1997-02-19February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 19, 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 7:00 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.
Mr. Randy Layman, representative of the Waste Haulers Association in
Albemarle County, discussed the GBB report prepared by consultants concerning
solid waste issues in the County. He said that there seems to be a fast-paced
effort to close the Ivy Landfill immediately, with no good alternatives. One
of the options is a centrally-located disposal facility, but there has not
been any discussion about where this would be located. Other than keeping the
Ivy Landfill open, the best option would be to set up a transfer station at
Ivy. He feels sorry for those who live near the landfill, but it has been
there since 1953, and most people moving there knew that they were moving next
to a landfill. He has never been to a meeting where it was promised that the
Ivy Landfill was a temporary landfill. He asked the Board to take the study
into consideration and get some input from people throughout the County. The
Waste Haulers Association and people they work with would like to see the Ivy
Landfill maintained.
Ms. Humphris noted that there was to have been a public hearing on the
GBB report, which had been canceled due to the snow, but it will be resched-
uled at a future date.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
Item 5.1, to defer Item 5.2 until March 5 and to accept the remaining items as
information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas.
None.
Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution of Intent to consider adoption of an
ordinance to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax to five percent.
The Executive Summary states that in 1996 General Assembly amended Va.
Code § 58.1-3819 to enable Albemarle and five other counties to raise the
transient occupancy tax rate cap from two percent (2%) to five percent (5%).
The amendment also specified that the revenue collected from that portion of
the tax over two percent shall be designated and spent for promoting tourism,
travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the locality.
Loudoun, Spotsylvania, York, and Prince William counties have now set
their transient occupancy tax rate at five percent (5%) pursuant to Va. Code
§ 58.1-3819. It is estimated that an additional $585,600.00 of revenue would
be generated by a three percent (3%) increase in Albemarle's transient
occupancy tax rate.
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night M~eting)
(page 2)
ooo s
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution of Intent
to consider adoption of an ordinance to set the transient occupancy tax rate
at five percent (5%).
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, section 58.1-3819 of the Code of Virginia enables
the County of Albemarle to enact a transient occupancy tax at a
rate not exceeding fiver percent (5%); and
WHEREAS, the current transient occupancy tax rate in the
County is two percent (2%); and
WHEREAS, it may be necessary or desirable to increase
revenue generated by the transient occupancy tax;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervi-
sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby states its intent to
consider setting the transient occupancy tax rate at five percent
(5%) and directs that a public hearing to consider an ordinance to
amend County Code Section 8-41 to effectuate such rate increase be
advertised for March 19, 1997.
Item No. 5.2. Draft statement for the Annual Six Year Primary Road Plan
Preallocation Hearing.
Ms. Humphris asked that this item be deferred until March 5.
Item No. 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 21 and
February 4, 1997. Received as information.
Item No. 5.4. Copy of Preliminary Report of the James River Watershed
Coalition's Tributary Strategy projects as requested by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation. Received as information.
Item No. 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional
Jail Authority Board meeting for December 9, 1996. Received as information.
Item No. 5.6. Notice from the Department of Transportation of a design
public hearing scheduled for February 25, 1997, on the proposed Route 29
Bypass project (from 0.70 mi. [1.12 km] north of Route 29/250 Bypass to 0.50
mil [0.80 km] north of South Fork of Rivanna River; UVA Connector Road (from
Route 250 bypass to Massie Road) in Albemarle County. Received as informa-
tion.
Item No. 5.7. Notice from the Department of Transportation that the
Culpeper District Preallocation Hearing on the six Year Improvement Program
for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems will be held on March 14, 1997.
Received as information.
Item No. 5.8. Grant participation notification - Guaranteed Ride Home
Program. Received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing to receive comments on the FY 1997-98
/2000-03 Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Plan. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 6 and January 13, 1997.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said at the January 2
Board meeting, staff presented VDOT's draft Six Year Construction Program and
the County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Staff has updated both documents to reflect the most
current information available and the comments provided by the Board.
Attachment A is the County's Six Year Secondary Priority List. Attachment B
is VDOT's draft Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan which reflects the
recommended County priorities.
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The previous County Priority List provided to the Board inadvertently
omitted the Avon Street-Fifth Street Connector Road project. This project is
priority #25 on the County Priority List. It is not currently eligible for
VDOT funding. The County's Priority List has also been revised based on a re-
evaluation of the unpaved road projects as requested by the Board of Supervi-
sors using the Criteria Based Rating System. The resulting changes were made
to priorities #52-54. These changes were based primarily on the Grassmere
Road project now having full right-of-way available. Specific changes to the
priorities of the unpaved were:
#52 Grassmere Rd. (Route 679) The estimated completion date has been
moved up 3 years to July 2000 (previously #53).
#53 Midway Rd. (Route 688) - The estimated completion date is now June
2000 (previously #51).
#54 Secretary's Rd. (Route 708) - The new estimated completion is now
December 2002 (previously #52).
#59 Reservoir Rd. (Route 702) - VDOT has provided the most current
traffic counts for this road. From its dead end to 0.5 miles east, the
ADT is 55. From 0.5 miles from dead end to 2.2 miles east of dead end,
the ADT is 469. Staff has not changed the priority of this project.
