1997-04-16April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
00000
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 16, 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.
i5~BSENTr; 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 7:01 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. John Pollock, President of the Batesville Historical Society, said
he appreciates the Board's support of the resolution to retain the Batesville
post office.
Mr. Michael A. Webber, representing the Ivy Steering Committee, provided
Board members a copy of a press release regarding the Committee's filing a
"Notice of Violations and Endangerment" which they believe have occurred at
the Ivy Landfill.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. The motion was offered by
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve items 5.1 through 5.2a, and
to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Appropriation: Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention, $8,575
(Form $96068) .
The County's share of the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home was budgeted
at $105,316 for FY 96/97. However, the Detention Commission recently
approved an additional $50,000 assessment for all the participating localities
due to a current shortfall in non-participant revenues. Since usage by the
participating localities has been higher than anticipated in the current year,
there has been limited space for non-participating localities and therefore,
less per diem revenues. Based on usage, Albemarle's share of the $50,000
assessment is $8,575.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #96068 in the amount of
$8,575 as Albemarle's share of the additional assessment for the Juvenile
Detention Home.
Mr. Bowerman asked why extra monies are needed. Mr. Tucker said the
Juvenile Detention Center takes in youth from non-participating areas and they
pay a higher fee. However, because Albemarle County's needs have been greater
in the participating group, revenues have not kept up with expenses.
The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation, by the
above shown vote:
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97
AK3MBER 96068
FLIND GENEP~AL
oOooo
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: JUVENILE DETENTION HOME SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100039000563400 JUVENILE DETENTION HOME $8,575.00
TOTAL $8,575.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND $8,575.00
TOTAL $8,575.00
Item 5.2. Appropriation: General Government Capital Improvements Fund,
$74,000 (Form #96069).
The County and the City approved $160,000 in FY 1995/96 to complete the
Health Department addition and renovations. Final construction bids for the
addition came in $200,000 over the available funds and on September 11, 1996,
the Board was advised that this shortfall in funding could be funded from
donated funds from the Free Clinic ($108,500), reserve funds in the Health
Department Rental Account ($74,000), and funding from the City and the County
($17,500), with the County's share ($8,750) being funded from the Health
Department refund monies.
In September, 1996, an appropriation was requested and approved to cover
the County's share ($8,750) of the shortfall in funding. The attached
appropriation #96069 is requesting approval of the transfer of $74,000 from
the Health Department Rental Account to the General Government Capital
Improvement Fund account.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation as detailed on form
#96069 in the amount of $74,000.00.
The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation, by the
above shown vote:
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97
AK3MBER 96069
FUND GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT RENOVATIONS
AND ADDITIONS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1901051020800901 HEALTH DEPARTMENT $74,000.00
TOTAL $74,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2901051000512013 TRANSFER FROM HEALTH DEPT RESERVES $74,000.00
TOTAL $74,000.00
Item 5.2a. Resolution in support of retaining the Batesville Post
Office in its existing location.
The Board adopted the following resolution, by the above shown vote:
WHEREAS, the village of Batesville in Albemarle County,
Virginia, is eligible for and pursuing being listed as an historic
district on the National Register of Historic Places and the
Virginia Landmarks Register; and
WHEREAS, Batesville has had a post office since at least the
early 1830's and that post office has been located in or beside
Page's store since 1914; and
WHEREAS, the existing Post Office acts as the center and
heart of the Batesville community; and
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meetihg)
(Page 3)
000003
WHEREAS, the U. S. Postal Service has announced its
intentions to relocate the Batesville Post Office; and
WHEREAS, such relocation would irreparably remove the heart
of this community; and
WHEREAS, there is strong community support to keep the Post
Office at its existing location, including willingness to design
access for handicapped persons; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors realizes
the important role small villages play in promoting the American
way of life and wants to encourage their continued viability in
Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors supports the residents of Batesville in their
efforts to keep the Batesville Post Office at its existing
location; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board send a copy of this
resolution to the U. S. Postal Service with a letter asking them
to abandon any plans they may have to relocate the Batesville Post
Office.
Item 5.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for March 4, March 11
and March 25, 1997, were received for information.
Item 5.4. Copy of revised State Noise Abatement Policy, effective
January 1, 1997, and adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, was
received for information.
Mrs. Humphris asked staff to provide an analysis of the noise policy and
it implications.
Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated April 1, 1997, from Mr. John Grady,
Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Jay A. Taggart, re: Official
Determination of Number of Development Rights - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 72,
Parcel 20 (property of Anastasis S. Juul-Nielsen), received for information.
Item 5.6. 1997 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for
information.
Item 5.7. Copy of Environmental Assessment on the natural as pipeline
facilities proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation as prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, was received for information.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman filed a Transactional Disclosure Statement,
regarding ZMA-96-28, disqualifying himself from participating in this transac-
tion and request because he has a personal interest in a contract which sold
fitness equipment to an entity in which the principals are also principals of
the applicant.)
Agenda Item 6. ZMA-96-28. Glenmore Assoc (Sign #36& Sign#40) . Public
Hearing on a request to rezone 6.6 acs from RA to PRD & amend existing
agreements for Glenmore PRD. Properties are near end of Ashton Drive adj to
Glenmore development. (This site, in the Community of East Rivanna, is
recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential [3-6 du/ac] by the
Comprehensive Plan. The existing density is 0.5 du/ac.) TM93,P's 61&6lB.
Rivanna Dist. (Applicant requests deferral until May 21, 1997.)
The motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to defer
'the public hearing for ZMA-96-28 until May 21, 1977, as requested by the
applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
000004
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item 7. SP-97-01. The Frost Montessori School (Sign #11 & Sign
#12). Public Hearing on a request to establish preschool in existing bldg
(Broadus Memorial Church) on approx 5 acs zoned RA located on E sd of Rt 20
approx 3/4 mi N of inters of Rt 250 E. TM62, P25C. Rivanna Dist. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed the
proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance
and recommends approval with two conditions. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on March 11, 1997, recommended approval of SP-97-01 subject to staff's
two conditions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Megan Tribble, the owner
and administrator, said she had no additional comments. She would be happy to
answer any questions.
Since no one else came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
SP-97-01 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Approval is for the use of a portion of the existing Broadus
Memorial Baptist Church building for a preschool for no more than
18 children for a period of two years only; and
The supplementary regulations of Section 5.1.6 dealing with day
care and nursery facilities be applied to this special use permit.
Agenda Item 8. SP-97-02. Mt. Ararat Lodge (Sign #29 & Sign #30).
Public Hearing on a request to amend SP-95-39 to increase size of meeting hall
for Masonic Lodge on approx 2.11 acs zoned RA on S sd of Rt 715 (Esmont Rd) at
inters of Rt 714 (Riding Club Rd) about 1 mi S of Keene. TM121, P32A.
Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7,
1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff opinion is that no
changes in circumstances have occurred since the original review of this
request. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request subject to
revised conditions. Condition #1 was revised to allow a 3,000 square foot
building. Condition #3 was revised to reference the letter from Mr. Harold
Key describing the lodge's activities dated February 18, 1997.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 4,
1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-02 subject to the four
conditions recommended by the staff.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Herman Key, the applicant
was present, but had no comments to make. There being no one else present to
speak, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to approve
SP-97-02 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
000005
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. The building shall be limited in size to 3,000 square feet;
Maximum attendance at the meetings shall not exceed those limits
as established by the Health Department;
Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or
structure outlined in the July 20, 1993 staff report shall require
additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The
current activities of the Lodge are listed in a letter from
Harold Key, dated February 18, 1997 which is attached; and
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item 9. ZMA-96-17. Mechum River Land Trust (Sign #33). Public
Hearing on a request to rezone approx 57 acs from RA & EC to R-4 & EC
immediately E of The Highlands along the S sd of Rt 240 in Crozet area.
TM57,P29 & TM57A, Parcel A(part). (Property is on edge of Crozet Community &
is designed as Development Area [by the Comprehensive Plan] for portion of
property which may be within the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation
Basin drainage area.) White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 31 and April 7, 1997.)
(Note: Mr. Bowerman filed a Transactional Disclosure Statement regard-
ing ZMA-96-17, disqualifying himself from participating in this transaction
and request because he has a personal interest in a contract which sold
fitness equipment to an entity in which a principal is also a principal of the
applicant. Additional sales of between $5000 and $20,000 is anticipated
during the next two to twelve months. Although the Commonwealth's Attorney
has indicated that technically he does not believe Mr. Bowerman has a conflict
of interest, the fact that he has done nearly $20,000 worth of business and
anticipates a significant amount more, with the applicant, he feels that
precludes him from voting for the application. He is concerned about the
appearance of a conflict. Mr. Bowerman left the room at 7:22 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized read the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed this
request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and past Board actions.
Staff recommended denial. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 4,
1997, by a vote of four to three, recommended denial of ZMA-96-17.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are proffers provided should the Board decide
to approve the rezoning. The proffers are signed and can be accepted by the
County.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hunter Craig, the applicant and Trustee of the Mechum River Land
Trust, addressed the Board. He explained the type of homes they would like to
build, the plan and how they arrived at the plan. Using a map, he pointed out
the drainage divide line; everything to the west flows into the Lickinghole
Creek Regional Basin; everything to the east does not flow into that basin.
They have already built 190 house. Every now and then they run ~specials" on
the prices of the houses at $89,900, but there are numerous houses in the mid
$90,000 range. This is an affordable product. They are called manor homes.
The plan is proffered. The houses are two single-family homes separated by a
block wall.
Mr. Craig said if this area flowed into the Lickinghole Creek Basin, it
would be in the Comprehensive Plan. He went to the staff and they all said
let's assume that was the case. With that assumption, he asked staff what
they would like to see. Staff said they would like to see as many houses as
possible, preferably six units per acre, but a minimum of three units per
acre. Staff said they would also like to see bike trails, walking trails and
a 50 foot buffer. The applicant's detailed plan, which is proffered, shows
those items. In addition, the applicant would be willing to proffer subject
to the County Engineer's approval an additional 15 foot right-of-way for
buffer. He thinks this is the best plan. The applicant achieved 4.63
dwelling units per net usable acre.
