1997-11-12000:1.29
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 12, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building,. 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte y. Humphris,
Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert, W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
MS. Nancy Hurrelbrinck, a City resident, spoke on behalf of Ms. Justice
McCormick, a County resident, who could not attend the meeting. Ms. McCormick
is concerned about the future impact of the Meadow Creek Parkway on her home.
She expressed concern about the impact of the road on the value of property on
Huntington Road, the noise impact, and the impact on the Rivanna Trails
Foundation's trails along the creek. Ms. Hurrelbrinck extended an invitation,
on behalf of Sensible Transportation Alternatives to Meadowcreek Parkway
(STAMP), to participate in a hike. The hike will be held on Sunday, November
16, 1997. People are asked to park at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical
Center (CA-TEC) on Rio Road.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.5b and to accept the
remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item No. 5.1. Resolution to take roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivi-
sion (SUB-92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. (A memorandum
was received from Mr. Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer, Department of Engineer-
lng and Public Works, indicating that the referenced roads are substantially
complete and ready for VDoT acceptance.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 12TH day of November, 1997, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-
92-087) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
November 12, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of A-
lbemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision as
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night ~eting)
(Page 2)
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 12,
1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-
229, Code of Virginia, and the Department,s Subdivision Street
Re item nts; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements
for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Thornridge Way from Station 0+50, right edge of pavement
of Ashwood Boulevard (State Route 1670) to Station
10+05.88, rear of cul-de-sac, 955.8 lineal feet as shown
on plat recorded 8/18/95 in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed
Book 1486, pages 467-476, with a right-of-way width of
50 feet, for a length of 0.18 mile. Additional plats
recorded 10/8/97 in Deed Book 1647, page 133.
2)
Fernleaf Road from Station 0+17, left edge of pavement
of Thornridge Way to Station 5+72, rear of cul-de-sac,
555 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 8/18/95 in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1486, pages 467-476, with
a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.10
mile. Additional plats recorded 10/8/97 in Deed Book
1647, pages 129 and 133.
3)
Purple Sage Court from Station 0+10, right edge of pave-
ment of Fernleaf Road to Station 3+76.97, rear of cul-
de-sac, 366.97 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded
8/18/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1486, pages
467-476, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a
length of 0.07 mile.
4)
Jasmin Terrace from Station 0-35, rear of cul-de-sac to
Station 2+10.88, right edge of pavement of Thornridge
Way, 245.88 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded
8/18/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1486, pages
467-476, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a
length of 0.05 mile.
5)
Coral Berry Place from Station 2+50, left edge of pave-
ment of Thornridge Way to Station 8+08.71, rear of cul-
de-sac, 558.71 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded
8/18/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1486, pages
467-476, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a
length of 0.11 mile.
Total length - 0.51 mile.
Item No. 5.2. Resolution to take North Berkshire Road (RIP-86-005) into
the State Secondary System of Highways. (A memorandum was received from
Mr. Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer, Department of Engineering and Public
Works, indicating that VDoT has agreed to accept a section of North Berkshire
Road into the State's Secondary Roadway System. The roadway is being accepted
under a different section of the Virginia Code')
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 12th day of November, 1997, adopted the
following resolution:
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
O00181
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street described below was established in
December 20, 1962, has provided continuous public service since its
establishment, is deemed to provide sufficient public service to
warrant its addition as part of the secondary system of state
highways by virtue of its connecting two streets already a part of
said system; and
WHEREAS, the street is shown on the plat referenced below
which depicts the dedicated right-of-way and appurtenant easements
associated with the street;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle, County, Virginia, requests the following street be
added to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-
229, Code of Virginia:
Name of Street: North Berkshire Road Length: 0.05 miles
From: Right edqe of pavement of westbound Inglewood Driw~
To: 250 LF north of Inglewood Drive toward Solomon Road
Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet
Plat Recorded, Date: 10/19/60 Deed Book: 363 Page: 99
Date: . 12/9/64 Deed Book: . 403 Page: 334
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements
for cuts, fills and drainage; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
man.
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education, $5,345 (Form #97032).
At its meeting on October 13, 1997, the School Board approved the
appropriation of donations made to Jack Jouett Middle School and Yancey
Elementary School.
