1997-12-10December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
00020 .'
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 10, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles E. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally
H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. 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. Vince Scoffone, owner of the Silver Thatch Inn located in Hollymead,
asked the Board to give consideration regarding the occupancy tax. Currently
the tax is five percent and is collected quarterly by the County. Businesses
receive a discount on other taxes collected. There is a proposal that they
receive a discount for collection of the County's .meals tax. Since the
occupancy tax exceeds the amount of the State's sales tax, he asked the Board
to allow a discount to collect the tax for the County. As a trade off, he
would be willing to pay the tax on a monthly basis, the same as he does with
the sales tax.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, 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:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Refinancing
of Industrial Development Authority Bonds for Eldercare Gardens.
It was noted in the staff's report that Eldercare Gardens, L.P. received
bond financing through the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority
in 1979 in the amount of $4.385 million. It now desires to refinance the
outstanding bonds by the issuance of refinancing bonds in the amount of $3.153
million. The original maturity of the 1979 bonds will not be extended.
Approval of this request by the Board does not create any liability for the
bonds by the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution Authorizing
the Issuance of the Refinancing of Industrial Development Authority Bonds for
Eldercare Gardens, was adopted:
RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the ~Authority") has considered the request of
Eldercare Gardens, L.P. (the ~Borrower") for the issuance of the
Authority's First Mortgage Medical Facilities Refunding Bonds
(Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1997, in the original
principal amount of Three Million One Hundred Fifty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($3,155,000) (the ~Bonds"), for the purpose of
refunding those certain $4,385,000 First Mortgage Medical
Facilities Revenue Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
000202
1979A, issued by the Issuer as of January 1, 1979 (the ~Prior
Bonds"), the proceeds of the Prior Bonds having been used to
finance the costs of the acquisition, construction, equipping
and installation of a certain 180 bed medical facility located
in Albemarle County, Virginia (the ~Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the ~Board") to
approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 147(f)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") and Section
15.2-4906 of the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue
Bond Act (the "Virginia Statute"); and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's Resolution approving
the issuance of the Bonds, a record of the public hearing and a
~Fiscal Impact Statement" with respect to the Eldercare Gardens
Project have been filed with the Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approved the issuance of the Bonds by
the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, to the extent
required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of
the Virginia Statute, to permit the Authority to assist in the
financing of the Project. The Chairman or the Co-Chairman of
the Board and the County Clerk are hereby further authorized to
take such steps and actions as may be required and necessary in
order to cause the Issuer to issue the Bonds, including but not
limited to the execution and delivery of the ~TEFRA Approval"
which has been filed with the Board.
2. Approval of the issuance of the bonds are required by
Section 147(f) of the Code does not constitute an endorsement of
the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower, but, as
required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Code of Virginia of 1950,
as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither Albemarle
County north the Authority shall be able to pay the bonds or the
interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the
revenues and monies pledged therefore, and neither the faith or
credit, nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Albemarle County north the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take affect immediately upon its
adoption.
Item 5.2. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial
Development Authority Bonds by Louisa Industrial Development Authority for
financing of infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia
Research Park at North Fork.
It was noted in the staff's report that the University of Virginia Real
Estate Foundation (UREF) desires to borrow up to $9.5 million in the form of
tax exempt bonds to be issued by the Louisa County Industrial Development
Authority. The bonds are to be used to assist the Foundation in financing
infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia Research Park at
North Fork. Louisa's IDA has agreed to issue the bonds because Albemarle has
exceeded its limit for issuing tax exempt bonds in this calendar year.
Approval by the Board does not create any liability for the bonds by the
County.
By the recorded vote set out above, a Resolution Authorizing the
Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds by Louisa Industrial
Development Authority for financing of infrastructure improvements at the
University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork, was adopted:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the ~Authority") has been requested by the
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the
~Foundation" , whose principal business address is P.O. Box
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
000203
9023, 2333 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22906, to
approve the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of
Louisa County, Virginia (the ~Louisa Authority") of its revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds"),
pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act,
Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to assist the
Foundation in financing roadways, erosion control, sanitary and
storm sewers, water mains, storm water management, earthwork and
grading, landscaping, entrance features, street lights and
traffic signals, common and park areas and all related design,
engineering and project management costs for portions of the
University of Virginia Research Park at. North Fork (the
~Project") to be located on the west side of U.S. Route 29,
approximately 6 miles north of the city limits of the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia and adjacent to the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Airport, bordering the North Fork of the Rivanna River
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the ~County"). The
proceeds of the Bonds will also be used to pay costs of
issuance; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the ~Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code
of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the ~Virginia Code"), provide
that the highest elected governmental unit of the locality
having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds
and over the area in which any facility financed with the
proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the
issuance of the bonds. The Project is located in the County,
and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the ~Board")
constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County.
The Bonds will be issued by the Louisa Authority, and the Board
of Supervisors of Louisa County, Virginia, has given its
approval to the issuance of the Bonds on December 1, 1997.
Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code provides that if a
locality has created an industrial development authority, no
industrial development authority created by a second locality
may finance a facility located in the first locality unless the
governing body of such first locality concurs with the
inducement resolution adopted by the industrial development
authority of the second locality. The Louisa Authority adopted
its inducement resolution on November 20, 1997 (the "Louisa
Inducement Resolution"); and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing held by the
Authority on December 1, 1997, the Authority adopted a
resolution (the ~Resolution") in which it recommended and
requested that the Board approve of the issuance of the Bonds by
the Louisa Authority. A copy of the Resolution, a brief summary
of the Authority's public hearing, the Foundation's Fiscal
Impact Statement and the Louisa Inducement Resolution have been
filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THAT:
1. The Board concurs with the Louisa Inducement
Resolution and approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa
Authority in a principal amount now estimated to be $9,500,000
for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by Section 147(f)
of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, to
permit the Louisa authority to assist in the financing of the
Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the
creditworthiness of the Project or the Foundation, and, as
required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds
shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be
obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other
costs incident thereto and neither the faith and credit nor the
taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
O00Z04
subdivision thereof, including the County and the Authority,
shall be pledged thereto.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary
Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this resolution
shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of
its adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Item 5.2a. Proclamation proclaiming Thursday, December 18, 1997, as
United Way Holiday Spirit Day. Ms. Humphris read the following proclamation
into the record:
UNITED WAY HOLIDAY SPIRIT DAY
WHEREAS,
the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area was founded by
community volunteers 44 years ago for the purpose of
helping neighbors in need; and
WHEREAS,
the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area continues to be
a volunteer-driven organization that raises and
distributes funds to programs that serve at-risk
adults and children in our community; and
WHEREAS,
the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area is completing
its most ambitious fund-raising Campaign ever as
part of its commitment to make an important and
lasting difference in the lives of those in need in
our community; and
WHEREAS,
the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area accomplishes
its work because of the generosity of hundreds of
volunteers and thousands of contributors each year;
and
WHEREAS,
the United Way Holiday Spirit Day represents an
opportunity for people throughout the community to
join their neighbors in supporting the work of the
United Way and helping the organization reach its
fund-raising goal; and
WHEREAS,
the United Way Holiday Spirit Day is an opportunity
to acknowledge and thank all who have Worked as
volunteers and all who have provided financial
support to the United Way during 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf
of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors,
do hereby proclaim
DECEMBER 18, 1997, as
UNITED WAY HOLIDAY SPIRIT DAY
and urge all citizens to actively
participate in the scheduled activities
and programs sponsored and.supported by
the United Way.
