Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997-02-12
February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) oooa. ao A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 12, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Dr. John Ashley, a resident of 1940 Stillhouse Road, Charlottesville, 22901, said he signed the petition for the City to revert to town status. He has lived in this community for about 16 years. He considers Charlottesville- Albemarle to be a single community. Six months ago when he moved into the County, he recognized this as a socio-economic segregated community. He is embarrassed and concerned about this situation. He believes the current separation of the community is not in the interest of most citizens. He believes most citizens want this to be an integrated single community. He believes the current separation and apparent resistance to come together reflects poorly on the community and the leaders of the community to not find a way to bring everyone together. He believes that schools are the principal issue that separates the community. The political leaders need to find a way to consolidate the schools so as to become an integrated community. Any one of the three high schools, located in the urban ring, could be a magnet school for the community. As the Board considers the issue of reversion, he urged it to modify its current position, and fire the consultants and lawyers who have been hired to try to protect the status quo. He urged the Board to assume the mantle of leadership by sitting down with City Council to make this a unified, integrated community. He urged the Board to assume that responsibility. Mrs. Humphris said usually Board members do not reply to a matter from the public that it has not discussed, but this issue has been discussed for several years. The Board feels positive about its posture of leadership. She finds it discouraging that someone thinks no leadership has been shown and that it is possible for the Board to fire consultants and lawyers. The Board has been thrust into a situation where it had no choice but to hire consul- tants and lawyers because the petitioners filed a petition for reversion. The Board is forced into a posture of spending taxpayer dollars to go through this process. The only thing that can change this is a response from City Council. All City Council has to do is make a decision on reversion. They either respond ~yes" that reversion is a good solution to their perceived problems. The Board is not sure about the problems. If City Council does that, the Board will meet with them immediately to discuss terms and conditions. If, in fact, the City has no intent to revert to town status, all they have to do is say so, and it is possible to quickly put an end to these proceedings. When that is over, the Board will sit down and talk about what the County can do to help the City solve its problems to make this a better community. She does not know how to say it to make it any more clear. She feels the Board is being unjustly blamed for something over which it has no control at this time. The Board wants more than anyone else in this community to have a solid core in the City of Charlottesville. That is of utmost importance to Albemarle County, and the Board will do whatever it can to achieve that, but right now the Board is waiting for the City to make its decision. Mr. Marshall commented that Mrs. Humphris is also speaking for the other members of this Board. Mr. Martin said when looking at the population of the County and the City, this is a small number of petitioners that have thrown us into this February 12, 1997 (Regular NigHt ~eting) (Page 2) 000&8! situation. In his opinion, it is the responsibility of City leaders to let the Board know what they want to do. If they want to revert, then the County will negotiate terms and conditions. If they do not want to revert, the Board will talk about their problems and What help can be offered. Mrs. Thomas said the idea of combining the City and County school systems, without reversion, is something that the City and County realized a long time ago was not possible. In terms of the financial support the City would have to come up with, the school study that was planned, until the petition was filed, would have been useful in determining what can be done with the schools. She hopes some day the City and County can return to that idea. Consolidating the school systems without reversion financially is not a possibility. Dr. Ashley again urged the Board to assume that mantle of leadership for the citizens of the community who want this to be an integrated and single community. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: General Fund - Towe Park, $7,690 (Form #96050). The Executive Summary states that application was made to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for damages resulting from Hurricane Fran. The primary damage incurred by the County was in the parks, Greenwood Commu- nity Center and general cleanup of debriS. Expenses for the cleanup and repairs were paid from the Parks & Recreation budget and reimbursement from FEMA in the amount of $8,179 has been received. This amount represents $7,690 for damages with the remainder to cover administrative costs for collecting and submitting the claim. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $7,690 to replace the funds expended from Park's operating budget. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation, by the vote shown above: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NI3MBER: 96050 FI/ND: GENERAL/TOWE PARK PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FEMA FUNDS FOR DAMAGE FROM HURRICANE FRAN. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1420071002600700 TOWE PARK REPAIRS & NLAINT. $1,510.00 110007101212000 PARKS & REC. OVERTIME WAGES 3,115.00 1100071012600700 PARKS & REC. REPAIRS & MAINT. 3,065.00 TOTAL $7,690.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000240419 GENERAL-STATE-FEMA $1,112.00 2100033000330106 GENERAL-FEDERAL-FEMA 5,068.00 2420024000240419 TOWE PARK-STATE-FEMA 272.00 2420033000330106 TOWE PARK-FEDERAL-FEMA 1,238.00 TOTAL $7,690.00 oooa. az February 12, 1997 (Regular Nig~ M~ing) (Page 3 ) Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Adult Education Fund Balance, $4,316.60 (Form #96051). The Executive Summary indicated that the School Board, at its meeting on January 27, 1997, approved the reappropriation of $4,316.60 from the Adult Education Grant Fund Balance. The Adult Education Grant Fund Balance includes Regional Adult Education Specialist in the amount of $569.26, Regional Literacy Coordinating Committee in the amount of $714.29, Adult Basic Educa- tion (ABE) in the amount of $2,216.75 and General Adult Education (GEA) in the amount of $816.30. The funds will be used to support adult education classes, GED instruction and family literacy initiatives. Staff recommends approval of the request. The Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation, by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NLIMBER: 96051 FL/ND: ADULT EDUC. PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADULT EDUCATION FUND BALANCE. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1311563321601300 1311563322132100 1311563322210000 1311563322601300 1311563323550100 1311563326580000 INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS PART TIME WAGES-TEACHER FICA INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS TRAVEL-MILEAGE MISC. EXPENSES TOTAL $816.30 1,382.94 114.56 719.25 569.26 714.29 $4,316.60 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2311551000510100 ADULT EDUC. FUND BALANCE $4,316.60 TOTAL $4,316.60 Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education - Carryover Funds, $120,091.52 (Form #96052). The Executive Summary states that at its meeting on January 27, 1997, the School Board approved the transfer of $120,091.52 to the schools from the fund balance for carryover funds and distribution of building rental fees collected. School Board Policy DB-E allows for school-based accounts to carry forward no more than ten percent of their unexpended funds from one fiscal year to another. The total school-based carryover from FY 1995/96 equals $120,091.52. School Board Policy KG-R stipulates that 40 percent of building rental fees that are collected, are to be distributed to the rented facility to be used toward equipment replacement. As of June 30, 1996, a total amount of $19,732.50 had been collected from building rental fees. Of this amount, $7,893.00 (40 percent) should be transferred to the schools per School Board policy. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $120,091.52. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation, by the vote shown above: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NI3MBER: 96052 FI/ND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF CARRYOVER FUNDS TO SCHOOL-BASED ACCOUNTS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1220161101601300 BROADUS WOOD ED/REC SUPPLIES $738.70 1220261101601300 BROWNSVILLE ED/REC SUPPLIES 4,964.83 1220361101601300 CROZET ED/REC SUPPLIES 8,013.59 1220461101601300 GREER ED/REC SUPPLIES 1,174.82 0001 February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 1220561101601300 1220761101601300 1220961101601300 1221061101601300 1221161101601300 1221261101601300 1221361101601300 1221461101601300 1221561101601300 1221661101601300 1225161101601300 1225261101601300 1225361101601300 1225461101601300 1225561101601300 1230161101601300 1230261101601300 1230361101601300 HOLLYMEAD RED HILL SCOTTSVILLE STONE ROBINSON STONY POINT WOODBROOK YANCEY CALE MURRAY AGNOR HURT BURLEY HENLEY JOUETT WALTON SUTHERLAND ALBEMARLE WESTERN ALBEMARLE MI/RRAY ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES TOTAL 10,965.50 4,779 00 1,938 58 10,780 20 250 64 2 119 59 3 543 49 3 271 29 2 288 72 6 182 64 3 852 94 13 408.00 5 848.45 1 568.32 12596.7 7191.46 10699.47 3914.59 $120,091.52 REVENTJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200051000510100 SCHOOL FLIND BALANCE $120,091.52 TOTAL $120,091.52 Item No. 5.4. Adopt resolution to change street names in Phases 2-C and 3-A of Redfields Subdivision. Staff recently approved a final subdivision plat for Phase 2-C and Phase 3-A of Redfields Subdivision which assigned two road names duplicating existing road names. Subsequent to this final approval, staff contacted the developer and requested alternate names for these two roads which are not duplicates of any existing names. The developer, through his representative, has submitted the two names. Section 18-39(h) of the Subdivision Ordinance provides that once a final plat has been approved, approval by the Board is required to change the name of a proposed road. Once the Board has approved the change proposed, staff will coordinate modification of the plat with the developer and re-record the plat to ensure that the change is reflected in the Court's records. Staff recommends the Board adopt a resolution to change the road names ~Devon Court" and "Wood Duck Lane", located in Redfields Subdivision, to ~Devon Spring Court" and "Canvas Back Drive" respectively, and; grant author- ity to staff to implement these road name changes. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: WHEREAS, the final subdivision plat for Phase 2-C and Phase 3- A of the Redfields Subdivision was recently approved, and the plat assigned two street names -- ~Devon court" and ~Wood Duck Lane .... which duplicate existing street names; and WHEREAS, Section 18-39(h) of the Subdivision Ordinance provides that the names of proposed streets shall not duplicate the names of existing streets either in the County or the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, alternative street names have been proposed that do not duplicate existing street names. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors approves the change of the street name "Devon Court" to ~Devon Spring Court," and approves the change of the street name "Wood Duck Lane" to ~Canvas Back Drive," on such plat; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that staff is directed to coordinate modification of the plat with the developer and to assure that the modified plat is recorded. February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) January 28, 1997, were received as information. 000 34 Item No. 5.6. Copy of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Appalachian Power Company to implement advanced time of day rate experiment, was received as information. Item No. 5.7. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for December 19, 1996, was received as information. Item No. 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for December 16, 1996, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on request from Lochallen Land Trust to amend service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for Limited Sewer Service to Existing Structures on Tax Map 58, Parcels 6B & 6C located between Rt 250 W (Ivy Rd} & Rt 853 {Allendale Dr ) just S of Glenaire Subd. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant, Lochallen Land Trust, requests juris- dictional area designation for limited service (sewer) to existing structures. The request is for service to nine rental units (13 bedrooms), of which six units are located in one building and three units are located in a second building. The two buildings located on Tax Map 58, Parcels 6B&6C, are between Route 250 West (Ivy Road) and Route 853 (Allendale Drive), just south of Glenaire Subdivision. These parcels are 1.035. acres and .574 acres, respec- tively. The parcels are not within a designated development area, and are located within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir watershed. In a letter dated November 18, 1996, the applicant stated that the two apartment units have been located on this property for approximately 30 years and that the septic fields that serve these two units over that time have failed. The applicant further stated that these systems are presently incapable of serving even one rental unit. There is insufficient land on the existing parcels to locate new septic fields. Attempts have been made to locate a septic field to serve these units on adjacent properties; however, either the adjacent property owners are unwilling to grant an easement or there is insufficient land area available on the adjacent properties to locate a new septic field. Also, the applicant has explored the possibility of installing an alternative type system on the existing parcels; however, again, adequate land area is not available. The owner is currently using the pump and haul method to remove the waste. In a letter dated December 20, 1996, from Mr. Gary Rice of the Thomas Jefferson Health District, the information regarding the condition of the septic fields and the infeasibility of provid- ing an alternative system was confirmed. Also, the Thomas Jefferson Health District has indicated that the best alternative to serve the property is a connection to the Crozet interceptor. A connection to the Crozet interceptor would require a duplex pump station with approximately 1,000 feet of force main and another 1,000 feet of gravity line. The applicant has stated that this would be a private system and cleanouts would be used in lieu of manholes to discourage any additional connections to the system. The applicant has indicated that all the necessary easements can be obtained. Mr. Cilimberg said in preparation for the Board's consideration of this request, staff provided a summary of all requests to amend the ACSA jurisdic- tional area map to allow a connection to the Crozet interceptor (See Table I) and comments from David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, concerning this request. In his memorandum, Mr. Hirschman stated that he supports connection to the Crozet interceptor for the property in question as the best technical and long-term solution to a public health and safety problem. February 12, 199'7 (Regular N±ght Meet±ng') (Page 6) Summary of Requests to Amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Map to Allow Connection to the Crozet Interceptor Table I Applicant Date TM/Parcels Action Comments Christian Aid Mission 7/13/83 TM59, Parcel 23G Denied Request not consistent with goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. No verification of endangerment to public health and safety. Sieg/Kirtley & Javor 7/14/84 TM 59, Parcels Approved Board establishes policy regarding sewer 23C, 23 B, 23 (B) 1 service in the Rt. 250W area by allowing and 23 F (Portions) those properties with pre-existing zoning, which could be served by gravity flow and which drain away from the S. Fork Rivanna Watershed to be designated for sewer service. Albemarle County-Area 3/21/89 TM 55 &56-multi- Approved Limited service to existing structures north of Route 240 in Cro- ple parcels only. zet Ridge Restaurant 9/7/92 TM 57, Parcel 3 lA Approved Original septic system washed away in 1969 flood. The size of the site would not accommodate a new septic field and re- serve area. Service approved to the exist- ing structure, existing use and existing capacity only. Charlottesville Oil 9/7/94 TM 59, Parcels 77 Approved Septic field failed. The size of the site & 80B would not accommodate new septic field and reserve area. Verification was made that this was a public health and safety issue. Cafe No Problem-(Previ- 7/7/95 TM 57, Parcel 3 lA Approved Approved amendment of the ACSAjuris- ously referred to as the dictional designation for the restaurant Ridge Restaurant) formerly known as the Ridge to allow sewer service to an associated employee apartment above the restaurant. Virginia Department of 12/6/95 TM 73, 1-64 Right- Approved Existing mineral oil sewage system failed. Transportation-I-64 Rest of-Way Limited Service to existing rest stop Stops structures only. Rivanna Solid Waste 12/6/95 TM 73, Parcel 28 Approved Approved as a solution to safely transport Facility-Ivy Landfill leachate. Christian Aid Mission 8/7/96 TM 59, Parcel 23G Not taken to Public Property located within S. Fork Rivanna Hearing. Watershed. No circumstances had changed since the 1983 request. Mr. Cilimber9 said the Comprehensive Plan provides the followin9 concernin9 sewer service in the Rural Areas: General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health and safety are at issue. Recommendation: 0nly allow chan~es in jurisdictional areas outside of designated development area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existin9 lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered" (p. 112) . Recommendation: Prohibit access to the Crozet interceptor between the boundary of the Crozet Community and the Urban Area (p. 112). With the applicant's septic system backin~ up through the distribution box, the request for jurisdictional area designation seems to meet the health and safety requirements. The subject request is located approximately 2,000 feet from the Crozet interceptor, therefore, the request does not satisfy the adjacent existin9 line requirement. Mr. Cilimber~ said this is an unique and potentially precedent-settin~ request. A connection to the Crozet sewer for a residential property deserves particularly careful consideration in that, while not fully meetin~ the February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000t36 Comprehensive Plan intent for such service in the Rural Areas and connection to the Crozet interceptor, it does address an existing waste disposal problem and apparent health and safety problem within the South Fork Reservoir Rivanna River watershed. The applicant has actively sought alternative solutions to provide a replacement system for the apartment units without success. The Thomas Jefferson Health District and the Water Resources Manager have indicated that the best alternative to serve the property is a connection to the Crozet interceptor. Also, staff believes that the effect on the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of an amendment to the jurisdictional area map to allow public sewer service limited to that necessary to address this problem is not compromised since no additional development will result from such change. For those reasons staff recommends amendment of the jurisdictional area map to allow for limit service (sewer) to existing structures for two apartment buildings (total of 9 rental units) located on Tax. Map 58, Parcels 6B&6C. Mrs. Humphris suggested that, if approved, the recommendation include language that the sewer lines be sized to limit them strictly to this facil- ity. At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, President of Gloeckner Engineering, representing the applicant, said everyone has worked hard to correct an unhealthy situation. He asked the Board to look favorably upon the request. The sewer lines will be sized for this facility only. The applicant will use clean-outs instead of manholes on the gravity portion. There will be no hookup to the main portion. The gravity portion will be minimum and difficult to connect to and will discourage any other connections. Mrs. Thomas asked what is being done about the condition of the land that is saturated and not healthy at this time. Mr. Gloeckner said the land probably has a high water table since the pond has been constructed. He thinks it will dry up when the weather turns warmer. Hopefully, it will take care of itself. The owner does not have the control to pull the water table down. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Health Department has looked to see if a safety or health situation exist on the former septic fields. Mr. Gloeckner said, ~no", not since it is being pumped. Mr. Dwayne Roadcap, of the Virginia Department of Health, said he is the person who originally visited the property with the managing agency prior to Gary Rice visiting the site. He also met with Mr. Tom Ashton of American Manufacturing on the property and looked at a drip disposal type system, which is an alternative type system. The basic options available are either reduce the number of rental units, connect to public sewer or a discharge system. Officials at the Health Department do not feel a drip disposal system would work effectively because this is a saturated area where the drainfield is already failing. That is the reason the public sewer system is being recom- mended. With no one else rising to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the following language to add as part of the approval: "Connection to the Crozet interceptor will be provided by private sewer lines sized to serve the nine rental units only and will utilize clean- outs in lieu of manholes". Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for limited sewer service to existing structures for two apartment buildings (total of nine rental units only) located on Tax Map 58, Parcels 6B & 6C. Connection to the Crozet interceptor will be provided by private sewer lines sized to serve the nine rental units only and will utilize clean-outs in lieu of manholds. Knowing this is a precedent, the Board felt it necessary to clarify the reasons for taking such action. This action is taken on the advice of the Health Depart- ment, the County's Water Resources Manager and the Planning staff. This is a precedent only for moderate cost rental units in meeting a need identified in the County's housing plan, and the immediate health threat posed to occupants, neighbors and the watershed, with no alternatives except the pump and haul. February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000 .37 The applicant will pay all the hookup charges as would any new entity. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend the Albe- marle County Code by amending Chapter 1, General Provisions, to require a $20 fee for returned checks received for any payment other than for taxes and by amending Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, to require a $20 fee for returned checks received for the payment of taxes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1997.) Mr. Tucker said Section 8-12 of the County Code currently imposes a penalty of $25 for returned checks tendered for payment of taxes. There is currently no provision in the County Code for imposing a fee for returned checks received for any other purpose. While the majority of checks received by the County are for taxes, the County is experiencing increased problems with returned checks for other activities. This is likely due to the increase in fees charged for various activities such as Parks and Recreation programs, After School programs, school lunches, etc. The proposed amendments would provide for a $20 service fee on all checks; the $25 penalty would apply in addition to this service fee, if the check was in payment of taxes and the taxpayer failed to remit payment within five days after notification. Mr. Tucker said due to staff time involved in contacting the person who issued the returned check and, if necessary, reverse transactions and legal action, the fee and penalty would appear to be appropriate. He recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing was then closed. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an ordi- nance to amend the Albemarle County Code by amending Chapter 1, General Provisions, to require a $20 fee for returned checks received for any payment other than for taxes and by amending Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, to require a $20 fee for returned checks received for the payment of taxes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. ORDINANCE NO. 97-1(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 1, General Provisions is hereby amended and reordained by adding section 1-9, Fee for returned checks, and that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article 1, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-1.2, Penalty for returned checks, as follows: Sec. 1-9 Fee for returned checks Any person who utters, publishes or passes a check or draft for any sum due, other than for payment of taxes, which is subse- quently returned for insufficient funds or because there is no account or the account has been closed, shall pay a fee of twenty dollars ($20.00). Such fee shall be in addition to any and all other penalties and fees provided by law. State law reference - Authority for fee, Code of Virginia § 15.1- 29.4. February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000138 Sec. 8-1.2 Penalty and fee for returned checks (a) If any check tendered for any tax due under this chapter is not paid by the bank on which it is drawn, the taxpayer for whom such check was tendered shall remain liable for the payment of the tax the same as if such check had not been tendered. (b) If such person referred to in paragraph (a) of this section fails to pay the amount shown on the face of the check within five (5) days after notice of such nonpayment has been mailed to the taxpayer by the director of finance, a penalty of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) shall be added to the tax due. Such penalty shall be in addition to any and all other penalties and fees provided by law. © Any person who utters, publishes or passes a check or draft for payment of taxes, which is subsequently returned for insuffi- cient funds or because there is no account or the account has been closed, shall pay a fee of twenty dollars ($20.00). Such fee shall be in addition to any and all other penalties and fees provided by law. State law references - Authority for liability of taxpayer and penalty, Code of Virginia § 58.1-12; authority for fee, Code of Virginia § 15.1-29.4. (At this time Mr. Bowerman made a Transactional Disclosure Statement [copy on file in the Clerk's office]. He has a personal interest in a contract for sale of recreational fitness equipment with the principal of Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust. He disqualified himself from participatin~ in the discussion of ZMA-96-21 and SP-96-46. Mr. Bowerman then left the room at 7:26 p.m.) (Agenda Item Nos. 8 and 9 were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-21. Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust (Owner), The Peabody School (Applicant) (Signs #65 & #66). Public Hearin~ on a request to amend the dvlp plan for Mill Creek PUD as established with ZMA-85-29, to chan~e a 5 ac portion from Industrial to Commercial to allow dvlp of pvt school by SUP. Property on Stoney Ridge Rd on N sd of Southern Parkway adj to Carolina Bldrs. (Property is designated for Industrial Service in Urban Neighborhood 4 by the Comprehensive Plan.) TM76M1,P15. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1997.) A~enda Item No. 9. SP-96-46. Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust (Owner), The Peabody School (Applicant). Public Hearin~ on a request to establish private school with ultimate enrollment of 140 students. For description of property, see ZMA-96-21 above. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1997.) Mr. Cilimber~ summarized the staff's reports for ZMA-96-21 and SP-96-46 which are on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommended denial of ZMA-96-21 and SP-96-46. Staff opinion was that the industrial area of Mill Creek Planned Development should be retained for industrial users. The incremental loss of industrial land may lead to the request for industrial land in areas not as well suited as the Mill Creek industrial area. In addition, the placement of a school on this site may affect the placement of additional industrial users in the area due to potential conflict and may result in the request to modify the operation of existin9 industrial development. Mr. Cilimber9 said the negative factors identified in the review of the special use permit are similar to those identified in the analysis of the rezonin~. In the review of the special use permit, staff identified an additional negative factor which is modification to permit temporary nonresi- dential mobile homes. These units are intended to permit expansion of existin~ uses and allowin~ these units for the initial establishment of a use is inconsistent with the intent of the provision. February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 0001,39 The Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 7, 1997, recommended approval of ZMA-96-21, by a vote of 6:1. The Commission noted the loss of industrial land and that inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan was a consideration. The Commission commented that it was difficult to find good locations for private schools and the location may be a benefit due to its proximity to a residential area. The Commission thought that if the applicant could proffer the use of the property to office uses or the school use, it would be able to recommend favorably. Mr. Cilimberg noted that since the Commission's meeting, the applicant has submitted a proffer. With that understanding the Commission recommended approval of ZMA-96-21 and SP-96-46, with one condition. The Commission also approved modification of Section 5.8 to allow for the use of temporary nonresidential mobile homes. Mrs. Humphris said the staff report mentioned that because Industrial Access Funds were used for the road, if enough qualifying industrial users did not locate there, the money would have to be repaid to the state. She did not see any further comments or discussion on that issue. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know how this request affects the status of the Industrial Access Funds. In response to Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Hunter Craig, said the applicant puts up $25,000. He then has 36 months to obtain a qualifying use in the indus- trial park. The users are very limited. Mr. Craig said none of their businesses qualified; therefore there were no government dollars in this project. The state kept the money since there were no users. The Chairman then opened the public hearings on ZMA-96-21 and SP-96-46. Ms. Harriett Kaplan, Director of the Peabody School, said the school started looking for a site about four years ago. This is the only suitable site they were able to find. The school is currently located in an office building. The school is growing every year and they need green space for the children to play outside. For those reasons commercial buildings are not suitable. She then described in detail the school's site selection process. Regarding the unfavorable factors listed by staff, Ms. Kaplan did not think taking this one, five acre parcel out of industrial use would tip the balance. This parcel has been sitting vacant for awhile. This is a mixed-use area. A school would not be out of character. Being located adjacent to Carolina Builders is not of concern to the school, particularly when compared to the school's current location. Currently, the students have to cross Angus Road to play in a field adjacent to a hotel. When the field is wet and muddy, the students play in the parking lot. The owners of Carolina Builders said they would welcome the school as a neighbor. The temporary modular units will be brought to the site in sections. The sections will then be put together to create one attractive building. Ms. Kaplan showed a photograph of a similar- type, although not the same, building. The ten units will be connected together, with siding and will have extensive landscaping for the temporary home. The temporary building will be used