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000006
The major benefit of this rezoning is affordable housing. He builds
affordable houses. Additionally, there will be 350 units when this is fully
developed west of the drainage divide. They all have to exit out of the one
entrance. This project would provide a second entrance for emergencies. In
addition, the applicant would go a long way towards paying for all of these
utilities which were extended out to Crozet in the late 1980's. Water and
sewer are on the property which he thinks should be utilized. This issue is
on-site basins versus regional detention basins. He then read a statement
from Mr. David Hirschman, the County's Water Resources Manager, in a memoran-
dum to Mr. William Fritz, date January 1997. "The argument can be made and
supported technically that on-site storm water practices can be built that
would equal or surpass the treatment provided by the Lickinghole Basin. Given
the right sighting and design parameters, this is certainly true especially
with the new generation of BMP designs that are now available."
Mr. Tom Lancaster, Project Engineer, said the Runoff Control Ordinance
requires that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff in
terms of quality and quantity in the watersheds of our drinking water impound-
meats. This project will meet the requirements of the Ordinance. The County
runoff control experts admit that on-site controls can meet or exceed
performance of off-site controls. The Engineering Department requires
maintenance of on-site controls and establishes procedures for enforcement.
No such requirements exist for off-site basins. Some people question the
feasibility of maintaining the Lickinghole Creek Basin on a long-term basis.
The stated purpose of the Lickinghole Creek Basin was to serve areas to be
developed. That can be done equally or better with on-site basins. The
actual result of the Lickinghole Creek Basin is to provide some runoff control
to areas already developed, including residential, commercial, industrial and
agricultural, which had no controls. Phosphorus is the most important
nutrient to control in runoff going to the South Rivanna Reservoir. Reducing
the level of phosphorus reduces the amount of algae that will grow and
ultimately the rate at which sedimentation will fill in the Reservoir.
Phosphorus is the only pollutant addressed in the technical criteria for water
quality in the proposed comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance. The
Lickinghole Basin is supposed to remove 45 percent of the total phosphorus;
but it is unknown if that is being accomplished. Information provided to him
by Mr. Hirschman states that on-site detention facilities remove 65 percent of
the total phosphorus.
Mr. Craig said the watershed of the Lickinghole Basin is an ~unofficial"
boundary for the Crozet growth area, because it does not protect the Rivanna
Reservoir as effectively as the on-site facilities provide for in the Runoff
Control Ordinance. They can do a better job with on-site detention basins
than the regional basin, and at ~zero" cost to the tax payers. The expense of
the on-site basins will be at the expense of the homeowners who live there and
accrue the benefit. He believes the basin is not relevant to the protection
of the Rivanna water shed. If the primary concern is the protection of the
watershed, it can be more effectively accomplished by building on-site runoff
control devices whether inside or outside of the Lickinghole Creek Basin.
Mr. Craig disagreed with Mr. Cilimberg's comment that the line that drains
into the Lickinghole Creek Basin meanders. Mr. Craig says he does not see a
meandering line. The line follows Routes 240 and 250. He believes there is a
lot of historical precedence for the boundary of Crozet as being Routes 240
and 250. According to a plat for Corey Farms, 48 percent of the lots do not
drain into the regional basin. If one uses Routes 240 and 250 as the
boundaries, the area east of the existing drainage divide, has 87 developable
acres, of which 57 acres are before the Board tonight. This is not an
undeveloped piece of property. He asked the Board to apply the law equally as
it did with Corey Farms so that he can supply affordable housing in Albemarle
County.
Mr. Scott Peyton, a resident of Greenwood, said in previously
discussions this Board has pointed out the necessity of protecting the
County's rural lands. The way to do that is by zoning. He is concerned that
approval of this rezoning request will feed the growin9 tide of development
pressures on the rural lands. Approval of this rezoning would surely
establish a precedent. Less than two years ago, the Board denied a property
owner's request to add 500 additional acres to the Crozet growth area.
Whether rezoning is to commercial or high density residential, the impact is
significant and perpetual. The consequences are felt on County roads, schools
and all municipal services. The costs are substantially borne by the
taxpayers while the profits go to developers. He asked the Board to deny the
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
000007
request. He asked that everyone in the audience who supported his statements
to stand (approximately 30 people stood).
Mr. Tom Goodrich, a resident from Ivy, said he previously wrote Board
members regarding this matter. He recognizes the need for grow with regards
to revenues and affordable housing. He is opposed to this rezoning request.
In good faith, the original zoning request was approved and it had some public
input. It limited to the lots to rural area zoning. At the time no provi-
sions were given to consider the increase in demands on services of police,
fire and rescue agencies to serve that part of the County. Route 250 West is
the most convenient route into Charlottesville, but it is limited in its
ability to grow with increasing traffice. No matter what is done west of Ivy,
there will still only be one lane coming through Ivy. Traffic congestion is
already a problem and will only worsen. Also there is some wetlands involved
on Route 240 if widening is considered in the future. The posted speed limit
on Route 240 has been lowered to 45 mph and in some places 35 mph because of
increased traffic caused by current housing. Soon it will resemble a Northern
Virginia bottle-neck. Since Western Ridge has no plans for an access road
onto Route 250, everyone is going to use Routes 240 and 250 into town.
Ms. Karen Dame, a resident of Albemarle County, said she has devoted a
lot of time in the last couple of years with land use planning issues. She
commended staff for the through and well-done staff report. She agrees with
the staff's opinion that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance to approve an urban density rezoning for property in the
water supply watershed designated as rural areas by the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Dame said those of us who devote our time to helping craft local policies,
as well as everyone else in the community who lives under those policies,
should be able to count on our established land use plan, growth management
policy, the Crozet Community Study and Zoning Ordinance, all clearly defined
on paper, to take care of applications like this one. The citizens should
also be able to rely without concern on the Board's willingness to do what is
necessary to uphold these policies and regulations. She opposes approval of
this rezoning application and counts on the Board to do the same.
Mr. Phil Williams, a resident of the Ivy area, said he moved here in
1992 because of its rural charm and beautiful setting. As a realtor, he hears
the same thing from his clients. Development is normal, healthy and a sign of
vitality. In his opinion, it should only be done with the utmost care and at
a deliberate pace if it is to be successful. If development is good, slower
development is better. It allows for a reflection of the longer term effects
and permits lower cost adjustments to the processs to remedy an unintended mix
of results. When the plan for Crozet was formulated, a kind of covenant was
established which sought to strike a harmonious balance between the need for
commercial and residential expansion and Crozet. The request for a change in
the formula seems to him to be unwarranted, both from the point of view of
Crozet, and more particularly, to the upstream communities along the Route 250
corridor. The amount and velocity of traffic it currently bears is
problematic in the mornings and evenings. He understands the number of
housing units in Crozet is expected to double in five years and, from a
transportation perspective, this housing is largely directed towards Route 250
East. Housing and commercial expansions which tend to focus the traffic onto
Route 250 East serve to disenfranchise the existing town center and exasperate
an upstream problem for those communities along the way. He concluded by
stating that, although he opposes this request, Mr. Craig does high quality
subdivision work.
Mr. Tom Olivier, a resident of the Scottsville district, representing
Citizens for Albemarle, presented a statement opposing the request (copy on
file). They opposed this rezoning in 2990 and in 1994, and still oppose it
for those same reasons. The petition is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and will set an undesirable precedent. Granting this request will
violate an essential principle in land use planning in the County. High
density residential developments belong in designated growth areas. More
affordable housing should be integrated into the designated growth areas. It
is not in the pubic's interest to rezone this property. He urged the Board to
deny the request.
Ms. Ellen Waugh, a resident of Route 250 West near Crozet, said
Mr. Craig is persistent, but neither the growth areas or the watershed areas
have changed. The issue of proper notification for a rezoning request is an
inappropriate vehicle for a request to expand the growth areas for Crozet,
which is laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked the Board to deny the
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
000005
request. She asked that this latest attempt to test the boundaries of the
growth areas be denied.
Mr. Tom Payne also asked the Board to deny the request. He lives in the
Gillums Ridge Road area and travels Route 250 daily. In the last four to five
years he has seen tremendous growth in the number of automobiles on Route 250.
He has seen problems with school buses trying to get in and out of Route 250
in the morning and sometimes in the afternoons. He has heard tonight that
this proposed development will have a lot of amenities and affordable housing.
He thinks the things outside this development need to be considered. He
thinks the Board needs to move slowly into this development and needs to think
about the outside costs. The rezoning may provide some wonderful things for
the development, but he asked what about the other communities in the County.
Traffic is a major concern. Before this Board considers rezoning, it needs to
look at the other areas that will become more costly to taxpayers, the County
and the environment. He asked the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Larry Hayes said he lives north of Route 250 and east of Mechums
River, near the proposed rezoning. His father-in-law owns 150 acres currently
zoned rural areas. He has 14 division rights. If the Board were to allow him
the same rezoning, he would have possibly 500 division rights. His father-in-
law also has property where the boundaries are arbitrary. The basin does not
mean anything. His father-in-law has a 13 acre lake. He and his father-in-
law oppose this rezoning.
Mr. John Marston, a lifetime resident of Albemarle County, said the
developer has stated that he is not setting a precedent, because of the Corey
Farms rezoning. Corey Farms was already residential. This proposes that
agricultural land be rezoned to residential. He asked the Board to continue
to deny this rezoning.
Mr. Barry Schnorr spoke in opposition to the proposal. He asked the
Board to adhere to the ComPrehensive Plan and deny this request.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, said when Western Ridge was built,
he appeared before this Board and asked that affordable housing be
incorporated as part of the overall design of that development in coordination
with the Crozet Community Plan. Mr. Craig is already prOviding affordable
housing to Crozet. When it comes to affordable housing, he does not think any
community has done more to accomodate affordable housing that Crozet. If the
Board is going to approach this from the aspect of affordable housing, he
would like to know what Crozet is not doing to accomodate affordable housing.
He finds it incredible that the Board would consider passing this request in
light of the development initiative looking at infill development. This
proposal is being looked at far beyond the scope of Crozet by the growth area
neighborhoods.
Mr. Trip Pollard, a resident of Western Albemarle, and attorney with the
Southern Environmental Law Center, said the Law Center works to promote the
protection and sensible use of natural resources. Land use and transportation
issues, in particular, are of concern to this group. They are dedicated to
addressing wasteful sprawling land paatterns which they believe is one of the
most serious environmental threats to the County. The Law Center has a
tremendous interest in Albemarle in the strong work that has been done to get
a handle on rampant growth. Sprawling development is destroying productive
farmland and forest, polluting air and water, wasting tremendous amounts of
public funds for new infrastructure, causing traffic congestion and
threatening the quality of life that has made this County a great place to
live and work. The County has taken a number of important steps to address
these problems, and in particular, the Law Center supports the growth areas
concept which channels development away from the rural areas into targetted
areas, both to reduce the loss of countryside and to reduce the cost of
schools, utilities and other services. In addition, the growth areas concept
is critical to protecting the quality of the County's drinking water. The
growth areas concept is central to the County's efforts to grow more wisely.
This project is outside the growth areas; it is in a rural area within a water
supply watershed. The Board is being asked to abandon its long-standing land
use policies, to abandon and compromise the growth areas concept, to abandon
the Comprehensive Plan, to allow urban density development in a water supply
watershed and to approve a project that lies outside the growth area for the
community of Crozet. There are approximately 800 acres available for
development within the community. Approval of this request would undercut and
jeopardize years of careful and consistent planning in the County. It would
000009
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
establish a dangerous precedent and open the County to legal challenges if the
Board were to deny similar requests in the future. A similar request has been
rejected before. For all those reasons the Law Center opposes this rezoning
request and urges the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Joe Flamini, an engineer and a resident of Western Albemarle County
for 16 years, expressed opposition to the request. He opposes the project
from an engineering and aesthetics standpoint.
Ms. Marsha Joseph, representing the Southwest Mountains Coalition, said
the action taken tonight will affect the entire County. The public is
involved in determing boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan and place a basic
trust in this body to follow that Plan. If the Plan is not followed here, can
the citizens then count on the fact that all areas in the community are at
risk for haphazardous development. She asked the Board to deny the request.
Ms. Babette Thorpe presented a statement (copy on file) on behalf of the
Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) opposing the request. The Board should
stand by its Comprehensive Plan and leave the property zoned for rural use.
If rezoned, other landowners will make the same arguments and promises this
developer has made, unless the Board can distinguish this request from the
others that will most certainly follow. This could lead to rezoning within
the water shed. On-site detention basins will dot what was once countryside,
and they will come with a cost. The County would have a heavy financial
burden to ensure the basins are properly designed, constructed and maintained,
or sacrifice the quality of drinking water. Avoid the dilemma by denying the
request and affirming the County's longstanding policy governing land use
decisions in the water shed.
Mr. Reuben Clark, owner of a cattle operation in southern Albemarle for
30 years, and a commercial vineyard for almost 20 years, expressed opposition
to the request. Approving this request would constitute a significant, if
indirect, expansion of the growh areas not permitted by the Comprehensive
Plan. In his opinion, approval of this request would constitute a breach of
faith with the community because of action taken last year by this Board. On
June 5, 1996, the Board unanimously amended the Comprehensive Plan, including
the conclusion that "there not be expanded growth areas". This action was
taken following a work session on May 1, 1996, in which the discussion among
the Board members clearly demonstrated that this action was meant to bind the
Board not to expand the growth areas, pending examination of policies aimed at
encouraging infill development and preserving scenic and rural areas. He
quoted comments from several Board members regarding the issue of expanding
the growth areas. In conclusion, he believes the the Board promised the
community that the time had come to hold the growth area borders in line until
studies as to how better to direct growth into the growth areas and more
effectively protect the rural areas have been completed. Accordingly, he
urged the Board to stand by what it said it would do last summer.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of
Women Voters, presented a statement (copy on file) on behalf of the League
urging the Board to deny the request. This proposal is inconsist with the
Comprehensive Plan and Infill Policy, the County's economic investment in the
Lickinghole Creek Basin, the financial burden on schools and other public
services, and the costly inspection and maintenance program for on-site
detention facilities. The purpose of BMPs for both regional and onsite
detention facilities is not only to control the rate of storm water runoff,
but also to maintain water quality standards in the Rivanna Reservoir by
reducing phosphorous and nitrogen loadings to the Reservoir, thus protecting
drinking water supplies for the City and customers of the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
However, it was recognized years ago that those removal rates could not
be sustained in the long run unless there was an effective monitoring and
inspection program for privately owned storm water BMPs designed to implement
the Runoff Control Ordinance. Maintenance of runoff control structures was
addressed in 1983, under a joint resolution by the City, the County, the
Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(RWSA) . It was agreed that it is the water users who should pay for the
protection of drinking water supplies, not the County tax payer or the
landowner on whose property the facility is located. According to the same
resolution, the office of Watershed Management official, created by the City
and County in 1980, is responsible for overseeing all activities in the County
relative to the protection of drinking water impoundments, sharing the cost on
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
ooooxo
a 50-50 basis. Since its inception, more and more duties have been piled on
the Office of Watershed Management, while it has remained an underfunded, one-
man operation, compromising the effectiveness of its monitoring and
maintenance program. Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance is a
proposal for an instrument to provide inspection and maintenance in which the
final responsibility and cost for inspection, maintenance and replacement lie
with the landowner. It is to be administered by the County, meaning all
County taxpayers, including the landowners who must provide for the protection
devices. The agreement makes clear the cost of living in the watershed of a
drinking water impoundent, where on-site facilities are required, are to be
born by the landowner.
At this time the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cilimberg if there was an inventory of available
affordable lots in Highands, in Crozet, and in the County. Mr. Cilimberg said
he does not know what the definition of ~affordable" is, and that he had not
looked at that issue. Planning staff had provided information on potentially
available lots, but price range was not provided. Mr. Marshall said he met
with the Police Association this week and was told by an officer that he made
$31,000 yearly. He qualified for a house in the range of $90,000, but there
were none in that price range in Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall asked where
is the abundance of infill lots.
Mrs. Humphris said all Board members want more affordable housing in the
County, but this decision goes beyond the issue of affordable housing. The
Board must be concerned not only with the availability of affordable housing,
but the price the County would have to pay if this rezoning was approved. She
thanked staff for their very thorough and easily understood report. It
appears to her that the Board is being told this rezoning is a very bad idea.
The proposal is inconsistent with the Crozet development area, it is asking
for urban density zoning, which is inappropriate for rural land since it is
within the water supply watershed, it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and
it conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance, which does not allow additional
development rights for property zoned rural areas within the watershed, which
is the basis of the County's growth management plan. She asked how the Board
could distinguish this request from similar requests that are outside a
development area in a watersupply watershed. She asked how it could be
distinguished in a court case.
Mr. Davis said it would be difficult to do, should there be a court
case. It would be hard to implement and defend the Comprehensive Plan if the
Board does not consistently follow the Plan. Any decision made in a rezoning
case that is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan has to be carefully
distinguished, otherwise future rezonings would be hard to defend unless there
was a clear basis that would distinguish those from a rezoning request that
was not consistent with the Plan. In this instance, there is no clear factor
that would distinguish it from future ~ezonings, particularly rezonings
outside the growth area and in the watershed. The same argument that is being
made by Mr. Craig could be made by a number of other property owners. If
those future rezonings come before the Board, it would have to distinguish
them or be subject to challenges, if they are denied.
Mrs. Humphris read from the memorandum from Mr. David Hirschman, Water
Resources Manager, dated January 22, 1997, ~that BMP's, even those with the
most advance design, are no substitute for the proper land uses and zoning in
the drinking water watershed. In other words the land use zoning approach
should prevail as the primary means of protecting water supplies. If given
the opportunity, we should not allow end of pipe treatments (BMPs) to be a
substitute for source reduction, which is the zoning and the use of the
regional basin." She thinks if this request is approved, it would be a
catastrophe for the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Overall, it is a
detriment to the County, even in light of the need for affordable housing. In
1980 the Board agreed it had to protect water supply watersheds with rural
areas zoning. This request would compromise the Infill Committee and the
Board's decision one year ago not to add to the growth areas in Crozet. For
those reasons, she will not support the request.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cilimberg how many lots are available in existing
develoments and how many of the potential developments have been approved.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that Gray Rock had over 100 potential units, and Barklay
was in the thirties. He believes that a phase of Barclay has been subdivided.
Mr. Perkins said he thought Barklay was going to have 54 units. Mr. Cilimberg
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
0000'15.
mentioned that a section of Corey Farms has been platted. He does not know
the exact number of Corey farms units, but the section under development is
approximately 200 units. Western Ridge is currently under development, as
well as townhouse sections of Highlands at Mechums River which can be
developed. He doe~ not know the total numbers. There is an inventory of
those lots and potential units that has not been developed. In addition,
there are the areas that have been designated for residential development in
the Comprehensive Plan that have not been pursued for rezoning at this time.
Mrs. Thomas commented that she counted approximately 700 additional
houses being approved to be built in Crozet now. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
was correct. Mr. Perkins said there have been a number of rezonings just
sitting still. Unless someone does something with them, he asked how long are
they going to sit there. Housing being provided by the Craig's and Corey Farm
are the only developments currently underway in Crozet.
Mr. Marshall said Mr. Craig is selling houses in three different price
ranges in this area, and noted that it lools like all of the land was used for
the $89,000 to $ 95,000 price range. Mr. Craig said they just started a new
section of 26 lots and then they will be through with the lower priced units.
Part of this they could do by-right, but that is their next section. Most of
the higher priced homes are in Western Ridge. They have eight houses in
Western Ridge currently that are priced from $120,000 to $200,000. They built
numerous houses in the Highlands in the $80,000 range which are now worth in
excess of $100,000, allowing a family to create equity.
Mr. Marshall said he wants to know where working class people can live
in this County. Water and sewer are not available in southern Albemarle, but
it is right beside this piece of property. Mrs. Humphris said it depends on
the price the County is willing to pay. If the Board compromises the entire
Zoning Ordiance and the Comprehensive Plan, it will be hard to deny future
similar rezonings in the watershed, which goes against the entire growth
management plan. Mr. Marshall said the Board voted against the Comprehensive
Plan before. That Plan is a guide, a tool, not the Bible. It is not etched
in stone. Mrs. Humphris said it is a promise the Board made one year ago to
the people of the County. Mr. Marshall said the Board has voted against the
Comprehensive Plan in the past. The Plan is a good guide, but he is concerned
about the working class people being able to afford to live in this County.
He does not care where this property is located, except that it is located
near water and sewer, and all the infrastructure is in place which does not
have to be provided somewhere else. Mrs. Humphris said this is rural area
zoning and its is in the watershed. Mr. Marshall said people buying large
acre lots are what is destroying the rural areas. If the Board concentrates
people in and near the growth areas where all of the infrastructure is
located, the rural areas can be preserved. He oWns agricultural land and an
individual cannot make a living on that land. He is maintaining that land for
the beautification of the County so everybody else can ride by and look at it.
Mrs. Thomas said one reason land is expensive in this County is because
people hold onto it speculating that one day they will be able to do more with
it. One of the things, if someone is really concerned about affordable
housing, is that mentality of holding onto the land long enough where
eventually the Board will change the rules and the developer will be able to
develop the property more densely, particularly in the watershed. That is
what theis Board is being faced with today. If Board members care about the
cost of land in this County, it will not approve this rezoning. Approval will
give hope to speculators everywhere. All a developer would have to do is hold
onto the land long enough and say the words 'affordable housing" and this
Board will let the developer rezone the land even if it is in the watershed,
even if it is not being captured by a retention basin and even if those
affordable housing oWners are going to be saddled with the maintenance costs
of an on-site detention.
Key West recently had storm damage to one of their ponds that will
amount to a $20,000 cost to the homeoWners. She would hate to addle
~affordable housing" oWners with that kind of cost. She thinks this is also a
step towards damaging the Reservoir. True affordable housing is based on
having public water available, which, in most cases, depends on the Rivanna
Reservoir, which has already lost 20 percent of its capacity. If the Board
members care about having afordable housing, they will care about protecting
the Reservoir. This is not the way to protect the Reservoir. If the Board
members care about the Growth Management Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, they
will not allow little "bumps" here and there outside of the designated areas.
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
0000 .2
A year ago the Board said it was going to do a better job of developing its
development areas. That does not include allowing these little bumps just
because they are close to a developing area. If boundaries mean anything,
they have to mean something here, because this is a little bump into the
Reservoir watershed. She thinks people have had a lot of good input. She
thinks the property owner has a reasonable use of this land, so denial will
not cause a legal challenge. The request is totally inconsistent with the
decision made by the Board one year ago in the Comprehensive Plan, and it is
inconsistent with plans that have been followed since 1980 when the Board went
all the way to the Supreme Court to defend down zoning in the watershed area.
Mr. Marshall said he read from the Planning Commssion minutes the
discussion as to why a Comprehensive Plan amendment had not been proposed.
Mr. Fritz said staff typically does encourage this type of request to begin
with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, because of the recent work on
the land use part of the Comprehensive Plan, that was not done for this
request. Mrs. Thomas said it was not recommended because it would not be a
wise amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This is a very basic issue of
following the Comprehensive Plan, not a technical issue. This request is
contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Perkins said this was a thorough staff report; however, most staff
reports list favorable and unfavorable aspects, but this one did not list
anything favorable. He believes there are some favorable issues: sewer and
water are available, it is a logical part of the Crozet growth area, it would
provide affordable housing, and it would provide two access points to
Highlands. Mr. Perkins said he visited this site in 1988 with Mr. Craig.
Mr. Perkins told Mr. Craig that it looked like a logical place to expand the
Crozet growth area, and that he would do what he could do to get it into the
growth area. At that time the Lickinghole sedimentation pond had not been
built, so it was unclear the location of the line. The Board decided that the
line would be drawn wherever it drained into Lickinghole Creek. In his
opinion, the Lickinghold Creek was built after it was needed. Since the sewer
line was there before the sedimentation pond was built, the sedimentation pond
should not have been used to determine the growth area of Crozet. He believed
that roads and the availability of sewer and water service should be used to
determine the growth area. Public sewer lines would do more to protect the
Reservoir and the Chesapeake Bay than the Lickinghole sedimentation pond. He
made a commitment to Mr. Craig that he would work to get this into the Crozet
groth area. The County is experiencing growth. There is no affordable
housing now, but it will go somewhere, probably in rural areas. A quick
calculation indicates that 101 lots could take up to 2,121 acres of rural
lands. As Mr. Marshall pointed out, the reason this Board is here is to make
exception to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning laws.
Mrs. Humphris said this is a watershed issue, as in whether or not the
Zoning Ordinance goes down the drain. She asked how the Board will handle
prospective requests that will come in the future requesting additional
development rights for property in the watershed that are zoned rural areas.
Mr. Perkins said the other requests may not have sewer and water. Mrs. Thomas
disagreed, saying that most areas adjacent next to designated growth areas do
have water and sewer. There are lots of designated growth areas where the
lines only have to be extended a short distance. Mr. Perkins said the
developer would have to extend the water and sewer lines, and if that cost is
too high, they do not get extended. Mrs. Thomas said the County wants those
water and sewer availabilities in the designated growth areas, but to bump out
the designated growth area because water and sewer is near would hold true of
any of those areas. If the growth management plan means anything, this little
bump should not be allowed. That is the point of having boundaries. It is
not fair to other landowners and developers to change the rules that were only
recently adopted.
Mr. Martin asked whether approval of this request would be a precedent
because the property is zoned rural area and is locatedin the watershed, or
because it is designated rural area and is a rezoning. Mr. Davis said he
thinks the major precedent would be expanding a growth area without a
distinguishable basis for doing that, inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The watershed is another factor in that it is an important basis for
the Comprehensive Plan limiting dense development. It would be a precedent as
far as any expansionh of the growth areas. Mr. Martin asked if he meant
expansion of the growth areas as opposed to spot zoning. Mr. Davis said spot
zoning is a rezoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that
serves no public purpose other than for the developer. Mr. Martin asked what
00001;
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
happened in the case of the rezoning for the National Ground Intelligence
Center property. Mr. Cilimberg replied that, in that case, the growth areas
had already been amended before the rezoning for that facility. In 1990 about
100 acres were included in the Piney Mountain growth area.
Mr. Martin asked if what makes this case precedent setting is the
approach asking for rezoning before the Comprehensive Plan is amended.
Mr. Davis said the Comprehensive Plan is a guide. The Board is not bound by
that Plan; however, the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan hinges on whether
or not it is consistently followed unless there are distinguishable reasons
for going outside the Plan. He added that the best reasons for doing that are
the reasons for the basis of the Comprehensive Plan to begin with. Mr. Martin
said that if the Comprehensive Plan was changed first to include this area in
the growth areas, this case would not be precedent setting. Mr. Davis said
following that process would maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan.
When the Comprehensive Plan is amended, staff goes back and analyzes all of
the studies and other factors that went into developing the Plan. The
reasonableness of the Plan is then maintained because positive findings have
been made that is the development pattern in the best interest of the County.
If the Comprehensive Plan is not amended first, and the rezoning cannot be
distinguished outside the Comprehensive Plan, future problems can occur when
making denials which are inconsistent with this action.
Mr. Marshall asked if a rezoning is approved without a Comprehensive
Plan amendment, then, in effect, the Comprehensive Plan would not be amended.
Mr. Davis said it is true to an extent, in that the land use map is a decision
made by the Board and the Comprehensive Plan is made by the Board. The key is
having a basis which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to be the
primary reason for the rezoning that is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. If the Board can state reasons which are consistent with the foundation
of the Comprehensive Plan and which justifies changing the zoning, then it
will be okay. There must be reasons to support the thinking of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is inadvisable to abandon the Comprehensive Plan to
expand the growth areas. The Board needs to be careful when it amends the
Plan through rezonings. It is preferable to amend the Comprehensive Plan on
an independent basis and then to implement the Plan through rezonings.
Mrs. Humphris said since the Zoning Ordinance does not allow any
additional development rights of properties zoned rural areas in water supply
watershed, if this request was approved, then does that not in effect open the
door to people getting additional rights in the watershed. Mr. Davis said
land which is zoned rural areas and in the watershed cannot be granted
additional development rights by special use permit. To the extent that this
would be done by a rezoning is inconsistent with the Board's growth management
policy for the rural areas. Technically, the Board would not be violating the
Zoning Ordinance, because this land would no longer be zoned rural areas, but
the result would be the same. The Board would be allowing more development
rights in a land which is otherwise designated rural areas either by zoning or
the Comprehensive Plan. The Board would then become vulnerable to defending
the density of the rural area unless it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan in some fashion.
Mr. Cilimberg then related the history of the Comprehensive Plan in
relationship to this consideration. In a sense the staff went through the
Comprehensive Plan consideration in 1995. This was a rezoning request that
went as far as the Planning Commission in July 1994. The Planning Commission
unanimously recommended denial. The request did not get to the Board because,
among other reasons, the staff was beginning to review the Land Use Plan and
it was decided to look at the possibility of expansion in Crozet for this area
as part of that review. In 1995 that was done with the Planning Commission.
At a work session, they discussed an amendment for the western side and this
area. This area was one of those identified in Crozet on the boundary that
the Commission specifically looked at for amendment of the growth area
boundary. The Commission decided not to do it for the same reasons the
eastern boundary was established. Therefore it was never recommended to the
Board as part of the Crozet Land Use Plan. The Board took action last year to
confirm the action of the Commission. That is why Planning staff did not
advise the applicant to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
The staff felt the consideration had already happened. The staff felt that if
the applicant wanted to pursue the rezoning without the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, the findings were going to be essentially the same, and they were
not going to be different from what was found in 1995 by the Commission and in
1996 by the Board.
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
000014
Mr. Martin said each Board member had different reasons not to expand
the growth areas at that time. There was no single reason. At the time the
Board made that decision, the area west of Crozet and the area in southern
Albemarle seemed to be ruled out. That left the area north of town, which had
received a larger share of growth than most of the other areas. He then made
the comment that it was time for growth to slow down in the northern part of
the County. Also, in his opinion, if the Board does not expand the growth
areas which staff was proposing, it had to accept the fact that there would be
~bubbles", especially on Route 29 North. He believes that eventually the
Infill Committee will come up with the same conclusion. When he made his
decision, he believed that since ~bubbles" existed, and there would be
constituents upset about them. He agrees that the Comprehensive Plan is not a
Bible, but based on what the County Attorney has said, approval of this
request may not be in the best interests of the County. He also cannot say
that if Mr. Craig pursued a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the request would be
approved. Given the comments he heard tonight from the public and Board
members, he is not willing to support this request.
Mr. Craig interrupted and asked the Board to defer the request.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the Board had to make its own decision.
Mr. Martin said to rezone in a manner that would make it difficult for
the Board to not rezone when there was no benefits to do so, could put the
Board into the position where it would be difficult to legally say no without
someone contesting the decision.
Mr Perkins asked what difference it would make if the request was denied
or deferred until certain things happen such as going through the
Comprehensive Plan process or the Infill Study is done. Mr. Davis said if the
request is denied tonight, substantially the same rezoning application could
not be refiled for one year. The applicant could submit an amendment for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The next review is in September. The rezoning
applicant would not be permitted under the Ordinance until next April. The
request can be deferred indefinitely with the consent of the developer until
such time as the Comprehensive Plan action is completed, and then it would be
reheard. The difference to the developer is the fee.
Mr. Perkins then offered motion that ZMA-96-17 be deferred indefinitely,
if it is agreeable to the applicant.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels this is an issue the public wants disposed
of, one way or another. The public came here tonight expecting a decision.
She does not see anything to be gained for the applicant or anybody else by
deferring the request. She thinks the Board should approve or deny the
request and then let the applicant take the other route, such as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, if he wishes to do so. She thinks it should be
two separate issues.
Mr. Martin asked the applicant if it would make a difference to him if
the Board deferred or denied the request, other than cost. Mr. Craig said it
is much more than cost. The Planning Commission would have recommended
approval, four to three, if he had gone through a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. He did not go through that process before, based on staff
recommendations at that time. Mr. Martin asked what would preclude the
applicant from asking for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, if the Board
denied the request for rezoning. Mr. Craig said he can try to obtain a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, but could not rezone the property for one year.
He thinks it is unfair to penalize him for doing what staff told him to do.
Staff told him not to do a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Cilimberg had advised everyone that staff had not
advised Mr. Craig to try to obtain a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, because the
process had basically already taken place. Mr. Martin disagreed, saying the
reason he voted against increasing growth areas came from different rationale.
Mr. Perkins said there is no Comprehensive Plan in place now, other than the
one adopted in 1989, although some recommendations have been made. Mrs.
Humphris disagreed, saying that the Board has adopted the land use part of the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perkins said only parts have been adopted.
Mrs. Thomas said the vote is on the land use portion of the
Comprehensive Plan. There is no information on natural resources, water
conservation or the rural areas, but information on development areas and the
land use map is available.
OOOO15
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Martin said the rationale for his vote was not the same as that
perceived by Mr. Cilimberg and other staff. Since Planning did not suggest
the applicant seek a Comprehensive Plan change, the Board should give the
applicant a chance to do so.
Mrs. Thomas asked how long it would take to get a decision if the
applicant applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in September.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would not take long to make a decision, since the area
was looked at recently. Staff would have to rely on the applicant to provide
information not presented previously.
Mr. Martin asked if staff could provide answers to the questions about
affordability. Mr. Cilimberg said staff could try to do that if they were
looking at this area strictly as an affordable lot area, which would be unique
in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin asked why it is necessary to designate
the area as strictly an affordable housing area to answer the questions.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff would want to consult with the Housing Coordinator
because the Housing Committee is dealing with the definition of ~affordable
housing". Affordable housing did not come up for staff as a direct aspect of
this proposal because it was not proffered. There is no proffer for any price
of housing at this time. The staff did not get into an analysis of
affordability in the zoning application. Mr. Tucker said staff would attempt
to address the question.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board can legally designate an area in the
County for affordable housing. Mr. Davis said an element of the Comprehensive
Plan can be affordable housing, but whether the Board wants to designate a
particular area as affordable housing is more of a policy decision than a
legal one. It is something that would have to be studied.
Mr. Marshall said when the Board expands the growth areas, the price of
that land becomes less affordable. Mrs. Thomas said the Board has the ability
to require every developer who develops over a certain number of houses to
include a certain number of affordable housing. Mr. Martin said he felt
strongly enough to bring the legislation to the attention of the Board, but he
has not seen anything back on how it can be aPplied. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Housing Committee is looking into that.
Mr. Perkins then restated his motion to defer ZMA-96-17 indefinitely, at
the consent of the developer, so that there is no problem with the Board
delaying the request beyond a 12 month time period. Mr. Marshall seconded the
motion.
Mrs. Thomas said she has no problem with deferring the request. She
thinks a united board is important.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the request should be acted on for the
benefit of the applicant and the public.
Roi1 was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bowerman.
(The Board recessed at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Bowerman returned following the recess.)
Agenda Item 10. ZMA-96-27. Highlands West L.P. (Sign #34 & Sign #35).
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 6.77 acs from LI to HC on S sd of Rt 240
approx 1.5 mi W of Rt 240/Rt 250 inters at the Mechum River. (This site, in
the Community of Crozet, is recommended for Industrial Service by the
Comprehensive Plan.) TM 56, P's 88,89,90&90A. White Hall Dist. (Applicant
requests withdrawal.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April
7, 1997.)
Mrs. Humphris read an excerpt from a letter from the applicant which
stated the zoning administrator had ruled that the applicant could seek
approval for a day care center on this site through a special use permit
rather than rezoning. The applicant therefore wished to withdraw this
application.
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
000016
Mr. Cilimberg said the County Attorney ruled that the Board had to
accept the withdrawal. As a result, there is a provision in the Zoning
Ordinance that allows for the refunding of the fee associated with a rezoning,
if a determination is made after the application is filed. The rezoning is
not required to allow establishment of use, so in this case, Mr. Cilimberg
said the zoning application fee would probably be refunded, and the applicant
could then file for a special use permit. He suggested that this item be
placed on a fast track since the review has already been done.
Mrs. Thomas made the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to support
staff's recommendation to allow the applicant to withdraw ZMA-96-27, without
prejudice, and to refund the rezoning application fee in accordance with the
provisions of Section 35.1. Further, the applicant shall be allowed to file a
special use permit application which will be allowed to be reviewed on a fast
track basis by the Planning commission and the Board of Supervisors. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item 11. ZMA-96-22. RHH Development Corp (Sign %72) . Public
Hearing on a request to rezone approx 1.691 acs from R-4 to CO & 2.774 acs
from C-1 to CO. Property on N sd of Whitewood Rd/Greenbrier Dr adj to
Wynridge & Minor Hill Subd. TM61W2, P's45, 46&47. (Site recommended for
Neighborhood Density Residential in Neighborhood 1.) Rio Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1997.)
(Note: Mr. Bowerman informed the Board that he sold fitness equipment
to the Dunlora development two years ago, but since he has no pending
business, there is no conflict of interest.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommended approval
subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, the applicant has further proffered to address the impacts
and concerns expressed by residents in the neighborhood.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg where the on-site detention basin was
shown. Mr. Cilimberg indicated the area on the map before the Board and said
the applicant would have to get a waiver from the County to place it next to
the residential buffer.
Mrs. Thomas asked about the location of the fence. Referring to the
map, Mr. Cilimberg said a six-foot high fence would be built between the
property and the adjoining residential area.
Mrs. Humphris asked about Lot ~45. Mr. Cilimberg said that lot is a
remaining parcel from the development of the adjacent residential area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if road access would be from Greenbrier Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Hauser owns all of the property in that area. There is
access to the lot. No easements have been provided for access other than from
Greenbrier Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg then summarized the proffers and the County Attorney said
the signed proffers are acceptable.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the drainage costs are anticipated to cost
$20,000. Mr. Cilimberg said .offsite improvements are estimated to cost
$28,000. As part of the Capital Improvement Program, the County could
contribute 50 percent of that cost. The total amount proffered and the
County's 50 percent would be a little over $23,000.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Mr. Robert Hauser, President of Robert Hauser Homes
Development Corporation, said the consultants who addressed the drainage issue
made an incorrect'.~ssumption. They assumed Greenbrier Drive had been
extended; and, unfortunately, the volume of drainage in backyards increased
more than expected? In 1990, a settlement and a solution were negotiated to
regrade the yards, but the County was unable to get the necessary easements to
do the work. He did not know why. The County released his bonds in 1990 and
O0001?
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
the roads became a part of the state system. Problems continue to exist. In
flat areas, water is stagnant in yards. At times there can be a build-up of
water. He has stood in three to four feet of water due to firewood being
stacked in the drainage areas. He agreed there is a drainage problem, but
does not believe it is a safety problem. He offered to pay one-third of the
total cost, but feels homeowners should share in the cost. If the homeowners
got together, it would cost several hundred dollars. In the addition, he has
proffered detention facility to be located in the back corner. His goal is to
maintain the drainage during a two-year storm. In a ten-year storm, drainage
can be managed by enlarging the basin and pushing it closer to the property
line. With good landscaping, he believes he can eliminate the homeowners'
complaints. He is requesting a waiver of the five foot buffer, which would
allow him to build a dam and detention facility. This will shift his plans
somewhat. He has offered a financial solution and will work with everyone to
avoid increasing drainage. The "by right" development would alleviate the
problems with rezoning, but it would not include proffers.
Mr. Hauser said he wants to establish an office park on Greenbrier
Drive. He has prepared professional plans. He asked the Board to evaluate
development options. The zoning for these three parcels has been in place
since 1971, and their current value in excess of $500,000. He evaluated a
number of options before pursuing a rezoning. The by-right development was
supported economically, but it was not a plan which was considerate of the
neighbors or the market he plans to serve. Residential for sale development
was not an option, as this parcels are not marketable at prices which would
support the property value. This is also true of a residential for rent
development. There are 43,000 square feet of office space contained in four
buildings within a unified development plan. Positive aspects included in the
proffer are: single-story construction comparable to surrounding buildings, an
attractive residential scale, the intent to hold parking to below grade, a
hope to maintain and add landscaping, and a proposed fence between offices and
residences. At the request of the neighbors, he plans to run a fence between
residential and commercial property, which could reduce cross-traffic in the
residential area. Dumpsters would be a minimum of 50 feet from the
residential property line, and exterior lighting would be shielded.
The Planning staff recommended approval of this change in zoning. The
Planning Commission overwhelmingly recommended approval as well. He was
reticent to proffer specifics regarding building construction, for fear that
they would run into administrative problems over small details. Recent
proffers have included materials and roof pitch. He asked the Board to
approve the rezoning, allowing the development of an entire area, which would
be preferable to separate development. The property will be developed
eventually. With these guidelines, the development will be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The Growth Area Land Use Plan states that any uses
adjacent to residential areas should be compatible. He feels this proposal is
the best solution. Land use decisions should be consistent with plans to
increase the density of existing areas, holding down suburban sprawl.
Buildings designed for C-1 zoning are rarely residential. An office park will
provide benefits to neighbors and allow them to respond to market demands.
Otherwise, commercial development will continue to move north, keeping
businesses close to residents.
He supports the concept of reducing urban sprawl by developing existing
parcels, but recognizes that, by definition, infill sites are surrounded by
such developments. A by-right development will sacrifice the proffers he is
offering. If the Board approves the request they will be approving an office
park which, when combined with the proffers, will provide benefits to the
neighbors and long-term security to the area. The park will service
businesses, such as doctors, insurance agents and realtors, and allow them to
be closer to their customers and homes. This provides conveniences to both
business and customers, and reduces commuter traffic. While adjoining
property owners do not like the development, his proffers limit the extent of
development and minimize intrusion on the neighboring property. The drainage
problems will be improved, which would not occur under a by-right development.
Ms. Mary Morris, a resident of Westwood Road, thanked Mr. Bowerman,
Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Kelsey for meeting with residents earlier this month.
She does not want to see development of these three lots, particularly the one
zoned residential, because it is not conducive to a good construction site.
The builder is willing to work on drainage problem, which is good news. It is
true that residents may have contributed to the drainage problems, but they
were never told there were drainage problems. The residents did not like
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
OOO018
Mr. Hauser's original proposal to address the drainage problems because they
would lose their back yards to the plan. With the new plans the back yards
will be salvaged, since the pipe will be underground. She questioned whether
the County needs more commercial property, and she wondered what the impact
will be on Whitewood Road. She added that the proposed entrance will be
located close to the curb on Whitewood Road.
Ms. Bonnie Taylor, a neighborhood resident for two-and-a-half years,
said she was never told there were drainage problems. She has kept her lot
kept cleaned, seeded and landscaped. She put a shed up on rocks and still has
drainage. Mr. Hauser does not mow the property he owns. If he maintains this
basin and fence the same way he does his other property, it will cause her
property to devalue.
Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul brought pictures of drainage problems. She
thanked the Board for not extending Greenbrier Drive through their
neighborhood. Greenbrier Drive goes uphill from the proposed site, and its
construction would not have corrected the drainage problems. She asked the
Board to deny the request to change Lot #45 from residential zoned areas to
commercial. She asked the Board to follow the Comprehensive Plan for
residential areas, even though the Plan may be a guide. The proffers cannot
assure the property owners that all of the concerns will be addressed after
the rezoning. Lot ~45 borders 17 existing homes and there are other homes
across the street. Homeowners bought their property assuming that the lot
would be residential. The Planning staff told her the lot was too narrow for
anything to be built on it, and that it would serve as a buffer. If the
County changes Lots #46 and #47 to Commercial Office, that would be
preferable. She is not opposed to an office park that looks residential.
However, she has a problem with developer stating that he will give $9,000 to
solve a problem that will take over $50,000 to solve.
Ms. Mary Bryant said neighborhood meetings with Mr. Hauser began on
December 20, 1996, and have continued. Lot #45 should be left as residential
for affordable housing. The residents are concerned about the appearance of
the buildings. She strongly objects to giving Mr. Hauser more room for his
office park, because it would result in the homeowners losing parts of their
land for the detention basin. She asked the Board not to approve this
rezoning.
Ms. Babette Thorpe spoke on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council
(PEC), asking the Board to deny the request and stand by the Comprehensive
Plan. The application lacks the proffers needed to ensure that the compatible
architecture and park-like development promised to the neighbors will be
delivered. The buffer is to protect residents from commercial development.
It should not be used to accommodate facilities needed to preserve that
commercial development. The development should be scaled down to allow the
detention facility to be built within the building and grading permit allowed
by the zoning. Approving the application would convert residentially zoned
land to non-residential. If it is developed at the density proposed, an
additional 1.4 million additional square feet of office space could be
accommodated in neighborhood one.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thorpe would rather see the lot left C-1 and
the R-4 property developed as R-4. Ms. Thorpe said she would like to see a
consolidated planned development that followed the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for all three parcels, and that provides residential
development in the growth areas, because that seems to be the form of
development that Planning says the County needs more of in the growth areas.
If that is not likely to happen, the tract of land that is zoned for
residential use ought to be developed residentially.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing and put the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the area zoned R-4 would be developed as R-4 if
the request for rezoning is denied. Mr. Hauser said, ~Yes." He added that he
plans to buy the two parcels zoned C-1. There is a strong demand in this
market for commercial office space. The land has such a low basis he can
develop it inefficiently and still make a profit. Mr. Bowerman asked if six
attached units could be located in the space. Mr. Hauser said, "Yes."
Mr. Bowerman said he has tried to find a rational agreement between
residents and the developer. He has gotten all he can from the developer. If
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000019
the request is denied, the water problem will stay, and residents will have to
pay more money to fix that problem. If there was any misrepresentation by the
owner during the time of sale, it can be remedied through the civil courts.
Residents should not be held accountable for these problems if they occurred
after they bought their properties. The Comprehensive Plan calls for
residential zoning, which would be ideal, but downzoning with proffers will
cause less impact than if developed by-right. Mr. Hauser says he can get C-1
fully occupied.
Mr. Bowerman said the property will be developed. The request will
yield benefits in spite of fact that it will go from open space to a developed
area. However, he has a hard time going against the Comprehensive Plan and
the neighbors' opposition.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the drainage problem has to be resolved by by-right
development if the proffers are not required. Mr. Cilimberg said the
developer would have to meet current drainage requirements for a ten-year
storm. Runoff from the neighborhood is involved too, and a drainage basin
would catch upstream runoff. The Engineering Department would be able to
guarantee that grates could capture the flow off residential lots into a pipe.
Although the developer would have to handle runoff that occurs in a ten-year
storm now, he would not have to reduce off-site drainage.
Mrs. Humphris, referring to the increase in the cash contribution from
$3,0000 to $9,334, asked, if the neighbors do not participate financially,
that meant the developer is ~off the hook" for his contribution. Mr. Davis
said the proffer could be used for downstream improvements, or the plan could
be modified, as long as it was solving downstream problems. It does not
require that exact project to be developed. If even one landowner refuses to
permit the repairs, the County can condemn the property, but that would be
unlikely, so owners would be released from any obligation until the County
proceeded with its own initiative. Mr. Davis said the County could condemn
the property if public safety and welfare is in jeopardy.
Mrs. Thomas said if landowners do not fund their share of the costs, the
County might decide to fund all or part of the project to remedy the
situation. If landowners do not allow it, there is a problem. Mr. Bowerman
confirmed that one landowner currently objects.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the new proffer #7. She wondered if an on-site
detention facility will do away with the buffer the Board wanted.
Mr. Cilimberg says the Zoning Ordinance allows the Board to waive the buffer
requirement, but requires that equal or greater buffering be granted through
planting material. This has happened with the Planning Commission before.
Mrs. Humphris commented that if the buffer disappears, the infill strategy
will too, because neighborhoods are no longer protected.
Mr. Tucker said Engineering should provide input, because they were
examining solutions, such as using the Storm Water Fund, to assist in
correcting the drainage problem. He suggested the request be deferred to May
7, 1997, if the drainage issue was a major concern. Mr. Bowerman said
Engineering had already proposed a solution to the runoff. The solution might
cost less than $28,000, because the pipe could be reduced in diameter with a
two-year detention basin.
Mr. Bowerman said the issue is whether it is better to let the property
develop by-right, but there is no guarantee of a future rezoning request.
Neighbors did not speak in support of the project and its solutions.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Engineering Department discussed what could be done
if this were developed by right with residential on the property.
Mr. Bowerman said a ten-year basin would be put in place, allowing the volume
of water to leave the site at the same rate it is now, with the exception of
the ten-year storm, where some of it would be withheld and discharged at a
slower rate. Mr. Cilimberg said storm water provisions require that water not
leave the site. Post-runoff has to be no greater than the pre-development
runoff, and requires ten-year design of storm water facilities.
Mrs. Humphris said the staff report says the drainage problem is
existing, and the proposed rezoning does not itself give rise to the need for
drainage improvements to correct the offsite problem. If the property
develops under the existing R-4 and C-1 zoning, even with the additional
setbacks from the residential zoning, the amount of impervious cover may be
equal to, or more than, the amount created under the proposed zoning.
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000020
Mr. Bowerman said the residents do not agree with the builder's
proposal, but he also noted that only a few residents were present. An
unidentified person said she had been told this meeting would be postponed
until May. Mrs. Humphris agreed that there had been some discussion, since
the proffers were not ready, that the meeting might be postponed. Mr. Davis
said he had unsigned proffers the previous week. The landowners were in
Florida, and no changes had been made to the proffers. Mr. Bowerman said
that, although the proffers had not been signed, they were presented for
information.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board had to take action at this meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said the request should be approved. It addresses existing
problems, it downzones the property from what it's current use could be, and,
on balance, it is better than what is there, although it is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Neighbors do not want any building, but even if
R-4 zoning was permitted, he did not think the neighbors would agree with that
either.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the proffer dealing with the exterior of the
building. The Board has accepted nice renderings in the past, but the
finished project turned out to be something different. She said neighbors
have a right to know more specifics on how it will look. Mr. Bowerman said he
was willing to accept a proffer for some materials and a pitch design.
However, the applicant was afraid that if he varied from the design, neighbors
would say the whole thing was changed.
Mr. Bowerman made the motion to approve ZMA-96-22, as proffered.
Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called and the vote as follows:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Mrs. Thomas noted that there is no precedent, and that she hesitates to
use infill for commercial space. Mrs. Humphris said the Board must decide
what is best for the neighborhood and everyone else, and since the parcels
will be developed anyway, this is the best approach. She asked that
Mr. Hauser make the project look like it does in the drawings. Mr. Hauser
said he would, as much as possible, but that he needs some flexibility. He
added that all the buildings will look alike, and that the neighbors liked the
drawings, which cost him $10,000.
PROFFER FORM:
Date:
ZMA $96-22
Tax Map Parcel(s) STM61W2-45.46.47
1.691 Acres to be rezoned from R4 to CO with proffers.
2.774 Acres to be rezoned from C1 to CO with proffers.
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.
(1)
The Owner will install and maintain an opaque privacy fence along
the property line between the property and the adjoining
residential district, at the points indicated on the drawing
attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The fence will be six (6) feet tall
and will be constructed of treated lumber;
(2)
Ail of the buildings constructed on the property will have one
level visible from Greenbrier Drive, and not more than two levels
visible from adjacent residential properties, with a maximum roof
pitch of 6/12. No more than 43,200 total square feet of space,
consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning, will be constructed
on the property. The primary exterior finish materials shall be
split-face block, or brick, and stucco;
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
000021
(3)
A minimum separation of fifty (50) feet will be maintained between
any dumpster located on the property and the adjoining residential
district;
(4)
Ail exterior light fixtures will be fully shielded. A fully
shielded fixture means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such
manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from
the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the
horizontal;
(s)
No single building shall have a floor area (footprint) greater
than 12,000 square feet;
(6)
The Owner recognizes that certain residential property owners and
the County of Albemarle desire to see certain improvements made to
existing drainage facilities downstream from the subject property.
To provide assistance in this undertaking, the Owner will
contribute the sum of $9,334.00 to the County for application
toward such improvements. Payment by the Owner shall be made when
the Owner is advised in writing by the County that it is ready to
commence with the construction of such improvements; and
(7)
The Owner will construct on the property a storm water detention
facility satisfying design criteria to maintain the current rate
of storm water run-off from the property into the adjoining
Wynridge subdivision during a "two-year storm" and to reduce the
rate of run-off during a "ten-year storm," provided, however, that
the Owner shall have received approval from Albemarle County to
construct such detention pond by grading to the joint property
line between the property and the Wynridge subdivision.
Agenda Item 12. ZMA-96-25. River Heights Assoc Ltd (Sign #25). Public
Hearing on a request to amend existing proffers of ZMA-95-17 to eliminate
requirement of connection between mobile home sales area on Rt 29 & the Forest
Springs Mobile Home Park. Property is located on W sd of Rt 29 just S of
inters with Timberwood Blvd. (This site, in the Community of Hollymead, is
recommended for Regional Service by the Comprehensive Plan.) TM32, P's 43&43A.
Rivanna Dist. (Applicant requests deferral.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1997.)
Mr. Martin made the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall to defer ZMA-96-25
until June 11, 1997, at the request of the applicant. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item 13. ZMA-96-26. Forest Lakes Assoc (Sign #26, Sign #27,
Sign #28). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 0.2 ac from R-15 to
HC. Total site is 6.2 acs of which approx 6.0 acs are currently zoned HC.
Property in SE corner of inters of Rt 29/Timberwood Blvd. (This site, in the
Community of Hollymead, is recommended for Community Service by the
Comprehensive Plan.) TM46B4, P'sl&A2. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1997.)
(Note: Mr. Bowerman filed a Transactional Disclosure Statement regarding
ZMA-96-26, disqualifying himself from participating in this transaction and
request because he has a personal interest in a contract which sold fitness
equipment to the applicant, and due to ongoing sales and service.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff opinion is that this
request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval.
No proffers are proposed, and, in the opinion of staff, none are necessary or
appropriate. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 11, 1997,
unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-26.
00002:2
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. The applicant was represented
by Mr. Don Frankel, who had no comments. There being no other comments,
Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin made the motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to approve ZMA-96-26
as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item 14. Approve FY 1997-98 County Operating Budget.
Mr. Martin made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the proposed
FY 1997-98 Operating Budget Resolution.
Mr. Perkins said monies should be set aside for next year. If the Board
set aside one percent, it would equal $1.4 million.
Mr. Marshall said he met with some police officers earlier in the week,
and staff did say they would be able to find enough money to satisfy pay
inequities in the Pay and Classification Plan. There will be a 3.5 percent
increase through the Pay for Performance plan. If possible, there might be
some additional funds available in a Fund Balance. This may not be the best
way to spend that money, but it could be done, or, if a meals tax is passed,
it will give the County a windfall from January through July of 1998.
Mr. Tucker said it would be better to consider the meals tax, as carryover
funds should not be used for reoccurring costs. Those funds will need to be
used for reversion costs.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, and
he voted against the resolution. Mr. Tucker said the School Board, by law,
must approve its budget by May 1, so if the Board of Supervisors decided to
choose other options, the School Board would need to know how much its budget
would be reduced. Mr. Bowerman asked what the actual process would be.
Mr. Tucker said that would be determined by the amount of the reduction.
Mr. Martin said the Board would have to do battle to determine what reductions
would be made. Mrs. Humphris said she was surprised by the discussion, since,
up until this point, Mr. Marshall was the only person who evidenced any
questions about the budget, and that was because he had not attended work
sessions and did not know why some decisions were made. Mrs. Thomas added
that Mr. Perkins did attend all the sessions and did not suggest other cuts.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Perkins has done this every year since he, Mr. Martin, has
been on the Board. Mr. Marshall reiterated that Mr. Perkins said he would
like to reduce the budget one percent across the board.
vote:
Roi1 was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year
beginning July 1, 1997, be approved as follows:
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation & Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve
Education - Operations
5,627,146
2,004,859
10,412,182
2,195,044
6,710,384
3,597,976
2,534,164
5,518,393
51,700
2,323,000
600,000
71,416,683
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds
Education - Debt Service
Jail Expansion Reserve
Contingency Reserve
000023
6,690,954
6,845,880
100,000
0
TOTAL $ 126,628,365
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April
16, 1997.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Agenda Item 15. Adopt FY 1997 Tax Rates.
Mr. Bowerman made the motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the
proposed resolution setting the 1997 tax rates.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable Year 1997 for General County
purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real
estate; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-
Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of
machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and
collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including
machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a
manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the
assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the
Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats
and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles
used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm
machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the
Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy for a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on
April 16, 1997.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Agenda Item 16. Approve'FY 1997-98/2001-2002 Capital Improvements
Program and Adopt FY 1997-98 CIP Budget.
Mrs~ Thomas asked whether there were monies included in the budget for
construction of soccer fields. There was some discussion about using the
Landfill for that purpose. Mr. Tucker responded, "Yes", but there was no
mention of the location of the fields. Mrs. Thomas said a discussion on the
Ivy Landfill also generated a request for more drop off recycling centers.
She thinks that is a good idea. Mr. Martin said national and international
experts do not recommend that children play on landfills because of methane
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
OOO0;84
gas. Mrs. Thomas said that is why it is so important that methane gas is
captured. Mr. Martin said that experts say they would not allow children to
play on the landfill regardless of whether or not the gas was captured.
Mrs. Thomas said at meetings on the subject, experts have shown soccer fields
and golf courses on landfills. Eventually when the gas is collected from the
Ivy Landfill, the experts indicate it would be safe.
A motion was then made by Mrs. Thomas to approve the FY 1997-98/2001-
2002 Capital Improvements Program totaling $62,449,176 and Adopt FY 1997-98
Capital Improvements Plan Budget totaling $24,771,467, all as set out on the
attached sheets. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins (stated that he was not in favor of $500,000
revenue sharing), Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
FINAL
FY 1997-98 to FY 2001-02 APPROVED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY
Scenario I1: Firing Range & Public Safety Facility Construction $, Multi-Agency Radio System, Meadowcreek- Phasell Moved to Outyear.
TYP FUND/PROJECT
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CIP FUND
Administration & Courts
Rev County Computer Upgrade
Cont Drive-In Window Replacement & Canopy
New County Facility Improvements
New Old Crozet School Improvements
Rev J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement
Rev C.O.B. Maintenance/Replacement
Subtotal Admin. & Courts
Rev
Rev
Rev
New
New
Rev
Rev
New
New
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
New
Cont
Cont
Cont
Cont
ANew
~New
~ Rev
reNew
Public Safety
Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund
Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade
Police Radio Simulcast System / ECC Lin
Multi-Agency Radio System
Police LAN Upgrade
Police Firing Range
Public Safety Facility
Transport Vehicle for Arrests
Juvenile Detention Facility
Subtotal Public Safety
Highways & Transportation
Revenue Sharing Road Program
Seminole/Pepsi Place Connector
Route 29 North Landscaping
Ivy Road Bike Lanes & Streetlights
Meadow Creek Pkwy to Rio Bicy/Ped Pat
Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase II
Greenbrier Drive Extended Sidewalks
Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Streetlights
Route 250-Route 616 Turn Lane
Ivy Road Landscaping
Airport Road Sidewalk
Georgetown Road Sidewalk
Sidewalk Construction Program
Neighborhood Plan Implementation Progr
TOTAL NET COUNTY CURRENT
PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR REQUEST
1,520,000 1,520,000 400,000 1,120,000
18,000 18,000 0 18,000
420,000 420,000 0 420,000
280,000 280,000 0 280,000
492,500 246,250 0 246,250
914,791 914,791 164.791 750,000
3,645,291 3,399,041 564,791 2,834,250
Ongoing Ongoing 650,000 1,607,500
15,000 15,000 0 15,000
448,330 448,330 246,000 202,330
23,512,840 11,991,550 0 0
165,000 165,000 0 165,000
1,240,000 40,000 0 40,000
4,630,000 30,000 0 30,000
40,000 40,000 0 40,000
5.471.574 ~6~3~545 33,545 1.620.000
35,522,744 14,383,425 929,545 3,719,830
Ongoing Ongoing Yearly 2,500,000
557,000 27,900 0 27,900
401,000 18,000 14,000 4,000
327,000 327,000 50,000 277,000
55,000 20,000 0 20,000
4,299,060 4,299,060 109,060 0
62,500 27,500 0 27,500
19,250 19,250 0 19,250
110,000 0 0 0
199,000 199,000 0 199,000
79,200 39,600 0 39,600
52,000 26,000 0 26,000
Ongoing Ongoing 0 100,000
Ongoing Ongoing 0 232,825
1997-98
250,000
0
15,000
15,000
30,000
130,000
440,O00
262,500
0
108,000
0
0
40,000
0
0
175.000
585,500
500,000
0
4,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,000
1998-99
225,000
0
105,000
140,000
10,000
140,000
620,000
262,500
15,000
94,330
0
0
0
0
0
1~4~5~000
1,816,830
500,000
0
0
5,500
20,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.000
1999-00
220,000
0
300,000
125,000
100,000
100.000
845,000
262,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
262,500
500,000
0
0
231,500
0
0
27,500
1,750
0
0
39,600
0
0
56,915
2000-01
190,000
18,000
0
0
106,250
280~000
594,250
420,000
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
0
0
450,0O0
500,000
0
0
40,000
0
0
0
17,500
0
199,000
0
0
50,000
52.955
2001-02
235,000!
oi
o!
100,000i
335,0001
400,000i
oi
oi
o!
165,000i
o!
40,000i
605,000i
5oo,oooi
27,900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,000i
5o,oooi
52~955i
TOTAL
FY 98to02
1,120,000
18,000
420,000
280,000
246,250
750,000
2,834,250
1,607,500
15,000
202,330
0
165,000
40,000
30,000
40,000
1,620,000
3,719,830
2,500,000
27,900I
4,000I
277,000t
20,00~
27,500I
19,25~
199,000
39,600I
26,000I
100,000[
232.825!
OUTYEARS
0
11,991,550
1,200,000
4,600,000
17,791,550
4,190,000
Subtotal Hwys. & Transportation
Cont
Rev
Libraries
Library Computer Upgrade
Library Maintenance/Replacement Project
Subtotal Libraries
Parks & Recreation
Cont Walnut Creek Park Improvements
Rev Scottsville Community Ctr. Improvements
Rev Rivanna Greenway Access and Path
New Crozet Park Athletic Field Development
New So. Albemarle Organization Park Dev.
Rev County Athletic Field Study / Development
New PVCC Softball Field Lighting
New School Athletic Field Irrigation
New Towe Lower Field Irrigation
New Mint Springs Concession Stand
Cont New High School Recreation Facilities
Rev Parks Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Subtotal Parks & Rec.
Cont
Utility Improvements
Keene Landfill Closure
Subtotal Utilities Improv.
6,161,010 5,003,310 173,060 3,473,075
541,553
Ongoi_ng
541,553
2,394,415
336,905
450,000
640,000
100,000
520,000
166,000
136,500
20,000
45,000
343,500
Ongoing
5,152,320
300,000 0 300,000
Ongoing Yearly ~j~500
300,000 0 418,500
2,044,415 1,985,000 59,415
336,905 164,325 172,580
450,000 100,000 0
640,000 0 548,000
100,000 0 100,000
520,000 20,000 369,810
166,000 0 166,000
136,500 0 136,500
12,000 0 12,000
45,000 0 45,000
343,500 275,000 68,500
Ongoing 114,000 183,130
4,794,320 2,658,325 1,860,935
2,586,650 2,586,650 1,590.808
2,586,650 1,890,808 1,590,808
544,000 555,500 857,265 859,455 656,8551 3,473,075
300,000
300,o00
769,670
13,376,2601
200,000 100,000 0 0 0
32.500 13,000 25,000 15,000 3~00~
232,500 113,000 25,000 15,000 33,000i
0 0 32,890 26,525 0
0 47,915 12,785 67,880 44,000i
o o o o oi
96,000 45,070 128,000 148,000 130,930i
50,000 50,000 o o o!
50,000 50,000 88,645 78,205 102,960i
0 0 0 0 166,000i
0 0 0 0 136,500i
0 0 0 0 12,000i
0 0 0 0 45,000i
0 18,500 0 50,000 01
33,000 44.000 2~730 24.500 59,900i
229,000 255,485 284,050 395,110 697,290i
100~OPO 100.000 100,000i
100,000 100,000 100,000!
300,000
118.500
418,500
New
New
New
tnNew
59,415
172,580
0
548,000
100,000
369,810
166,000
136,500
12,000
45,000
68,500
183.130
1,860,935
300.000
300,000
CapitalPr~ects/Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 198.000 25~009 25.000 521,670! 769.670
tSubtotal Gen, Government. CIP Fund 53,609,568 29,770,904 5,916,529 2,031,000 3,558,815 2,398,815 2,438,815 2,948,8151 13,376,260
3,558,815 2,398,815 2,438,815 2,948,815i 13,376,260
3,558,815 2,398,815 2,438,815 2,948,815i
ITotal Available General Fund Revenues
Recommended General Fund Projects
Over/Short
Cumulative Over/Short
2,031,000
2,031,000
0 0 0 0 0~
~ 0 0 0 0
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
0 0 0 0 761,000i
0 0 0 0 38,234i
0 0 0 0 65,0001
555,000 0 0 0 0
TOTAL NET COUNTY CURRENT
TYP FUND/PROJECT PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR REQUEST
761,000 761,000 0 761,000
76,468 38,234 0 38,234
65,000 65,000 0 65,000
555,000 555,000 0 555,000
SCHOOL DIVISION CIP FUND
Cale Addition / Alterations
CATEC Cosmetology Lab Renovation
Crozet Kitchen / Serving Line
High School Technology Education Labs
13,376,26~
TOTAL
FY 98to02
761,000i
38,234I
65,000!
555,oool
4,190,000
0
0
21,981,5501
0
21,981,5501
(21,981,5501
OUTYEARS
New Hollymead Gym / Restrooms
New Monticello High School Addition
New PREP New Facility
New Western Albemarle Window Replacement
New Stony Point Parking and Playfield
Cont Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconflg.
Rev AHS Phase II & III Restorations
Rev Murray High Renovation
Cont New High School
Rev Administrative Technology (Schools)
Rev Instructional Technology (Schools)
Rev WAHS Building Renovations
Rev Henley Addition
Rev Technology Education Labs
Rev Red Hill Expansion
Rev Northern Area Elementary
Rev Stone Robinson Addition
Cont Walton Renovation
Rev Brownsville Addition
Rev Stony Point Addition
Rev Jouett Addition/Restrooms
Cont Maintenance / Replacement Projects
Rev Chiller Replacement (Maint / Replacemen
Cont Greer HVAC Renovations (MaintJ Replace
Cont Walton HVAC Renovations (MaintJ Replac
Rev ADA Structural Changes
Cont VMF Underground Storage Tank Replace
Cont Northern Area Elementary School Rec
Subtotal School Division CIP Fund
Total Available School Fund Revenues:
VPSA Bonds
State Technology Funds
Interest Earned
Proffer Funds
Miscellaneous Funds
CIP Fund Balance
Transfer from Split Billing
General Fund Appropriation
iTotal Available School Fund Revenues
Total Recommended School Fund Projects
!Over/Short
805,500
330,000
0
30,000
193,000
784,400
2,215,000
1,029,000
29,468,000
512,500
4,761,350
3,988,075
2,003,000
805,500
330,000
0
30,000
193,000
784,400
2,215,000
1,029,000
29,468,000
512,500
4,761,350
3,988,075
2,003,000
0
0
0
0
0
347,4O0
1,546,000
95,000
12,385,303
162,500
2,147,100
2,558,375
185,000
805,500
330,000
0
30,000
193,000
437,000
669,000
934,000
17,082,697
280,000
2,035,115
1,429,700
1,818,000
0
0
0
0
193,000
294,000
20,000
70,000
17,082,697
70,000
605,070
185,000
1,190,000
0
0
' 0
0
0
143,000
649,000
864,000
0
70,000
544,480
1,244,700
628,000
0 0 805,500!
0 0 330,000i
o o oi
0 0 30,000i
o o oi
o o oi
0 0 0i
o o o!
o o o[
70,000 0 70,000i
489,700 0 395,865i
o o oi
o o oi
o o oi
0 0 200,000i
1,365,000 7,039,000 Oi
o o oi
80,000 525,000 0i
875,000
3,934,000
8,429,000
2,664,000
995,000
1,511,470
1,323,000
781,500
6,739,410
1,049,200
306,000
471,700
1,125,963
180,000
71,500
875,000
3,934,000
8,429,000
2,664,000
995,000
1,511,470
1,323,000
781,500
6,739,410
1,049,200
306,000
471,700
1,125,963
180,000
71.500
550,000
0
0
0
0
1,299,470
1,118,000
0
1,513,940
381,000
0
101,700
505,963
0
325,000
200,000
8,429,000
2,664,000
995,000
212,000
205,000
808,500
5,225,470
668,200
306,000
370,OOO
620,000
180,000
~500
325,000
0
0
250,000
46,000
212,000
205,000
0
665,700
35,000
22,000
0
425,000
180,000
0
0
25,000
2,414,000
344,000
0
572,000
633,200
284,000
0
120,000
0
120,000 688,500
433,000 1,729,835
0 0
0 0
26,000 344,000
30,000 0
0 0
71,500 ~
78,034,036
77,995,802
24,896,751
48,742,916
22,630,467
20,451,367
575,OOO
100,000
0
136,100
100,000
768,000
500,000
22,630,467
22,630,467
o
8,535,380 2,685,200 10,326,335
o~
1,824,935i
oi
O~
45,000i
4,565,534
7,685,380 1,335,200 9,226,335 3,365,534i
0 0 0 0
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000i
0 400,000 0 0
0 0 0 0
100,000 100,000 100,000 lO0,O00i
0 0 0 0
650,000 750,000 900,000 1,000,0001
8,535,380 2,685,200 10,326,335 4,565,534i
8,535,380 2,685,200 10,326,335 4,565,534i
0 0 0 01
805,500
330,000
0
30,000
193,000
437,0OO
669,000
934,000
17,082,697
280,000
2,035,115
1,429,700
1,818,000
325,000
200,000
8,429,000
2,664,000
995,000
212,000
205,000
808,500
5,225,470
668,200
306,000
370,000
620,000
180,000
71,500
48,742,916
42,063 816
5751000
500,000i
400,000
136,100
500,000]
768,000I
3,800,000
48,742,916
48,742,9161
oi
Cumulative OvedShort
o~
4-)
TYP
Rev
Rev
Remaining Requested Proiects (Unfunded)
FUND/PROJECT
STORMWATER FUND
County Master Drainage Plan
Drainage/Erosion Correction
Subtotal Stormwater Fund
Total Available Stormwater Fund Revenues
Total Recommended Stormwater Projects
Over/Short
Cumu at ve Over/Short
IGRAND TOTAL CIP
Total Available Revenues (All Projects)
Total Recommended Projects
OvedShort
Cumulative OvedShort
TOTAL
PROJECT
1998-99
NET
COUNTY
COUNTY
PRIOR
CURRENT
REQUEST
1997-98
60,000
50.000
110,000
110,000
110,000
2000-01
60,000
59,000
110,000
570,000
250,000
820,000
510,000
250,000
760,000
330,000
100,000
430,000
180,000
150,000
330,000
60,000
50,0O0
110,000
110,000
110,000
0
0
12,204,195
12,204,195
12,204,195
0
0
1999-00
5,084,015
110,000
110,000
0
0
12,875,150
2001-02
Remaining Requested Projects (Unfunded)
132,463,604
108,526,706
31,243,280
62,449,176
24,771,467
24,771,467
24,771,467
0
0
0
5,084,015
5,084,015
0
0
12,875,150
12,875,150
0
0
0~
7,514,349i
7,514,349!
7,514,349i
oi
O~
O~
TOTAL
FY 98 to 02
180,00£
150,000
330,000
330 000!
330,000
o
62,449,176
62,449,t76
62,449,176
0
OUTYEARS
21,981,5501
21,981,55(~i
(21,981,550t
April 16, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000029
(Page 29)
Agenda Item 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint
Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. to the Purchasing of Development Rights (PDRs)
Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS:None.
Agenda Item 18. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
At 11:03 p.m., Mr. Bowerman made a motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
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 regard-
ing a specific legal matter relating to reversion and regarding probable
litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS:None.
Agenda 19. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session
At 11:23 a.m., Mr. Bowerman made the motion, 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:
t AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item 20. Adjournment
At 11:23 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
~/C~irman '
~proved by
Board
Date 1%'5'~