Item 5.3. Copy of staff report for CPA-97-05, Brass, Inc., a request to
change the Land Use Plan designation from Industrial Service to a Regional
Service commercial designation, on property totaling 54 acres located on the
east side of Fifth Street just north of 1-64, Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A and
2B. The property borders the City of Charlottesville along the northern and
western border and is located in the Scottsville District. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on November 11, 1997, unanimously adopted a
Resolution of Intent to study the request, and this report was received for
information.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
O00Z05
Item 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for November 11,
November 18 and December 2, 1997, were received for information.
Item 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board
of Directors meeting of October 27, 1997, was received for information.
Item 5.6. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County'Service Authority
Board of Directors meeting of October 16, 1997, was received for information.
Item 5.7. ~Copy of letter dated December 2, 1997, from Robert H.
Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, Department of Transportation,
addressed to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, indicated that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, on November 20, 1997, approved the location
and major design features for the project designated as "Route 250 at
Canterbury Road, Proj. 0250-002-112,PE-101, RW-201, C-501, from 0.07 mile West
of Int. Route 809 to 0.12 mile east of Int. Route 809", was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6.
Removed from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code by adding Article
XV, Prepared Food and Beverage Tax, which shall levy and impose on the
purchase of food a four percent tax on the amount paid for all foods served,
sold or delivered for human consumption in a restaurant,.as defined and set
forth in the Ordinance, and further shall provide for the administration and
enforcement of the tax. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and
November 24, 1997.)
Mr. Tucker said County voters approved, by referendum, a Meals Tax for
Albemarle County during the November elections. The County would join many of
its neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of Charlottesville, and the
counties of Nelson and Greene, by instituting a Meals Tax. It is projected
that implementation would result in annual revenue of approximately $2.3
million.
Ms. Humphris immediately opened the meeting to public discussion.
Mr. Bob Kroner, a resident of Samuel Miller District and president of
the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber had conducted a series of
year-long board meetings and focus sessions and based on those sessions,
supported the meals tax. He commended the Board's action in placing the meals
tax issue on the November ballot. He urged the Board to view the referendum
as permission to balance the budget without increasing the real estate tax
rate.
Mr. Peter Way said that he was amazed and stupefied that the quality of
life is going to be increased by raising taxes. He stroHgly opposes the meals
tax, for many reasons, of which the primary reason is that he feels the Board
has no idea what the County's revenues are going to be. He firmly believes
that any increase in taxation is directly related to a decrease in individual
freedoms for citizens. He feels the Board is going to vote in favor of the
meals tax even though the voters in three districts were opposed to it.
Mr. Ed Robb said he seconds what Mr. Way said. He worked the polls in
North Garden all day and he heard people saying that if they voted for the
meals tax, they would not get a real estate tax increase. His feeling is that
the Board is going to do both. When the people elected Governor-elect
Gilmore, they indicated that they did not want higher taxes.
Mr. Randy Kohr, president of The Kohr Brothers, said he is appalled by
the meals tax. He said that what he saw in the voting booth was a very
narrowly-defined law, but that a broad net is now being cast over snack foods
and other items. He wanted a definition of whether ice cream was indeed a
snack food. Ms. Humphris asked that Mr. Melvin Breeden provide a response for
Mr. Kohr.
O00 OG
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked whether there had been many comments received from the
brochure. Mr. Breeden said his office received several calls asking whether
certain vendors were covered by the ordinance.
Ms. Thomas asked whether there were differences between the City's and
County's ordinance. Mr. Breeden replied that there were some differences.
Mr. Davis said that under State law, the City is authorized to impose an
excise tax which covers a lot of different things, whereas the County has a
number of restrictions on what can be taxed.
Mr. Martin asked what the exemption noted in section 8-77(c) covers.
Mr. Davis replied that it exempts from the meals tax those entities which are
also exempt from the State sales tax.
Mr. Marshall said that many people are under the impression that
imposition of the meals tax means the real estate tax will not increase. He
asked Mr. Tucker whether the meals tax would be sufficient to balance the
budget or whether further funds would be needed. Mr. Tucker replied that,
without having the School's budget, it was difficult to say.
Ms. Humphris noted that the Chamber of Commerce is setting up a
committee to go through the budget and try to find items.they feel can be cut.
She is looking forward to what that committee recommends.
Mr. Marshall asked whether Mr. Tucker was saying that, even if the meals
tax was passed tonight, there could still be a real estate tax increase. Mr.
Tucker replied that it was really too early to make such a determination.
Ms. Humphris said that, without knowing what the budget will 10ok like,
it would not be fair to ask Mr. Tucker to state with certainty whether a real
estate tax increase would be needed. Mr. Marshall replied that, in that case,
he would like to postpone voting on the meals tax until those figures are
available, since that is how the meals tax was ~sold" to the public.
Mr. Martin said that all the Board is voting on tonight is the meals
tax. If, in a few months, when Board has the budget in front of it, they can
consider a real estate tax rate. It should be considered then, not now. Mr.
Marshall replied that if the Board votes on the meals tax tonight, that his
hands would be tied to oppose any real estate tax increase at budget time.