for only a short time. The school has been growing quickly. Three years ago the school had 13 children; now they have approximately 40 students and will be over 50 students next year. The school seems to be well-received in the community. They have been working with an architect in the community to design their new building. The building will be very traditional, Jeffersonian and brick. Ms. Kaplan said one of the positive aspects of this site is the central location for those families which the school will serve. The site's proximity to Piedmont Virginia Community College offers unique educational opportuni- ties; they share faculty. Their philosophy teacher is a professor at PVCC, and she comes twice a month to Peabody to teach. Their students go to PVCC and participate in honors philosophy class. They also have students who come to Peabody from PVCC as part of their service learning program. Dr. DiCroce is on the Board of Peabody and they have talked to her about using some of PVCC facilities, e.g., the Humanities Building, athletic fields and tennis courts. Peabody provides a unique educational opportunity for the area. It is a school for intellectually advanced children. The children are offered opportunities to be challenged. She asked everyone present in support of Peabody to rise (approximately 30 people stood up). February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 0001.40 Mr. John Russell said he has a son William who is in the eighth grade at Henley Middle School. William is a high ability student and is thriving in public school. William will attend Western Albemarle next year. His daugh- ter, Roxanne, is in the fourth grade at Peabody. Roxanne originally attended the County school system and she is a high ability student, but her experi- ences in public schools did not go as well as William's experiences. Mr. Russell praised Peabody School and stressed that it meets special needs for children who are intellectually advanced, but whose needs may not be met in the traditional public school setting. They have a school, but need a permanent home. He asked the Board to approve the request. Ms. Kaplan asked the Board to grant the request. They are anxious to begin working on a permanent home for the school. Mrs. Humphris asked how the applicant would build a permanent building when the temporary building is already on site. Ms. Kaplan said the temporary building will be located on part of the site while the other part of the site is being prepared for the permanent building. The school will remain in the temporary building while the permanent building is being constructed, then they will move part of the school in the first phase of the permanent build- ing. The building will be built in phases and eventually the temporary classrooms will be eliminated. Mrs. Thomas asked if the permanent building will be perpendicular. Mr. Cilimberg said the site plan does not currently show the permanent building. The site plans shows the temporary classrooms and play fields. There will be a relatively level area to work with, but he does not know how it will be laid out. Ms. Kaplan said there will be three buildings, e.g., lower school, middle school and a gymnasium and auditorium, clustered on the site. The school will serve grades K-8, at its maximum. Mr. Marshall asked what was the time frame. Ms. Kaplan said they are hopeful to break ground in a couple of years. Mrs. Thomas said one of the problems with zoning land that does not fit the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan is when the use on the neighbor- ing land is the recommended use in the Plan, the original occupants (you) will suddenly find this not very pleasant and argue against that use. This is located on a road that will someday be a major road that could carry traffic to a major industrial use. She asked about the applicant's thoughts on that issue. Ms. Kaplan said they know who their neighbors are going to be. There will not be that many changes. One side has Carolina Builders and Bright Beginnings Day Care Center neither of which are not going anywhere. On the other side there are woods down to Mill Creek and then the road. The school has a nice buffer; it is in a wooded area and located back far enough from the road. She does not think the new road will impact them. It is also good to have other schools in the vicinity to be able to share resources, e.g., Cale Elementary and Monticello High. Mr. Eric Kaplan said he has been working with the architects. He explained the location of the temporary and permanent buildings on the site. He commented that the Planning Department was provided with three or four phasing diagrams. Mr. Stephan Hawranke, a landowner in southern Albemarle County, said Peabody School fits into a spot where there is no other school. His daughter is happy at Peabody. She is challenged. This type school is needed in the area. The school is currently located on Route 29 North, so they are use to traffic. There are already other schools in this area. The location, between commercial and residential housing, would create a buffer. He thinks this is the best place to locate the school. Mr. Lane Bonner, President of HasBrouck Real Estate, said he does not believe there is a scarcity of industrial land in the County. There is still about 100 acres of undeveloped industrial land in this area. In the last ten years, they have sold about 15 acres of industrial land per year. It seems like there is still a lot of industrial land remaining (approximately 1000 February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000 .4 . acres). There is great difficulty in finding land for a school. He worked with Peabody School for four years. He thinks a precedent was set for this parcel when the Board rezoned the adjacent property for a day care use. Both parcels have entrances onto Stoney Ridge Road. He asked the Board to support the request. Ms. Kathy Petchel, owner of Bright Beginnings Pre-School and Kindergar- ten, said they would welcome Peabody School as a neighbor. It would also allow many cooperative opportunities. Mr. Bill Howard, of Real Estate III Commercial Properties, said he has been in commercial sales for the last 15 years, and has not sold a lot of industrial property. In this area of the County, the terrain does not lend itself for large industrial sites. He has worked with Hunter Craig on this piece of property for a long time. Mr. Craig has turned down potential users of this property because they did not fit; the buildings were not of the type that should be located on the property. When developed, the site will be something everybody can be proud. It is a nice area. He does not believe that putting this school in there will upset the harmony. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with the Planning Commission. He can find no substantial reason not to support the request. At this time, there is no demand for industrial land in the area. The neighborhood supports the request. He then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve ZMA-96-21, as proffered. Mrs. Thomas said a zoning decision is not made because a school is good or bad; it is whether the school is an appropriate use of the land. The type of school should not be the basis of the decision. She appreciated the staff reminding the Board that it would be giving up some industrial land and that should not be done lightly. She believes this use fits on this piece of property. Mrs. Humphris said she also appreciates the staff recommendation because it follows this Board's policy. She also agrees this is a difficult problem for schools, and this is probably the best use for this particular site. She is glad the applicant commented about how they would feel in the future when cars are driving by their building. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman. PROFFER FORM Date: 2-4-97 ZMA #96-21 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 76M1-15 5.09 Acres to be rezoned from PUD-LI to PUD-COMMERCIAL 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. Uses provided for in Section 20.4.1(1) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on January 15, 1997, a copy attached (on file in the Clerk's office), shall not be permitted. Signed: Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust By: Hunter Craig, Trustee (2-4-97) February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 00014; Mr. Marshall offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-96-46 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman. (Condition of approval:) 1. The school shall be limited to a maximum of 140 students. (Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 8:04 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-96-41. Forest Springs Mobile Home Sales Lot (Signs #13 & #14). Public Hearing on a request to establish outdoor storage & display of mobile homes for sale on approx 7.9 acs, zoned HC, in addition to existing auto sales on property located approx 1/4 mi S of Rt 649 on W sd of Rt 29 N. TM32,P43 is zoned PA, HC & EC; TM32,P43A is zoned HC & EC. (This action is related to SDP-96-097, Forest Springs Mobile Home Sales Center Major Site Plan Amendment which provides for outdoor storage & 'display of mobile homes.) (This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Hollymead Community.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The original special use permit that allowed the storage and display and sales of mobile homes was approved concurrent with the rezoning action in 1993. That special use permit subsequently expired. Special use permits have a time frame that is set out in the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, the request is back before the Board for the same and would as a result actually provide for two special use permits on this property: 1) for the more specific outdoor storage and display for the auto sales that was approved in 1995 and, 2) for the larger area for display and storage of mobile home sales. In addition to the proffers limiting the use, the entrances to proper- ties and such, there was a proffer that specified an access road that would connect this mobile home sales area to the mobile homes subdivision now under development. He indicated on the maps before the Board, the area under review located on 29 North just south of the Airport Road intersection. He also indicated the development area of the mobile home subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg said one of the considerations, when the Board initially rezoned this property for mobile home sales, was the relationship of the mobile home sales to the mobile home subdivision. Initially, there was a proffer, which tied the development of the mobile homes sales to the approval and signing of a site plan for the mobile home development. That occurred before the last rezoning action, thus the Board no longer has that proffer because it was satisfied. Now there are over 100 lots in development in Forest Springs. The zoning still requires a connection of the two areas, because again in the Board's original action, it saw a relationship between the two, and it was a specific zoning action which allowed the mobile homes sales. The Comprehensive Plan called for this area of commercial designation, which was designated as regional service, to be under a unified plan. This area was allowed to proceed under a separate zoning action because of its relationship to the mobile home development which was continued in the 1995 action taken by the Board, and that connection continues to be in the zoning requirement for this property. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has received a request from the applicant, which is still under review and has not gotten to the Planning Commission for public hearing, to remove that connection. That is not part of the Board's action tonight. This particular special use permit is due solely to the location of the outdoors storage and display in the Entrance Corridor District, therefore, staff comments have been limited to the discussion of impact on the District. Staff relied heavily on the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). In fact, staff is recommending conditions the ARB recommended when February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 000 .4'3 they endorsed this as a possible use in the EC District. The ARB's recommen- dation for approval was a primary consideration for the staff in making their recommendation to the Commission. Staff could not identify any negative factors related to the outdoor storage and display in the EC District. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 7, 1997, a motion to approve SP-96-41 failed by a vote of 4:3. Therefore, by the Commissions' Rules of Procedure, the petition is recommended for denial. Mrs. Humphris said she remembers the lengthy meeting of the Board when it was trying to decide whether the special permit should be allowed for the mobile home park. All of the current members were on the Board at that time except Mrs. Thomas. There was a major connection between the existence of the mobile home sales area and the mobile home park. She does not believe it was discussed in detail in the staff report or by the Commission. One of the main issues was the location of the mobile home park in the Airport Overlay District and the requirement for special fitted mobile homes with special noise attenuation built into them. The applicant argued that the mobile homes would not be available anywhere else, so he wanted the sales area there with the road that connected it to the park specifically to make that type of mobile home available to the residents of the park. She is more than a little concerned. She knows the Board is not supposed to be thinking about the road, but the reason for the road was the special connection, and the reason for the original special permit was because of the special units. Now it appears they are not in the Airport Overlay District and no requirement for noise attenua- tion units. Since the units can be purchased from any mobile home sales center, why should the Board approve this request when the original reason has disappeared. She does not believe the Board would have approved the request otherwise. Mr. Cilimberg said the special use permit aspect was not based on that relationship, only on the outdoor storage and display aspect. The zoning action, in terms of proffers accepted, was not specified to cover only mobile home sales that would have met the noise attenuation. He believes the proffers accepted in 1993 were similar to the proffers that now exist with the exception of dropping the requirement for development of the sales area being tied to the development of the subdivision, because that refers to a site plan that needed to be approved and by the time this 1995 action had taken place, the site plan had been approved. He recalls that the Board was tieing this rezoning decision specifically to this development and the connecting road was a specific aspect because the Board felt there needed to be the ability to move those mobile homes into the park from the sales rather than using the road network. Also, the applicant discussed the mobile home features that he would be selling to meet the attenuation requirement. He does not think that noise attenuation was specified for the mobile home sales. It simply allowed mobile home sales to occur. In this review, staff is limited to the relation- ship to the EC Overlay District. At this time, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant came forward. Mr. Tom Batchelor, representing the applicant, said this application was renewed because time elapsed on the previous one. The applicant feels he will be able to provide a service to the public in these homes, not only for the homes that will go in this park, but also homes that will go other places in the community as they are needed. The applicant has met with the ARB, and they like what was presented to them. The four units that are on the front can be seen and everything else would be screened from the highway. The better job the applicant does, the more customers he will get. The community needs these mobile homes and the applicant want to provide them. If he does a good job, then he will make some money. Mr. Batchelor said the park needs to have a supply from the owner/ operator, Mr. Wood, that he can sell in his park. No one would want to do a park without sales. Profits from the sales are needed to make development of the park economically feasible. In addition, he would like to make a profit by selling to people who live outside the park. Mr. Martin said he understands that these four units will access the site from Route 29 and displayed permanently on the lot. Purchasers would receive a version of the home from the manufacturer who would then use Airport February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 000:144 Road to access the park. Mr. Batchelor said 99 percent of the homes that come into the park will come directly from the factory. Mr. Martin asked how the applicant arrived at the number four. Mr. Batchelor said four is only the number of units that can be seen from the highway. There will be other units on display. Mrs. Thomas said she believes the ARB set a maximum of seven or said there should be as few as possible units displayed. The Commission set a maximum of four units, subject to approval by the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg said this condition is subject to site plan review and requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mrs. Thomas asked what happened to the plan discussed with the Board back in November, in which the models were going to be set up in the mobile home park. The applicant indicated that this would make the project more affordable since there is an approximate $2000 cost differential from locating the sales lot on Route 29. Everyone felt good about that plan. It was presented to the Board, not for approval, but to explain the reason for the auto sales. She asked if now the mobile homes would increase $2000. Mr. Batchelor responded, ~no", the cost will not increase $2000. He cannot sell enough mobile homes in the park to make it an economically feasible or viable project. He has been in the mobile home business for many years. He believes that 60 percent of the people buying mobile homes would not know about them, if they do not see them from Route 29. In addition, other sales centers, such as Oakwood, are not going to send people to this park to purchase a mobile home. Mr. Martin asked why Oakwood would not send a person to this park, since they do not own a'park and the purchaser needs a place to locate the mobile home. Mr. Batchelor said all the homes in this park will be sold by Mr. Wood. That is how he makes the park economically feasible. Mr. Wood could not develop the park, if Oakwood was getting the profits. Mrs. Humphris said part of this deal was that Mr. Wood got the rezoning change which allowed commercial use although he was only required to keep the mobile home park in operation for 15 years. He will have a profit in the future, if not immediately, when that land is converted to another more profitable use. Mr. Batchelor said he will make a profit only if the land is ripe in 15 years. He has seen only one mobile home park disassembled and the land converted to commercial use, but nothing has gone on the site. After the initial costs, mobile home parks have traditionally garnered enough money that they are a good investment. He cannot say what will go here in 15 years, but he thinks this will still be a park in 25 years. He thinks this will be a park for a long time because there is a lot of land in the area to be absorbed. Mrs. Humphris said this is a totally different scenario from what the Board was told when it was dealing with the original request and zoning map amendment. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the ARB did specify a maximum of four units in that front display area on Route 29. Basically their language is the same that the staff used in its conditions. The ARB also specified that the remainder of the display area would require complete screening from Route 29. Mrs. Humphris asked if any mention was of the total number of units. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not see mention of that in the ARB minutes. The only number that gets referenced in several places in the staff report and the action is the four units on 29. Mr. Wood said most everything that has been said tonight is correct. That was his intent, but he realized a problem the more he got involved in the issue of strictly sales in the park. The park will be opening with 115 lots. In hindsight, he does not know if he would agree to that today. There is already close to $3.0 million invested in the park. Hopefully, the park will open by April 15. Mr. Wood said he believes his company is the largest developer of affordable housing in the County. One of the reasons they want to have this control is the cost factor. They currently operate five parks and he thinks they know what they are doing. This park is going to have some stringent February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 000145 regulations. Ail of the houses in the park will have vinyl siding, A-frame roof and shingles. That costs about $2000 more per unit. Vinyl siding is a nice feature. He can control the attractiveness of the park and eliminate additional costs by being the seller of the homes. This is done in Briarwood Subdivision. He has a history of operating this way and he wants to do the same for this park. This will be a dramatically different look in mobile homes. He also believes this will add to the value of the home. Mr. Wood said this proposal is a better product. He needs that control. He needs the sales lot to make the park affordable. He is approaching this from a business standpoint. Mr. Martin said he will save his questions about the internal road until that issue comes up. He asked Mr. Wood what happened between November and now when the Board approved the car lot. He thought the request for the car lot was in lieu of the outdoor display. Mr. Wood said they want to control the park. Mrs. Thomas said in November, 1996, Mr. Wood said there would be model homes in the park which does not take away