The Jack Jouett PTO made a donation in the amount of $5,000 to Jack
Jouett Middle School. The money was raised from the sale of magazines
and will be used toward the purchase of a copier for the school.
Yancey Elementary School received $345 in donations to the school in the
name of Karen Cadigan. These donations are to fund the parent education
program at Yancey Elementary School.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriations in the amount of $5,345
as detailed on form #97032.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of
appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98
N-tIMBER: 97032
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION OF DONATIONS MADE TO JACK JOUETT AND YANCEY ELEM. SCHOOLS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1225361411800101 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT $5,000.00
1221361101601300 EDUC./REC. SUPPLIES 345.00
TOTAL $5,345.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200018100181109 DONATION-JACK JOUETT $5,000.00
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night M~eting)
(Page 4)
2200018100181109 DONATION-YANCEY
345.00
TOTAL $5,345.00
Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: General Fund, $15,920 (Form #97033).
The Automart Road/Soil Erosion project was inadvertently overlooked
during the review of the Engineering Department's FY 1996/97 reappropriation
requests. These funds are proceeds from two performance bonds that were
cashed. The money will be used to complete road and erosion control work at
the Automart site on Route 29 North.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $15,920
as detailed on form #97033.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the amount of the bonds covered all the costs.
Mr. Tucker said, "Yes", and the work will be completed in the spring.
Mr. Bowerman asked who is responsible for the work. Mr. Tucker said the
developer across from Doubletree is responsible. Mr. Bowerman wanted to know
which project the bonds would cover. Mr. Tucker said the bonds will be used
to complete the frontage road at Real Estate III.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of
appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98
NUMBER: 97033
FUlqD: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF FLFArDS FOR AUTOMART ROAD/SOIL EROSION PROJECT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100041000950023 AUTOMART ROAD/SOIL EROSION $15,920.00
TOTAL $15,920.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE ~
TOTAL $15,920.00
Item No. 5.5. Proclamation proclaiming November 16 through November 22,
1997, as America Education Week.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation:
AMERICA EDUCATION WEEK
WHEREAS,
the purpose of America Education Week is to focus
attention on the important role education plays in our
country and its future; and
WHEREAS,
today's schools are educatin9 students who have a wide
diversity of backgrounds and abilities; and
WHEREAS,
the responsibility of providing a quality education to
our students is a joint responsibility of the entire
community; and
WHEREAS,
the theme of America Education Week is "Helping Our
Children to Think and Dream";
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of
the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do
hereby proclaim the week of
NOVEMBER 16, 1997 THROUGH NOVEMBER 22, 1997
as
AMERICA EDUCATION WEEK IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
O00fft. L¢..2
and encourages all citizens to extend their
commitment to public education and to the future
of our children by supporting our community's
schools through their time and energy.
Item No. 5.5a. Resolution to abandon Route 601 as a result of construc-
tion of Project #0601-002-102,C501. (Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administra-
tor, VDoT, indicated in a letter that this project was constructed in the
1970's, but this section of Route 601 was not abandoned. VDoT recently had a
request from the adjacent property owner concerning the status of this section
of road and since it is no longer a necessary part of the Secondary system,
VDoT is requesting that it be abandoned.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in a regular meeting on the 12th day of November, 1997, adopted the
following:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
provided the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, with a sketch dated November 7, 1997, depicting the
abandonment required in the secondary system of State highways as a
result of the construction of project #0601-002-102,C501, which
sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the portion of the old road identified on the sketch
as Section 1 to be abandoned is deemed to no longer serve public
need; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as that portion
of old road identified to be abandoned;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
hereby abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways
that portion of Route 601 identified as Section 1, a distance of
0.09 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolu-
tion be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Item No. 5.5b. Resolution to accept Coventry Lane in Coventry Subdivi-
sion (SUB-94-118) into the State Secondary System of Highways. (A memorandum
was received from Mr. Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer, Department of Engineer-
lng and Public Works, indicating that the referenced roads are substantially
complete and ready for VDoT acceptance.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 12TH day of November, 1997, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Coventry Subdivision (SUB-94-118)
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 12,
1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the .Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the road in Coventry Subdivision as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 12, 1997, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements
for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Coventry Lane from Station 10+10,!right edge of pavement
of eastbound State Route 641 to Station 15+30, rear of
cul-de-sac, 520 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded
5/23/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1469, pages
703-704, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, for a
length of 0.10 mile.
Total length - 0.10 mile.
Item No. 5.6. Copies of Planning Commission minutes of October 14,
October 21 and October 28, 1997, were received for information.
Item No. 5.7. Notice from the Department of Transportation of a
Location and Design Public Hearing to review and discuss the preliminary plans
for the proposed replacement and widening of the bridge on Route 29 over the
South Fork of the Rivanna River (Project #6029-002-121, PE-102, RW-202, C-502,
B-622, B-624 [from 0.193 mi. South of South Fork Rivanna River to 0.104 mi.
North of Route 643] , was received for information.
Item No. 5.8. Letter dated October 30, 1997, from Mr. Claude D. Garver,
Jr., Assistant Commissioner Operations, Department of Transportation, provid-
ing notice that changes in the Primary System made necessary by the relocation
and construction of Route 230, Project #1240-C in Albemarle County were
confirmed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on September 16, 1997, was
received for information.
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-97-01. Mechums River Land Trust. PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to amend Comp Plan for Crozet Development Area to include
approx 60 acs E of Lickinghole Basin & W of Rt 240/250 inter at Mechums River.
Proposal is to change designation of area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood
Density Residential (3-6 du/ac) . The entire area east of the Lickinghole
Basin and W of the Rt 240/250 inter at Mechums River consists of approx 170
acs. White Hall Dist. (Applicant requests withdrawal.) (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 30 and November 6, 1997.)
Mrs. Humphris said on Tuesday the applicant had requested deferral of
this item until the Development Area Initiative Study is completed, but no
later than December 31, 1998. The Board decided, because of the public
interest, to hold the public hearing, since there was not time to notify
everyone of the request for deferral. Earlier today the applicant's attorney
sent a letter asking that the request on the Resolution Of Intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan (CPA-97-01) be withdrawn. Still later, the applicant's
attorney sent another letter requesting withdrawal of ZMA-96-17, and advised
the Board that the applicant would not be present at the meeting.
Mrs. Humphris put the matter before the Board. The Board could accept
or not accept withdrawal of ZMA-96-17 and CPA-97-1.
Mr. Bowerman read the following prepared statement ~egarding his
in this matter:
000:1.35
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
"I would like to make a statement regarding my participation
in tonight's CPA for Mechums River Land Trust. Most of you know
that I excused myself from voting on the zoning request in March,
citing both the appearance and the potential of a conflict of
interest, in spite of a ruling from the Commonwealth's Attorney
that I did not have a technical conflict under the conflicts
statute. I stated that I had a contract to provide approximately
$20,000 in fitness equipment to the Highlands, another of
Mr. Craig's developments, which was invoiced in September of 1996
and the transaction was completed this past April. I further
anticipated an additional $5,000 to $20,000 in new business during
the balance of this year. The original contract is now 14 months
past and I do not anticipate doing any additional significant
amount of business with Mr. Craig in the future. Further, I
intend to decline to do business with any developer or organiza-
tion which I have reason to believe may have any business before
this Board within a period of 18 months of the transaction.
Additionally, on this specific issue tonight, I have an additional
reason to hear and vote on it because it has broad policy implica-
tions which extend beyond the 60 acres in this CPA and the deci-
sion would affect far more individuals and organizations than this
applicant alone. I have, again, asked the Commonwealth's Attorney
to give me an opinion on whether I have a conflict and he has
rendered an opinion, again, that I do not have a conflict of
interest. Therefore, I will participate and vote on this transac-
tion.H
Mr. Perkins said the Commonwealth's Attorney informed him that the fact
that, although his son works for Mr. Craig, he (Mr. Perkins) does not have a
conflict of interest in participating in this discussion.
Mrs. Thomas asked for legal advice as to the implications of a with-
drawal and the action taken up to now. Mr. Davis said the applicant can
withdraw the zoning application, and the Board can acknowledge the withdrawal.
This prohibits the developer from reapplying with the same application, for a
minimum of one year, effectively ending the zoning matter. The request to
withdraw the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan refers to the
application that the Mechums River Land Trust made with the Planning Depart-
ment in regard to the 60 acres. If withdrawn, it would be an affirmation of
the existing Comprehensive Plan. Acceptance of withdrawal simply confirms
what the Board previously decided about that area and would leave the existing
Comprehensive Plan unchanged. He added that staff recommends acceptance of
the withdrawal of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the zoning
application.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the applicant's legal position would be, if
withdrawl is accepted, versus the Board voting to deny the request. Mr. Davis
said there is no difference. If the Board voted on the request at this
meeting, the applicant would be prohibited from filing substantially the same
application for one year. If the application is denied, the applicant would
have the ability to appeal the decision. Withdrawal of the application is
final.
Mr. Cilimberg added that, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
the effect of accepting a withdrawal versus denial is also the same. He noted
that the Planning Department accepts Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications
twice a year.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there could be more than a one year period on the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said, "No." Mr. Martin asked if
the applicant could appeal. Mr. Davis said no.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to accept the
applicants request to withdraw CPA-97-01. Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
Mrs. Thomas said this was the strongest action the Board could take.
Mrs. Humphris added that public response has been unusual. There is wide-
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
ooo s
spread belief in the County that this is an attack on the basic principles of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Thomas suggested that people interested in this should follow the
work of the Development Area Initiatives Committee. The work of this Commit-
tee will be crucial, if the County is going to control development. The
Committee's next scheduled meeting is December 16, 1997. Mr. Cilimberg said
the Committee meeting would likely be postponed until January to allow more
publicity.
Mr. Perkins thanked the public for all the letters and telephone calls,
adding that he "got the message", as did the developer.
Mrs. Humphris noted that Board members were on the telephone several
days regarding this matter. Although some persons in the audience had wanted
to speak, the Board would not allow discussion of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, but it would allow two persons to address the process. She added
that the Board is in the same position as the public when an applicant
withdraws or defers a request.
Mr. Scott Peyton said the purpose of a public hearing is to provide
opportunity and benefit to the public to speak about issues of concern to
them, and to provide the Board the opportunity to hear public opinion.
Mr. Craig manipulated the process to undermine and diminish the right of the
people to be heard. By his actions, he demonstrated disrespect for citizens,
Albemarle County officials and the process. He could scarcely contain his
frustration about the past 24 hours, and hopes the Board agrees that enough is
enough. He encouraged the Board to review the public hearing process to
diminish potential for abuse in the future. Public hearings should be an open
forum not so heavily weighted to the whim of an applicant.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on request to prohibit the use of
through truck traffic on Rio Road (Route 631) from the Charlottesville City
limits to Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 30 and November 6, 1997.)
Mr. Bowerman said he thought the restriction applied to multiple axle
trailers, but the proposed resolution referred to any truck other than pickups
or panel trucks. His company uses a two axle truck that is neither a pickup
or panel truck. He asked whether he would be prohibited from using this
section of road. He feels the resolution is too restrictive. Mr. Perkins
noted that VDoT signs state "no trucks with more than two axles" and suggested
the County use similar wording.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board defer this item to the December 3, 1997
meeting to allow time to get clarification from VDoT. Mr. Bowerman said the
item could be listed as a consent agenda item for approval.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer
this item until December 3, 1997. Roll was called and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-41. U.S. Cellular - Red Hill (Signs #76,77&
78). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 200 ft telecommunication tower
w/ associated support facilities on portion of 319 acs. Znd RA. Tax Map 88,
Pcls 18 & 18A. Located on N side of Rt 708 (Red Hill Rd) approx 1 ml E of Rt
29 (Monacan Trail Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a
designated growth area.) (Applicant requests deferral.) (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 30 and November 6, 1997.)
Mrs. Humphris said the applicant has asked that this item be deferred
until January 14, 1998. She will not be present for that meeting, but does
want to vote on the request. Therefore, she asked that the vote be deferred
until she can hear the issue.
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000:1.87
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant, suggested the Board select
a date that is convenient. After some Board discussion, it was agreed to
defer the request until February 11, 1998.
An unidentified person in the audience said they had not heard the item
was going to be deferred. Mrs. Thomas suggested opening the public hearing
since it had not been possible to let people know a deferral had been re-
quested.
Mrs. Humphris then opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Vanroijen said he feels the deferral process serves the
applicant, whereas it should serve the public. He said a similar tower
adjoining his property was previously deferred and he does not know what
happened to it. He believes an applicant should have to prove there is a good
reason to defer an item and that the public should be informed in a timely
manner. It seems that when an item is about to be voted down, the applicant -
automatically requests deferral to allow the public time to cool down, and
then comes back to try to get it approved by the Board. He has observed this
in other counties too. He recently attended a Planning Commission hearing on
a tower request. Citizens signed a petition saying they did not want the
tower located in the area, provided good reasons, and noted that there were
alternate sites available. The applicant selected a location and said he
could only use that one site, without providing all the necessary information
to the Commission. He noted that the County has decided to hire a consultant
to advise it on tower decisions, but he feels the Board members have all the
information they need on this request. Deferring the request because the
applicant feels it will be voted down is not a valid reason for deferral. He
asked the Board to vote on this item and requested they come up with a better
deferral process.
Mr. Montgomery Wards, an adjacent property owner, said the County has
expressed a desire to protect the ridge along Dudley Mountain and Entrance
Corridor District. He opposes towers anywhere in this area.
Mr. Tucker Johnson asked that the deferral process be reviewed, as it
now favors the applicant. He made the effort to attend Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors' meetings, only to be told he has to come back at
another time. This site is adjacent to an agricultural/forestal district.
His land is one of the parcels, and other family members own land there too.
They entered into the Agricultural District and made a commitment to the
County to preserve the nature of the area. The County needs to recognize this
commitment by denying this application as they have denied other applications.
The aesthetic value of the Agricultural/Forestal District will be ruined by
erecting a tower on this property.
The Chairman stated that the public hearing would remain open until
February 11, 1998.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer
SP-97-41 until February 11, 1997. Roll was called and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-42. Our Lady of Peace Alzheimer/Dementia Care
(Sign #52). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend existing SP-90-65 to add
Alzheimer care facility to Our Lady of Peace in Branchlands PUD Complex. Znd
PUD & designated Urban Density Residential(6.01-34 du/ac) in Comprehensive
Plan. Tax Map 61Z, Sec 3, pcls 8 & SA. Consists of approx 7.0 acs. Located on
E side of Hillsdale Drive (St Rt 1427) N of inter w/ Branchlands Blvd. (St Rt
1694). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 30 and November 6, 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 has reviewed the
request for compliance of the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends apProval subject to three conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on October 28, 1997, unanimously recommended
approval of SP-97-42 subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rob McNickols, the project architect, said a similar facility in
Richmond is a good project. The facility does not face the typical Alzhei-
mer's problems. They provide non-confrontational activities. Many residents
of Our Lady of Peace have dementia and need this care. Residents will be able
to go outdoors to enjoy themselves in a restful atmosphere.
Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said he appreciates Our Lady of Peace's willingness to
provide this type of care for the community, as treatment of this problem is a
growing concern.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
SP-97-42 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
The dementia care facility shall be operated in accordance with
the Treatise on the Rationale for the Development of the Our Lady
of Peace Program (including a Proposed New Addition) dated May 16,
1990 and revised July 24, 1997, herein included as Attachment B;
with occupancy not to exceed 24;
2 o
The dementia care facility shall not be operated without approval
and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia
Department of Welfare, the Virginia department of Health, and
other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may
have authority in a particular case; and
The dementia care facility shall comply with the conditions of
ZMA-88-07.
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts in Subsection 2.1(h) known as
the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District to decide whether to terminate,
modify, or continue the District. Existing district consists of 49 PCS
totaling approx 6,231 acs located on St Rts 29 S (Monacan Trail Rd), 637 (Dick
Woods Rd), 692 (Plank Rd), 696 (Edge Valley Rd), 697 (Sutherland Rd), 708 (Red
Hill Rd & Taylor's Gap Rd), 710 (Taylor's Gap Rd), 745 (Poorhouse Rd) & 767
(Rabbit Valley Rd) in vicinity of North Garden. The Hardware District is
proposed to be continued for ten years. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 30 and November 6, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. When the Planning Commis-
sion reviewed this item, it recommended extending the district for ten years,
and received no requests for a shorter time period. Since that meeting,
several owners of parcels totaling 2,390 acres, have indicated they wish to
withdraw their properties, leaving 3,856 acres in the district. Some of those
owners expressed concern about the ten year period at the Advisory Committee
meeting, and the Advisory Committee recommended that the district be continued
for a minimum of five years. Mr. Cilimberg showed, on the map, the impact of
those landowners withdrawing their acreage. He noted that three landowners
have submitted requests to withdraw; one may ask to come back into the area
after allowing division of his land.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Vanroijen said three years was a reasonable amount of time for
the district, and added that the County needs to do something for landowners
in the Agricultural/Forestal District. Homeowners should not have to continue
coming to hearings. The purpose of the district is to protect the area.
Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing.
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000139
Mrs. Thomas said this is an important item. When a major portion of
land is removed from an Agricultural/Forestal District, it should be a wake up
call that the Board needs to do something for these districts.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts in Subsection 2.1(h) known as the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal
District. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 97-2.1(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED, OF THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1-
4(h), Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(h)
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39B, 4lA, 4lB1,
41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; tax map 74, parcels
26, 28; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 27;
tax map 87, parcels 3, 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of
89.186 acres); tax map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 23,
23E, 24, 26B, 40, 4lA, 42, 42A; tax map 99, parcels 29,
52. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for
not more than ten years and last reviewed on November
12, 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to November 12,
2007.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: February 14, 1996; April 16
and October 8, 1997.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of April 16, 1997, pages 1 - 15 (Item
#10) and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas commented that the Board did not receive a copy of a
petition referred to in SP-97-41 for U. S. Cellular. Mr. Vanroijen said the
petition was never presented to the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Thomas said the Board needs to think seriously about how to deal
with the issue of agricultural/forestal districts. The Agricultural/Forestal
District Advisory Committee should provide advice to the Board on how to be
more proactive and look at land use taxation. She said Mr. vanRoijen men-
tioned in a Planning Commission meeting that Fauquier County allows people to
be in the land use taxation program without being in an agricultural/forestal
district, but makes it more difficult.
November 12, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
000 40
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is legal to require that someone in the Land
Use Program show proof of revenue. Mr. Davis said people now have to make an
annual certification. Mr. Bowerman asked if someone has to prove there is
agriculture activity taking place on their property. Mrs. Thomas said she has
never had to make a reapplication. Mr. Perkins said most counties only
require that someone simply notify them that they want to remain in the
Program. Mr. Bowerman said he thought that if the Land Use Program is to
benefit agricultural/forestal activities, there should be some activity taking
place; land should ~ot simply be sitting fallow. Mrs. Thomas said she is in
the Program, and that an assessor asks questions when assessing her property
every other year. Nothing is ever in writing. If she had to come up with
lots of facts about production, there would be an incentive to go into an
Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. Perkins said everyone might not be able
to get into an Agricultural/Forestal District. The Land Use Classification
Appeals Board is supposed to oversee this area.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the Land Use Classification Appeals Board meet
with the Board of Supervisors to discuss this issue. Mr. Vanroijen said the
Land Use Ordinance requires that farmers control weeds, but few do so.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that Agricultural/Forestal Districts and the Land Use
Plan be reviewed. She further suggested a comparison be done with other
counties in an attempt to set a goal for land use as a meaningful benefit to
the community. There should also be incentives for people to be in these
districts. The public should also be educated.
Mrs. Thomas presented Mr. Perkins with an award received from the
Virginia Association of Counties for his ten years of service on the Board.
Mr. Bowerman followed up on the issue of deferrals. He asked the County
Attorney to provide guidance as to what is allowable. It has become routine
for applicants to defer an item. It is not always misused, but there is no
way to judge it. In the past, the Board has always deferred to the applicant,
much to the Board's and the public's discomfort.
Mrs. Humphris said everyone spends a lot of time studying the issue only
to find that the issue is withdrawn. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons
to withdraw a request based on events occurring between the Planning Commis-
sion meeting and Board meeting. She said the public felt a grave injustice
had been done tonight and they blame the Board.
Referring to the Memorandum of Understanding discussed with the School
Board on November 12, 1997, Mrs. Humphris said she was told by a group of
people that they think the School Board now has taxing authority. She was
also told that they had never heard of the Development Area Initiatives Study.
She agreed there had not been much coverage by the media, and said the
consultant needs to do a better job of informing the public. Mr. Martin
agreed that it needed to be better advertised.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn.
At 8:15 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
Approved by
Board
Initials