Mr. Perkins said that he felt they were two separate decisions, and that it is
the Board which has to determine whether a tax increase is needed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an
Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Code
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to enact a meals tax rate of four
percent, with an effective date of January 1, 1998. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-8(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND
TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and
Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article XV,
Prepared Food and Beverage Tax, as follows:
CHAPTER 8
FINANCE AND TAXATION
ARTICLE XV. PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX
Sec. 8-75. Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in this
article, shall have, for the purposes of this article, the
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
000207
following respective meanings except where the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
Beverage: Any alcoholic beverages as defined in section
4-2(2) of the Code of Virginia and nonalcoholic beverages, any
of which are served as part of a meal.
Caterer: A person who furnishes food on the premises of
another for compensation.
Director of Finance: The director of finance of the
county and any of his duly authorized deputies, assistants,
employees or agents. ~ ......
Food: Any and all edible refreshments or nourishment,
liquid or otherwise, including beverages as herein defined,
purchased in or from a restaurant or from a caterer, except
snack foods.
Person: Any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership or any group of individuals
acting as a unit.
Purchaser: Any person who purchases food in or from a
restaurant or from a caterer.
Restaurant:
(1)
Any place where food is prepared for service to the
public whether on or off the premises; or
(2) Any place where food is served to the public.
Examples of a restaurant include, but are not limited to,
a dining room, grill, coffee shop, cafeteria, cafe, snack bar,
lunch counter, lunchroom, short-order place, tavern,
delicatessen, confectionery, bakery, eating house, eatery,
drugstore, catering service, lunch wagon or truck, pushcart or
other mobile facility that sells food, and a dining facility in
a public or private school or college.
Seller: Any person who sells food in or fro~ a restaurant
or as a caterer.
Snack food: Chewing gum, candy, popcorn, peanuts and
other nuts, and unopened prepackaged cookies, donuts, crackers,
potato chips and other items of essentially the same nature and
consumed for essentially the same purpose.
Sec. 8-76. Levy of tax; amount.
In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now or
hereafter imposed by law, a tax is hereby levied and imposed on
the purchaser of all food served, sold or delivered for human
consumption in the county in or from a restaurant, whether
prepared in such restaurant or not, or prepared by a caterer.
The rate of this tax shall be four (4) percent of the amount
paid for such food. In the computation of this tax, any
fraction of one-half cent ($0.005) or more shall be treated as
one cent ($0.01).
Sec. 8-77. Exemptions.
The following purchases of food shall not be.subject to
the tax under this article:
(a)
Food sold by grocery stores and convenience stores
except for prepared sandwiches and single-meal
platters ready for human consumption sold at a
delicatessen counter.
(b) Food and beverages sold through vending machines.
O00ZO8
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
(c)
Food for use or consumption by the Commonwealth, any
political subdivision of the Commonwealth or the
United States.
(d)
Food sold by nonprofit cafeterias in public schools,
nursing homes and hospitals.
(e)
Food sold by churches, fraternal, school and social
organizations and volunteer fire departments and
rescue squads which hold occasional dinners and
bazaars of one-day or two-day duration, at which
food prepared in the homes of members or in the
kitchen of the organization is offered for sale to
the public.
(f)
Food furnished by churches which serve meals for
their members as a regular part of their religious
observance.
(g)
Food furnished by boardinghouses that do not
accommodate transients.
(h)
Food sold by cafeterias operated by industrial
plants for employees only.
('r)
(j)
Food furnished by a hospital, medical clinic,
convalescent home, nursing home, home for the aged,
infirm or handicapped or other extended care
facility to patients or residents thereof.
Food furnished by a nonprofit charitable
organization to elderly, infirm, handicapped or
needy persons in their homes or at central
locations.
(k)
Food sold by a nonprofit educational, charitable or
benevolent organization on an occasional basis as a
fund-raising activity or food sold by a church or
religious body on an occasional basis.
(1)
Food furnished by restaurants to employees as part
of their compensation when no charge is made to the
employee.
(m)
Any other sale of food which is exempt from taxation
under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act, or
administrative rules and regulation issued pursuant
thereto.
Sec. 8-78. Tips and service charges.
(a) Where a purchaser provides a tip for an employee or
employees of a seller, and the amount of the tip is wholly in
the discretion of the purchaser, the tip is not subject to the
tax imposed by this article, whether paid in cash to the
employee or added to the bill and charged to the purchaser's
account, provided, in the latter case, the full amount of the
tip is turned over to the employee by the seller.
(b) An amount or percent, whether designated as a tip or
a service charge, that is added to the price of the meal by the
seller, and required to be paid by the purchaser, is a part of
the selling price of the meal and is subject to the tax imposed
by this article.
Sec. 8-79. Payment and collection of tax.
Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied
under this article shall collect the amount of tax imposed under
this article from the purchaser on whom the same is levied at
the time payment for such food becomes due and payable, whether
payment is to be made in cash or on credit by means of a credit
card or otherwise. The amount of tax owed by the purchaser
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
000209
shall be added to the cost of the food by the seller who shall
pay the taxes collected to the county as provided in this
article. Taxes collected by the seller shall be held in trust
by the seller until remitted to the county.
Sec. 8-80. Deduction for seller.
For the purpose of compensating sellers for the collection
of the tax imposed by this article, every seller shall be
allowed three (3) percent of the amount of the tax due and
accounted for in the form of a deduction on his monthly return
not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) per monthly return;
provided, the full amount shall be due if any part of the~.~ ~
payment is delinquent at the time of payment.
Sec. 8-81. Reports and remittances generally.
Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied
under this article shall make out a report, upon such forms and
setting forth such information as the director of finance may
prescribe and require, showing the amount of food charges
collected and the tax required to be collected, and shall sign
and deliver such report to the director of finance with a
remittance of such tax. It shall be presumed that all food
served, sold or delivered in the county in or from a restaurant
is taxable under this article and the burden shall be upon the
seller of food to establish by records what food i~ not taxable.
Such reports and remittance shall be made on or before the
twentieth day of each month, covering the amount of tax
collected during the preceding month.
Sec. 8-82. Preservation of records.
It shall be the duty of any seller of food liable for
collection and remittance of the taxes imposed by this article
to keep and preserve for a period of three (3) years records
showing gross sales of all food and beverages, the amount
charged the purchaser for each such purchase, the date thereof,
the taxes collected thereon and the amount of tax required to be
collected by this article. The director of finance shall have
the power to examine such records at reasonable times and
without unreasonable interference with the business of the
seller for the purpose of administering and enforcing the
provisions of this article and to make copies of all or any
parts thereof.
Sec. 8-83. Duty of seller when going out of business.
Whenever any seller required to collect or pay to the
county a tax under this article shall cease to operate or
otherwise dispose of his business, any tax payable under this
article shall become immediately due and payable and such person
shall immediately make a report and pay the tax due.
Sec. 8-84. Advertising payment or absorption of tax prohibited.
No seller shall advertise or hold out to the public in any
manner, directly or indirectly, that all or any part of the tax
imposed under this article will be paid or absorbed by the
seller or anyone else, or that the seller or anyone else will
relieve the purchaser of the payment of all or any part of the
tax.
Sec. 8-85. Enforcement; duty of director of finance.
The director of finance shall promulgate rules and
regulations for the interpretation, administration and
enforcement of this article. It shall also be the duty of the
director of finance to ascertain the name of every seller liable
for the collection of the tax imposed by this article who fails,
refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make the reports
and remittances required by this article. The director of
finance shall have all of the enforcement powers as authorized
0002 .0
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
by Article 1, Chapter 31 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia
for purposes of this article.
Sec. 8-86. Procedure upon failure to collect, report, etc.
If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or
refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to
make, within the time provided in this article, the reports and
remittances mentioned in this article, the director of finance
shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts
and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due.
As soon as the director of finance shall procure such facts and
information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the ~
assessment of any tax payable by any seller who has failed or
refused to collect such tax and to make such report and
remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against
such seller the tax and penalties provided for by this article
and shall notify such seller, by registered mail ssnt to his
last known place of address, of the total amount of such tax and
penalties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within
ten (10) days from the date such notice is sent.
Sec. 8-87. Collection.
The director of finance shall have the power and the duty
of collecting the taxes imposed and levied hereunder and shall
cause the same to be paid into the general treasury for the
county.
Sec. 8-88. Penalty for late remittance or false return.
(a) If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or
refuse to file any report required by this article or to remit
to the director of finance the tax required to be collected and
paid under this article within the time and in the amount
specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by
the director of finance a penalty in the amount of ten (10)
percent of the total amount of the tax owed if the failure is
not for more than thirty (30) days, with an additional penalty
of ten (10) percent of the total amount of the tax.owed for each
additional thirty (30) days or fraction thereof during which the
failure continues, such penalty not to exceed thirty (30)
percent of the tax owed, provided, however, the minimum penalty
shall be ten dollars ($10.00).
(b) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with
intent to defraud the county of any tax due under this article,
a penalty of fifty (50) percent of the tax owed shall be
assessed against the person required to collect such tax.
Sec. 8-89. Violations of article.
Any person violating, failing, refusing or neglecting to
comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a
Class 3 misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not
relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of
the taxes or penalties provided for in this article. Any
agreement by any person to pay the taxes or penalties provided
for in this article by a series of installment payments shall
not relieve any person of criminal liability for violation of
this article until the full amount of taxes and penalties agreed
to be paid by such person is received by the director of
finance. Each failure, refusal, neglect or violation, and each
day's continuance thereof, shall constitute a separate offense.
Sec. 8-90. Severability.
If any provision of this article, or any application of
such provision to any person or under any circumstances, shall
be invalid, the remainder of this article, or the application of
such provisions to persons or under circumstances other than
those to which it shall have been held invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be
effective on and after January 1, 1998.
oooza, a.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-34. Frost Montessori School (Signs #72 & 46).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish private school, to serve approxi-
mately 90 children, on 1.5 acs along Stony Point Rd. Loc on E side of Stony
Point Rd (Rt 20N) approx 1 mi N of Rt 250 E. Znd R-6. TM78, P57. (Property
designated for Neighborhood Density [3-6 du/ac] in Urban Neighborhood 3 in
Comp Plan.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17
and November 24, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. He said the school will be approximately 7400 square feet and,
at capacity, serve approximately 90 children ages two through six. The
proposed hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and the school would
operate year round. Although the project is located on an Entrance Corridor,
the Zoning Administrator has determined that landscaping on Route 20 will
screen the facility from view and no Architectural Review Board approval is
required.
A present, the Montessori School is operating out of the Broadus
Memorial Baptist Church under a special use permit granted on April 16, 1997.
That special use permit was for 18, three and four year olds. It was
conditioned for three years at the Broadus Church location with the
understanding that approval for a permanent facility would be requested in the
upcoming year.
The applicant believes that the proposed use will provide an education
program for children east of the Rivanna River. Noting that the area along
Stony Point Road contains a mixture of residential and residential support
facilities, such as parks, churches, and a fraternal organization, the
applicant expects the use to ~reinforce the residential and public mixture of
development already present in the area." Although the hours of operation do
not include use of the school at night, the applicant would like to make the
facility available for neighborhood and community needs. A preliminary site
development plan for the property was included with the staff's report.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval with five conditions, plus
recommended that the Commission also waive the two-way circulation requirement
of Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, with a condition. He said that
the Commission, at its meeting on November 18, 1997, unanimously recommended
approval with six conditions altogether.
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for
comments.
Mr. Bruce Wardell, the architect for the Frost Montessori School, said
the school is presently operating under a special use permit in a church. The
school fits in well with the type of development in that area. The site plan
has been designed to maximize the queuing on the site, by making access to the
property far from the nearest intersection and maximizing the number of cars
on-site. He noted that one issue the Board might consider was the connection
between the sidewalk for drop-offs at the front of the school and a State-
built sidewalk off of the Montessori property. Owners of the school are a
little concerned that it may encourage children to walk toward the road.
Ms. Thomas said that her concern was that there was no safe way to walk
to the school and plans making it easier for cars to circulate make it more
difficult to walk safely. Mr. Wardell replied that it would surprise him if
there were many people walking to the school.
Ms. Humphris seconded Ms. Thomas' concern, that the Board's interest was
to encourage people to walk rather than drive everywhere and that it would
defeat that purpose not to have sidewalks there. Mr. Davis noted that this
was a special use permit issue. If condition #1 remains as written, the
sidewalks would need to be substantially as shown on the site plan.
Mr. Martin said this is an area where a great deal of walking occurs.
He did not know how many students would be from that area, but that area is
one where the Board has been trying to get sidewalks installed.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
0002:1.;2
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that, internally within Fontana Subdivision, they
are working on a walkway system and that is probably implied by the staff
report. There is a potential Capital Improvements Plan project to put a
sidewalk on Route 20.
Ms. Thomas asked whether the maximum sidewalks have been required by the
conditions. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the plan reflects the maximum in
association with this development. Any more would have to be addressed as
part of the development of Fontana.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Mr. Marshall, to
approve SP-97-34 Subject to the six conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
The building, parking, driveway entrance, sidewalk and
playground areas shall be located in general accord with
the preliminary site development plan dated and initialed
November 10, 1997 (copy attached);
The playground shall be fenced and located as far away
from the power lines as possible;
The final site development plan shall not be.approved
until a subdivision plat creating the property is recorded
or adequate bonding for road, utility and drainage
improvements is provided;
The school shall be restricted to 90 students and shall be
for year-round use;
Building setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any
public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or
loading space shall be located closer than ten feet to any
public street right-of-way; and
6 o
Existing vegetation shall be maintained or replaced if
removed, except as noted on site plan.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-51. U.S. Cellular (Goodlow Mountain) (Signs
#46 & 47). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct wireless
telecommunication tower & associated support facilities. Loc on Goodlow
Mountain on existing Columbia Gas pipeline easement. Application will allow
for removal & reconstruction of existing tower on property. Znd RA. Property
consists of 121 acs. TM36, P19. (Property not located in a designated growth
area.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress-on November 17 and
November 24, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. He said the applicant is proposing to construct a 120-foot
guyed, lattice tower to provide improved cellular phone coverage for northern
Albemarle County and portions of Greene and orange. Currently, U.S. Cellular's
service is available in the area. However, significant areas of weak signal,
or even no signal, exists. The tower is located on Goodlow Mountain on the
Columbia Gas Pipeline, and replaces an existing tower located on the site.
The existing tower is about 80 feet tall. In October, 1996, the tower was
damaged through some maintenance activity and the top portion fell over. .The
tower was originally 123 feet. The use of the tower was restored to 80 feet
for telecommunication purposes.
Staff opinion is that the request generally complies with the provisions
of the ordinance an the Comprehensive Plan. This tower is located within the
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
0002 3
Mountain Resource Area identified in the Open Space Plan. However, as this is
a replacement of an existing tower, staff opinion is that this unfavorable
factor is mitigated. The limited amount of activity associated with this
tower and impact on the surrounding area is, in the opinion of staff, a factor
which tends to favor this application. Few, if any other, locations are
available which would allow such a limited activity for the installation of a
communication facility. Therefore, staff is able to support with the
application with thirteen conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November
18, 1997, by a four to three vote, recommended approval with the thirteen
conditions suggested by staff. The third condition regarding the lighting was
slightly modified. Those Commissioners not recommending approval expressed
concern about the location in a mountain area, in the Southwest Mountain
National Historic District, and adjacent to an Agricultural/Forestal District.
Mr. Cilimberg said one~'question raised at the Commission meeting was
whether as a nonconforming use, the existing tower could be restored to its
original height. Yesterday staff received a fax from a representative of CNS
Microwave, Inc., a Columbia Network Services Company, which indicated they
want to restore the height, as designated on the license, to 120 feet. Mr.
Cilimberg then presented the following determination relating to the
restoration of the tower, from Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator:
~This is to confirm that with the verification of first-hand testimony
and/or other documentation, this tower may be restored to substantially
the same as that which existed prior to the accident in October, 1996.
The tower may be returned to the same or lower height, the same or
smaller size, and a similar structure tYPe with modern building
components. This determination does not grant permission for expansion
or other change in scale or character from that which predates the
accident. This decision is based on Section 6.6.1 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. This section within the nonconforming
regulations permits repair and/or restoration in the event of damage
beyond the control of the owner, provided certain time limits are met.
It is my opinion that commencement of repair and/or restoration has
begun. The ordinance stipulates that work shall be completed within
twenty-four months of the date of the damage.
The facts upon which this decision is based are as follows:
The tower was erected prior to the date that zoning was adopted in
Albemarle and it has not been discontinued for more than two
years. It is a legally nonconforming use.
The tower was damaged by a tractor doing routine maintenance
sometime in the month o{ OctOber, 1996. This was an accident
which was beyond the control of the owner and/or lessee.
Repair and restoration was co=~enced within twelve months of the
date of the damage. The tower was repaired at its present lower
height to restore service, with the intention and future plan to
eventually restore it to the licensed height of 120 feet."
MS. Humphris asked whether the Board had two new pieces of information
that the Planning Commission did not: the Zoning Administrator's statement
that Columbia Gas can restore their tower to the 120 foot height and
Columbia's statement that they intend to do this. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
Columbia only intend to do that if they cannot be accommodated by this special
use permit. The special use permit is necessary for US Cellular whether or
not the height is restored.
Ms. Thomas asked whether a special use permit would be needed for
Columbia Gas. Mr. Cilimberg replied that one would not be needed, if Columbia
restores the tower to its original height for the same use. Mr. Davis said
that is based on there being a factual finding that Columbia Gas began
restoration within 12 months and completed it within 24 months of the date of
the accident.
Mr. Martin said the bottom line is that this is an'existing tower that
US Cellular is asking to co-locate on.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14) ....
0002 ,4
Mr. Davis noted that there is no written documentation that the property
owner has consented to the application. One of the requirements of a special
use permit is that the applicant, if it is not the owner, has to have the
written consent of the owner. The owner is an absentee owner who lives in
Alaska. There is no problem with going forward with the public hearing
tonight, but the document needs to be placed in the file before the Board
takes action. If the Board is inclined to approve the permit, the request can
be added to the Consent Agenda after this consent is added to the file.
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for
comments.
Mr. Mark Gartley, project manager for this project for US Cellular, said
their purpose is simply to provide quality and competitive cellular service to
a larger area in the County. The Board has told them time and time again to
find existing towers and co-locate, and this location fits that criteria. The
character of the neighborhood is a mountain range, with an existing clear-cut
pipeline and tower, so their proposal would fit within the neighborhood's
character. The existing tower is a guyed tower, but the Board could choose to
have it replaced with a self-supporting tower if they wish, in order to
minimize the tower's footprint. In response to Ms. Thomas regarding the
number of co-locations, Mr. Gartley said with 120 feet, there would be levels
for two cO-locators if they were in the same frequency range. There would be
an opportunity for other co-locators, for example, police at the 450 foot
range. It depends on tree height and the same frequencies that want to co-
locate.
Mr. Mark Keller, from McKee/Carson, presented a map to the Board
delineating the various service levels within the County and what sites US
Cellular had examined for possible uses. Of all of the sites, it was
difficult to find one with four major benefits: fairly stealthy location ( not
very obvious to people who live or travel through the area), proper
topographical elevation (low rise tower would be able to spread a reasonable
signal and serve the area without them having to come back with a second
application), an existing structure and character of the area would not be
affected by the addition of a tower. The only site that had all of these
attributes is this particular site. For the last 30 years, CNS has employed a
tower at this site for numerous reasons. Last year, the clear-cutting crew
inadvertently cut one of the guy wires holding the tower up, causing it to
crumple. Within days, CNS had reinforced the facility and reattached the
antenna. US Cellular has agreed to cooperate with Columbia Gas and rebuild
the tower in generally the same configuration, but with minor differences to
allow co-location. Trees in location are generally 70 feet to 80 feet tall.
The tower will rise 40 feet to 50 feet above the trees. There will be no
lighting of the tower. Besides the tower, the only improvements will be a 12
foot by 20 foot utility building and adding gravel to the last part of the
road to the site, which will not be maintained. The road will return to its
natural state after construction of the tower. He asked the Board's favorable
consideration of the request.
Ms. Thomas asked whether the tower would be in the middle of the clear-
cut as it goes to the top of the mountain. Mr. Keller said the current tower
is attached to, but southwest of the clear-cut, so one would not see the tower
as they look up the clear-cut.
Ms. Humphris asked how visible the one acre clear-cut would be on the
side of the mountain. Mr. Keller replied that the entire area would not be
clear-cut, but if they were to do so, it would not be very noticeable since it
is on the peak of the mountain.
Ms. Humphris asked whether the proPosed height of the tower included the
length of the whip antenna. Mr. Andy Sipriani, from CNS Microwave, a
subsidiary of Columbia Gas, replied that the tower would be 120 feet tall,
with an 8 foot whip on top, that is only 0.5 inch around and barely visible.
In correcting an earlier statement that was made, he said the entire tower
collapsed when the guy wire was cut. It was indicated that only the top part
was damaged and had to be removed.
Ms. Thomas asked whether guyed-wire towers collapse on themselves, as is
usually required. Mr. Sipriani replied that they usually do, but in this
case, the guy wire was cut, which is not how a tower usually collapses. This
was a particularly light weight tower. He did not see how it collapsed.
Generally a guyed tower will collapse within the radius of its guy wires.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Steve Blaine, also representing the applicant, said he agrees with
the memo from the Zoning Administrator. The best evidence that the character
of the district will not change is that the tower has been there for 30 years.
At the Planning Commission's meeting, some landowners expressed concern that
there would be lighting on the tower and that they could see the tower. There
will be no lighting on the tower; there will be no emissions from the tower
that might affect the surrounding area. Even though this is. within the
Mountain Protection Area, the distinguishing fact is that there is already an
existing tower in this location. He asked the Board's support of the special
use permit.
Ms. Humphris then asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Joe Flamini said he did an independent survey of that location
versus other locations and agreed that it is a very good spot to fill in many
holes. He would ask the Board to keep a few caveats in mind, one being that
there should be no lights. He would also recommend that the Board insist on
heavy co-location for other carriers. The Board should be aware that what
will make the tower ugly is not the size of the tower or antennae, but the
high-performance 10 feet to 12 feet diameter microwave antennae. The entire
reason of that land being designated for forestal land was to keep it from
being developed and now it is being used for commercial use. The Board needs
to consider the implication of the commercial use.
Mr. Hal Young said this use will have an impact on many people traveling
through the County. This is the highest peak in the southwest mountain range.
This is going to be the first thing that people see when they enter Albemarle
County. It concerns him that the original Planning Commission motion had no
regard for the lighting issue. Another issue he asked the Board to consider
was access for emergency services. He also asked why the scenic easement
issue had not been mentioned by the Board.
Dr.,Betsey Flannigan said that she lives at ~Serenity" and suspects that
many people would not want a tower in their backyard either. A tower with
several co-locations is not an attractive sight. She came to this community
for the beauty of the area and she asked the Board to keep the mountaintops
unspoiled. This economic resource should only be encroached upon if there is
substantial benefit to the County. In the case of the proposed tower, the
Board is heading down a slippery slope. She previously lived near the tower
on Turkey Sag Mountain and it can be seen from 20 to 30 miles away. She asked
why all of Albemarle County has to pay the price for a cellular tower.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Humphris asked for an explanation of land in land use and/or the
agricultural/forestal district in relation to this property. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that agricultural/forestal land is adjacent to the southwest and west
of the subject property. He is not sure about whether this property is in
land use taxation and the implication of the tower on land use taxation. He
also does not know the exact location of the scenic easement, but he thinks it
is within the agricultural/forestal district area. The easement does not
encompass this property. Staff did note in its report that they felt
visibility would be limited.
Ms. Thomas asked whether property in use value taxation programs that
have a cellular tower on them still be conSidered forestry use. Mr. Davis
replied that the lease area would not be eligible for land use. Towers are an
improvement and would be assessed as such.
Ms. Humphris said that there was usually some description of what type
of antenna was going to be placed on the tower. Mr. Gartley said the plan is
to use panel antennae interconnected by a telephone line, rather than large
circular antennae.
Ms. Humphris then asked how the Board can ensure that the large
microwave antennae are not allowed, as they are the monstrosities that are not
wanted. Mr. Davis said that the types of antennae allowed would have to be
made a condition to the special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said any other
company that would wish to co-locate would have to receive a special use
permit. Ms. Thomas said the panels are much less obtrusive than drums and
asked that the conditions distinguish between the two.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16 )
000216
Mr. Davis suggested that Condition 4 be clarified as to whether it is
the intent of the Board to require any additional co-locators to have a
special use permit. He thought the intent was to encourage co-location so as
to not require them to come back for a special use permit. Ms. Thomas said
that it was her feeling that co-location should be encouraged.
Mr. Cilimberg said the condition could be written to differentiate
between antenna types while still encouraging co-location. Mr. Bowerman asked
that staff also provide the Board with a pictorial representation of the
various antenna types.
Ms. Humphris said that the conditions should be all inclusive.
Condition 1 should state that "the tower height should not exceed 120 feet,
plus the 8 foot whip antenna for Columbia Gas". She believes this is far too
general.
Ms. Thomas said that condition 3 should be shortened to say that ~there
shall be no lighting of the tower. Ail lighting of the utility building shall
be shielded so as to minimize visibility." She thinks that if a federal
agency requires lighting, the tower should be removed.
Ms. Thomas suggested that condition 12 should be amended to say that
"the tower shall be of lattice-type construction designed to accommodate at
least three co-locators". Mr. Cilimberg suggested including the language that
~the tower shall be of lattice-t~e construction, self-supporting, without
guy-wires". He said the staff needs to know if the Board wants to specify
structurally built to provide for a minimum of some number of users. Ms.
Humphris said that it should be as many as is feasible for that particular
tower.
Ms. Thomas said that she preferred that the Strawberry Hill application
be withdrawn. The applicants have indicated that they intend to withdraw the
application. Mr. Gartley said given the coverage from this structure, it
would negate the necessity for the Strawberry Hill site. The applicants,
therefore, would not pursue the site and intends to withdraw the Strawberry
Hill application.
Ms. Thomas asked, if Mr. Young was able to get perfect reception from
where he lives, why US Cellular could not co-locate on one of 360's towers.
Mr. Gartley said that there can be pockets of good reception right next to
pockets of bad reception; additionally, 360 is a competitor and has not
invited them to co-locate on their tower. This site provided them the best
opportunity for co-location.
Mr. Davis recommended that staff prepare an amended set of conditions
and then have this item put on the Consent Agenda for January 7, 1998. The
Board members agreed with this recommendation.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-97-52. Nigel Bray Animal Medical Center (Sign
~48) . PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct vet clinic on approx 1.4 acs.
Loc on in side of Rt 250, W of & adjacent to Aunt Sarah's Pancake House. Znd
C-1 & EC. TM78, P55D. (Property recommended for commercial in Neighborhood
3.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and
November 24, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. He said this special use permit was originally approved by the
Board on October 4, 1995, in conjunction with a zoning map amendment. The
special use permit expired on October 7, 1997. It is staff's position that no
significant changes have taken place to warrant change of prior staff
recommendation and Board action. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on
November 11, 1997, recommended re-approval subject to the previously imposed
six conditions.
Ms. Humphris asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. He
declined.
Ms. Humphris then opened the meeting to the public for comments. With
no one from the public rising to speak, she closed the public hearing and
placed the matter before the Board.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
O00Zi?
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve
SP-97-52 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
The final site plan shall not be submitted without County
Engineer approval of a certified acoustical report
confirming that noise measured at the nearest residential
lot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. or 55 dba at all other times. Construction standards
shall be stated on the final site plan. Such construction
standards may include, but are not limited to, building
material types, location and material of doors, windows
and other building openings;
2. No outdoor runs or pens;
3 o
Fencing and landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the
Luxor development as shown on the site plan titled "Animal
Medical Center" initialed WDF 8/9/95 (copy attached);
4 o
A public entrance to the animal center which is separate
from entrances to other users of the building shall be
provided;
Delineation of an exercise area on the final site plan
including appropriate signage to inform the public of the
intended use of the area; and
Waiver of Section 5.1.11.b to allow structure to be
located less than 200 feet from residential lot line.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-97-01. Add Off-site Parking for Tourist Motor
Coaches in the Rural Areas. PUBLIC HEARING to amend Sec. 10.2.2 of Zoning
Ordinance to allow off-site parking for motor coaches in conj w/operation of
tourist-related historical businesses & neighboring support services by
special use permit in RA district. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 17 and November 24, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors. He said Michie Tavern, in particular, is experiencing difficulty
in accommodating motor coaches because its parking lot is not designed for or
large enough for tour buses. Currently, the Tavern is leasing space from the
Fraternal Order of Police for motor coach parking. The Tavern would like the
ability to apply for a special use permit to create a stand-alone parking lot
on a parcel that would be nearby but separate from the Michie Tavern property.
The Zoning Ordinance does not allow stand-alone or off-site parking lots in
any zoning district where the parking lot would be the only improvement or use
of the property. Michie Tavern has requested that off-site parking lots be
allowed only for motor coaches in conjunction with the operation of tourist-
related historical businesses and neighboring support services.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December
2, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-97-01.
Ms. Humphris said that the way the ordinance was laid out in the
Planning Commission's minutes was more clear, breaking it down into
subsections a, b and c. Mr. Davis said that he would designate the three
sections as 1, 2 and 3, in order to make it easier to interpret.
Ms. Thomas asked whether looking at the character of the surrounding
area includes roads. Mr. Cilimberg said that it would, as well as under
reducing significant impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, the
criteria for special use permits would allow the Board to consider such
things.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for
comments.
Mr. Richard Carter, representing Michie Tavern, said that they are
trying to address a specific problem. In order to get a special use permit to
solve that problem, a zoning text amendment is needed. He supports the
amendment. He pointed out page 5 of the staff report which states that
requests for off-site parking would be very few.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council,
said the Council remains concerned about the road improvements that might be
triggered by the amendment, and the effects of that construction on the rural
landscape. She suggested adding to the provisions that it must not affect
scenic rural roads in order to make future applicants consider the impact to
the roads before they apply for a special use permit. She suggested requiring
that changes to the entrance and public road, such as widening or tree
removal, be made a part of the conceptual plan.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Humphris said that the suggestions of Ms. Thorpe should be made a
part of the ordinance. Mr. Marshall said that he thought the area where the
Michie Tavern site would be was not a scenic rural road. Ms. Humphris said
that the issue was for future applicants, not just this one. Mr. Cilimberg
said it would not hurt to include that language, so that the applicants know
what is required. Ms. Thomas noted that anything that could be done to make
motor coach use preferred would be a good thing.
Ms. Humphris said that the clause "or requires substantial alteration to
rural roads" be added to the conditions under which off-site parking would not
be permitted.
Ms. Thomas asked whether a condition could be added protecting trees
designated to be preserved from accidental destruction.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, to Allow Off-site Parking for Motor Coaches in
Conjunction with the Operation of Tourist-related Historical Businesses &
Neighboring Support Services by Special Use Permit in the Rural Areas
District. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-20(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding New:
Article II. Basic Regulations, Section 5.1.38, Off-site parking
for historic structures and sites.
By Amending:
Article I. General Provisions, Section 3.0, Definitions.
Article II. Basic Regulations, Section 4.12.3.3., (Untitled)
Article II. Basic Regulations, Section 4.12.3.4., (Untitled)
Article III. District Regulations, Section 10.2.2., By special
use permit.
CHAPTER 20. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
Sec. 3.0. Definitions.
Historic structure or site: Any structure or site listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks
Register.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.3.3. (Untitled)
Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in
section 4.12.3.2 or where the public safety or the public
convenience would be better served by the location thereof other
than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such
alternative location of required parking space as will
adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space
shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the
land on which is located the use to which such space is
appurtenant or, in the case of cooperative provision of parking
space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in
the combination. In the rural areas district, the board of
supervisors may issue a special use permit to allow off-site
parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to sections
5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46.
Sec. 4.12.3.4. (Untitled)
Whether off-street parking is provided on the same lot or not,
the following shall apply:
For residential uses, where parking is provided in bays,
no parking space shall be located further than one hundred
(100) feet from the entrance of the dwelling such space
serves.
For non-residential uses, no parking space shall be
located further than five hundred (500) feet from the
entrance of the use such space serves.
Distances in (a) and (b) above may be increased in such
cases where the commission shall determine that the public
interest or convenience would be equally or better served
by such increased distance; that the allowance of a
greater distance would not be a departure from sound
engineering and design practice; and that the allowance of
a greater distance would not otherwise be contrary to the
purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided that in no
case shall the maximum distance from the entrance of a
dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed two
hundred (200) feet.
do
The distance limitations established in this section shall
not apply to off-site parking for a historic structure or
site authorized by sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46.
Sec. 5.1.38. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites.
In order to provide the minimum parking required by section 4.12
or to provide additional parking, off-site parking for a
historic structure or site may be authorized only when (1) the
provision of on-site parking would substantially degrade or
detract from the historic character and setting of the historic
structure or site to be served; (2) the level of use of the
property on which the historic structure or site is located,
which necessitates the provision of off-site parking, will not
degrade or detract from the integrity of the historic structure
or site or adversely change the character of the surrounding
area; and (3) the provision of off-site parking does not change
the character of the area surrounding the property on which the
off-site parking is proposed and does not require substantial
alteration to roads. To ensure that the review of each
application for a special use permit for off-site parking for a
historic structure or site pursuant to section 10.2.2.46 is
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
O00Z20
consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with
the following requirements:
The applicant shall demonstrate that on-site parking
cannot be provided without substantially degrading or
detracting from the historic structure or site.
The parking lot shall be located, designed and constructed
to reduce or eliminate significant visual impacts from all
public streets, private roads and adjacent properties, and
to reduce or eliminate other significant impacts to
adjacent properties resulting from vehicular noise, dust,
artificial lighting, glare, runoff, degradation of water
quality and other similar disturbances.
The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan with its
application for a special use permit. The conceptual plan
shall show the approximate location of the parking lot on
the property, its dimensions, its access to a public
street, its distance from the historic structure or site,
and shall identify how persons will be transported or will
transport themselves from the off-site parking to the
historic structure or site. The conceptual plan shall
also show all features of the parking lot which will
ensure that the parking lot will not degrade or detract
from the historic structure or site to be served by the
parking lot, will not adversely change the character of or
significantly impact the area surrounding the property on
which the parking lot is proposed, and will impact to the
least extent practicable the property on which the parking
lot is proposed. The features which shall be shown on the
conceptual plan, and which may be required as a condition
of approval of a special use permit, include:
Visual and noise barriers such as earthen berms, the
existing or planned terrain and/or vegetative
screening;
2 o
Proposed construction elements, which shall include
elements which will minimize noise, light pollution,
dust, glare, and runoff and which will protect water
quality and protect trees designated to be
preserved;
A lighting plan which identifies the location and
design of all outdoor light structures and fixtures,
demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with
section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor
lights will be shielded in such a manner that all
light emitted from the fixture, either directly from
the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is
projected below the horizontal plane of the fixture;
and
Changes proposed to the entrance and public road,
including any necessary road-widening, or grading
and removal of trees to accommodate sight distance.
The off-street parking and loading requirements set forth
in section 4.12 shall apply to off-site parking for a
historic structure or site, except as expressly provided
otherwise therein.
Sec. 10.2.2. By special use permit
46.
Off-site parking for historic structures or sites
(reference 5.1.38).
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: October 8, 1997.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of October 8, 1997, and found them to
be in order.
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
00022 .
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Marshall said that he had brought a letter from Greg MacDonald
before the Board at the last meeting, and the Board did not agree that Mr.
MacDonald should be given any leeway with the motor coaches feeling there
should have been some provision in their contract dealing with this. Mr.
MacDonald said that he wanted to bring the issue to the Board to let them know
how the business of contracting with motor coaches works. Rates must be given
far in advance, so this occurred before the County meals tax was being
considered. Because of that, all of the meals tax money will have to be paid
directly from the pocket of Michie Tavern. Mr. Marshall said he had questions
of the legality of exempting a business from the collection of the meals tax
for a period of time. Mr. Davis said it is questionable as to whether an
amendment could be drafted that would not run afoul of the equal taxation
principles of the Constitution, since the Board would have to define a class
of exempt taxpayers.
Ms. Thomas asked the County Executive to provide the Board with a
summary of the discussion at a meeting dealing with the Ivy Landfill that came
from the Citizens Advisory Committee in which they asked for a full cost
accounting of solid waste management.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 9:34 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-
344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding a specific legal matter concerning reversion and a
specific legal matter concerning a School agreement. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
At 10:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to certify by a recorded vote
that to the best of'each Board member's knowledge only public business matters
lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom
of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive
session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
December 10, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to December 19, 1997, 2:30 p.m., Room 235,
for meeting with Congressman Bliley.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin,
adjourn to December 19, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Ms. Thomas
None.
Chairman/