his control. He also said the units would cost $2000 less because they could be purchased there on the site. In her mind, the reason that was relevant and made the Board feel good about the auto sales proposal was because it was tied into making each mobile home $2000 more affordable. Mr. Wood said he believes this 'would allow them to hold their cost and still provide a better-looking facility. Mr. Bowerman asked what was the problem with displaying the manufactured homes on the actual location in the park thereby freeing this area for some other use. He is having a difficult time understanding why the homes need to be put in this area to be shown. Mr. Wood responded that this is a cost item. Mr. Bowerman asked if he was correct in stating that instead of just marketing these homes for the mobile home park, Mr. Wood will also be selling them to the general public. Also, all the homes that go into the mobile home park are going to come from his sales. Mr. Wood said that is correct. Mr. Marshall commented that Mr. Wood would have extra visibility on Route 29 that he would not have in the park by itself. Mr. Wood said this becomes a buying power. When he first came to the Board, he did not plan on having restrictions in the park. He explained that he needs the volume of sales in order to make the price affordable and still have attractive units. This is a marketing tool. Mrs. Humphris asked if the park will only have upscale units or the prices will vary. Mr. Wood said the homes will be in different price ranges. Mrs. Humphris asked if the sales lot will offer other type homes. Mr. Wood said they would offer different products for use in other parks. He would like to be able to sell any product on the sales lot. Mr. Bowerman asked what would be the price for the homes that Mr. Wood is designing for the mobile home park. Mr. Wood said the prices will range from $19,900 to $36,000. The medium price range will be from $25,000 to $26,000. Mr. Martin asked hypothetically if he purchased a mobile home that met all Mr. Wood's specifications, but came from another dealer, would they be allowed in this park. Mr. Wood replied, uno." They want total control. Mrs. Humphris said even if a mobile home met his specifications, just because it was sold by another dealer, he would not allow it in your park. Mr. Wood replied, that was correct. There being no other comments from the applicant, the Chairman opened the hearing for comments from the public. Mr. John MacDonald, Chairman of the Forest Lakes Transportation and Land Use Committee, said the residents are confused by the meaning of the Entrance Corridor. While the Zoning Ordinance gives the appearance of being diligent, that is not reality. Section 30.6.2 of the Ordinance states: "The Entrance Corridor is created to conserve elements of the County's beauty". His interpretation of that is an overlay on commercial zoning to prevent urban sprawl. February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 000'!46 Nevertheless, in the last two years, Forest Lakes residents have seen additions to this corridor which look like the same thing one would find further south on Route 29, in a true urban commercial zone. For example, McDonalds, which is a nice building with setback, has a storage building within 15 feet of the roadway. Although they have planted trees which perhaps in ten years will hide the storage shed, there is no extensive landscaping on the McDonald's site. Second, ~'Wheels for Less", the used car lot, is display- ing merchandise within 15 feet of Route 29. He does not think this is an Entrance Corridor. Then there is the Forest Lakes Shopping Center, which in his opinion is a beautiful structure, with good setback, good design, good signage, but a new tenant moved in and was permitted to install a bright blue sign. Mr. MacDonald said in order to prevent urban sprawl in an Entrance Corridor, there must be an overall plan for the for the area. Piece-meal design should be unacceptable because it is incompatible with the goal of an entrance corridor. Commercial establishments should have adequate setback with extensive landscaping; i.e., trees, bushes, grass and service roads, if possible. Signage should be uniform and blend into the architectural and landscaping. Someone may say this is too expensive, but for the past three years, he has worked for an organization which has given free counseling to small businesses. He is well aware that it is difficult for a small business to become successful, but Route 29 is prime location and there is a balance. It is a long term benefit if a business moves into that area. In summary, he asked the Board to deny this request until an overall plan is created and implemented for this particular area. This piece-meal development is not going to work. Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, said citizens' groups are sometimes criticized for just saying no. Critics say they are too quick to oppose development proposals instead of working with developers and landowners to negotiate a mutually acceptable project. PEC spent a lot of time several years ago working with Mr. Wood and county staff on a major affordable housing project. When Mr. Wood claimed that he needed the commercial development on Route 29 North to make the project feasible, PEC supported the designation of nearly 50 acres for commercial use after he committed to providing a well-designed mobile home park on land adjacent to this area. With the applicant's support, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to allow commercial development on these parcels under two conditions: 1) commercial development would be prohibited until a minimum of 100 mobile home sites had been established in the park, and 2) development of the commercial area would proceed under a master plan for the entire 50 acres. To the best of her knowledge, the applicant has neither established the mobile home sites nor presented a unified plan of development for the entire parcel. Yet the Board of Supervisors in 1993 approved the sale of mobile homes on .this site, allowing the commercial use to begin before the applicant had met the condi- tions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the reasons given in the minutes for that decision was the difficulty in finding mobile homes which met the noise levels required for dwellings in the airport's noise impact overlay district. In fact, that was the reason Mr. Wood offered in the minutes for his request to use the property as a sales center. The special use permit was approved with a condition added by the Supervisors during the meeting that: "The inventory shall include mobile homes which meet the noise attenuation standards on ZMA-92-14." Things have changed since 1993, weakening what little connection may once have held between the sales and display of mobile homes and the develop- ment of the mobile home park. According to County Planning staff, the airport substantially revised its noise impact overlay area, which now excludes most, if not all of the mobile home park. If noise attenuation is no longer necessary, then prospective residents of the park can buy their homes from anybody they want, including the manufactured housing business just up the road on Route 29 North. Another change is Mr. Wood's recent rezoning request to delete the road between the mobile home sales center and the mobile home park. According to the rezoning application, the road would cost too much and would be used infrequently. Without that physical connection between the mobile home park ~ J February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 000:].47 and the sales center, the link between the two uses becomes even more tenuous. In the absence of a direct and unique connection to the mobile home park and a unified plan of development for the commercial area, this application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the underlying zoning. These changes in circumstance raise the fundamental question of whether the expressed intent of the County in granting the underlying zoning can be achieved or is even relevant. That issue can best be addressed when the Board considers Mr. Wood's request to amend the proffers associated with the zoning. Until that request has been considered and decided, it seems to PEC that the pending special use permit is premature. PEC requests the Board defer action until the rezoning application, which would delete the fifth proffer, comes forward. Regarding the issue of quality mobile homes, Ms. Thorpe said other developers manage to insure top notch design standards and high quality construction without having to build each house through covenants and deed restrictions. The perspective purchasers know what are expected of them before they buy the log or the house. She does not think the sales center on Route 29 North is necessary to insure an attractive or a well-designed mobile home park. As to the idea that the only mobile homes allowed in the park is those sold in his sales center and that somehow is going to lead to affordable housing, she always thought that competition led to lower, not higher, prices. Ms. Kathy Bryant, a resident of 4419 Chris Greene Lake Road, thanked Mr. Wood for proposing such an attractive mobile home park. She likes the idea of the A-frame and shingles. She strongly opposes approval of this request for outdoor storage and display of the mobile homes. Page 52 of the Comprehensive Plan states that 100 mobile home units must be in place before development of the 50 acres of commercial area adjacent on Route 29. Yet, this developer already has Wheels for Less auto sales on part of the 50 acres. There are no mobile home units in place. The Board is violating its own Comprehensive Plan if it approves anything before 100 mobile homes are in place. The minutes from the Board of Supervisors' meeting in 1993 discusses this very point. There are other sources nearby of mobile homes. It sounds to her like Mr. Wood is planning a monopoly on mobile homes to go in the mobile home park. Competition fosters lower prices. The original justification for the mobile home sales lot was the special modifications for noise control due to the airport noise impact area. However, in 1994, the noise impact area was modified and this requirement no longer exists. In her opinion, the special mobile home sales lot is not necessary for the success of the mobile home park. Other sales lots are in the area and can handle the sales until 100 units are in place. In addition, these sales lots are fully screened from Route 29. A letter from the Department of Transportation (VDOT), included with the 'Planning staff's report, states preliminary plans for improvements to this part of Route 29 will have significant impact on this site. She believes the widening of Route 29 will be completed by 1998. She questions why the Board would approve this permit in light of VDOT's comments. Ms. Bryant said she also is concerned with the development of Route 29 from Hollymead to GE/Fanuc. This sales lot is again fostering piece-meal development with no overall Master Plan. Route 29 North will become a repeat of the roadway between Barracks Road and