
Item 5.5. Memorandum dated June 10, 1998, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
re: Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan - Esmont Park Property.
It was noted in the staff's report that the County Department of Parks
and Recreation requested that the Planning Commission review for consistence
with the Comprehensive Plan a proposal to create a community park on
approximately ten acres on Route 627 across from the Esmont Elementary School.
The site is currently wooded with a rolling topography. The Porters Village
development by Habitat for Humanity of six lots is located adjacent to the
site Five acres of the proposed park site would be residue property from the
property acquired from Habitat for Humanity.
Staff recommended that the Commission find the proposal consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The location is general consistent with the overall
objectives and service standards of the Community Facilities Plan. While it
is not entirely consistent with the Land Use Plan in terms of location within
a designated Development Area, the Land Use Plan intends that new development,
along with uses that support development, be directed to specific Development
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000006
Areas. However, this objective should not be interpreted so strictly as to
detrimentally affect the viability of existing rural communities such as
Esmont.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9, 1998, unanimously
found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. No action is
required of the Board. This memorandum is furnished for information only.
Item 5.6. 1997 Development Activity Report for the County of Albemarle
as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was
received for information.
Item 5.7. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional
Jail Authority Board meetings of February 5, March 12 and April 21, 1998, was
received for information.
Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated June 5, 1998, from Janice D. Sprinkle,
Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Gifford Childs, International Cold Storage,
re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION - Assembly of Modular Buildings, was received for
information.
Item No. 5.9. April 1998 Financial Report for General, School and
Capital Funds, received for information.
It was noted that General Fund revenue projects were revised as of
December 31, 1997. Estimated Food and Beverage Tax revenues of $1.216 million
were added to the projections. General Fund expenditure projections have been
revised to reflect a two-percent holdback for operating expenses. Education
expenditure projections have been revised to reflect the release of the full
7.5 percent operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment.
Item 5.10. Letter dated June 8, 1998, from the Honorable James S.
Gilmore, III, Governor, to the Honorable Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., providing
notice that Albemarle County has been awarded a Community Improvement Grant in
the amount of $400,000 for its Community Development Black Grant project.
Letter was received for information.
(Ms. Humphris noted the County had attempted to obtain this grant for
years and she is quite pleased that Albemarle County has finally achieved it.
Mr. Marshall noted that once all the money comes in, the County stands to
receive a total of $750,000.)
Agenda Item No. 6. CPA 98-01, Mountains; ZTA 98-05, Mountain Overlay
District (MOD) and related provisions; ZMA 98-10, Mountain Overlay District
(Deferred from June 10, 1998).
Mr. Cilimberg said a memorandum setting forth the staff's summary and
recommendations had been sent to the Board in response to comments made at the
previous week's public hearing. There were five areas which provided
potential change in the MOD to further clarify issues raised. He then asked
Ms. Mary Jo Scala, Senior Planner, to explain those issues and advise the
Board of a suggestion brought from the public.
Ms. Scala noted that there have been five changes from the June 8 staff
report. 1) Delete Section 30.8.5, Private Roads, in its entirety, since the
Engineering Department has said that the current private roads regulations in
the Subdivision Ordinance are more restrictive. 2) Revise Section 30.8.4.c to
permit a lot by special use permit in whole or in part within the Ridge Area.
This revision was suggested by the County Attorney and does not alter the
intent, but allows a lot to straddle the Ridge Area for example if the ridge
is small or narrow. 3) Clarify the definition of ~building site" in Section
3.0 by the addition of the words "based on" added before "contour interval of
20 feet." This change clarifies that 20 feet is the uniform standard, even
though the topographical map available may show 20, 20 or 40-foot contour
internals. 4) The County Engineer requested that part of Section 4.2.01,
Constructed Embankments, be revised to replace "a vertical rise or fall of two
feet" with "a vertical rise or fall of five feet." This change provides that
000007
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
embankments smaller than five feet in height will not be subject to the
regulations. 5) The Board may wish to consider deletion of Section 4.2.01,
Constructed Embankments, and to consider addressing driveway regulations
separately at a later date. This section requires minimum 2:1 side slopes on
driveways and building pads throughout the County. Although 2:1 slopes are
currently required as a matter of Engineering Department policy, this section
would make the requirement a Zoning Ordinance regulation. Driveway
regulations were originally proposed for safety and soil erosion prevention
reasons. This section addresses only soil erosion. Questions have been
raised as to whether it requires additional undesirable grading and clearing,
and whether a minimum requirement for a driveway gradient should have been
included.
Finally, in order to be consistent, small areas adjacent to main
mountains have been designated as ridges, even though they are much lower in
elevation than the ridge on top of the larger mountains. A citizen
recommendation is that sites lower than 100 feet above the minimum elevation
for a MOD not be considered ridge areas, and staff agrees. This would mean
that ridge areas would only be areas within 100 feet from the top of the
larger mountains.
Ms. Thomas stated that it makes sense to her to adopt the Comprehensive
Plan amendment because it has not been the subject of negative comments and
provides guidance for what the Board might do next. It does not say what kind
of strategies the Board must adopt, although it recommends possibilities.
During research, she came upon the minutes of the September 16, 1971, Board
meeting, where Mr. Gordon Wheeler moved an addition to the Comprehensive Plan
listing the conservation objectives and saying that the mountain slopes should
be protected. This has been a part of the Comprehensive Plan, but has never
been moved on in any significant way. This amendment would send a message to
the community that the Board is doing what most speakers seem to want the
Board to do--take care of the mountains. She would be embarrassed to ask
staff or the citizens to do further work without amending the Comprehensive
Plan.
Motion was made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Chapter 2, the Natural Environment Open Space
Resources, CPA-98-01, Mountains. Ms. Humphris added that she appreciated the
work done by staff and citizens to create this Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Cilimberg how he felt about the prospect of
adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment without adopting the MOD Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Open Space Plan was adopted as part of the
Comprehensive Plan several years ago. Adopting the Comprehensive Plan
amendment would further define a policy statement about the importance of
protecting the mountains, as well as goals, objectives and strategies that
would be related. Until an Ordinance is put into place, however, there would
obviously be no regulatory aspect implemented. However, it sets the framework
for staff's reference in terms of the importance of the mountains and
activities that occur there. The Comprehensive Plan amendment comes into
consideration when determining whether a special use permit should be granted
in mountain areas, since part of a special use permit review relies on the
intentions of the Comprehensive Plan for a particular area. If there is going
to be further review of ordinance amendments, it is always good to have the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan as a basis for review.
Mr. Bowerman asked if adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment would
allow the Board to consider strengthening regulations for the location of
towers in the Mountain Resource Area. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that it would
certainly do so, and said it was called to staff's attention by Mr. Davis that
the Comprehensive Plan amendment must be addressed if the Board plans to adopt
any ordinances.
Mr. Marshall said he has a problem with the Board hearing protests from
the public when something is not done according to the Comprehensive Plan, and
then the Board simply revises the Comprehensive Plan. The Board does not
always approve a special use permit just because of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board often votes against a special use permit due to concerns about the
health and safety issues involved in a particular case. He would like to see
all three items passed at once. He would like to see a Mountain Ordinance but
have it go to the Mountain Committee first for suggestions. Voting for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment would be "putting the cart before the horse." It
would say the Board would have to have a Mountain Ordinance, which may not be
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
000008
the case. There may already be something in place to deal with the issues.
Mr. Marshall said that he would not support the motion. He would prefer
to send it back to the Committee. There are many private property owners who
did not know about this and hence, did not have input. There are families in
the audience who do not agree this is a good ordinance. He would support a
Mountain Ordinance to keep speculators away from the County, but as long as
Albemarle County is getting good publicity it will keep bringing people to the
area. He said he had asked Mr. Ivan Romanesko to give him information. Ms.
Thomas asked whether this was relevant to the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Marshall replied that it was, since it was all related: the amendment, the
MOD, the whole thing. He was afraid that if the Board passed the Comprehen-
sive Plan amendment tonight, it would have to go along with the Mountain
Ordinance later on.
Ms. Humphris said the Comprehensive Plan amendment is something the
Board has asked for and wanted for years. It simply states the importance of
mountains to the County; it does not obligate anyone to vote for anything. It
needs to be in place under any circumstance to deal with towers and other
matters. Mr. Marshall said that every time an issue comes before the Board,
the Comprehensive Plan is treated as though it were law. He would rather do
all three things together to make it law, and suggested sending it back to the
Mountain Committee, adding property owners as members of the Committee. Ms.
Humphris said there was a motion on the floor involving solely the
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Martin said the Board and the Planning Commission have been focused
on the ordinance. He had been out of town for the last few days and had not
read Ms. Thomas' E-mail message. He had heard she was going to do this and
had read her comments in the newspaper. Some people may say that this is a
delay tactic and she may indeed be right that there is a need to move forward
on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but he has been focused solely on the
ordinance. Before the vote on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, he would like
some time to focus on that, and asked that it be postponed until the next
meeting. Mr. Marshall concurred and said that he believed the public thought
the Board was going to look at everything together.
Ms. Thomas said, if it were the intention of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin
to kill the ordinance, then certainly they should vote against the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Marshall said he was not against the
ordinance, he just wanted one that would work. Ms. Thomas said if the Board
members vote for it, they sincerely mean that they want some respect shown to
the mountains. There should be some embarrassment asking staff and the
Committee to continue working on something that has been worked on for quite
some time, if there is no intention to ever look seriously at an ordinance or
to do something for the mountains. The Comprehensive Plan amendment will be
useful in dealing with towers. The Board should have taken this action months
ago to give some guidance to the Committee and community. A vote not to adopt
the Comprehensive Plan amendment will make it difficult to get the kind of
devoted work the Board has asked for to continue.
Mr. Marshall said he did not want to vote against the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, but he would vote against it if he had to vote tonight. Mr. Martin
said that everything has been considered together until now. It might be a
good idea to separate them, but he would have liked some advance notice. Mr.
Bowerman said it has been in the packet since the beginning of the discussion.
It codifies the Board's values and has no specific guidelines; it is simply a
statement of intent. He sees no harm in adopting the amendment.
Mr. Martin said that it was initiated in 1971 with the first
Comprehensive Plan and asked why it could not wait a few more weeks. It might
be appropriate to separate the issues, but he sees no need to rush on this.
At this point, Mr. Bowerman moved the question.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis how, if this amendment were adopted, it
would affect a special use permit for land located in the MOD. Mr. Davis
replied that it would simply provide the Board with a guide to form an opinion
as to whether the special use permit was appropriate development. One primary
consideration when looking at a special use permit is whether it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Perkins asked what the sentence saying that the Mountain Protection
Plan was attached as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan meant. Mr.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000009
Cilimberg said that the Mountain Committee document would be used as a
reference document. Mr. Martin asked if this meant the document in front of
the Board would have to be cleaned up. Mr. Cilimberg said ~no~, the two
documents go together, there is no need for a change.
Roi1 was called and the question was called by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Roll was called, and the motion to adopt CPA 98-01 failed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas
NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins
Motion was made by Mr. Perkins to send the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and the Mountain Overlay District ordinance back to Mountain Committee, saying
that-he felt that it needed more work. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin,
after amending it to say that the two should be separated and have the
Comprehensive Plan amendment come back to the Board at the next meeting at
which all members will be present, with the ordinance following later. Mr.
Perkins acquiesced to the amendment.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board needs to spend more time on this
to perfect it, because of the amount of public input. She felt that the Board
should have a work session with staff, not send it back to the Committee. Mr.
Marshall asked where input from the landowners was going to come from. Mr.
Perkins said the Committee needs to see those comments as well. Mr. Martin
said the people who spoke at the public hearing should be included. Some
people did not realize that the ordinance involved them, since it includes
more than just the top of the mountains. After listening to many of the
comments made, he felt that if the goal were to keep unsightly homes out of
sight, the best place is sometimes on the ridge, because it is less obtrusive.
He has seen situations where following the ordinance would lead to worse
situations than violating the ordinance, so what is being achieved today may
not be the Board's objectives. Now that people know the discussion concerns
them, he would like to see them involved at some level. Mr. Bowerman felt it
was the Board's responsibility and that the Board should be involved, rather
than sending it to Committee.
Ms. Thomas said the Committee and staff should provide advice to the
Board as to the best process to follow. An issue that embroils so many people
deserves a process that allows the Board to investigate it thoroughly. The
Committee was not charged with holding public hearings and though the
Committee members were to keep the people informed, some did a better job than
others. She would like to have staff and the Committee advise the Board on
the process as well as content. She would prefer a work session with the
Board, as it is the Board who has to be satisfied. Staff has done a
magnificent job of trying to please everyone.
Mr. Davis cautioned the Board that, under its Rules of Procedure, since
the vote on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment failed, it is a denial of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Before the Board does anything further with it,
there should be a motion to reconsider CPA-98-01. If that motion passes, the
Board would be in a position to defer it for further study; otherwise, CPA-98-
01 may have to start over. The Board needs to deal with the Comprehensive
Plan amendment issue at this meeting in order to keep it alive. Mr. Marshall
asked if this would put the Board in the same position as they were in
tonight, with not having the necessary information on the Mountain Ordinance
and Mountain Overlay District. Mr. Davis replied that the Board could defer
it as long as they want. A deferral would give the Board as long as they need
to gather information.
Mr. Martin suggested that Ms. Thomas make a motion to send the ordinance
back to staff for further recommendations on where the ordinance should go for
further study. Ms. Thomas suggested that the word "process" be in the motion,
so that staff can make recommendations on what kind of process should be
followed. Mr. Perkins noted that some of the Committee members have requested
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
0000 0
to be included in any further study, which is why he wanted it sent back to
them. Ms. Thomas said that she did not exclude that, but she feels that what
is needed first is an outline of the best process to be followed. Sending it
back to the Committee is a way to either kill it, defer it indefinitely or
begin an interactive process with community input. She did not want to send
it back to the Committee without any guidance on what they were to do with it.
Mr. Perkins withdrew his previous motion.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to
reconsider the vote on CPA-98-01. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer
CPA-98-01 until it can be reconsidered in a work session on August 5, 1998.
Mr. Martin asked if this was going to be the next meeting that the
entire Board would be present and was told it would be. Mr. Marshall
suggested that staff not put that much more on the agenda that day. Mr.
Bowerman asked who the Board would be discussing the Comprehensive Plan
amendment with, public, staff or Committee members. Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin said to just make it a work session, and discuss the particulars
afterwards. Mr. Bowerman asked what would be done at the work session, other
than just talk amongst themselves. Mr. Martin said that if he had any
specific questions, he would ask them of staff before the meeting. Ms.
Humphris suggested that if anyone had any questions on CPA-98-01, they send
them to staff. Mr. Martin noted that there were other meetings between now
and August 5 at which questions could be asked. Mr. Marshall suggested that
certain other people be invited to attend the work session with the Board.
Mr. Martin said that he had no problem with others being invited to the
meeting. Mr. Marshall said there were quite a few people whose opinion he
wished to have, and wanted them to be at the work session so the Board could
ask them questions.
Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board needed to give staff further direction
regarding the other items. Mr. Davis said that since the Board took no
direction on the other items, the staff has no direction as to when they
should be put back on the agenda. It would be helpful if the Board directed
staff that these items be continued until August 5, or defer them to some
other time since staff needs direction as to when the Board wishes to
reconsider these items.
Mr. Marshall suggested that all of them be considered at the work
session.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that staff
and the Mountain Committee present to the Board a proposal on how to proceed
with the Mountain Overlay District Ordinance by the next Board meeting. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs 18 & 19).
Public hearing on a request to rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. Loc
on N side of Rt 691 (Jarman's Gap Rd) approx 1.3 mi W of Crozet (Deferred from
February 18, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has prepared proffers to go along with
0000:1. .
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
their plan of development, but the proffers have not yet been signed. Mr.
Davis said the applicant's attorney has provided him with a copy of the
revised proffers. He has had a chance to review the proffers, and he
suggested that Mr. Keeler explain the changes to the proffers since the last
time the Board saw them. Before beginning the staff report, Ms. Humphris
asked what the map labeled Grayrock North referred to. Mr. Keeler said the
map is referred to by Proffer No. IV, which deals with the northern tract, and
was included in the recommendation portion of the Executive Summary. Mr.
Keeler then read Proffer No. IV.
Mr. Davis said the proffer assures the Board that the applicant will
file a rezoning for the northern tract to reduce the density to 27 single-
family dwellings. The proffer does not obligate the Board to approve that
zoning, but the Board would have the opportunity to consider it. If the
rezoning request is denied, the land would remain zoned PRD for 70 townhouses;
if the rezoning is approved, it would be zoned for 27 single-family dwellings.
That would be a future decision of the Board. The Board cannot pre-decide
that by its action in this zoning petition.
Ms. Humphris said that particular section has had a lot added to it and
she has not had an opportunity to examine it. Mr. Davis said there was some
added language to this proffer because the staff wanted to make it clear that
the Board was not pre-deciding the northern tract issue. There was also some
minor clarifications and amendments regarding landscaping and other staff
concerns. Ms. Humphris said she had understood that the Board had a rule
about proffers and their timing. Mr. Davis agreed.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said this request was last before the
Board on February 18, 1998. The Board deferred action to give the applicant
the opportunity to meet with residents of the area regarding design concepts
and design alternatives. The plan before the Board (posted on the wall on the
left of the room), is the applicant's attempt to address those concerns. The
applicant also submitted revised proffers and the conceptual plan is
proffered. Staff would offer two general comments regarding comparison of the
two plans. Compared to the old plan, the new plan effectively eliminates
double-frontage lots along Jarman's Gap Road. County regulations discourages
double-frontage lots. The change along Jarman's Gap Road was in response to a
suggestion that the houses face the road as opposed to backing up to the road.
Secondly, the layout of the current plan attempts a grid-road system. Roadway
length and impervious surfaces increase by about ten percent, while the number
of lots has been reduced by four. This site in within a reservoir watershed
where minimizing impervious coverage or pavement is desirable.
In addition, the applicant has proffered to submit another rezoning
petition to rezone the area north of the lakes, which would reduce the number
of units from 70 to 27. The Planning staff had recommended approval of this
petition under the proposed density of 2.6 units per acre. This rezoning
would reduce density from that 2.6 units per acre to two units per acre. In
its original report, staff expressed concerns about not approaching the
residential densities recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding the recommendation, staff primarily discusses procedural
matters. Staff offers three alternatives for the Board regarding Proffer 4:
1) Should the Board continue to feel that both the area under this petition
and the area north of the lakes should be reviewed together, then it should
defer action on this petition to allow the north area to be added and the
consolidated area to be reviewed and subject to Planning Commission and Board
public hearing. 2) If the Board believes the original overall density of 2.6
dwelling units per acre to be reasonable for this property, the proffer
regarding future rezoning should not be accepted (Proffer IV). 3) If the
Board believes the petition, as amended, is acceptable and wishes to entertain
a lower density, Proffer IV should be accepted and this rezoning approved.
Staff would recommend that caution be exercised regarding any indication of
future action on this area north of the lakes. Mr. Keeler commented that this
report and comments were written prior to receipt of these latest proffers.
Ms. Humphris asked if there were a road connection between Grayrock and
Grayrock North. Mr. Keeler replied that there was an emergency access
connection only, consistent with prior approval. There is not a roadway
usable by the residents. The roadway is to the left on the plan and shown as
a pedestrian-way that would be improved so that emergency vehicles could use
it.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
0000 i2
Mr. Davis explained that if the Board decides to refer this request back
to the Commission so the entire northern tract and the property before the
Board could be considered together, the northern tract is not in front of the
Board or Commission unless the applicant amends the application or files a new
zoning application for the property. The Board, on its own, cannot include
that tract as part of this rezoning application. He said the applicant's
attorney has advised him that if the Board does not need the northern tract to
be part of the proffer, they are willing to withdraw that proffer. He has not
had any communication that the applicant is willing to amend the application
to add the northern tract. If the applicant amended the application, it would
require a new public hearing, advertisement and Commission consideration. Ms.
Humphris asked if the revised plan had been seen by the Commission. Mr. Davis
replied that it had not.
At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicants wished to make any
comments.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant, Fried Company, said the
proffers were submitted to staff on June 4. Changes since then have been in
response to comments, questions and concerns by staff. He had expressed
concerns about not receiving staff comments last Wednesday, but said that he
gave staff lenience because of their heavy workload, and asked for leniency
from the Board. Mr. Blaine said at the conclusion of the February meeting,
the applicant was urged to consult neighbors, citizens and Crozet community
members who were interested in this proposal, and specifically to address
design issues associated with the development. The applicant has done that.
Two meetings were held, one in March and one in May, intended for citizens to
provide ideas about the project. Written invitations to both meetings were
sent to over 200 neighbors, local planners and community members. The meeting
was also advertised in the Daily Progress.
Mr. Blaine said the applicant engaged the firm of Dewberry & Davis to
assist in facilitating the design discussions with the citizens. Mr. Gary
Kirkbride from Dewberry facilitated the discussions at the meetings of the
Crozet citizens. Both meetings were well-attended by local residents. The
Bayberry Homeowners Association provided ideas in writing. The Board was
provided with these comments and the applicant has incorporated these ideas
into the revised plan for the development. He then introduced Mr. Kirkbride,
of Dewberry & Davis) who would describe the ideas the applicant received from
the neighbors and citizens, and how the applicant incorporated those ideas
into the revised plan. Also, present was Mr. Couture, who would alsO make a
brief presentation on the changes to the specific design elements of the
revised plan. After their presentations, he will be available to answer
specific questions about the proffers.
Mr. Gary Kirkbride said when Dewberry & Davis was first invited to
participate with the citizens, they received a number of comments and
observations covering a wide range of ideas from no development to creating
additional development beyond what was proposed. Mr. Kirkbride said he would
summarize a number of those comments and how they were responded to. Some
specific comments include:
Concern about overall density of the entire project including
property to the north. They have responded by reducing the
proposed density by 25 percent from that which was originally
proposed.
Need for a variety of lot sizes. The revised plan has been
redesigned to provide lot sizes that now range from 11,000 to
19,000 square feet. Houses are now proposed to have only front or
side yards toward Jarman's Gap Road.
Concern about Jarman's Gap Road frontage. The frontage of this
property has been completely redesigned to propose units which only
front or have side roads onto Jarman's Gap Road.
Concern about sidewalks, curb and gutter. They have provided a
plan which provides a pedestrian system which allows for a walkway
in front of or directly across the street from every lot proposed
in the project, and all of those have been integrated into the open
space which centers around the pond in the center of the project.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
O00O:[3
Concern about buffers. They have provided a 50-foot buffer along
Jarman's Gap Estates property boundary and an additional 20-foot
buffer along the frontage to coincide with the redesign of the
frontage along Jarman's Gap Road.
Concern about access for pedestrian and vehicle access to the
property to the east. That has been identified and provided for in
the plan.
Need for recreation areas. They have provided both active and
passive recreation in conjunction with the pond area. The
pedestrian system leads and guides people to those open space
areas.
Concern about a more detailed landscape plan and architectural
guidelines. They have provided a more detailed landscape plan.
Concern about dead-end streets and minimizing those. Ail of the
cul-de-sacs, as originally proposed, have been eliminated. There
are now two turnaround areas which provide emergency access onto
Jarman's Gap Road.
Mr. Dennis Couture, a landscape architect with the firm of Dewberry &
Davis, said there have been several concept changes since the original plan.
The difference in the plans has to do with reacting to comments from the
community, but also the relationship of this proposed residential neighborhood
and its surroundings. The changes include making it fit in better with
surrounding neighborhoods. The original plan included double-frontage lots
with the rear of the lots facing Jarman's Gap Road. The applicants are now
suggesting that the front and sides of the houses face Jarman's Gap Road,
bracketed by a 20-foot landscape easement on the frontage. Instead of
evergreen trees, they will use canopy trees to open up the exposure into the
community, and continue evergreen plantings to enhance the privacy associated
with the side views to the residences siding on Jarman's Gap Road. This
scenario basically opens up the community to the greater community. This is
an integral part of the overall Jarman's Gap neighborhood. It also allows
penetration visually into the community at multiple points, pedestrian access
and continuation of potential emergency vehicle access.
Dewberry & Davis also looked at the overall street .layout and came up
with a modified grid. It now runs north-south where the terrain is relatively
flat and skewing it to an east-west relationship which runs with the contours
on the far western side of the property. The block size has been reduced,
which causes better pedestrian circulation within the community. They have
three pedestrian connections to the open space system at the northern side.
If the greenway system expands, it would allow a park exposure with pedestrian
access at multiple points on the rear side. Also, from the entry-point from
Jarman's Gap Road, they have vehicle access to the rear of the property, with
pedestrian access to the open space section. There is now increased
flexibility regarding house siting. With the limited number of corner lots,
there were only eight opportunities for side-loaded garages. With the
increase in street frontage and intersections, there are now 18 to 20
opportunities to have the houses skewed on corners and create variation to the
street-scape. They are continuing with the buffer along the western boundary,
and are looking for integration for vehicular circulation to the proposed
community on the east side.
Mr. Marshall asked what the applicant would like the Board to do about
Proffer IV. Mr. Kirkbride said, as a result of their second meeting, it was
clear that there was a general consensus that the applicant had responded
positively to the issues that had been brought about and the applicants felt
they had made considerable progress. Mr. Blaine urged the Board to accept the
proffer which will give the Board the option to review the appropriateness of
the zoning at a later time. The current zoning is PRD. The property is
separated by ponds topographically and it is difficult to provide access. The
benefit of the proffer is that it allows the applicant to move forward with
the application with the promise to submit the downzoning on the northern
tract, which would be considered during the normal process. The option to put
the entire plan back to the Commission would be unfair, since that could have
been done at the February meeting. The Board urged the applicant to meet with
the citizens and the neighbors. The applicant has met with citizens as
requested and is now offering the new plan with an option that does not have
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
0000 [4
to be decided tonight. Mr. Blaine again urged the Board to accept Proffer IV
in approving the zoning application.
Mr. Davis said it is a policy question for the Board, as to whether or
not the Board feels it needs to decide the northern tract issue before
deciding the application. If it is a major consideration as to how the two
properties adjacent to each other should interact, then the Board may not want
to proceed. If this zoning application could be decided independently of the
PRD tract, then it is appropriate to go ahead and decide this matter.
Mr. Perkins said he was the one who requested this, and he feels
comfortable going ahead with the proffer and to consider the rezoning of the
northern tract at a later date. Mr. Blaine said he feels the plan is one that
the neighborhood and participants will be proud of. This is a plan that had
true neighborhood input.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for
comments.
Mr. Eric Strucko, a member of the Development Areas Initiative Steering
Committee (DAIS) and Housing Committee, said he attended the May 27th meeting
the Fried Company conducted. He is here tonight to ask that the Board send
this application back to the Commission for additional work sessions and
refinements. While significant improvement has been made, there are still
improvements that must be made before it meets the standards of Albemarle
County growth management policies. The current proposal fails to include
certain fundamental characteristics of growth area development that are
emerging from the work of the DAIS Committee. First, the proposal offers
homogenous residential use, no light commercial or retail activity and more
importantly, no useful common central recreational space exists in the plan.
The space around the pond is just a gesture, calling undevelopable remnants of
land re'creational space. The residences are all single-family detached units
with a minimum purchase price of $150,000. These aspects do not reconcile
with the mixed-use and diverse housing type values embodied in the DAIS
Committee's work. Also, the costs are prohibitive to natives or long-time
residents of Albemarle County. The current proposal does not meet certain key
aspects of the sustainability accords, by not promoting the integration of
business, recreational, residential and open space.
Mr. Strucko said the Fried Company may argue that achieving these goals
of a sustainable community that complies with DAIS standards is unmarketable.
He has heard a realtor disagree. He also has seen design plans for the
adjacent Bargamin or Wayland Grant property. This property is everything that
the Fried Company proposal is not with mixed use, diverse housing, central
open recreation space, affordable housing and a design that fosters economic
and social interaction. If the owners, developers, architects and business
people connected with the Wayland Grant property can meet the DAIS and
sustainability goals, which is immediately adjacent to Grayrock, then why
cannot the Fried Company do the same? If the Board approves the current Fried
Company proposal, then you will create a poorly planned community along
Jarman's Gap Road. He has found that the Fried Company becomes quite
innovative with design when persuaded that their plans need revisions to meet
the standards of Albemarle County. He encouraged the Board to vote to send
these proposals back to the Commission.
Mr. Richard Berman said that he is concerned about the overpopulation of
western Albemarle County. He is astounded that someone who does not own the
property can apply for a zoning variance. He is also concerned about the
proposed increase in density on the property.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, distributed to Board members
correspondence from Mr. Will Rieley, a member of the Commission, expressing
his Concerns abOut the plan currently before the Board. Mr. Rieley's concerns
directly mirror those raised by the residents of the Jarman's Gap
neighborhood, concerns that have not changed since the beginning of
discussions between the applicant and the neighborhood. Also, Mr. David Tice,
another member of the Commission, has endorsed Mr. Rieley's comments. While
the list submitted by Mr. Rieley is substantial, it is important to note that
his observations are based on only a brief exposure to the plan and he is sure
there are more things to consider. The meetings involved the applicant
telling the community what they are going to do, and why they cannot make the
changes suggested by the community. There are no real changes made to the
plan from the meetings; there is still no open space, poor landscaping, lack
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
OOOO±5
of complete sidewalks including curb and gutter, lack of any meaningful
reflection of the existing community, and siting of houses in a manner
described by Mr. Rieley as clumsy. The plan should be sent back to the
Commission for further review and rework. The proposal should be considered
within the context of building a neighborhood and community. In his opinion,
it is clear that the Crozet Elementary School will be unable to handle the
increased enrollment from Grayrock and the adjacent Wayland Grant property.
Mr. A1 Reaser, of the School Division, has indicated that there are no plans
for expansion of Crozet Elementary so this increase in students will require
redistricting. Implementation of the two developments is every bit as
important as the design and implementation has not yet been discussed.
Additionally, the neighborhood is looking at an increase of three times the
number of homes recommended in the 1985 PRD. They were told not to worry
because the Six-Year Road Plan includes road improvements for Jarman's Gap
Road. He asked what will happen if those road improvements do not happen.
While the community is willing to debate the design, they are not willing to
compromise on the welfare on the current citizens of the neighborhood.
Mr. Paul Grady, a resident outside of the Crozet area, said he read the
sustainability accords article written by Mr. Bowerman. One of those accords
is to optimize the use and re-use of developed land and to promote clustering
in residential areas and integration of business, industry, residential,
recreational and open space. If the Board believes this statement to be in
the best interest for the future of the County, it must reject this proposal.
The proposal simply is not dense enough. The applicant has spent too much
time trying to cater to the whims of the residents of Jarman's Gap Estates and
has ignored the effects of this project on the whole County. He suggested
that the area north of the lake may not be the best location for the
townhouses, but the eastern section of the area south of the lakes with a grid
street system and a connection to the adjacent property may be. He also
suggested a vehicular connection between north and south, perhaps with a
bridge or large culvert that would facilitate for a foot path to go under the
road; retention of the main house on the property as a community center and
creation of an open play area adjacent to it; and smaller lots and a variety
of smaller houses. He also attended the May 27th public meeting, but he did
not have any suggested alternatives at that time. The proposed houses are out
of the price range of 90 percent of Crozet residents. He cannot~see building
houses that the people who live there cannot afford to buy.
Mr. Charles Trachta said the last time he spoke to the Board about
Grayrock was when the Still Meadows' request was coming to a conclusion.
After a compromise was reached on Still Meadows, they asked the Board to have
Grayrock do the same thing. The Grayrock meetings were not compromises. The
developer was not willing to give up anything or deaI with the community, but
only to tell the community what he would do. The developers of Still Meadows
made many concessions, but the developers of Grayrock did not. He asked that
the Board support the citizens of Crozet and send this request back to the
Commission.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis to answer the question raised by Mr. Berman
about how someone could ask for a rezoning on property they did not own. Mr.
Davis replied that the State Code and the County's Zoning Ordinance allows a
piece of property to be rezoned upon the application of a contract purchaser
with the owner's written consent. That is the status of this application.
Fried Company is the option purchasers and the Savages are the property
owners. The proffers are signed by both parties and the application is
properly before the Board.
Ms. Humphris said that nothing has been done to change the 50-foot
buffer next to Jarman's Gap Estates; it will still be under individual
ownerships. There will be a number of Grayrock property owners who have the
buffer easement in their deeds with control by the Homeowners' Association
which will make it difficult to enforce. She believes that Mr. Rieley stated
it well when he said that ~the sell-it and call-it buffer approach to the
western edge of the property is still in place. Because this is also the
location of the old road trace, this strip should be in single ownership with
a real easement in place". She noted that the Board discussed this issue
previously and that also was the request of the public, with nothing being
done about it. She also noticed there were comments from VDOT or staff about
the layout of the lots, with Lots 1, 2, 91 and 92 needing to be accessed by an
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
internal-loop road, because of problems with going across the divided and
behind the median at the entrance road. There are also problems with the
joint driveways that serve Lots 84, 85, 88 and 89. She also wanted to know
where the children are going to play; a parent certainly would not send them
down to the pond to play. There needs to be a place in a housing development
this dense to allow children to play. There is no mention of a shelf design
for the ponds for safety. She felt that there were so many changes that she
would like to have the Commission analyze the plan. She supports sending the
plan back to the Commission.
Mr. Perkins said he had attended one of the meetings in'Crozet. The
public gave mixed messages, asking for contradictory things, i.e., no density,
less density, more density. He thinks the developer has done a commendable
job in answering most of the concerns, since they could not satisfy everyone.
He thinks the Board is smart enough to make a judgment. Ms. Humphris said
that the density issue should be settled by the Commission. Staff is saying
that the plan is not dense enough. Mr. Perkins replied that the Crozet
Community Plan says that it is dense enough. He believes he is as qualified
as anyone to say who is right and who is wrong. He thinks this is a good
density, even though it does not meet the Comprehensive Plan. He believes the
Comprehensive Plan for this area is extremely out of line and shows too high
of a density. He does not think that density is acceptable to the Crozet
community. This is in a growth area, so something will end up going there.
He thinks the Board may as well move forward with what is before them.
Ms. Humphris said she believes very strongly that there are too many
things still wrong with this plan to approve it at this time.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the 50-foot buffer. He said there were
discussions about putting that place in open space. Mr. Blaine said the
applicant had offered that to the landowners, but they could not offer the 50
feet because there was not adequate depth of the lots. The owner could do 30
feet in fee simple open space to the Homeowners' Association or the owner
could do 50 feet in an easement. There have been examples of open space
buffers through easements and as long as you have the same restrictions that
would be enforced on open space, that gives the same outcome. Mr. Bowerman
said that open space which is attached to a lot is more difficult not to
unbuffer by the property owner than open space owned by the Homeowners'
Association. Still Meadows used a combination of the two, if he remembers
correctly. Combining the two methods of buffering would be one alternative.
Mr. Blaine said the applicant would be amenable to amending the proffer in
such a manner, if that is an important issue.
Mr. Blaine said that in reply to Ms. Humphris' comment regarding road
access, this could be addressed in the subdivision and engineering process.
With regard to the common driveways, the plan is illustrative and could be
amended to comply with Engineering staff's comments, as can the entranceway to
accommodate the two lots that are at the entrance to provide a safe access.
As far as the issue of shelf design, the applicant did measurements of the
pond area and determined that there was not a steep drop-off of the pond. The
engineers said that shelving was not required because of the shallow depths
out to distances of almost 15 to 20 feet offshore. Regarding Mr. Rieley's
comments, the applicant did not have the benefit of those comments. It is a
bit awkward for public statements made by a Commissioner to not be shared with
the applicant if they were made to enhance and improve the plan.
Ms. Thomas said that this is a better plan and appreciates the
applicant's efforts, but changes of this magnitude should be reviewed by the
Commission. In addition, if staff thinks both sections, which includes the
north portion, should be reviewed at the same time, that's what the Board
should do.
Mr. Perkins asked what the applicant needs to do to change the proffer
regarding the easement. Mr. Davis said it would have to be reduced to writing
and submitted as part of the proffer statement. Mr. Blaine indicated that the
applicant is prepared to do that at this time. Mr. Perkins asked whether a
recess would be necessary. Mr. Davis replied "yes", if it is the Board's
intent to vote tonight and accept the proffers. Mr. Blaine said that he would
need a break to revise the proffers.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting that the request be
referred back to the Commission and they look at the whole parcel, including
the north parcel, under a different proposal by the applicant, or the
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
O000:i.?
Commission only look at what was before the Board tonight. Ms. Thomas replied
that she would prefer the Commission look at the whole parcel together, but
that would be up to the applicant.
Mr. Perkins said that he was prepared to make a motion to approve
ZMA-97-12 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as offered and
amended.
Mr. Blaine said as he understands, the essence of the proffer would be
that the 50-foot buffer area would contain 30 feet fee simple ownership as
open space and 20 feet as an easement, with the same restrictions on the lot,
but being in the form of an easement.
At 9:12 p.m., Mr. Marshall recessed the Board. The Board reconvened at
9:25 p.m.
Mr. Davis stated that the applicant will amend Proffer 3.2 to provide
that the 50-foot buffer area shall consist of 30 feet of dedicated open space
to the Association and a 20-foot easement which shall run to the benefit of
the Association and shall be enforced by the Association as provided in the
declaration, and further provided that the trees proffered herein shall be
planted in the area dedicated to the Association.
Mr. Martin asked the size of the play area. Mr. Blaine said the
potential play area is about the size of a football field, if people do not
fence the area. Mr. Marshall asked how children would get to the play area.
Mr. Blaine responded that there will be wood-chipped paths and trails in at
least three locations down to the pond area. Mr. Keeler said that access to
the play area was covered in Proffer 3.1 in the last sentence which says that
the applicant shall install at least one pedestrian access to the play area.
Mr. Perkins said when the Board first heard this petition in February,
they asked the developer to meet with the community and return with a
different plan. No plan will ever suit everyone, and he feels that the
developer did what they were asked to do. The Board does not have to approve
this plan, but he does not think the Board should ask them to do more. He
asked whether the Board and applicant wished this to be voted on or postponed.
Mr. Marshall asked whether Mr. Perkins thought this was the best plan
the Board was going to get. Mr. Perkins replied that there are only so many
ways you can tweak something. Mr. Marshall asked if there were many people at
the meetings who supported the plan. Mr. Perkins replied that this plan had
not yet been conceived, the meetings were to gather input for the plan. There
were probably 25 to 30 people at the first meeting. The comments from the
public were conflicting, and he thinks the plan addresses many of the things
that the citizens mentioned. Mr. Marshall asked if the People'in the area
would support the plan. Mr. Perkins replied that since they were not in
attendance at the meeting, there must not be too many who are concerned. Mr.
Marshall said he would support a motion.
Mr. Perkins then offered motion to approve ZMA-97-12 subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers as offered and amended. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion and said he agrees with Mr. Perkins that the majority of
the residents seemed to be in acquiescence to the plan. Roll was called and
the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
Motion was made by Ms. Thomas to reconsider the vote on ZMA-97-12
because she believes the plan should be referred back to the Commission. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
0000:t.8
Motion was then made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to refer
ZMA-97-12 back to the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Cilimberg said before the Board tonight was the zoning of the area
below the lakes which is what will go back to the Commission. He asked if
there were any further expectations. Mr. Marshall concurred, adding that it
was up to the applicant to include the northern section.
Mr. Davis noted that if the plan was not amended, it would not have to
be readvertised or a second public hearing held. At this point, the
application with the proffers would be submitted to the Commission. It would
be up to the applicant to modify the application, if they wished.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and
reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, of the Code of
Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors. This
amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by 2.75
percent, to establish compensation at $9,963 per year. (This public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.)
There was no staff presentation. Mr. Marshall immediately opened the
public hearing.
Ms. Katie Hobbs said that the Board of Supervisors works long and hard
at what they do, and are badly underpaid. Where she lived in a county in Iowa
with 20,000 residents, the supervisors were paid $19,000 per year.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to amend and
reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General of the Code of
Albemarle to increase the regular salary of the each Board member by 2.75
percent. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 98-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION,
ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration,
Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by
amending Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors, as
follows:
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as
follows: Nine thousand nine hundred sixty-three dollars and no
cents ($9,963.00) for each board members; provided, that in
addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall
receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and
every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in addition to
his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a stipend of
one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1,
1998.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000019
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-98-08. Redfields (Signs #81 & 85). Public
hearing on a request to accept revised proffers which would allow zero lot
line platting & other setback changes as an option w/in Phase 3 (except 3A),
Phase 4 & Phase 5 of the Redfietds PRD. The property to which zero lot line
platting would be available is described as TM76R, P1 & TM76R1, P1, consisting
of 165.59 acres zoned PRD & situated in Urban Neighborhood 5. (This area is
recommended for Neighborhood Residential [3-6 du/ac] in the Comp Plan.)
Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress
on June 1 and June 8, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff 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 allowance of zero lot line development would ~provide
for creative home sitings which will enable more efficient organization of
yards and exterior spaces." More specifically, "the option to created limited
areas for zero lot line neighborhood design affords the developer the option
to make better use of natural land forms and respect existing yard topography
while providing an affordable residential product for which a demand exists."
Redfields was rezoned from R-I, Residential, to PRD, Planned Residential
Development, in 1990. The development was approved for a maximum of 656
dwellings (105 single-family detached; 551 cottage and attached units). A
subsequent petition removed an acre from the development. Staff recommended
approval and acceptance of the applicant's revised proffers allowing for zero
lot line and other yard modifications (Proffer 8) in Phase 3 (except 3A) and
Phase 4, as outlined and depicted in Attachments C, D and E (attachments on
file). Since Phase 5 is currently shown as open space and its development
would be subject to a separate future zoning action, staff recommended the
zero lot line pattern for Phase 5 be dealt with at that time. If the Board
agrees, this should be reflected in its action.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5,
1998, unanimously recommended approval subject to the applicant's proffer.
Proffer 8(f) would be amended to read nat the sole discretion of the
applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to ten (!0) feet." All other
language of Proffer 8(f) would be deleted.
Mr. Bowerman asked the rationale for eliminating Phase 5. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that Phase 5 is presently open space. Mr. Bowerman asked if the open
space in the original application was required by the density or was it
something that was not looked at, and left to the future. Mr. Cilimberg said
it is was something that was left to the future, not for density reasons. Mr.
Bowerman asked if it would be inconsistent for the Board to accept the
applicant's proffer, including that section in Phase 5. Mr. Cilimberg said it
was staff's thought that they could review any proposal to develop that area
with a plan of the zero lot line concept. If the Board wanted to include zero
lot lines in Phase 5, they would want to do so without any indication of
promising any subsequent action on a rezoning that from open space to
something with development potential.
At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any
comments.
Mr. Fred Missle, on behalf of Cox Company and representing the
Development Corporation of Virginia, said he wanted to address the Phase 5
issue. When it was zoned, Phase 5 was outside of the growth area. The
applicant agrees that Phase 5 can be struck from the proffers as written. The
applicant is not requesting any additional density for the development. They
are asking for the zero lot lines to allow contiguous side yards instead of
chopping it up into smaller lots. Under the zoning, duplexes and townhouses
are allowed in this area; this would allow for single-family detached homes
and a more open street-scape, and it allows for them to deal with a tricky
topography in the areas.
Ms. Thomas asked about an old proffer saying that there would be no
access to the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. She asked if there were alternative
methods of access, such as pedestrian and bike access, and if so, would this
require the proffers to be amended to say that there would be no automobile
access. She would like to see some access if topography allows for it. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that when it was initially proffered, it was understood that
it meant vehicular access, and this intent could be clarified with an
amendment.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
0000 .0
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would have to do anything to withdraw
Phase 5 from the proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said that an amendment would have to
be drafted, which Mr. Davis is working on.
Ms. Thomas mentioned Proffer 8b and asked why the Fire Marshal is
looking into deed disclosures. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is because of
moving homes closer together and meeting fire flow requirements. Mr. Keeler
said that this language is from the zoning text amendment which the Commission
recommended to the Board, but which has been set aside until the DAIS
Committee completes its work. It includes such things as requiring no
fenestration (openings) in the wall. Subsequently, the language was used for
the Western Ridge zero lot line proposal, where the proffer was recently
accepted by both the Commission and the Board.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for
comments. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
ZMA-98-08 to apply to Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phase 4 only subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers with the amendment to remove "and Phase
5" from Proffer 8, and Proffer 9(f) would read "At the sole discretion of the
applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to ten (10) feet."
Ms. Humphris noted that in the Commission's minutes, it is noted that
Mr. Greg Kamptner suggested that the engineering memo be made a part of the
proffers. She asked if this was a viable suggestion. Ms. Thomas replied that
it was taken care of in the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg said it is included in
Proffer No. 7.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 6-17-98
ZMA# 98-08
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 76-R and 76R-1
165.306 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD (Amend Setbacks)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the
owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested
rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to
the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning requested.
Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No
driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25%
or greater.
Ail roads, with the exception of roads A, B, and C and the private
road to serve Phase II Open Space and one Single Family Dwelling,
shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT)
standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary
System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing
those roads. Roads A, B, and C shall be constructed in accordance
with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for rural
cross section and placed in the_ Secondary System at the time of
development of the residential areas utilizing those roads.
3 o
Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such
time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the
satiSfaction of the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
000021
5o
No vehicular access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms
Subdivision.
6. Not more than 656 total units.
Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and C in
accordance with Engineering comments contained in a December 19,
1989 memorandum.
Zero Lot Line Setbacks may be applied to Phase 3 (excluding Phase
3A) and Phase 4 at the sole discretion of the applicant and as
indicated on the Revised PRD Development Phasing Plan included as
part of this proffer. Regulations governing zero lot line
setbacks are as follows:
a0
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 Building
Code;
In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire
official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to
ensure compliance with the provisions of this proffer,
inclusive of, 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;
do
No structures shall encroach on any utility, drainage or
other easement, nor any feature required by the zoning
ordinance;
The wall of the dwelling unit located within three (3) feet
of the lot line shall have no windows, doors, or any other
type of openings unless permitted by the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code;
At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may
be reduced to ten (10) feet;
As necessary in a particular case, a perpetual wall
maintenance 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 so designed
that water runoff from the dwelling placed on the lot line
is limited to the lot of the dwelling of the easement area.
Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent
lot a maximum of eight (8) inches.
Gaylon T. Beights
Signatures of Ail Owners
Gaylon T. Beights
Printed Names of Ail Owners
June 17, 1998
Date
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-98-02. Pavilion at Riverbend. Public hearing
to consider an ordinance to amend section 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit safety/containment netting as a use by special use permit
w/in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. (This public hearing was advertised
in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff 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 a property owner has applied to amend the Flood Hazard
Overlay District to add safety/containment netting as a use by right within
the floodway. The applicant is currently applying for a special use permit
for a golf driving range adjacent to the River (this permit is under review by
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
00002:2
the County). The purpose of the netting is to prevent the loss of golf balls
and to protect the safety of users of the riparian area adjacent to the golf-
driving range. If ZTA-98-02 is approved, the proposed language would be added
to the Zoning Ordinance under Flood Hazard Overlay District, and would allow
safety/containment netting to be installed within any designated floodway in
any zoning district by right. For this reason, the specific location of the
property which is the subject of the golf-driving range special permit is not
at issues in this application.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff recommends denial of ZTA-98-02 as proposed
for the following reasons: 1) Netting is capable of capturing debris and may
pose a hazard to other properties during a flood; 2) It is impractical to
raise the netting prior to every storm event; 3) Netting to capture golf balls
is not considered an essential use of the floodway. It is a type of use which
is not consistent with other uses allowed by right within the floodway; and,
4) The proposed use is currently permitted by right in the floodway fringe.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19,
1998, unanimously recommended denial of the petition. It was later discovered
that the advertisement for their public hearing was mistakenly advertised
showing the use as a use by special use permit, rather than a use by right.
If the Board approves this request tonight, it will have to approve the use as
a use by special use permit, otherwise the petition would need to be
readvertised, or the Board can deny ZTA-98-02.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments.
Mr. Joe Phillips, an architect representing the applicant, said the
applicant wished to construct a fence of poles and netting in the floodway
along the golf driving range, which is a permitted use. The fence is not
required to proceed with the project, and the owner will proceed with or
without the fence. The intent of the fence is to allow access to the River by
a larger segment of the public than those using the driving range itself. The
netting will be able to be raised above the flood level and the poles will be
engineered to withstand the loads of flooding. They support the need to
review each case by a special use permit to ensure that all conditions are
met. The Zoning Ordinance lists various structures which are allowed in the
floodway, such as fences and utility poles, which share the character of what
the applicant is requesting. The issue is not whether structures are allowed
in the floodway, since obviously they are, but rather whether this structure
is in harmony with the Flood Hazard Overlay project. His belief is that their
request is in harmony, since it is similar in construction to other structures
which are allowed by right in the floodway, imposes less impact in a flood
than some structures which are allowed in the floodway and is not in conflict
with the purposes of the Flood Hazard Overlay district. This project would
provide for a wide green buffer to the River and make it a destination for
more of the public.
Mr. Bowerman asked how practical it would be to raise the netting when
necessary. Mr. Phillips replied that it is in the owner's interest to see
that it is done, because to not do so would create a threat to his own
property. Mr. Bowerman asked if the netting could be raised if the water were
already encroaching. Mr. Phillips said it could be done automatically, with a
water-sensor. Mr. Bowerman said if this went through the special use review,
the applicant would need a plan. Mr. Phillips agreed.
Mr. Marshall asked about the lighting. Mr. Phillips said that is
something to be considered under the special use permit already in place, it
does not have to be settled tonight, as that is not one of the issues in
question.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant could proceed with the driving
range, even without the net. Mr. Phillips replied that nets were not
essential, but they would like to have one here because of the way that water
flows in this area. In this specific case, they are in a slow-moving,
relatively-shallow part of the floodway. Mr. Bowerman asked if the purpose of
the net was to retain golf balls. Mr. Phillips agreed. Mr. Bowerman asked if
the balls float or sink. Mr. Phillips replied that they sink. Mr. Bowerman
asked if the net was merely an economic consideration to keep them from losing
golf balls. Mr. Phillips said that, without the netting in place, they can
still have a driving range. With the fence in place, they can make the area
along the River accessible to the public. Without the fence, there are
liability concerns from golf balls hitting people.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
0000 3
Ms. Humphris asked if the length of the net was indeed 300 yards. Mr.
Phillips agreed and said that this was because a golfer could conceivably
drive a ball that far. The posts would be spaced approximately 50 feet apart.
The length may end up as less than 300 yards, that is just a maximum. There
will be about 90 feet to 100 feet between the net and the River, so the golf
balls might not get to the River, but it would be hard to collect them from
the vegetation.
Ms. Humphris asked if each of these posts would be lit. Mr. Phillips
said that the poles are not light poles, the idea of having them lit has been
discarded. Ms. Thomas said that one description says that there will be 19
poles, each 75 feet high. Mr. Phillips said that description is from an
earlier staff report. The current plan is that the poles be 40 feet high.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this would be a night-time activity. Mr. Phillips
said that it would be.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the
public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed the
matter before the Board.
Mr. Martin noted that both the Commission and the staff recommended
denial of the application. If the applicant wants to provide more public
access to the River, he could support this as a use by special use permit.
asked how the other Board members feel about the amendment.
He
Ms. Humphris said Commission members said it was an inappropriate
amendment as a general amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. She does not think
this should have been a zoning text amendment, but rather an application for a
special use permit. Mr. Martin said he thought the County Attorney said the
only way the Board could deal with the request tonight is as a special use
permit because of the advertisement. Mr. Davis said because of the
uncertainty of how this zoning text amendment would be worded, there is no
ordinance drafted and before the Board for adoption tonight. If the Board
wants to approve a zoning text amendment as a use by special use permit, staff
would need to draft the appropriate ordinance and return the ordinance to the
Board at its next meeting for approval. Staff can prepare that ordinance
based on a consensus of the Board members.
Mr. Martin suggested taking a poll to obtain the feelings of the
members. He said he has no strong feelings about the amendment. Mr. Marshall
said he feels the applicant is going to build the facility anyway. If it is
going to be built, it should be done right. He suggested deferring this to
another meeting so staff can bring back the correct language.
Ms. Humphris said she has reservations. She has difficulties with Mr.
Phillips' statements about what is really viable about the netting, the
raising of the netting and the stability of the poles in the flood plain. Mr.
Marshall said if the Board is not going to vote tonight, let the applicant
bring information on that back to the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board should mislead the
applicant and make them do extra work if the Board is going to deny the
application.
Ms. Humphris said she does not believe that the design of the mechanism
that will deal with 900 feet of netting and all the poles will be reliable.
Ms. Thomas said she wants this piece of land to be used in some way
since it does lie in the Growth Area. This seemed like a nice use of the
land. She was concerned about the netting collecting debris in a flood, the
raising mechanism failing, or the poles getting knocked askew by flood waters.
She questioned whether this would be within in a floodway.
Mr. Bowerman said he cannot think of another way to use this land unless
the County buys it. He shares the concern about structures in the floodway.
He does not think that this is an inappropriate use of the land if it makes
sense environmentally, because he does not know the criteria under which the
special permit could be reviewed or what mechanisms could be used to ensure
that the net is raised. He is not sure that there is enough information to
make a decision. The Board needs to decide whether there are ways that the
Board can make these areas more accessible to the public and retain River
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
0000,?.4
front. Utility structures are put up in the floodway, so the Board should not
turn down every use.
Ms. Humphris asked if FEMA has ever addressed this issue. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that they had not.
Ms. Thomas said she understood that the applicant's use could go on
without a net. Mr. Bowerman said that, unless some potential applicant has an
economically viable use for the land, it will not be used, and he does not
know if the net makes the project economically feasible. She does not think
the applicant would have suggested the net, with all of its attendant costs,
if it was not economically beneficial.
Ms. Humphris said the applicant admitted that there was an economic
basis to build the structure. She thought the cost would outweigh any
savings. The developer should just pay for the golf balls and would then not
have to worry about maintenance.
Ms. Humphris noted that the net at Farmington is screened with shrubbery
so that you cannot see the poles at all.
Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer
ZTA-98-02 back to the Planning Commission to be examined as a use by special
use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has yet to do any analysis to address the
issues that Mr. Bowerman raised. If the Board wanted this to be a use by
special use permit, it would require more work by staff and it would be
appropriate to refer it back to the Commission. The other option would be to
consider it as a general special use permit. Currently, in the Flood Hazard
Overlay district, there are certain uses permitted by special use permit in
the floodway and only one is subject to supplemental regulations. Staff would
need some guidance as to which direction the Board wants them to take. As a
special use permit, the Board could ask for supplemental regulations. Sending
this back to the Commission as a use by special use permit might not make that
much of a difference; however, asking for them to review other considerations
would be one option.
Ms. Thomas said since she felt this was an inappropriate structure for
the floodway, she would vote against the motion to refer the amendment back to
the Commission. She does not feel there are any conditions that would make
this an appropriate use in the floodway. Ms. Humphris said she felt that
allowing this structure would be a mistake.
Mr. Martin then withdrew his motion.
Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to deny
ZTA-98-02. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-06. Hanson Mountain Communications Tower
(Signs #45 & 46). Public hearing on a request, in accord with the provisions
of Sec 10.2.2(6), to make an existing tower conforming with current ordinance
requirements which will permit the addition of antenna to the tower.
(Deferred from May 20, 1998.)
Mr. Marshall said the Board had received a letter dated June 15, 1998,
from Mr. Steven W. Blaine, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, requesting deferral
of the public hearing on this petition. This request was not received in
accordance with the guidelines under which the Board operates.
Mr. Marshall asked if there were any member of the public present to
speak about this request. There was no one present to speak.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris,
to defer SP-98-06 until August 12, 1998. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
000025
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-98-13. Dennis Enterprises, Inc. Public hearing
on a request to expand an existing use of outdoor storage & display for auto
sales on 2.748 ac. Znd HC. Located on US Rt 250 approx 1.4 mi W of intersect
w/ State Farm Blvd. TM78, P13. (The property is designated as Regional
Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Comp Plan.) Rivanna Dist. (This public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and Jun 8, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff 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 site is already developed for the sale of
automobiles. Nearby properties are developed for the same use or for other
automobile-related uses. The adjacent property to the east is undeveloped.
This use is permitted by right'in the underlying Highway Commercial District.
The Architectural Review Board reviewed this request for its impact on the
Route 250 East Entrance Corridor. It expressed no objection to the proposed
use and indicated that conditions of the special use permit should not limit
the ARB review of the final Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff recommended
approval subject to three conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Panning Commission, at its meeting on June 2,
1998, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended
by staff.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. The
applicant said he was available for questions, upon which Ms. Thomas asked if
he had enjoyed the meeting and to which he replied that he had.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one from
the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed
the matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said that she felt there was much good discussion at the
Commission, and saw no need to repeat it.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve
SP-98-13 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The expanded use shall not commence until a Certificate of
Appropriateness is issued by the Architectural Review
Board;
2 o
Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the
approved site plan; and
3. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-98-16. Carter Asphalt Maintenance (Sign #59).
Public hearing on a request to establish Home Occupation-Class B for an
asphalt sealer business. The applicant proposes to locate an asphalt sealer
container on site. Znd RA. Located on 7.070 acs at 2529 Castle Rock Road (Rt
691). TM84, P66K1 is located on Route 691 off Rt 635. Samuel Miller Dist.
(This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June
8, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff 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 in 1993, the applicant was granted a Home Occupation-
Class A permit for an asphalt seal coat and patching business. This request
for a Class B permit is required because the asphalt storage tank will be
located outside the present home. The applicant operates one truck from the
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
000026
site. Temporary employees may be used in the future only as needed. The
business will be for the maintenance of private asphalt driveways and areas.
The applicant will not construct new driveways or areas. The applicant
proposes to pump asphalt sealer from the storage tank to his truck the night
before he has a job. During a typical week, it will be necessary to fill the
truck with asphalt sealer only once. The storage tank will be filled once or
twice a year by a small tanker truck.
Mr. Cilimberg said this special use permit will not adversely affect
public health, safety and general welfare. Access to the property is off
Castle Rock Road which is an unpaved road with 127 trips per day. This road
is not scheduled for improvements in the County's Six-Year Secondary Road
Plan. VDOT commented that there should be no major impact to the road system.
The embankment to the east of the existing entrance should be graded to
enhance sight distance. It is staff's opinion that the sight distance is
adequate for private use.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval with three conditions.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, unanimously
recommended approval subject to four conditions, and also modified the
language of Condition No. 3 recommended by staff.
Ms. Humphris noted that when the issue of temporary employees was
brought up at the Commission, the applicant had said there would be no more
than two on the site at any given time. She asked why there was no condition
on the subject. Mr. Cilimberg said this would automatically be handled under
the Home Occupancy-Class B provisions.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments.
Mr. Albert Carter, the applicant, had no comments but said that he was
available for questions.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the
public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed the
matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said a member of the Commission told her that when the
Commission amended the second condition, it should have included County
Engineering Department, Water Resources Manager and Fire and Rescue approval
of the location of the tank, as well as spill containment measures and tank
installation. She thinks that would be helpful to the applicant, because if
there were then some small change the applicant would not then have to come
back to this Board. She visited the location this afternoon and thinks it can
be easily shielded from the neighbors.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to
approve SP-98-16 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission adding
the words "location of tank" to the second condition. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Approval of all applicable County and State requirements;
County Engineering Department, including Water Resource
Manager, and Fire and Rescue approval of spill containment
measures, location of tank and tank installation. Tank
shall not exceed 6000 gallons, nor be larger than 18 feet
x 8 feet x 8 feet;
Slopes shall be established on graded areas and shall be
reseeded to stability; and
Staff approval of measures to screen the storage tank from
adjacent properties.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
OO0027
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board would return to Consent
Agenda Item No. 5.3a, ZTA-98-03, Lighting Ordinance, for a moment, since he
had to leave the meeting. (See memorandum dated June 17, 1998, from Susan E.
Thomas, Senior Planner, setting out the membership for a Task Force to address
the proposed ordinance within the framework of the Board's original resolution
of intent.)
Mr. Bowerman was suggested as the Board's liaison. He said he would be
happy to serve if the first meeting of the Task Force could be held July 13
since he will be away until July 9. Mr. Cilimberg said staff needs to
organize the work before bringing all members together so that the date should
be acceptable.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Task Force could consider whether the Lighting
Ordinance would be applicable to all different areas including residential or
whether residential areas could be treated in a different fashion from
commercial, industrial and retail areas. Ms. Thomas asked why Mr. Bowerman
was making this suggestion. Mr. Bowerman said the Task Force needs to discuss
the ramifications of enforcement in residential areas, and what that would
mean to staff. The one item of real concern to him are the security lights
installed by Virginia Power in both urban and rural areas. Those seem to be
the structure which are the most disliked. If those structures could be
modified, then they could be put in either rural or residential areas and
still fall within a guideline, thereby reducing the amount of work needed to
enforce the Ordinance. Most residences have the 150-watt floodlights that are
not even covered by the Ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said she did not see a need to bring this up because it is
covered by the Ordinance right now. Mr. Bowerman said some of the concern was
how the Ordinance would be applied. Ms. Thomas said that it would be applied
to those lights at the top of poles that shine all night and are usually much
more than 150 watt bulb. The three or four power companies that sell those
fixtures are either going to sell poles and lights to people that will get
them into trouble, or they will not. As good businessmen, she thinks they
probably will not, so it should be a simple matter of alerting the power
companies to the County's ordinance, and she believes it will take care of
itself. Mr. Bowerman said if it is not an issue, that is okay. He had
thought it could present some serious problems for staff. Mr. Martin said he
thinks the Task Force should at least discuss the question to find out if it
is even a legal discussion.
Mr. Davis said he has not given any thought as to the legalities. The
basic principle for a lighting ordinance is that there has to be some rational
basis for having different standards for rural or residential or industrial
areas. Lights spill over from one zoning district to the next, and into the
sky, making it harder to define.
Ms. Thomas said she assumes this item needs a motion since it was
skipped when the Consent Agenda was approved. She then offered motion to
approve Item 5.3a on the Consent Agenda and to proceed as staff suggested.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:55 p.m.)
(Note: Agenda Items No. 14, 15 and 16 were discussed concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 14. ZTA-98-06. Section 32.0 Site plan of the Zoning
Ordinance. Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Zoning
Ordinance as follows: (1) amend to codify current administrative review
process; (2) amend to revise time period for site plan/subdivision review; (3)
amend to revise time period of validity of site plans/subdivision plats; and,
(4) amend content of preliminary & final site plans & subdivision plats.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
000028
Agenda Item No. 15. STA-98-01. Subdivision Ordinance. Public hearing
to consider an ordinance to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the
Code of Virginia & current practice related to Validity of Plans, Length of
Review Prior to Action, Notification, Appeals & Administrative Procedural
Matters: (1) amend to codify current administrative review process; (2) amend
to revise time period for site plan/subdivision review; (3) amend to revise
time period of validity of site plans/subdivision plats; and (4) amend content
of preliminary & final site plans & subdivision plats. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.)
Agenda Item No. 16. Public hearing to consider imposing or increasing
certain fees in an ordinance to recodify Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 9, 1998.)
Mr. Keeler presented an overview on the proposed changes to the above
ordinances. He suggested that all of these amendments be deferred until July
15, at which time the entire County Code, with the exception of the Zoning
Ordinance, will be considered for recodification. Staff wants both the Site
Plan and Subdivision Ordinances to take effect on the same effective date.
Staff is still in the process of finalizing the check list and final site plan
procedure. Early on, the draft of this Ordinance was referred to the Site
Review Team for comment. In addition, a Design Review Council Composed of
local consultants was established. They made several suggestions about
content, which were also referred to the Site Review Team. They are now on
the fourth iteration of membership on the Site Review Team and the current
team is in the process of refining the final site plan administrative process.
The original resolution of intent was to codify the administrative approval
process, to bring the Site Plan Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance up-to-
date with the laws of Virginia and to delete antiquated language and out-of-
date provisions.
Ms. Thomas said that it would be good for the Board to be able to
distinguish between those things which are merely recodifications of State law
and those things over which the Board has control. The Planning Commission
wanted to be sure there was a right to appeal a final site plan. Mr. Keeler
said that a change was made in both ordinances to address that concern.
Mr. Davis said this was a difficult issue to deal with. The enabling
authority in the State Code provides for an appeal, but it only provides for
an appeal by a developer if the plat or plan is denied. That appeal goes to
the Circuit Court. In the Subdivision Ordinance, there was always an appeal
from the Commission to the Board of Supervisors, which is contrary to state
law. In this Ordinance, they tried to accommodate the practical advantage of
having an appeal to the Board by a developer by putting in language which
allows for the developer, at his choice, to appeal to the Board rather than
going to court. Their experience is that this is usually less costly and more
advantageous. The more difficult issue is the appeal in the Site Plan
Ordinance would has allowed an aggrieved adjacent property owner to initiate
an appeal. Under the current ordinances, that process has been allowed, but
there are practical difficulties beyond the fact that it is not specifically
enabled by State Code.
Mr. Davis said that currently, if the Commission approves a plat and the
developer submits it for signature, the practice has been to accept it. The
difficulty comes when 10 days later someone appeals it, and the approval has
to be undone. It creates a difficult situation. They suggest language which
says that the proper forum for aggrieved property owners is to present their
concerns to the Commission. In almost every instance, the Board can do
absolutely nothing about those concerns because it is a ministerial ordinance
and the Commission has already made the findings that basically dictate the
decision. From both a legal and practical standpoint, he would suggest
following the Ordinance as it is presented, which is a change, but not one
that really makes a difference in the final analysis to anyone who has a
problem.
Ms. Thomas asked if the site plan is appealable to the Commission. Mr.
Davis said the administrative approval can be appealed to the Commission if a
Commission member wishes to bring it up to the Commission. The process allows
someone who has a problem to ask their Commission member to bring it up and it
would be considered at a Commission meeting.
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
000029
Ms. Thomas said all she could find was that the request for review of a
preliminary site plan could be called up to the Commission by the developer,
or any person notified, or any member of the Commission, but she did not see
that the final site plan could be called up in that same way. If this is
essentially a work session tonight, then perhaps someone could get her an
answer to that question. Mr. Davis replied that in Section 32.4.36 the final
site plan can be reviewed by the Commission if there is a substantial change
from the preliminary plan, or if the Commission requested review of the final
site plan during preliminary site plan approval, or if the developer requests
review because he is unhappy with a staff decision.
Ms. Thomas said an individual Commission member could not bring the site
plan brought back up unless he thinks there has been substantial change, or
unless the Commission had decided that during their work on the preliminary
site plan. She said Blandemar Farm is an example of where, right today, a
Commission member has called up the final site plan. That would not be
possible the way the proposed ordinance is written. Mr. Cilimberg said it is
actually the final subdivision plat that has been called up. Mr. Davis said
that is a good point. If the Board wants any individual Commission member to
be able to bring up a final plan that did not meet these three conditions,
that section would need to be reworded to provide a fourth scenario so any
Commission member could call it up. It has been staff's opinion that the
three scenarios covered most concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg said when there is Commission or administrative approval
of a preliminary site plan, conditions are established. If those conditions
are met and provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are met, the
plan is entitled to approval. It is at the preliminary stage that any
particular issue should be addressed. That was the intent when the procedures
were changed to have a preliminary and final site plan. Because of that,
staff focused on those cases where it may be warranted for a final site plan
to go to the Commission despite the preliminary site plan conditions.
Ms. Thomas said the Commission minutes show that they discussed appeal
of a site plan several times, but there did not seem to be a way for an
individual Commission member to call up the final site plan. She asked that
staff get back to the Board on this. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission
considered this, and what had been Section 32.4.38 of the Site Plan provisions
had been stricken. His notes from that meeting said that staff needed to add
back a provision for final site plan appeal, which has been done in the new
version in Section 32.4.39.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board hold the public hearing to see if
there were any members of the public present to speak.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for
comments. With no one from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she had several suggestions to make but the hour was
late. She asked when this will be before the Board again. Mr. Davis said
there has been a long process involved in recodifying the County Code. That
will be advertised for a public hearing on July 15. Because the Subdivision
Ordinance is part of the County Code, it was staff's intent to recodify that
ordinance at that time. In order to do that, State Code requires that the
normal public hearing be held by the Commission before doing the
recodification. The Commission has already held its public hearing. There
was to be a public hearing tonight to be sure the Board agreed with what was
being proposed, and then staff intended to make the necessary changes as to
numbering in the recodification. The Subdivision Ordinance will now become
Chapter 14 in the new Code. The public hearing for the entire recodification
was to be scheduled for July 15. It would be helpful if staff knew the
ordinance were ~clean" for that hearing because the document will be
published.
Ms. Thomas said this was an ~agenda from hell" tonight. She does not
think the Board members had a lot of time to look over all of this language.
In addition to that, the Board was sent the wrong draft of the ordinance, and
she spent a lot time studying the wrong ordinance. She did find some things,
but she does not know how the Board wishes to proceed because of the lateness
of the hour. Mr. Martin said even if the Board can't achieve Mr. Davis'
objective and have the cleanest of ordinances on July 15, he thinks it would
be much preferable to have the discussion on July 15 at a reasonable hour,
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
000030
than try at 11:15 p.m. to decipher the difference between "recall" and
"appeal." Ms. Thomas said she will not be present at the meeting on July 15.
Mr. Martin suggested the Board pick another date. Mr. Davis said the best
thing to do may be to put a discussion on the July 1 agenda in order to
identify and get some consensus on any changes. The final document could then
be adopted on July 15 and that could satisfy Ms. Thomas' questions. Ms.
Thomas agreed with that suggestion.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to
defer ZTA-98-06, STA-98-01 to the July 1 meeting. (The proposed fee schedule
was not discussed at this time.) Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: August 7 and October 2, 1996.
Mr. Perkins said that he had read the August 7 minutes and thought he
had approved them the week before, as well.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of October 2, 1996, pages 18 to 27,
and gave a few typographical errors to the Clerk.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Ms. Thomas said she was asked to remind the Board members that they had
been invited to a dinner event at the Rotunda for visitors from the Italian
Sister City on the June 27th.
Ms. Humphris said at the celebration of the completion of the
Sustainability Accords in the Parking Garage last night during the thunder
storm, Mr. Bowerman represented the Board very well in the presentation, as
did Ms. Thomas. She said it was a nice occasion.
Ms. Humphris noted that the area has again been recognized as a good
place to live. She hopes the public understands that when the article in
Money Magazine says ~Charlottesville", they are talking about the whole area
which includes 144,815 people in Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna, Greene
and Louisa. She said the Board should be proud of that even though the hoards
of people will continue to come.
Mr. Huff said Dr. Susan McLeod, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health
District, had contacted him late this afternoon. A local veterinarian has
agreed to hold a rabies clinic at the Southwood Trailer Park on June 27, 1998,
to vaccinate cats and dogs in that community. State Code requires the
governing body to approve rabies clinics that are held outside of the
veterinarian's office. Dr. McLeod asked for emergency approval by the Board.
A handout provided to the Board stated, "The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors finds that a need exists for periodic public rabies vaccination
clinics in the County to assure that all dogs and cats are properly immunized
against rabies in accordance with State law. The Board delegates to the
director of the local Health Department the authority to approve or deny
approval for individual clinics based upon the Health Department's assessment
of the immediate need for the clinic to protect the health of the citizens of
the County."
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date ~,~
Initials ~
June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
00003
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Thomas, to approve
this request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote: I
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m