Mr. Benish said changes made to VDOT's Secondary System Construction
Program include:
#3 Meadow Creek Parkway (Phase I) -This project is now shown as three
projects; the two bridge projects (over Meadow Creek and over railroad)
and the main road segment. Also, the estimated completion date has been
changed to February 2000.
#5 Rio Road (Route 631) - The new estimated completion date is now May
1999.
#8 Meadow Creek parkway (Phase II) The cost of this project now
reflects current dollar cost estimate of $31,000,000.
#22 Proffit Road (Route 649) - The new estimated completion date is now
April 2005.
Staff has reviewed the Greenbrier Drive Project (County priority #6)
with V DOT staff to determine the impact of this project to other roads in the
area. If Greenbrier Drive Extended is not constructed, it will result in an
additional 3,500 to 4,000 vehicle trips on Hydraulic Road, approximately 16
percent reduction in the estimated traffic on Hydraulic Road in 2015 (from
24,000 to 20,000/20,500). An additional 400 vehicle trips on Rio Road West
are forecast in the year 2015 without this project. This analysis is based on
using the MinuTP traffic forecasting model. This model is not sensitive in
the evaluation of roads at the neighborhood level that are internal to traffic
zones such as Greenbrier Drive. Therefore, the model did not indicate any
significant change in traffic on Whitewood Road or Four Seasons Drive which
are also internal to the traffic zone. In order to model the impact at the
neighborhood street level, it would require development of new traffic zones
and supporting socio-economic data which would take several months for County
staff and VI)OT staff to complete.
Using the information provided by the traffic model, it would seem that
the greatest impact of not building Greenbrier Drive would be on Whitewood
Road. Based on the minimal change in traffic on Rio Road, it does not appear
that Four Seasons Drive would significantly change. However, considering the
reduction in traffic on Hydraulic Road that Greenbrier would provide, a
similar amount of traffic reduction could be expected on Whitewood Road. This
would be about one-half of the current traffic on Whitewood Road (1994
ADT=7,000).
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this
project:
more diversified transportation network
better distribution of traffic in the area (more options)
16 percent reduction in trips on Hydraulic Road
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
000 58
Staff has identified the following negative factors resulting from this
project:
impact on Whitewood Park (up to 2 acres taken from eastern edge)
impact to adjacent residential areas
The project as currently proposed by VDOT (four lane cross-section)
seems to be based on a design traffic volume representing traffic volumes
currently existing at either end of the extension on Route 743 (1994=11,400/
2015=16,600) and existing Greenbrier Drive (1994=10,300). However, consider-
ing the recently adopted Land Use Plan standards to build new roads that are
environmentally sensitive and of a human scale (and similar recommendations in
CATS), a lesser design may be appropriate based on the traffic volumes
forecast for the extension.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends maintaining this project on the
priority list to allow it to go to a design public hearing. VDOT will have
more detailed information and the Board and public will have a plan to
evaluate for appropriateness of design or design changes. The Board will
still have an opportunity to decide if this project should remain on the
priority list. In summary, the staff recommends adopting the Secondary Six
Year Priority Plan.
Ms. Thomas said that the write-up confused her as to whether there would
be additional vehicle trips or a reduced number of trips on Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Benish responded that the model predicts 24,000 vehicle trips on Hydraulic
Road without the Greenbrier Drive connection and approximately 20,000 with the
connection.
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for com-
ments.
Mr. Eric Strucko began by stating that he would be followed by four
other speakers who would each address a different negative impact of the
Greenbrier Drive Extension. He then asked those who were from the neighbor-
hood and impacted by the road to stand, at which time 30 people stood. He
also presented the Board with a petition that had been circulated around the
neighborhood and contained over 200 signatures. He stated that the Department
of Planning's report is based on unreliable data; the projected traffic
figures are based upon a model that measures through traffic, not traffic
within the community. The community is a balance of residential, commercial,
recreational and industrial space. The residential portion sits at the core
of the community, next to the recreational area and bounded by the others; it
is an ideal community and meets several of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Sustainability Council report. The road design forces traffic to move
around the residential core, not through it. The Extension will channel
traffic through the residential area, jeopardizing the recreational space and
compromise the progress the community has made to achieve Comprehensive Plan
and Sustainability goals. If one is trying to get to Route 29 through this
Extension, you would have to either' leave Route 29 and get on Rio Road West or
Hydraulic Road, or come down from Earlysville, which has been removed from the
growth plan. If the Extension is used as an interchange or connector with the
western bypass, it would be perilously close to the Reservoir. The $1.7
million slated for this road could be used in a better fashion, to finance the
expansion of Rio Road West, or enhance the infrastructure provided by
Whitewood Road.
Mr. Robert McAdams said that the single most important point he wanted
to make was that this is not just a transportation issue. This is not a
decision that can be made by traffic-flow analysis, without taking the
neighborhoods into consideration. The four-lane 35 mph highway proposed by
VDOT will cut the Townwood community in half, disrupt the Einstein school and
substantially reduce the size of the only park in this area. The traffic will
be a danger to children and bring noise and pollution to the houses. With
their neighbors from all of the affected communities, the residents of this
area have strongly opposed this road before the Planning Commission and with
some Supervisors. The core of the debate is the same issue that causes all
the talk about reversion and fears of rampant development, the preservation of
our urban communities. He asked the Supervisors not to sacrifice their
neighborhoods for a doubtful transportation plan. He asked the Board to
remove this project from the Six Year Plan.
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Lois Tickle, President of the Townwood Property Owners' Association,
presented a petition against the Greenbrier Drive Extension signed by 143
residents. She stated that Townwood is a quiet neighborhood that would be
drastically disrupted by the Greenbrier Drive Extension. The current traffic
estimates are 3500 vehicles per day; the neighborhood would see an increase in
traffic of 300 percent. They would be the only neighborhood bisected by a
road that would be a straight shot to Route 29. Property values would
plummet; Townwood would become a noisy, busy, dirty place where children could
not play safely. Day care facilities in the neighborhood would be forced to
close due to proximity restrictions. Studies show that crime skyrockets with
increased traffic. Whitewood Park would be reduced in size and become a trash
dump for passing vehicles. There would be no benefit to Townwood or the
community at large from the extension; there are no businesses that would be
serviced by the road, in fact, it would route business away from those located
off Whitewood and Hydraulic Roads. The extension would only shave 0.4 mile
off of the existing route and the $1.7 million could certainly be used
elsewhere. The current project underway to widen Hydraulic and Rio Roads can
handle any necessary traffic increases in the area without disrupting urban
neighborhoods or eliminating much needed green space. The Greenbrier Drive
Extension would also give more impetus to VDOT to apply continued pressure on
the County to allow an interchange on the proposed Route 29 bypass. With the
widening of Route 29, Rio and Hydraulic Roads and the Route 29 bypass pro-
posal, Townwood will already be surrounded by 16 lanes of traffic. She asked
the Board to continue to show its support for the communities and businesses
that will be adversely affected by this unnecessary road, and common sense, by
voting to remove this Extension from any and all, current and future County
plans.
Mr. Ron Chandross, resident of Oak Park and representing the Sierra
Club, presented a collage of Whitewood Park to the Board. He has used the
park for jogging since 1990, and has not seen it change much in that time.
The park is respected by its users, with no crime or trash found in it. There
is no other park land within the urban ring. The park has developed its own
environmental equilibrium, maintaining diverse plant and animal life. Even
with the best intentions of the planners, there is no way that destroying two
acres would have anything but deleterious effects. Additionally, in the real
world, two acres would accidentally become two and one-half to three acres of
total destruction, along with a region of partial damage. This road seems to
be in direct violation of the Board's policy on neighborhood sustainability.
The two justifications that have been heard are: it has always been in the Six
Year and Twenty Year plans, and there has already been money spent on it. The
neighborhood has changed dramatically since it was put on the plan and
throwing good money away is a bad approach to fiscal planning. The planners
give three justifications for the project: a more diversified transportation
network, better distribution of traffic and 16 percent reduction in trips on
Hydraulic Road. A more diversified network would mean more options like buses
and bikes, not just more automobiles. The distribution would mean that some
people would save a whole 0.4 miles, which hardly seems worth it. The County
is in the process of widening Hydraulic Road and now wants to divert traffic
from it through neighborhoods; if the average user is saving between two
minutes and 30 seconds, what is the value. He asked that Greenbrier Drive
Extension be removed from the Six Year Plan and that Whitewood Park be
redeeded as a preserved natural resource in perpetuity.
Mr. Preston Thomas, Director of the Einstein School, asked the Board to
vote against the extension to Greenbrier Drive. First, the original purpose
of the road no longer exists: Earlysville is no longer designated as a high
growth area, the plan for a grade separated interchange at the intersection of
Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 North has been dropped by VDOT and Greenbrier
Drive is no longer planned to connect with the downtown area. Second, the
road will do great damage to the park, neighborhoods and school that lie in
its path. The road would take ten percent of Whitewood Park and destroy the
character of the quiet neighborhood. The road would extend across the front
of the school's property, taking much of its usable open space. The Einstein
School lies at the north end of the proposed Greenbrier Drive Extension, and
its impact on the school would be dramatic. The current four-lane proposal
would not only take all of the school's front property, but would run up or
into the building itself. It would change the school from one that is safe
for children to one where safety is a constant concern. By using the expanded
Whitewood Road-Hydraulic Road route, the Board would preserve the neighbor-
hoods and save $1.7 million. Third, an improved alternative to the road
already exists. They hope that the Board will act wisely and protect the
park, neighborhoods and school that will be harmed by the road.
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
O00X60
Ms. Jodie Webber, President of the Earlysville Area Residents League,
said that some of the members of their League felt that the increased conve-
nience of the extension justified the project. However, the overwhelming
majority of the League voted in opposition to it, feeling that larger issues
than convenience are at stake. Preserving the quality of life in the urban
communities outweighs the possible convenience of a few minutes of travel time
saved. She requested that the extension remain unbuilt.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council,
said since at least 1982 the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study
has recommended that Greenbrier be extended through Hydraulic Road. This
recommendation became part of the package of improvements to Route 29 North
known as the Base Case. Under the Four Party Agreement between VDOT, the
City, the County and the University, VDOT was to build these improvements and
the Meadow Creek Parkway before constructed the Western Bypass. She noted
that VDOT no longer plans to build the grade-separated interchanges which were
the linchpin of the Four Party Agreement and the Base Case improvements.
Despite this, the PEC continues to support phasing of improvements embodied in
the Four Party Agreement. Extending Greenbrier, however, appears to have
little to do with the movement of traffic along Route 29 North. While
achieving a "more diversified transportation network" is certainly a worth-
while goal under most circumstances, it should be weighed against the impact
on the park. That impact goes beyond the two acres mentioned in the staff
report. Extending Greenbrier would create a park wrapped in asphalt, cut off
from the community by two heavily traveled roadways. She asked that the
project be deleted from the priority list and consider placing the park under
a permanent conservation easement to insure that this space will remain green.
Mr. Don Wagner, a resident of Earlysville, stated that when the Einstein
School applied for rezoning, they agreed to reserve an area for future right-
of-way dedication and not to construct any physical facilities there. Their
plat shows a dedicated right-of-way along the front of the property. This is
not something which is catching them unaware. As you drive down through
Townwood, you see that there are no driveway connections onto that part of
Greenbrier. When the Winridge Subdivision was developed, it was obviously
planned to have a street through there; the developer was required to dedicate
a strip of land for the planned extension. As of the 1992 figures, there were
21,070 cars per day at the Hydraulic intersection and 11,390 cars per day at
the Greenbrier intersection. There are the same number of lanes on Hydraulic
as on Greenbrier, but twice as many cars on Hydraulic. There are also houses
on the other roads, their desire for reduced traffic is not worth any less
than the Greenbrier residents' concerns. This road has been planned for many
years. He urged the Board to approve the staff report and proceed with the
road.
Mr. Lance Wisener, teacher and cross-country coach at Albemarle High
School, said that he has seen the spaces for athletes to train being reduced
over the years. The proposed bypass would cause AHS to lose its trail there.
The Whitewood trail is a particularly nice trail to have available. AHS is
quickly becoming an urban high school, making it difficult for them to compete
with those who have a lot of space to train.
Ms. Anna Bielecki lives in Garden Court on Hydraulic Road and said that
she supports the other speakers in their opposition. She feels that the only
water source for Albemarle County is in danger by the many projects.
Mr. David Maurer said that what was at issue is not whether a road is
needed, but a wonderful oasis that has renewed unknown numbers of human
spirits. The park is a symbol of the County. The issue is whether parks are
worth more than getting from one place to another a few seconds quicker.
Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, said that he supports his neighbors in
their efforts to preserve their quality of life. One of the problems of this
road is the loss of public space. Many of the newer models to increase
density have a higher emphasis on public space and this sets a detrimental
precedent. Because someone lives on an entrance corridor or main road does
not negate their right to the same quality of life as everyone else. If this
much time and effort had been spent on sustainability, then maybe he would
agree, but that has not been the case.
Ms. Lee Walters, Executive Director of Innisfree, located in Browns
Cove, said that she is interested in seeing their entrance road put on the Six
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
000 ,6
Year Plan for paving in place. Ms. Humphris replied that the first step
towards that would be talking to Mr. Benish.
Mr. Walter Eades, an Earlysville resident, said that in 1988, he went
along Route 605 (Durrett Ridge Road) to get the property owners to designate
an additional five feet on each side of the road for widening and paving. At
the time, it was the Six Year Plan and that was nine years ago. There are 30
to 40 homes along the road and it is just a dirt road. He thinks they should
get some consideration.
Ms. Humphris asked if this road was on the priority list. Mr. Benish
said that it was listed for 2003; it has been on the priority list and is
slowly progressing up. It has not progressed as fast as other projects
because of its low traffic count, about 90 cars. Ms. Humphris asked that Mr.
Benish meet with Mr. Eades and explain to him how the process works and how
the roads move up on the list.
Mr. Eades then said that there is a one-lane bridge on that road that
gets flooded every time there is high water.
Mr. Bruce Eades, Mr. Eades' son, said that he did talk with Mr. Benish
and that he is getting disheartened. The average real estate went up two
percent; his went up 20 percent. It would be much more palatable if it did
not take an off-road vehicle to get to work. There are about 40 households
which are asking for a paved road. They pay taxes, but they are forgotten
because they are out at the edge of Greene County. In nine years, they have
moved from tenth on the list to eighth, which is not right. There is some-
thing wrong with this process. Ms. Humphris replied that they do talk about
unpaved roads a lot, and there are a large numbers of unpaved roads. The
County is dependent upon Secondary Road Funds from VDOT for paving these
roads.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Grassmere Road should be listed as having the
right-of-way available now. Mr. Benish said that technically, VDOT does not
have it yet in hand, but he will note that it would be available. He also
noted for Mr. Eades that two projects ahead of Route 605 did not have rights-
of-way available yet, and if they do not have it when the projects move up on
the list and ready for paving, they would be skipped over.
Mr. Bowerman stated that, when he met with the community, there were
many there who were not directly affected, but were still concerned about the
impact of the road. At that time, he determined that, even though the plans
were on the books since 1982, that the County has tried to plan diligently for
an infrastructure that meets the needs of the community. When Townwood was
constructed, it was required that only two roads were allowed to be built,
because of this project. At the meeting he had with the residents, he
determined that, unless he could find an overwhelming public benefit from this
road, he would not support a continuation to this road. Information from
staff indicates to him that there will only be a marginal benefit from this
extension and there is no overwhelming public need for this project. As such,
he would recommend deleting the project from the priority list.
Mr. Martin noted that Whitewood Park was supposed to be a school. This
Board forced the School Board not to build a school there, and if they had not
made that decision, a road would have been there. The interchanges will not
be there. The Board made the decision not to make Earlysville a growth area.
With those three decisions, it seems like the road is no longer as important.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was any advantage to seeing what has been
planned by the Highway Department.
Mr. Bowerman replied that when they created the park, the Board set the
stage for what the people tonight are asking. In his opinion, the likelihood
of VDOT building an interchange at the bypass and Rock Store area is one step
further away, if this road does not exist.
Mr. Martin said that if this road were to come out somewhere else on
Route 29, providing for another access between Route 29 and Rio Road, it would
make more sense to him. This extension is not going to save any time.
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
000262
Ms. Humphris said that this is a large step toward putting people's
quality of life ahead of the automobile. When the Development Area Initia-
tives Committee is studying ways to infill, this must be done delicately with
consideration of people's quality of life. She also liked the idea of a
permanent conservation easement for the park. She noted that it seemed to be
the consensus of the Board to drop Greenbrier Drive Extension from the Six
Year Plan.
Mr. Marshall agreed and mentioned that they are making more people every
day, but not more land, and this is a precious piece of land.
Mr. Perkins agreed on the issue of Greenbrier Drive, calling it a no-
brainer. He said that the cost of the gravel roads seemed astronomical to
him. Regarding Grassmere Road, it costs $425,000 to pave less than half-a-
mile. He does not see why that road cannot be paved like it is and save a lot
of money. These costs are huge; they are not building a super-highway. Route
682 took every dollar the County had for unpaved roads for a few years, and
that was a mistake. They need to look at these costs and try to get them down
so that everybody can get their road paved. Ms. Thomas concurred.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the Six
Year Secondary Road Plan as presented, with the exception of the deletion of
the Greenbrier Drive Extension project. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr.
Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
000163
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000~64
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
O O
,- n- ng,O n-
II
II
8..°-= ,,
II
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000165
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Mee~ting)
(Page 12)
o
o
o
o
o
000166
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
000 67
(At 8:30 p.m., Ms. Humphris recessed the Board. The Board reconvened at
8:41 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-96-41. Forest Springs Mobile Home Sales Lot
(Signs #13,14) . Request to establish outdoor storage & display of mobile
homes for sale on approx 7.9 ac 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 RA, 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.
(Deferred from February 12, 1997.)
Ms. Humphris noted that the public hearing on this item was held and
closed the week before, and the item was deferred to give the Board an
opportunity to review the minutes of the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Marshall said that he has not changed his position; if anything, it
is now stronger. He feels the Board should approve the request.
Mr. Perkins stated that some modifications need to be made to the ARB's
findings. Because the site is located in an entrance corridor, there should
be some buffer from Route 29 in some way.
Ms. Thomas said it seems to her the Board could require that all units,
except for the display units, be not at all visible from the entrance corri-
dor. The second issue is how many units they should be allowed to put on
display. Last week, she could not understand at all why the ARB was going
with up to four, when staff had said one. After reading the minutes, they
were saying that it might look more like a community with three or four
displayed, as long as they are landscaped and tied into the ground. Driving
along the corridor and looking at the occasional mobile home there, it does
not add to the visual attractiveness of the corridor. She is concerned that
the visible units not look like huge billboards.
Ms. Humphris stated that one home displayed should be plenty. She read
the discussion of the ARB and just did not agree with it. One, landscaped and
appropriately displayed, tells what is behind and the area behind should be
totally screened.
Mr. Marshall said the reason this park being allowed in the first place
is that they need affordable housing in the community. He stated that he does
not know anything about running a mobile home park or selling mobile homes,
and all he can do is rely on the individuals who do that sort of thing. He
does not want to see this thing fold up because there are too many restric-
tions on it. Ms. Humphris replied that the owner has it set up so that anyone
who wants to locate in his park has to purchase from his sales lot, so they
will be able to find his sales lot.
Mr. Martin said that it seemed reasonable to look at a limit of two, a
double-wide and single-wide, giving an idea of both types of models and a
small community effect. Ms. Thomas replied that when a person drives in, they
will be able to see all of the models in the area behind, the mobile homes do
not need to be seen from the entrance corridor.
Mr. Perkins did not think that that made a lot of difference. The
owners have a captive audience, because if people want to move into this
community, they have to buy their mobile homes there. It does not seem
appropriate to have a cluster of four out there on the highway. It seemed
like the owners are trying to make a mobile home court, as well as selling
mobile homes to other places.
Ms. Humphris noted that it was very important to protect the entrance
corridor, as it tells the world what the community is like.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Perkins. Some of the reasoning is that
this display is needed to see mobile homes; it seems that the Board wants to
minimize the appearance on Route 29, while allowing them the opportunity to
sell mobile homes for their park.
Mr. Marshall asked the applicant how many trailers need to be on display
to make the trailer park work. Ms. Humphris objected to the question, saying
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
that the answer would be a matter of opinion and the applicant was hardly a
disinterested party.
Mr. Tom Bachelor, representing the applicant, replied that they need at
least one. The reason they picked four was that four mobile homes can make an
attractive housing area, which the ARB agreed with. It is his understanding
that they had to do a good job with the four, or the ARB would limit them to
one.
Mr. Martin asked if the ARB actually had the power to limit them after
the fact. Mr. Davis replied that they did not, after the fact. Mr. Cilimberg
said that whatever number was in the certificate of appropriateness would be
the number that holds, and that decision has not been made.
Ms. Thomas noted that that permission goes with the site plan, not with
the applicant, so someone could run an unattractive site and the ARB would not
have any recourse. Mr. Davis replied that the conditions of the site plan
would have to be maintained or it would be a zoning violation that could be
cited by the Zoning Administrator. Deciding when it becomes a violation could
be difficult.
Mr. Martin stated that a reasonable compromise would seem to be up to
two. The most important thing to him was affordable housing and public
hearing comments have said that this is important to whether or not the
operation can continue. He still cannot understand the rationale of why
someone could not purchase an equal or better mobile home somewhere else and
put it in this park.
Ms. Humphris agreed that at the very least, one should be allowed. She
did not think that more than one was needed to sell mobile homes. The only
person who has made the case that you need more is the applicant. One mobile
home is a large thing to have in the entrance corridor, and people are
unlikely to miss it.
Mr. Martin agreed with Ms. Humphris, but said that there have not been
any other expert opinions. The only opposition is from the Board members
themselves. Ms. Humphris replied that the Board should not set a precedent
for ugliness in the entrance corridor.
Mr. Marshall said that it could be an eyesore, but if it was done right,
it would look appropriate. These things are the only homes that a lot of
people can afford. Mr. Martin added that he did not think that a mobile home
needs to be considered an eyesore.
Ms. Thomas agreed that the entrance corridor was very important. She
noted that the issue of whether a mobile home is attractive is different from
the issue of whether a mobile home that is a diSplay item for sale is attrac-
tive.
Mr. Martin said he would prefer to leave it to the discretion of the ARB
during site plan review to determine whether one or two mobile homes are
appropriate. He does not have the expertise to know what makes this a viable
mobile home business. Ms. Humphris said the Board does know what the sign for
the car lot looks like. Mr. Martin replied that there Was a difference with
the car lot, that the car lot is designed to get your attention, while the
mobile home display is used to show how attractive the home could be.
Ms. Thomas noted that this might give the ARB more leverage. Mr.
Bowerman said that up to two was fine with him. Mr. Perkins said that he
could live with up to two.
Mr. Martin said that he wanted Ms. Humphris' support for the motion,
that he would go with only one, if that was all she would support. Ms.
Humphris replied that she would support up to two, with the hope that the ARB
would get a copy of the Board's minutes and look at the discussion of the
Board. Looking at the ARB's minutes, they did not seem to be thinking of
units with signs as displays.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
approve SP-96-41 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, with
condition #1 and $2 amended as follows:
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000169
1)
2)
3)
4)
Ail areas shown on plan (stamped Exhibits presented to ARB
10/21/96 initialed by MJ) noted as display areas, other than the
area to the right of the entrance showing the units visible from
Route 29 North, to be completely screened from Route 29;
Number of units visible from Route 29 North to be a maximum of up
to two with the final number to be decided as part of the final
ARB approval of the certificate of appropriateness.
The screening of the other display areas shall be permanent; and
Installation of right turn and taper lane as required by the
Virginia Department of Transportation in its October 23, 1996
letter (copy on file).
Ms. Humphris asked whether the ARB would put restrictions on the type of
mobile homes that would be allowed to be displayed. Ms. Thomas replied that
the top-of-the-line A-frame would make the most sense as a business decision,
so it would not need to be a restriction.
Mr. Davis noted that the ARB can control signage, color and design, to
make this use compatible with the entrance corridor.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-96-43. Nancy Porritt, Piney Mountain Preschool &
Children's Cottage (Signs #61 & #62). Public Hearing on a request to estab-
lish private preschool to serve 6-9 children on 2.7 ac in RA district located
on E sd of Rt 29 N across from GE Fanuc. TM21,P12A. Rivanna Dist. (This
property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on February 3 and February 12, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. This request
was initially deferred by the Planning Commission because the applicant had
indicated a concern about the impact of the full entrance improvements that
VDOT had recommended which included a 30 foot wide entrance of right-of-way
and a taper lane. After deferral and consultation with the County's Engineer-
ing Department and VDOT by the applicant, everyone agreed to modify the
entrance improvement plan, which subsequently came back to the Planning
Commission. That plan along with four conditions of approval were recommended
by the Planning Commission for approval.
The applicant, Ms. Porritt, was present, but chose not to add any
comments.
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for com-
ments. With no one from the public rising to speak, she closed the public
hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve
SP-96-43 subject to the conditions recommended by the planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
2 o
Installation of entrance improvements and 100 foot taper in accordance
with sketch approved by VDOT and the Acting County Engineer (received
January 27, 1997) prior to commencement of the use (copy on file);
Compliance with supplementary regulations, Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
000:1.70
3 o
Health Department approval. The house used for the preschool/child care
function shall not also be used as a residence;
Child care is limited to nine children. Any increase will require an
amendment to the special use permit.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-96-23. Burton (Signs #73 & #74). Public
Hearing on a request to rezone approx 0.5 ac from R-4 to CO. Property located
on S sd of Rt 649 approx 0.2 mi E of Rt 606 at SW inters w/ Rt 649 & Deerwood
Dr. TM32C(3),P1. Site recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) by
Comprehensive Plan for the Community of Hollymead. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on February 3 and February 12, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. Staff did not identify a compelling purpose to support rezoning
this property and recommends denial. Should the Board decide to approve this
request, there are no proffers offered. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on January 21, 1997, unanimously recommended approval, feeling that
residential development of this parcel was undesirable, due to its proximity
to non-residential areas, and that CO would provide a buffer. The applicant
was requested to meet with the neighbors in Deerwood before this Board meeting
to fill them in on the plans. Although he does not have any information on
the outcome, he understands that the meeting has taken place.
Mr. Martin asked regarding the parcel that was across the street, if it
was still zoned R-4. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was.
Mr. Martin asked, with the widening of Route 649 at some point, would
that not be better to have it be something other than R-4. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that if the decision was made to go to CO with this location, then
ultimately, the applicant may go to a non-residential use with the other
property. He believes that for whatever development occurs to this side of
Route 649, that you want access on Deerwood Road. He noted that it was
discussed that, when the subdivision of this property occurred, which preceded
the zoning, it was indicated as a commercial area. It has, however, never
been zoned for commercial use.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board has seen two plans for Route 649, and
asked how either of those affect this area. Mr. Cilimberg replied that, with
the scale of those concept plans, it would be difficult to say how it impacted
a specific property.
Ms. Thomas asked if any of this refers to the entrance from Route 649 of
Deerwood Drive. She did not see any improvements required to that area. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that this has not been brought forward as a plan, so they
did not have the particulars of the road improvements that would be necessary.
In terms of that intersection, there is nothing that is proposed as part of
the zoning, to actually include any additional turn lanes there.
At this time, Ms. Humphris asked if the applicant wished to make any
comments to the Board.
Mr. Ed Campbell, of Roudabush and Gale Surveyors, representing Mr.
Burton, stated that Mr. Cilimberg did a good job in summarizing both sides of
the issue and said that he hoped the Board had received Mr. Burton's letter in
response to the Planning Commission. One thing he wanted to make clear, the
plan is not a proffer. There is so little space that there is not much that
can be done with the property. He has no intention of doing anything else
with the property other than what is in the plan, although they did not see
the need to proffer it. By reserving a 40 foot strip for future widening, the
concept plan should not be affected by VDOT changes.
Ms. Humphris asked that Mr. Burton tell the Board about the neighborhood
meeting.
Mr. Burton replied that he had called the adjoining residents and they
did not feel a meeting was necessary. He found out that there was a false
petition being circulated, saying that a Hertz rent-a-car place would be going
on that property. He talked to the local residents and offered to meet with
them, but the residents did not see a need to meet.
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
O00171
Ms. Humphris asked what the by-right uses would be. Mr. Davis said it
would be administrative offices, professional offices, financial institutions,
churches, cemeteries, libraries, museums, accessory uses, incidental and
principal uses such as restaurants, public uses, temporary non-resident mobile
homes, day care, child care and nursery facilities. Ms. Humphris replied that
the County certainly would not want a restaurant or pharmacy there, but if the
Board approved CO with no proffers, the applicant could do it. Mr. Davis
responded that it would have to be as accessory to a professional office and
could not occupy more than 20 percent of the area.
Ms. Thomas asked what the neighbor, Ms. Shifflet, expected would be
between her house and the building. Mr. Burton replied that she had been told
that they expect to put up a privacy fence and plant white pines or something
of that nature. Mr. Cilimber~ noted that the applicant has shown a 20 foot
setback from the property line, which would be their buffer zone and screen-
lng. The area is very flat, so it is not a hard area to work in.
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for com-
ments. With no one from the public risin~ to speak, she closed the public
hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas stated that she was hesitant until she went out there and saw
the bufferin9 provided between the office buildings and residences. She did
not, however, like the implication that low-cost housing would be unattractive
and trashy.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve ZMA-96-23. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-96-50. SVRS, Inc. (Signs 3 & 5) Public Hearin9
on a request for construction of a rescue squad station on approx 10 ac zoned
RA on SW corner of Rt 6/Rt 737 inters. TM130,P7. Scottsville Dist. (This
property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on February 3 and February 12, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on January 21, 1997, unanimously recommended approval with two
conditions and requested that staff obtain information from the applicant
regardin9 the 9eographical distribution of their calls, which has been
received.
Ms. Thomas asked about a taper lane or anything that would need to be
tied into the entrance on Route 6. Mr. Cilimberg replied that that would be
addressed as part of site plan approval.
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for com-
ments.
Mr. D. L. Bonner, Chairman of the Board for the Scottsville Rescue
Squad, said that their current building is old and small with limited parking
and storage. This new building would provide them with garage space, living
quarters and a community room for training, meetings and fund-raising activi-
ties except bingo. With respect to the entrance, he was assured that VDOT
would not require either deceleration lanes or a third lane, and he hopes that
zs part of the record, for that would be very expensive.
Ms. Humphris asked those who were there regarding the Rescue Squad
building to raise their hands, at which time approximately 15 people did so.
With no one from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
SP-96-50 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000 .72
Mr. Davis noted that Mr. Bonner's comments implied that only bingo was
excluded, but that the condition excludes all fund-raising activities. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that the request was evaluated based on the activities of the
rescue squad, not for fund-raising activities. Subordinate uses and fund-
raising activities such as, but not limited to, bingo, raffles and auctions,
would require an amendment. Mr. Davis said he wanted to make that clear to
Mr. Bonner.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Development shall be in general accord with the attached plan titled
Scottsville Rescue Squad, prepared by Robert Lum, revised 12/16/96, and
initialed WDF 1/9/97. The plan may be revised to address comments made
by the Site Review Committee and shall be revised to provide an entrance
located on Route 6 only;
2 o
Subordinate uses and fund-raising activities such as, but not limited
to, bingo, raffles and auctions shall require amendment of this special
use permit.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-96-54. St. Paul's Church (Sign #23 & #24).
Public Hearing on a request to renovate an existing structure for use as
administrative offices on 15.315 ac zoned VR. Property is St. Paul's Church
on N sd of Rt 250 at inters with Rt 678. TM58A2,P,s 17,18,19. Samuel Miller
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 3 and February 12, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. Staff has recommended approval subject to conditions. At its
meeting on February 18, 1997, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of SP-96-54 with an amendment to the proposed conditions.
Ms. Humphris noted that there was discussion that no new mechanical
equipment should be visible from the entrance corridor, but this was not
included as a condition. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the only thing that would
initiate ARB approval would be a building permit, since there will not be a
site plan. In terms of where mechanical equipment would be located, it could
be included as a condition. Ms. Humphris stated that she would like to add
that as a third condition.
Ms. Thomas said she would not want to bar air conditioning units in the
windows.
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for com-
ments.
Mr. Enoch Snyder, architectural consultant for the project, said that
there would not be any window air conditioning units. The units would be
upstairs in the attic and there would be no equipment visible from outside the
house, from the corridor or otherwise.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-96-54 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and
the following condition #3: No new mechanical equipment to be visible from
the Entrance Corridor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000 .7 3
This special use permit is for the existing church and church offices to
be located in the Kirklea structure. Any future expansion of the church
or church activities will require an amendment to this special use
permit;
2. New exterior finish materials will closely match existing materials;
3. No new mechanical equipment to be visible from the Entrance Corridor.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: November 15, 1995, January 2
and January 8, 1997.
Mr. Bowerman read the minutes of January 8, 1997 and found them to be in
order
Mr. Martin read the minutes of November 15, 1995, pages 13 - end, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of January 2, 1997, pages 1 - 7 (Item
#15a), and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Martin said he attended the meeting of the Neighborhood Development
Committee and it was part of the discussion that there was almost a consensus
that there needed to be more neighborhood participation, and for the Board to
decide through some mechanism on certain people who could participate. The
number recommended was two.
Mr. Tom Loach said there are 11 growth areas that would be affected by
infill, but that would be too many representatives. He proposed there be two
more seats, for a total of three, including his. He proposed that there be as
broad a representation as possible to meet everyone's criteria, and to rotate
those three seats among the various groups.
Mr. Martin said at the meeting, people were disagreeing about numbers
and selection process. He said that Mr. Loach had made these same recommenda-
tions at the meeting, and there had not been a consensus on them. He sug-
gested that the Board figure out how they would want to select those two
individuals. Mr. Bowerman said that he had two people to suggest.
Ms. Thomas said that she hoped that the dynamics of how a committee
works will be taken into account. A floating member will never be as commit-
ted as a permanent member. An alternative would be one or two who feel
themselves to be representative of all neighborhoods, not just their own.
Mr. Martin stated that he would return to the committee for further
discussion and consensus.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
At 9:55 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 (1) to consider candidates for appointment to Boards and Commis-
sions and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. Mr. Marshall seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000 .74
AYES:
NAYS:
MS. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12b. Certify Executive Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:41 p.m. Motion was made by
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, that the Board certify by a recorded
vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive
session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
At this time the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters
not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, to reappoint Ms. Lisa Keyes Glass to
the Jordan Development Corporation.
Ms. Thomas recommended the appointment of Mr. Chip German to the Library
Board.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the nominations. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Mr. Tucker said that he has asked Mr. Cilimberg to bring back a
recommendation to the March 5 day meeting on the disposition of the right-of-
way for Greenbrier Drive.
Ms. Thomas asked about a progress report on GE Fanuc. The Board was
supposed to find out the progress on what kind of employment additions there
had been and where they came from, which was a condition of their approval.
Ms. Humphris asked about the monthly report from Acme. Mr. Perkins said
that he thought it was in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Tucker replied that he did
not think they had received one in a while.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Davis and staff to bring back a report on the
issues of placing Whitewood Park under a permanent conservation easement to
insure that it will remain green space.
Ms. Humphris mentioned a request from Dr. DiCroce, President of Piedmont
Virginia Community College, to attend a joint meeting and dinner of the PVCC
Board, the Board of Supervisors and the County School Board. The dates
recommended are March 17th, 20th, 24th or 26th, from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. She
asked the Clerk what the agenda would be, and was informed that PVCC is
attempting to get out into the community, with an open-ended agenda.
Mr. Marshall stated that he would be out of town from March 13 through
March 18. Ms. Humphris asked the Clerk to contact the Board members to
coordinate a date to recommend to PVCC.
Ms. Humphris read a letter of apology the Board received from Kathryn
Hobbs, President of the League of Women Voters, apologizing for not clearing
the date and time of the Forum on Local Government with the Board. The forum
~gproved
Board
Date Q
Initials
February 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
is to be held on Saturday morning from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m at the Senior
Center. '
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn.
At 11:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to adjourn to Saturday, at 9:30 a.m. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None
Cha i rman