Wal-Mart with multiple driveways, lights and turning movements. The Board told the residents of the Hollymead Growth Area that it would provide better control of Route 29 and not repeat the problems. There are already five driveways to businesses or homes in the two-tenths of a mile between the light at Airport Road light and light at Forest Lakes on Route 29. The short distance from Forest Lakes to Wheels for Less (about .1 mile) currently has three driveways including two driveways for Wheels for Less. This is already a dangerous roadway for drivers and truckers who travel 55 mph. Ms. Bryant said she served on the County's Redistricting Advisory Committee last year. There was concern about the number of students expected from Forest Springs and how quickly the students would arrive in the school system. Mr. Wood told the Rio District School Board representative that he would place about 50 mobile homes in the Forest Springs park every year over the next five years. Yet, at the Planning Commission public hearing last month he told the Commission that he planned to bring 115 units on line at once. This will generate students much quicker than was anticipated. February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 000'148 Mr. Wood has submitted a rezoning request to renege on proffer #5 - the connector access road between the sales lot and the mobile home park. This request asks that he not be required to build the access road. At the July 1993, Board meeting, it was stated that the access road is for the movement of mobile homes between the sales lot and Forest Springs Park and for emergency access. She asked how would the mobile homes be moved into the park. She asked if they would be moved by doing a U-turn at Hollymead or driving into town and up Route 743. There must be an access road to move the homes. If not, the sales display should actually be set up inside the park. For emergency reasons, she believes all new housing developments must have two points of access. The fire and rescue departments must have an alternative exit in case of a fire or plane crash. Finally, this is one of the County's Entrance Corridors. The display of mobile homes should be totally screened from public view. These sales will not be for the tourists or other local residents. It is commercial sales for the mobile home park located near the airport. As people travel to Albemarle from the airport or on Route 29, she would imagine they would' find a mobile home sales lot to be "unexpected" in such a prominent location. If approved, the sales lot should be totally screened. She questions whether Mr. Wood's $3.0 million investment includes the purchase price of the land. She thinks he does not want the sales lot in the mobile home park because of the actual airport noise and fumes coming from the airplanes. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thomas said she knows the Board is supposed to be dealing with how this impacts the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. When the Board approved the auto sales, there were words used such as: "this is a piece of property in dire need of beautification.., there was not going to be any expansion of the site .... it was going to have reduced impact, less land usage". Even with that, the staff said the use was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She thinks most Board members went along with the proposal because they thought it was going to look better, and they thought it was something that would have a lower cost for mobile home buyers. This request proposes four units elevated above Route 29 North. The applicant is proposing to remove the wooded area behind the auto sales for parking. She thinks the impact of this on the Entrance Corridor, which is the sole issue that is supposed to be before the Board, is significant and negative, and should cause the Board to reject the application. Mr. Davis said the concern the Board should focus on in making this decision is, due to the 1995 proffers, that the use of this property is fairly limited in what can be developed. The area where the used car sales is located can be developed for a used car lot, a convenience/grocery store or gasoline sales. By proffer, the remainder of the property can only be developed for mobile home sales. By denying this request for outdoor storage in the Entrance Corridor, the Board is basically saying that the property cannot be used for mobile home sales which is the only use it has, unless it can somehow be put inside a building, which is not likely. Therefore when making your decision, the Board must contemplate whether the existing develop- ment on that property and the possibility of further development of a conve- nience store/grocery store/gasoline sales constitutes a reasonable use of the 7.9 acres. If that is a reasonable use, the Board can deny this request without any legal concern. If that is not a reasonable use for the 7.9 acres, then there is concern that Mr. Wood is being denied a reasonable use of his property. Mr. Martin said the Board is sort of trapped with past decisions limiting this to only one use. In his opinion, the reason the Board did this was the connection between the sales and the mobile home park. He thinks the Board approved the car lot with the idea in mind that it was in lieu of the mobile home sales and the mobile home sales had disappeared. Now the use is back before the Board and the bottom line is that is the only thing that can be put there based on proffers. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks ±f anyone is trapped, it is the owner who in 1995 abandoned the sales approach and wanted this limited one acre of automo- bile usage. It seems to her the applicant put himself in the situation rather February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 000:1.49 than the County doing it. She thinks the Board should be looking at the impact on the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Davis said what was said and what was proffered appears to be two different things. It was proffered that the small portion of the 7.9 acres would be limited to car sales, mobile home sales, etc., but the proffer also specifically allowed for the remainder of the site to be used only for mobile home sales subject to approval of the appropriate special use permit. Mrs. Thomas is correct in that if the Board is satisfied that the limited area being developed, as proposed in 1995, constitutes a reasonable use of the entire 7.9 acre parcel. That seems to be what the applicant represented to the Board in 1995 and that would be a reasonable use of the property. One of the sales points for approving the used car lot was this would limit the development on that lot. If that is correct and something that the Board supports, then it can deny the request because he already has a reasonable use of the property. Of course, the basis for not approving the request needs to be that no conditions are available which would protect the EC District from this type of development, not the fact that it is manufactured home sales. The display is incompatible with the EC District. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the impact of this with the car sales is too great. This corridor is supposed to be attractive to tourists and visitors. Mr. Martin said he does not see how the statement can be made that this use is not appropriate at this time, yet the Board accepted a proffer for its use three years ago. Mrs. Thomas responded that the auto sales was not there three years ago. The Board is now talking about a combination of things that she thinks would have too major of an impact on the EC District. Mr. Bowerman said each one of the things the applicant has requested individually makes sense, but he feels that putting them all together does not make sense collectively. Previously the stipulation was made that the Board had to do the one thing because the applicant was not going to do the other even though there was a proffer. Mr. Marshall said, from a business perspective, he can see Mr. Wood's position. Mrs. Humphris said the right decision should be what is in the best interest of the County and its future. Mr. Marshall said affordable housing is in the best interest of the County. Mrs. Humphris said the County can have affordable housing without this situation on the site. Mr. Marshall said if the mobile home park is not successful, the County will not have the afford- able housing. Mrs. Humphris said the Board worked hard to make sure it had the mobile home park, the Board made the concession on allowing the zoning map amendment on the other 50 plus acres, and allowed this 7.9 acres to be rezoned. The Board made concessions to insure it had that affordable housing in that mobile home park. She thinks the Board has been generous in what it has done. Mr. Marshall agreed, but said this Board is not in the mobile home business. Obviously, the applicant has run into some road blocks. Mr. Marshall said he is in the position of wondering if the Board has an obliga- tion to insure that Mr. Wood makes the park successful. The applicant's request makes sense to him in trying to get an attractive product on the site and trying to make this an upscale park. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the Board is supposed to be looking at the impact on the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Martin said he does not want the Board to get away from the impor- tant issue. When this issue first came before the Board in 1993, there was a huge public hearing. Through all of the negative comments, the Board decided that the issue of affordable homes was so important it was worth approving the request. Later, for whatever reason, the Board told the applicant he would be able to sell his mobile homes which was connected to the park. Mr. Martin asked what is now different other than the used car. That is the only difference between what was originally approved and this proposal. Whether this could have been handled differently is not before the Board. He does not want to see the Board reverse the decision about the mobile home park at this time if there is a connection between the sales of the park and whether it becomes viable. He realizes that is not the Board's decision. He feels like he stuck his neck out on the line to have those affordable housing. The only difference is the car lot. February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 0005.50 Mrs. Humphris said the vote was 6:0 for the mobile home park. However, she refused to stick her neck out on the zoning map amendment and special use permit which set this all in motion. Those requests were after approval of the mobile home park. She thinks it is significant what happened with the presence of the used car lot. She does not think there should be both. If there was anything on that site, it should be the mobile home sales, which should be screened and set back from the road. She thinks the applicant is trying to have his cake and eat it too. This is not in the best interest of the EC District. This is not what anybody had in mind for that district. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about residents being able to purchase an affordable home in this County. The success of this park will depend on whether some citizens can live in this county. He does not want to get away from the original issue. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to hear comments about the ARB's review of this issue. The ARB recommended approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the minutes of the ARB did not have any discussion, other than the motion, condition and approval. He does not have any other information. He knows there is a requirement that there be a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the ARB for site plan approval. Mr. Davis said unless the Board is sure that the used car sales is a reasonable use of that entire 7.9 acre parcel, then it is at some risk in denying this permit because it would be denying a reasonable use of the property. Mrs. Humphris asked how the ARB got from the recommendation in its prior approval in 1993 of one unit being displayed, with the remaining inventory being placed behind a tree top berm to this recommended approval of four visible units. Mr. Cilimberg said the minutes did not show the discussion. Mr. Bowerman suggested deferring this request and requesting that someone from the ARB be present at the next Board meeting. Mr. Bowerman said if the issue is the appropriateness of this use and the screening, he thinks the Board needs to be satisfied that what is going to be there is consistent with what it thinks should be there. Mr. Cilimberg suggested getting a verbatim transcript of the discussion. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the only issue that needs to be dealt with is its appropriateness. Mr. Davis said the Board could accept that recommendation or make it more stringent. Mr. Cilimberg said ail of the ARB decisions, if they are appealed to the Board, are at the Board's discretion to make the final decision. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Martin about ~'sticking his neck out" for the affordable homes three times prior to this, but he is also mindful of what Mr. McDonald said about what is happening along Route 29. Mr. Martin said he has a problem with the Board saying at this time that what was originally approved is a detriment to the EC District just because the car lot is also on the site. He thinks the issue of affordable housing is too important. He also does not feel the need to second guess the ARB. Mr. Bowerman said he is left with a big void between the staff's recommendation and the ARB's action. Mr. Martin said this is too important an issue to play games. The issue of affordable housing is too important to him and he is not willing to play games because of whatever those other reasons might be other than why the Board originally approved the request. When the request was originally approved, it had the sales area. In addition to the sales area, there was a store that was in need of repair which had pot holes, an old gas pump and he believes rusted paint on the ground. Now the Board is saying the car lot is so bad that this use is not appropriate for the EC. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks all the Board members are committed to affordable housing and have proven that a number of times. The Board needs to understand why, in its original approval, the ARB approved one unit to be displayed and now is recommending four units for display. The EC is an extremely important thing to this county. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff used the ARB's recommendation which was incorporated into the conditions before the Board. The staff did not pass February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) oooisi judgement on the ARB's recommendations. He can find out what discussion occurred at the ARB's meeting. Mr. Martin suggested getting that information for the next Board meeting. Mr. Tucker suggested also getting a legal opinion from the County Attorney regarding a reasonable use of the site. Board members concurred. Mr. Bowerman suggested there be no further public comments; the issue only be before the Board. Board members also concurred. Mrs. Thomas commented that she was not playing any kind of games. She is not interested in making affordable housing more difficult. She is tired of having it constantly pounded into her that previous Boards made the mistakes that created Route 29 North. She does not want to continue making decisions that look like this Board is duplicating mistakes of the past. This is something she views seriously and she wants to make sure the popular and appealing words ~affordable housing" do not cause the Board to do things it will regret. Mr. Martin then offered motion to defer SP-96-41 until February 19, 1997, to get a legal Opinion from the County Attorney regarding a reasonable use of this site, and to request a copy of the minutes of the ARB minutes discussion on this item to learn why the ARB approved four units for display instead of one. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (Mr. Martin commented that today was his wedding anniversary and then left the meeting at 9:41 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: November 15, 1995 and January 2, 1997. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of November 15, 1995, pages 7-13, and found them to be in order. He had one typographical errors. Mrs. Thomas had read the minutes of November 15, 1995, pages 1-7, and found them to be in order. She had two typographical errors. Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of January 2, 1997, pages 13 to end, and found them to be in order. She had one minor typographical error. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of January 2, 1997, pages 7-13 and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 10a. Discussion: Revised Resolution in Support of Regional Competitiveness Program in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (deferred from February 5, 1997). Mr. Tucker said earlier this week, staff submitted to Board members a revised draft resolution. The draft resolution states that the County does support participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program "provided a strategic plan for the region is developed following a public hearing which would address such issues as education, housing and environmental sustain- ability". The resolution also authorizes the Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission to act as the lead agency for the purposes of participating in the Regional Competitiveness Program. The County Attorney has also looked at this matter. Mr. Tucker said one area that the Code of Virginia provides for which 000 _5 February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) is inconsistent with one the paragraphs of the draft resolution, prepared by TJPDC, has to do with the make up of the committee that would oversee the program. There are no provisions in the Code that allows the TJPDC, the Economic Development Partnership or the Sustainability Council to oversee this program. The Code is fairly distinct in the individuals that would have to be involved. That is an area the Board would have to request TJPDC to take another look. Mr. Bowerman said that is one issue that needs to be addressed. He is interested in holding a public hearing on this issue before the Board takes any action on joining or participating. (Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 9:46 p.m.) It is questionable how this can be organized and there is some differences of opinion about who can participate. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks a public hearing and further discussion is a good idea. She suggested the public hearing be held on March 5th, since there are no legal requirements for a hearing. She also suggested staff asking Mr. William Shelton from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment to attend the public hearing to respond to questions about the program. He apparently is very knowledgeable about this program. She thinks there are still some questions that need to be answered. She suggested that citizens be given the opportunity to provide written comments on the County's home page on the Internet. Mr. Bowerman suggested that individuals from the public with specific concerns of a legal nature contact the County Attorney directly. Mr. Davis said he cannot provide legal advice to the public, but he can provide informa- tion on the program. (Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 9:48 p.m.) At this time there was a consensus of the Board to hold the public hearing on March 5, 1997. Mr. Tucker said he would contact Mr. Shelton to see if he was available to attend the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris commented that she is concerned about getting information about this program out to the public, since not many people know what this is about. Agenda Item No. 10b. Discussion: Request from the League of Women Voters to participate in their public forum on reversion (deferred from February 5, 1997). Mr. Bowerman said before discussing this item, the Board would like to have an executive session. At 9:50 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Martin. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:34 p.m. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Martin. Approved by Board Date~.l{,97 Initials~ February 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) ooox$8 Mrs. Thomas then offered the following motion: ~that the Board of Supervisors accept the invitation of the League of Women Voters to participate in its public forum. Our participation shall specifically be to address.and to continue to inform the public on the County's position concerning reversion of the City to town status. To the extent that other alternative local government structures and organizations are proposed to be discussed, the County states in advance, that such discussions by the County are not appro- priate until the reversion action is dismissed. Further, any future discus- sion of alternative government structures must be based soundly on the premise that there can be no change in the form of the government of the County unless such change is subject to the approval of the County voters by referendum." Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas said it will be important for a decision to be reached quickly after the public hearing tomorrow concerning solid waste options and the Ivy Landfill. Mrs. Thomas said the Metropolitan Planning Organization will take a tour of the Highway Department Research Council on April 14. If anyone wants to come, let her know. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to February 13, 1997, 7:00 P.M., The Senior Center, for Joint Meeting with Charlottesville City Council and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. At 10:30 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn to February 13, 1997, 7:00 p.m., The Senior Center in Room C, to meet with City Council and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority regarding the GBB report. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin.