Docstoc

9-27min.06

Document Sample
9-27min.06 Powered By Docstoc
					Regular Meeting, Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Government Center,
Verona, VA.

PRESENT:     Wendell L. Coleman, Chairman
             Nancy Taylor Sorrells, Vice-Chairman
             F. James Bailey, Jr.
             David R. Beyeler
             Kay D. Frye
             Larry C. Howdyshell
             Tracy C. Pyles, Jr.
             Steven L. Rosenberg, County Attorney
             Dale L. Cobb, Director of Community Development
             Becky Earhart, Senior Planner
             Joseph W. Davis, Director of Finance
             John C. McGehee, Assistant County Administrator
             Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator
             Rita R. Austin, CMC, Executive Secretary




                    VIRGINIA:     At a regular meeting of the Augusta County Board of
                                  Supervisors held on Wednesday, September 27, 2006,
                                  at 7:00 p.m., at the Government Center, Verona,
                                  Virginia, and in the 231st year of the Commonwealth....


                        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Chairman Coleman welcomed the citizens present for the meeting and reviewed meeting
protocols.

                              * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Holly Stansberry, a Senior of Fort Defiance High School, led us with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Holly attends three classes at Blue Ridge Community College and hopes to major in either
Education or Nursing. She is on the State Executive Board for TSA and is involved in FFA and
show livestock.

                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Wendell L. Coleman, Supervisor for the Wayne District, delivered invocation.

                               * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Chairman Coleman reviewed Public Hearing rules noting that the purpose of the public
hearing is to receive comments from the public prior to the Board taking action. The
hearing is not a dialogue or debate and members of the Board are not expected to respond
to questions. Any questions must be directed to the Chairman. Each citizen must fill out a
card prior to addressing the Board. Speakers will be called to approach the podium so
they are visible and audible to the Board, staff and audience. Each speaker should clearly
state his or her name and address.

                               * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MARGUERITE E. R. AND GEORGE W. GARTNER - REZONING

This being the day and time advertised to consider a request to rezone from Exclusive
Agriculture to General Agriculture approximately 0.3 of an acre owned by Marguerite E. R.
and George W. Gartner located on the east side of Roman Road (Route 732)
approximately 0.8 of a mile north of the intersection of Roman Road (Route 732) and Todd
Road (Route 745) (North River District). The Planning Commission recommends approval.
88



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


MARGUERITE E. R. AND GEORGE W. GARTNER – REZONING (cont’d)
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner, displayed an overview of the property outlined in purple
and advised that the light blue indicates property zoned Exclusive Agriculture and dark blue
indicates property zoned General Agriculture. The property is being rezoned in order to
facilitate a boundary line adjustment with the neighbors. Zoning Ordinance requires that
the zonings be the same or if they are different, the property being acquired must meet the
Ordinance requirements and be able to stand on its own. The triangular piece of land
being conveyed does not meet the lot requirements; therefore, the rezoning is required.
This property was zoned Exclusive Agriculture in December 1995. It is part of an
Agriculture Conservation Area and there are no public water or public sewer facilities.

The Chairman declared the public hearing open.

George Gartner, property owner, asked that the Board approve the request.

There being no other speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.

Mr. Howdyshell felt that Mr. Gartner was being a good neighbor and supported the
request.

Mr. Howdyshell moved, seconded by Mr. Bailey, that the Board adopt the
following ordinance:

       A request to rezone from Exclusive Agriculture to General Agriculture
       approximately 0.3 of an acre owned by Marguerite E. R. and George W.
       Gartner located on the east side of Roman Road (Route 732) approximately
       0.8 of a mile north of the intersection of Roman Road (Route 732) and Todd
       Road (Route 745) in the North River District.

       AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 25 "Zoning" of the Code of Augusta
       County, Virginia.

       WHEREAS, application has been made to the Board of Supervisors to
       amend the Augusta County Zoning Maps,

       WHEREAS, the Augusta County Planning Commission, after a public
       hearing, has made their recommendation to the Board of
       Supervisors,

       WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has conducted a public hearing,

       WHEREAS, both the Commission and Board public hearings have been
       properly advertised and all public notice as required by the
       Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia properly completed,

       WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the application,
       the Planning Commission recommendation and the comments presented
       at the public hearing;
                                                                                       89



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


MARGUERITE E. R. AND GEORGE W. GARTNER – REZONING (cont’d)

       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors that
       the Augusta County Zoning Maps be amended as follows:

       Parcel number 33 (portion) on tax map number 26 containing approximately
       .317 of an acre is changed from Exclusive Agriculture to General Agriculture.

Vote was as follows:        Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                  Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                           Nays: None

Motion carried.
                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LONE BEECH, LLC – REZONING

This being the day and time advertised to consider a request to rezone from Duplex
Residential to Townhouse Residential approximately 107.5 acres owned by Lone Beech,
LLC located on the south side of Goose Creek Road (Route 636) just west of the
intersection of Goose Creek Road (Route 636) and Village Creek Drive (Route 1382) in
Fishersville (Wayne District). The Planning Commission recommends approval with
proffers.

Ms. Earhart displayed an overview of the property which includes two lots which are
already part of the property that is zoned and developed as Duplex Residential. The
applicant has submitted eight proffers. She noted that there is public water and public
sewer available to the property and is in an Urban Service Area and slated for Medium
Density Residential development. This property was zoned Duplex Residential in July
1998.

The Chairman declared the public hearing open.

Scott Williams, partner of the Crescent Development Group, LLC and applicant, gave a
presentation to review the history of their interest and involvement of the property. He
explained how they had worked with staff, along with existing residents of the Village on
Goose Creek to craft a plan that meets with both staff’s and the residents’ approval.
Mr. Williams noted that the property had been rezoned for 220 duplex units and six
limited business lots in 1998. After building the first phase of 32 units, the second
phase of 44 units were planned for construction. The road and utility plans were
approved and that approval included the construction of Farm Gate Lane, which would
be the second access for the site to Route 636. In evaluation of the plans that had been
approved, it became clear that the plan would be difficult to build. The road and lot
grading would be very costly, leading to a much more expensive home for the
homeowners and would have a negative impact on the environment. The finished
product would be a house with very steep slopes on either side and very little useable
yard. In studying the site with the design team, Balzer & Associates, there was an
obvious solution: There are two pronounced ridges on the property and it was
determined that if a development could be concentrated along those ridges, the impact
on the site would be significantly less as the amount of pavement and grading could be
drastically reduced and the amount of open space would be drastically increased. The
one problem with concentrating the building along the ridges was they could not
maintain the previously improved density and continue with the existing zoning. If the
property were
90



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


LONE BEECH, LLC – REZONING (cont’d)

rezoned to Townhouse Residential, they could design it in a way to maximize the
number of end units, which would be one-story or a story and one-half which would
continue what was done in Phase 1. They would try to create as many four-unit
buildings as possible to maximize the number of end units which would appeal to the
older population (55+). With the interior units, they would be able to serve the younger
population (young professional). He felt that in addition to attracting the retirees who
wanted to live near the hospital, they could offer a place to live for those who work at
the hospital or affiliated businesses. He presented preliminary design work on the
townhouse buildings that has been done with the goal of continuing the quality of the
buildings that were done in Phase 1.

       He noted that the first plan they had created had 188 townhouse units and two
entrances on to Route 636, which was similar to the previously approved plan. The
plan was submitted to staff to assess the feasibility of a rezoning to Townhouse
Residential. In receiving the Staff Report, they realized that the second entrance on to
Route 636 was going to be impacted by the widening and expansion of Route 636.
That initial Staff Report identified two possible alternative second accesses:

       1. A connection to Crossroads Road and
       2. A connection under Route 636 to Augusta Medical Center’s north campus.

After studying both of those options, it was concluded that neither were viable and
decided that the only possibility was to create one large boulevard-style entrance. He
pointed out that the boulevard entrance was not their first choice, but it was clear that it
was the only choice. In June 2006, an application was filed to rezone the property to
Townhouse Residential and an associated Master Plan. The Staff Report stated that
the boulevard entrance may have some impact on some of the residents in the first
phase of the Village on Goose Creek. He stated that throughout this process, he has
been careful in minimizing the impact the proposal will have on the existing residents.
He has met with the Homeowners Association Board of Directors (July 27) to share the
plans and it was agreed at that meeting that they would have an open meeting with the
residents in Phase 1 to make them aware of the plan and to receive input. One of the
positive suggestions received was that a construction access be used. Mr. Williams
noted that they planned to incorporate a construction entrance that will go through the
future business property. A consultant verified that the second access to Route 636
would not be possible because the proposed railroad crossing will make Route 636 18
feet higher than the proposed second entrance. VDOT confirmed the consultant’s
analysis. The possibility of connecting an interior road to Crossroads Road was also
investigated and it was concluded that the environmental cost of doing that made the
option untenable. Both County staff and VDOT agree with their assessment that a
boulevard entrance is the only real option and both support their master plan. He noted
that the County wanted to widen Route 636 and connect it to Route 250. When the
Board approved this alignment, one of the unintended consequences of that vote was
the elimination of the second access to the site. (He demonstrated the problem on the
currently approved Master Plan for illustrative purposes.) He noted that the Staff Report
indicated that the School Board stated that a change to Townhouse Residential
                                                                                       91



      September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


LONE BEECH, LLC – REZONING (cont’d)

will attract more students. He disagreed with this statement and stated that the current
zoning is Duplex Residential with no age restrictions, so there is nothing to prevent
school-age children from living in the neighborhood. He noted that there are no school-
age children living at the Village on Goose Creek because the homes were designed to
appeal to the retiree and young professional market and not the family market.

        Mr. Williams distributed to the Board a copy of a landscape plan to follow along
their proposal. He pointed out that this was their first draft and recognize that
adjustments will be made. He mentioned that the purpose of the flower bed at the end
of Village Creek Drive is to beautify the entrance and to “screen” bright lights onto a
resident’s property. He pointed out that a hedge was planned along the right-of-way
boundary (corner lot 1A) to help cut down on additional lights. He mentioned that they
have proffered that the entrance to the Limited Business zoned parcels off Village Creek
Drive shall be right-in only. Mr. Williams felt that their plan would have much less
environmental impact and would help improve water quality in nearby streams. He stated
that the plan created twice as much open space as a previously approved plan and
provides sidewalks and helps the County meet the goals of the Comp Plan by directing
growth toward the Urban Service Areas where there is infrastructure to safely
accommodate growth. He noted that the plan also helps further the County’s goals of
expanding Route 636 with minimal cost to the County.

Henry Moffett, resident of Village on Goose Creek which would be adversely impacted by
the rezoning request to be considered. He expressed concerns of not having a second
entrance onto Goose Creek (Route 636), and leaving only one entrance to serve the
proposed 188 townhouses, 4 business lots, and the 32 existing homes. He was also
concerned about a two-lane residential street being changed into a four-lane highway
serving 220 houses and 4 business lots. “That highway would be 90 feet from my
bedroom window and 90 feet from my patio rendering that patio virtually useless.” He
disagreed with VDOT having the authority to control the County.       He mentioned that
correspondence from the Goose Creek Homeowners Association supporting this zoning
request represented only 17 of the 32 present homeowners and that none of those 17
have property bordering Village Creek Drive where the four-lane highway would affect their
quality of life.

Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Moffett and said that his first choice was to have two
accesses and not to have the boulevard-type entrance. The boulevard entrance was a
way to meet the County’s two accesses for more than 100 units. He expressed that they
would continue to work with them to try and help mitigate the impact of this boulevard.

There being no other speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.

Mr. Bailey stated that Mr. Moffett had some valid concerns but said that Route 636
should have been addressed many years ago. As the hospital grew, the County realized
suitable access to the hospital was not available. Many options had been explored; one
option to be considered was Route 636 and a bridge over the railroad to connect into
Route 250. By the County’s initiative, not VDOT’s, the plans to do that road
improvement makes the grade about 18-20 feet higher than it would have been, which
makes the second entrance into this area an impossibility. He realized that not everyone
supported the changes, but the majority is in support and he noted that this was a good
use of the land with the current proposal.

Mr. Beyeler also understood Mr. Moffett’s concerns. “Once you have a plan, you never
want to see it changed. You buy according to the plan you see on the books.” He also
understood the developer and hoped that the developer would do everything possible to
92



      September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


LONE BEECH, LLC – REZONING (cont’d)

accommodate the people involved. He agreed that it was going to change where Mr.
Moffett lives. He said that he regretfully supported the motion.

Chairman Coleman explained that he has worked closely with the developer, staff and
VDOT in trying to explore the alternatives. He mentioned that Virginia is a “Dillon Rule
State” as opposed to a Home Rule State. This means that the County’s authority comes
from the State.    VDOT is part of the State. The Board has worked with General
Assembly to loosen requirements of the Dillon Rule.

Mr. Bailey moved, seconded by Mr. Pyles, that the Board adopt the following ordinance
with proffers:


      A request to rezone from Duplex Residential to Townhouse Residential
      approximately 107.5 acres owned by Lone Beech, LLC located on the south
      side of Goose Creek Road (Route 636) just west of the intersection of Goose
      Creek Road (Route 636) and Village Creek Drive (Route 1382) in Fishersville
      in the Wayne District.

      AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 25 "Zoning" of the Code of Augusta
      County, Virginia.

      WHEREAS, application has been made to the Board of Supervisors to
      amend the Augusta County Zoning Maps,

      WHEREAS, the Augusta County Planning Commission, after a public
      hearing, has made their recommendation to the Board of
      Supervisors,

      WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has conducted a public hearing,

      WHEREAS, both the Commission and Board public hearings have been
      properly advertised and all public notice as required by the
      Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia properly completed,

      WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the application,
      the Planning Commission recommendation and the comments presented
      at the public hearing;

      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors that
      the Augusta County Zoning Maps be amended as follows:

      Parcel number 71A (portion) on tax map number 66 and parcel numbers 17A
      and 17B on tax map number 67F (9) containing approximately 107.46 acres
      is changed from Duplex Residential to Townhouse Residential with the
      following proffers:
                                                                                         93



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


LONE BEECH, LLC – REZONING (cont’d)

       1. There will be no more than one entrance on to Route 636 (Goose Creek
          Road) from this parcel as shown on the Master Plan entitled “Village on
          Goose Creek” dated June 16, 2006, with revisions through August 30,
          2006 and prepared by Balzer & Associates. The one entrance shall be a
          boulevard entrance with a divided, grass median. Lone Beech Drive will
          also be built as a boulevard from its intersection with Village Creek Drive
          through its intersection with Honeysuckle Drive. The boulevard shall be
          built as depicted on the Master Plan referenced above. The entrance to
          the Limited Business zoned parcels off Village Creek Drive shall be right-
          in only. There shall be no exit directly on to Village Creek Drive.
          Modifications to the existing Village Creek Drive to convert the road into a
          boulevard shall be made by the developer, at no cost to the County or the
          Virginia Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of the
          building permit for the 68th townhouse unit.
       2. The minimum pavement width of all streets created in the subdivision will
          be 20 feet. The developer will install sidewalks on both sides of the roads
          within the development as shown on the Master Plan entitled “Village on
          Goose Creek” referenced above.
       3. There will be no more than 188 townhouse lots created out of the 107.5
          acre tract. Tax Map 67F (9), Lots 17A and 17B shall be permanently
          maintained as open space and conveyed to the new property owners
          association for maintenance.
       4. The minimum square footage for each townhouse unit will be 1400
          square feet.
       5. Streetlights will be installed throughout the entire development and in no
          case shall less than 41 streetlights be installed in this section of the
          development and 50 in the entire Village at Goose Creek development.
          Maintenance and monthly operating expenses of the streetlights shall be
          the sole responsibility of the Property Owner’s Association.
       6. There shall be no solid waste containers (dumpsters) allowed in the
          subdivision.
       7. The developer will dedicate to VDOT a minimum right-of-way width of 44
          feet measured from the existing Route 636 centerline along the frontage
          of the property along Goose Creek Road (Route 636). The right-of-way
          to be dedicated shall be shown on the master plan, construction plans,
          and all recorded plats.
       8. The developer will enter into a signal agreement with VDOT to contribute
          50% of the funds towards a signal light at the intersection of Goose Creek
          Road (Route 636) and Village Creek Drive.

Vote was as follows:        Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                  Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                            Nays: None

Motion carried.

                              * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ROAD ABANDONMENT

This being the day and time advertised to consider abandonment of portions of Park
Avenue and a 20’ alley, in Grottoes (Middle River District).
94



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


ROAD ABANDONMENT (cont’d)

Steven L. Rosenberg, County Attorney, advised that the County received a petition from
Linda Crist and Robin Sipe, property owners of a lot in Grottoes in the Middle River District
immediately south of the line between the County and the Town of Grottoes. The petition
requested the abandonment of a road known as Park Avenue and an alley, neither of
which are part of the secondary system of state highways. In accordance with the state
code, notice of the proposed abandonment was posted on the property and at the
courthouse and also published in a local newspaper. In addition, the County furnished
notice to the petitioners, the owners of adjacent properties, as well as the tenant who
occupies the property, which is the subject of the abandonment petition. He noted that the
same road and the alley were the subject of an abandonment previously approved by a
prior Board in connection with the development of the Food Lion Shopping Center along
Route 340. This petition, if approved, would extend the abandonment of Park Avenue and
the alley one lot to the south of that existing shopping center. All of the requirements
established by the state code for the abandonment have been satisfied. If the Board were
to approve the petition, the effect would be to vest title to the abandoned rights-of-way in
the adjoining property owners subject to any existing utility easements or installations
which are presently in the rights-of-way to be abandoned. There is a requirement in the
resolution which would require the petitioners to consolidate the abandoned portions of
right-of-way with their existing parcels so that, at the completion of the process, there would
be a single consolidated lot.

David Meeks, attorney with Rhea & Miller, reiterated Mr. Rosenberg’s comments and
stated that the purpose of this abandonment is to improve the marketability of the property.
 He thanked Mr. Rosenberg for his assistance.

The Chairman declared the public hearing open.

There being no one present to speak for or against, the Chairman declared the public
hearing closed.

Ms. Frye asked who was going to be the owner of the lot which is to be vacated. Mr.
Rosenberg stated that, based on the opinion furnished by Mr. Meeks, the portion of Park
Avenue and the alley are prescriptive rights-of-way so that once the County abandons
whatever interest it has in those rights-of-way, fee simple title will be vested in the
petitioners, who are the owners of the adjacent lots as shown on the plat that has been
furnished to the Board of Supervisors. There will be one contiguous lot owned by Ms.
Crist and Ms. Sipe. Ms. Frye noted that the plat indicated that the property was owned
by Charles Lee and Betty Jane Smith. Mr. Rosenberg explained that the plat shows the
property to the north owned by Grottoes Group, LLC (Food Lion Shopping Center). The
property to the south is owned by the Smiths. The property presently owned by Ms. Crist
and Ms. Sipe is designated on the plat as parcels 1A and 12B. Parcel 1A shows running
through it an old portion of Park Avenue and an alley. Once the County’s interest in
those rights-of-way are abandoned, the area shown on the plat as “Old Portion of Park
Ave.” and “Alley” will be owned by Ms. Crist and Ms. Sipe as they presently own parcel
1A and 12B, so that there will be one contiguous parcel, which would be .767 acres in
area.
                                                                                      95



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


ROAD ABANDONMENT (cont’d)

Ms. Frye moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board adopt the following resolution:
                       RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
                             OF AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA


      WHEREAS, Linda K. Crist and Robin M. Sipe (collectively, the “Owners”)
are the owners of the real estate abutting the roads designated as “Park
Avenue” and “Alley” in the Middle River District of Augusta County, Virginia,
as more particularly shown on the attached plat entitled “Boundary Survey of a
0.767 Acre Tract of Land” dated April 4, 2005 [sic], and prepared by Newman
Surveying (the “Plat”).
      WHEREAS, the Owners have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Augusta
County, Virginia (“Board”) for the abandonment of certain portions of Park
Avenue and the Alley, as shown on the Plat, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-
156, et seq.
      WHEREAS, a public notice was posted and published as prescribed under
Virginia Code § 33.1-158, announcing (a) the intention of the Board to abandon
such portions of Park Avenue and the Alley, as public roads, and (b) a public
hearing to receive comments concerning such abandonment.

      WHEREAS, the Board has conducted the public hearing previously noticed
under Virginia Code § 33.1-158, to receive comments concerning the proposed
abandonment of such portions of Park Avenue and the Alley.
      WHEREAS, after considering such comments and all other evidence
available, the Board is satisfied that such portions of Park Avenue and the
Alley are no longer necessary for public use, and the safety and welfare of
the public would be best served by the abandonment of the same.

       BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
      1.    That the Board abandons those portions of Park Avenue and the
Alley shown on the Plat, as described above, as public roads, pursuant to
Virginia Code § 33.1-156, et seq., subject, however to the condition that
within sixty (60) days of the date of this resolution, a consolidation plat
shall be submitted to the subdivision agent to consolidate the abandoned
rights-of-way and the adjacent properties into a single parcel, in accordance
with the subdivision ordinance of Augusta County, Virginia.
      2.    That the effect of this abandonment shall be to vest fee simple
title to the centerline of such portions of Park Avenue and the Alley so
abandoned in the owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any rights of
the public, but subject to the rights of owners of any public utility
installations which have been previously erected therein.

      3.    That a certified copy of this resolution shall be recorded in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Augusta County, Virginia, and the
Clerk of the Court shall enter this resolution upon the public land records of
the Court.


Vote was as follows:       Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                 Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                           Nays: None

Motion carried.

                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

VERONA COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY

This being the day and time advertised to consider lease to Verona Community Food
Pantry (Beverley Manor District).
96



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


VERONA COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY (cont’d)

Mr. Rosenberg advised that this was a lease proposed between the County of Augusta
and the Verona Community Food Pantry for the operation in the Shenandoah Valley Social
Services building of a food pantry to be operated by the Verona Community Food Pantry,
which is a non-stock corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The proposed lease is for an area of 8,119 square feet for a one-year term with
automatic renewal terms of one year each unless either party exercises a right to terminate
the lease prior to its automatic renewal. The proposed lease further provides for annual
rent payable by the Verona Community Food Pantry to the County in the amount of
$20,297.50 (per square foot rate of $2.50 per annum). The proposed lease further then
provides for an annual donation by the County to the Verona Community Food Pantry in an
amount equal to the rent to be charged to the Food Pantry. As explained at Monday’s Staff
Briefing, the requirements of the state code mandate that a public hearing be held by the
Board of Supervisors whenever it considers the conveyance of an interest in the real
property of the County and as a lease, this documents falls within that requirement. If it is
the Board’s intention to approve the proposed lease, it is Mr. Rosenberg’s recommendation
that approval be conditioned upon the delivery by the Verona Community Food Pantry of a
determination letter by the Internal Revenue Service concerning the 501(c) (3) status of the
Food Pantry as well as evidence of the required insurance coverage under the terms of the
lease.

Ms. Frye asked if Mr. Rosenberg has received a certificate of liability insurance. Mr.
Rosenberg said that he has received a certificate of insurance and a revised certificate of
insurance which attempted to address some of the concerns that he had raised previously.
 In his opinion, the certificate of insurance does not comply with the requirements of the
lease. He has discussed the issue with the representatives of the Food Pantry and it is his
intention to contact the insurance agent directly (as suggested by the Food Pantry
representatives) in an effort to resolve the outstanding issue. Mr. Beyeler asked what the
outstanding issue was. Mr. Rosenberg said that the terms of the lease specifically require
that the County be given thirty days prior written notice in advance of the termination or
cancellation of the liability insurance coverage to be furnished by the tenant. The certificate
of insurance that has been furnished on behalf of the Food Pantry does not meet that
requirement under the lease.

Mr. Rosenberg noted that representatives of the Food Pantry were present.

Ralph Steger, President, Board of Directors, Verona Community Food Pantry, reported that
the Food Pantry has been in business for over 15 years and has been incorporated and is
the first working board of the Food Pantry. Part of their mission is getting established as a
board and getting all the necessary policies and procedures in place for the operation of a
non-profit organization. He noted that this is a totally volunteer operation and is the largest
food pantry in the Shenandoah Valley. He stated that approximately 18% of the people
served are over the age of 65 and approximately 38% are under the age of 18. He
expressed gratitude to the Board for the opportunity given to them to work in this space
and the gift of rent. He pointed out two items in the lease that he would like changed:
                                                                                          97



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


VERONA COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY (cont’d)

   1. Paragraph 7 (D) (Common Areas) refers to their clients being unable to use the
      public restrooms that are available in that facility. He said that some of the people
      coming into the facility are elderly and have traveled a distance and need the
      convenience of a bathroom. The provision added to the lease refers to “escorting”
      them to the bathroom. He felt this to be quite humiliating. He would like Paragraph
      (D) eliminated from the lease.
   2. Paragraph 5 defines the operation of the Food Pantry and the Food Pantry is being
      denied the ability to distribute anything that is not either a food or a household
      cleaning item. He stated that churches, community groups, and clubs will donate
      such things as woolen hats, mittens and gloves for children and adults, baby quilts,
      and school supplies. Under this lease, they would be forbidden to distribute these
      items. He expressed distress of this item and would like it changed. Mr. Steger
      stated that their mission is to feed the hungry, but felt it logical to give the people
      those needed items. He suggested that only the first sentence remain in Paragraph
      5, eliminating the rest.

The Chairman declared the public hearing open.

There being no one present to speak for or against, the Chairman declared the public
hearing closed.

Mr. Bailey appreciated what the Verona Community Food Pantry is doing and has done
for a number of years. “It is a very valuable service to a segment of our community that
needs assistance.” He impressed that when the County bought this complex and started
renovating it, it was intended for the use of Augusta County services and various
departments within County government. He felt that it is the Board of Supervisors’ desire
and the School Board’s desire to have the School Board locate to this facility. If that be
the case, the area that the Food Pantry is currently occupying will be needed by the
School Board for food and equipment warehousing. He cautioned the Food Pantry that
this is not an area that the Food Pantry can plan on utilizing for the next five, ten, or
fifteen years. He noted that there were multiple tenants in that building and that one of
the problems is the restroom facilities that are not easily accessible to the warehouse
area. Traffic would not be supportive of the other activities that are going on in that
building to have pedestrian traffic to and from the restrooms. He noted that the
Government Center provides accessible bathroom facilities. He also pointed that the
Food Pantry needed to focus on what they are about—a food pantry—not a distributor of
clothing and school supplies. He pointed out to Mr. Steger that the first line of Paragraph
5 referred to “distribution of food and grocery products to needy individuals”. This did not
mean clothing and school supplies.

Mr. Bailey moved, seconded by Mr. Howdyshell, that the Board approve the Deed of
Lease, substantially in the form presented to the Board of Supervisors, with such changes
as are approved by the County Administrator and the County Attorney, and authorize
execution of the Deed of Lease by the County Administrator, subject to the following
conditions:

   1. Delivery to the County Attorney of a determination letter from the Internal Revenue
      Service confirming the 501 (c) status of the Verona Community Food Pantry.
   2. Delivery to the County Attorney of a certificate of insurance which evidences
      insurance coverage as required by the Deed of Lease.
98



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


VERONA COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY (cont’d)

Mr. Beyeler understood what Mr. Steger said about the bathroom issue and asked what
was presently being done. Mr. Steger said that their clients have been using the existing
bathrooms. He expressed that the area that is being leased has no running water or
facilities. The bathrooms are located in a hallway that is not in heavy use. Mr. Beyeler
asked John C. McGehee, Assistant County Administrator, who has made the complaint.
Mr. McGehee said that there are three agencies that rent from the County and most of the
agencies use those facilities. Some of the agencies have said that the current facilities are
not adequate.

Mr. Rosenberg clarified that the lease does provide for access to those restrooms by staff
and volunteers of the Verona Community Food Pantry. It was his understanding that the
only restrooms open to the public anywhere in the building are those in front of the Social
Services building. None of the interior restrooms are open to the public for security
reasons. As Mr. Bailey suggested, the restrooms at the Government Center are available
to patrons of the Food Pantry, but restrooms at the front of Social Services are available,
also. The limitation is that, as is the case with other patrons of the agencies in that
building, particularly with Social Services, the interior restrooms are not generally available
for public use. When Mr. Steger first raised this issue, they tried to take into
accommodation some of the concerns that he articulated. A provision was added that
allows, in an event of an emergency, for their customers to use those other restrooms that
are not generally open to the public with the assistance of an escort. He noted that this
procedure was no different than for other agencies in the building. Mr. Steger did not
believe any client in the Social Services Department was escorted to the bathroom. He
pointed out the bathrooms that the Food Pantry uses are not secured.

Mr. Beyeler expressed that volunteers of the Food Pantry are furnishing a product to the
people of Augusta County free. “You can’t ask for so much of a volunteer. If you make it
difficult for them to operate, it’s sinful.”

Ms. Frye stated that, “We could not operate like a private company, we have to be a lot
more picky about things.” She felt there should be flexibility into the lease to allow the
Food Pantry to distribute other items that are important to needy families, such as the
school supplies. She did not want to see the Food Pantry being so flexible that it would get
out of control. “It’s on County property; we have a responsibility to see that things are run
properly, that traffic is not a problem and things like that. I would hope that we could work
out something that would be a little more flexible.”

Mr. McGehee suggested that he review the current leases with USDA and Social Services.
 He explained that there are multiple agencies using the building and multiple leases
involved and he wanted to be sure that the County is abiding by these leases as agreed.
Mr. Coffield added that before the Food Pantry was involved, originally all the renters
wanted their own bathrooms. When it was leased to USDA, State Social Services, and the
County Social Services, it was decided on communal restrooms. Because of security
issues, the agencies also wanted private restrooms. The County was not able to build
three sets of separate restrooms because of the cost. Mr. McGehee mentioned that
adding restrooms to that building is difficult because the building is a slab
                                                                                          99



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


VERONA COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY (cont’d)

of concrete and it would be difficult to connect with the sewer line.

Mr. Bailey felt that the Board was losing sight of the intent of the building. “This building
is a warehouse. This building will be used as a warehouse. Until the School Board
moves its facilities here, we are trying to accommodate other agencies. We’re trying to
accommodate Verona Community Food Pantry.” He felt that the County was giving the
space to the Food Pantry. They are being charged rent, but then the County will be
donating the money back to them. It’s “I want your space, I do not want to pay for it, but
I want it on my terms.” He did not want to use taxpayer money to install facilities. He
questioned if there were sufficient restroom facilities for the occupancy of the building.
“If the Health Department started looking at this, are we going to have to start evicting
people? The greater the number of people that this agency serves, as admirable as
that is, brings more traffic in there and more of a demand for restroom facilities. We
cannot afford to equip that building with restroom facilities. It doesn’t have the heat; it
doesn’t have the air-conditioning; it doesn’t have a whole lot of things that an office
building, or a retail outlet, would normally be equipped with. It is a warehouse. Now, if
we want to go to a lot of extra expense to accommodate the current lessees, then so be
it. But I think this is an improper use. “

Mr. Beyeler asked Mr. McGehee the location of the bathrooms. Mr. McGehee stated
that USDA had their own, but that the State and Local Social Services use the main
restrooms there. These are the same restrooms that Smith had when they used the
facility. Mr. Beyeler stated, “To me, we’re getting very petty when we tell people they
can’t use the bathroom. Let’s not forget this building doesn’t belong to this Board. This
building was bought by taxpayers’ money in Augusta County, and I happen to be one
that voted to buy that building when we bought the rest of it. We need to be good
stewards of the buildings and property, but let’s never forget this property does not
belong to us.” Mr. Howdyshell stated that the Board is not denying access to the
restroom. “We are just showing them where it is to keep security for the other people
there. The USDA has a sign clearly posted out there ‘Public Restrooms Are Not in This
Building’. They tell you where they are.”

Ms. Sorrells asked if it would be possible to keep Paragraph D, which says that people
ought to use the public restrooms and keep the part about “if there is an emergency”;
and strike the last half of the sentence that requires that they be escorted. “If there is an
emergency, let the people have a little dignity, but encourage them to use the proper
restrooms if it is not an emergency.” She asked Mr. Steger, as far as having items
beyond the food, the items such as the mittens, hats, and the school supplies, if they
were regular or intermittent. Mr. Steger stated that at certain times of the year—like
school supplies, were received in the last week or so of August; the others—scarves,
hats, and mittens, etc., would probably be for about two weeks. Quilts come in only in
the wintertime in January and February from the Quilting Group. He noted that the
Food Pantry had already eliminated the distribution of clothing. When they were
negotiating the contract and that came up, they went ahead and stopped that
distribution and did not intend to get back into the clothing distribution business. As
regards to the restrooms, I believe that Ms. Sorrells’ proposal would be satisfactory.
Mr. Steger stated that he was not requesting that new restrooms be built anywhere in
the building, but was only asking to be able to, on the rare occasion when it is needed,
have people to use the existing bathroom. He noted that the Social Services people did
use the bathroom, but that it was only the men that work in the Social Services that are
using the bathrooms that they were talking about. The women have a private bathroom
that is not labeled as being a bathroom.
100



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


VERONA COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY (cont’d)

Chairman Coleman restated that a motion has been made and properly seconded. He
reiterated the primary issues of concern—use of the bathroom and ability to distribute
other items other than the food items.

Mr. Beyeler asked Mr. Rosenberg if the term of the lease concerning termination upon
30 days notice had been reviewed. Mr. Rosenberg stated that he had not looked at it.

Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Ms. Frye, that the motion be amended to include
revisions made by Ms. Sorrells reflecting that “escort” to the bathroom be deleted from
Paragraph 7.D., that seasonal items can be distributed, and that the lease notice of
termination be 60 days.

The Chairman then called for a vote on the amendment.

Vote was as follows:       Yeas: Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler, Coleman and Pyles

                           Nays: Howdyshell and Bailey

Motion to amend carried.

                                        * * *
Vote on motion as amended.

Vote was as follows:       Yeas: Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler, Coleman and Pyles

                           Nays: Bailey and Howdyshell

Motion carried.

                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                             (END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS)
                               * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC

Chairman Coleman explained the process for public comments and asked that speakers to
be respectful to others.

Tom Nelson advised that he had received correspondence dated August 3rd suggesting
that the Middlebrook Agricultural Forestal District was going to expire on December 9th. He
was provided information from staff in how to proceed. He mentioned that 5200+ acres are
in this district (50 parcels) which cannot be divided except among family members. While
going through the process of renewal, he studied the new conservation easement process,
and questioned if this were not the better program. He decided not to pursue extending the
Agricultural Forestal District. He made the following recommendations: 1) Allow
landowners to withdraw from the Agricultural Forestal
                                                                                      101



      September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC (cont’d)

District for the purpose of obtaining a conservation easement; 2) Consider appraisal
differences in the four types of zoning; and 3) Remove $500 Special Use Permit fee for
establishing an Agricultural Forestal District.

Ed Clymore and Dianne Moody expressed support for the Special Use Permits for Truck
Service Facilities Ordinance and asked for the Board to authorize advertising for a public
hearing to receive community input. They expressed their concerns on traffic safety. Mr.
Bailey asked if they thought this only concerned the Greenville area. Ms. Moody said this
could happen in any neighborhood.

Lawrence Campbell, of Howardsville Turnpike (Courtney Woods), again expressed
disagreement with staff’s response concerning nearby housing development and
stormwater runoff. Mr. Campbell stated that 30+ houses have been built and questioned it
when there were only supposed to be one house built per year. Mr. Beyeler asked Mr.
Cobb to provide a plat of that property showing how it was divided. Mr. Cobb stated that
this had been discussed with Mr. Campbell but would be happy to provide the plat so that
Mr. Beyeler could review it with Mr. Campbell.

Donald Snead expressed concerns of the ditch on Cambridge Drive, across from the
ballfield in Stuarts Draft and asked about the erosion and sediment policy. Chairman
Coleman said that this policy could be shared with Mr. Snead. Pictures of the drainage
problem were circulated. Chairman Coleman promised to follow-up on this issue.

                      * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD

The Board discussed the following:

Ms. Sorrells: Agricultural Forestal District – appreciated Mr. Nelson’s comments and will
look into those issues. “I think our Ag Forestal Districts are an important part of this
Board’s effort to strengthen agriculture in the County and we need to make those as strong
as possible.”

Mr. Howdyshell:
      1. Emergency Services Meeting – List of applications for Fire and Rescue Fund
         Grant Program was given to him. Asked if it was the Board’s wishes that he
         remain on that committee. It was the consensus of the Board that Mr.
         Howdyshell remain on the committee. Mr. Howdyshell suggested that this
         review would be done October 11th.
      2. Cooperative Living Magazine presented an award to Fort Defiance High School,
         voted the “Most School Spirit”.

Ms. Frye: Agricultural Forestal District – Agree that conservation easement is the best way
to preserve land. Agricultural Forestal Districts serve a purpose for someone who wants to
have their land off-limits for development along with adjoining properties for a certain
amount of time. Land in Agricultural Forestal Districts is protected from the encroachment
of development because that land is grouped together in one area. She noted that the
$500 fee pays for several public advertisements and time and postage for mailing.

Mr. Beyeler:

   1. Agricultural Forestal District – asked that Mr. Rosenberg research and determine if
      the Board could consider a 6-12-month extension if the property owners agreed.
102



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD (cont’d)

      He asked Mr. Cobb if they would have to re-apply. Mr. Cobb said they would have
      to re-apply. The Board can grant approval for extension by resolution. He noted
      that many property owners did not wish to renew because if the property owners
      were not in an Agricultural Forestal District, their property would have more value.
   2. Cambridge Drive issue – expressed concerns with staff not correcting erosion and
      sediment problem. Chairman Coleman stated that he would follow-up to assess the
      situation.

                              * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

VILLAGE ON GOOSE CREEK, PHASE 2 – MASTER PLAN

The Board considered Village on Goose Creek, Phase 2, Master Plan, contains 188
Townhouse lots; 6 Limited Business lots, located on the south side of Goose Creek
Road (Route 636) and southeast of AMC (Wayne District). The Planning Commission
recommends approval.

Ms. Earhart displayed an overview of the Master Plan and noted that it has public water
and public sewer. The Plan meets the technical requirements of the ordinance.

Ms. Sorrells moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board approve the request.

Vote was as follows:       Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                 Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                           Nays: None

Motion carried.

                            * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ROUTE 608 TURN LANE

The Board considered contribution to VDOT in the amount of $25,000 to initiate design
for the proposed Route 608 turn lane (at Route 250). Funding Source: Wayne
Infrastructure Account (#80000-8017-48).

Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator, advised that, after Augusta County purchased
adjacent property, VDOT has determined that a turn lane is feasible. There will be
engineering expenses regarding drainage and utilities, including a major gas line at an
approximate cost of $300,000. Funding for an initial design is to be considered tonight.
 Chairman Coleman has indicated his desire to use his infrastructure account in the
amount of $25,000. Chairman Coleman reiterated his support.

Ms. Sorrells moved, seconded by Mr. Howdyshell, that the Board approve the request.
                                                                                      103



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


ROUTE 608 TURN LANE (cont’d)

Vote was as follows:        Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                  Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                            Nays: None

Motion carried.

                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FIRE TRAINING CENTER

The Board considered amendment to the Mill Place Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions with respect to the property to be used for the Fire Training Center.

Mr. Rosenberg advised that this matter is before the Board in connection with the
development of the Fire Training Center on property adjacent to the Augusta County
Government Center. The property in question was originally intended as a part of Mill
Place Commerce Park and, therefore, in 2003, when the Commerce Park was
subjected to a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, this property was included as
a part of the property subject to the Declaration and all of the requirements and
conditions concerning improvements in Mill Place Commerce Park (i.e., architectural
review requirements, design guidelines, landscaping requirements, etc.). That was
done with the expectation that the property in question would be sold to parties other
than the County for development of sites in the Commerce Park. With the change in
status of the property in question to a use by the County itself, it is necessary to remove
the property from the requirements applicable to other lots in Mill Place Commerce
Park. A Second Amendment to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions has been
provided to the Board for review. This Second Amendment releases approximately 28
acres adjacent to Technology Drive from the provisions of the Declaration of Covenants
and Restrictions.

Mr. Bailey moved, seconded by Mr. Howdyshell, that the Board approve the Second
Amendment to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, substantially in the form
presented to the Board of Supervisors, with such changes as are approved by the
County Administrator and the County Attorney, and authorize execution of the Second
Amendment by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.

Vote was as follows:        Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                  Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                            Nays: None

Motion carried.

                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TRUCK SERVICE FACILITY – SPECIAL USE PERMIT

The Board considered authorization to advertise ordinance to amend the Zoning
Ordinance of Augusta County, Virginia, to require special use permits for truck service
facilities in General Business (GB) Districts.
104



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


TRUCK SERVICE FACILITY – SPECIAL USE PERMIT (cont’d)

Mr. Rosenberg advised that a proposed ordinance is before the Board for its
consideration. This ordinance would impose a requirement for Special Use Permits in
General Business Districts for truck service facilities. This draft ordinance was prepared
at the direction of the Board some time ago to work with Supervisor Sorrells and
Community Development Department staff in an effort to create a set of standards that
would be applicable to facilities which are principally intended to serve for the repair or
maintenance of trucks, tractor trailers, and other large vehicles. As explained at the
Monday Staff Briefing, Mr. Rosenberg has provided a definition of truck service facility
and included such facilities as one of several transportation-related businesses, which
are subject to Special Use Permit requirements in General Business Districts. He did
not undertake to establish new standards that would apply to truck service facilities, but,
instead, by including them as one of several transportation-related businesses, the
existing requirements that were criteria that applied to the transportation-related
businesses, generally, in General Business Districts would now apply to truck service
facilities as that term would be defined in the County Code.

Ms. Frye asked if this would affect existing businesses related to transportation if they
wanted to expand. Mr. Rosenberg explained that if there was an existing business that
would be considered to be a lawful non-conforming use (in compliance with the zoning
ordinance at the time of its initial establishment) - it would have been lawfully created. If
the ordinance is adopted, the zoning ordinance would have changed; therefore, the
existing business would be considered a lawful non-conforming use. In order for a
lawful non-conforming use to expand, it would require the approval of a Special Use
Permit by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Bailey made the following statement:

                Before the Board considers this matter and discusses it further, I would like make
       a statement for the purposes of State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act. I
       am an officer or employee of Augusta County, Virginia, who is required to declare my
       interest pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-3112. I am also an employee of Wilson Trucking
       Corporation and I receive a salary in excess of $10,000 annually as an employee.

                Wilson Trucking Corporation may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or
       indirect benefit or detriment as a result of the action of the Board of Supervisors.
       Therefore, for the purposes of the act, I have a personal interest in this transaction.
       Wilson Trucking Corporation is a member of a group of three or more businesses, the
       members of which are affected by this transaction.

                I am able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively and in the public
       interest. Therefore, I intend to participate in the transaction as permitted by the Act. I
       have also filed a written declaration of interest as required by the Act.

Ms. Sorrells clarified that, in reference to Ms. Frye’s question, it would apply only to
those facilities that are in General Business Districts.

Mr. Bailey felt that there were a lot of “existing” facilities in General Business and
Industrial areas currently that provide truck service such as trucking company
                                                                                                        105



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


TRUCK SERVICE FACILITY – SPECIAL USE PERMIT (cont’d)

operations, truck dealerships, automobile/truck dealerships, motor home dealerships,
that would apply to this definition. He stated that this definition did not specifically define
other large vehicles or trucks. Mr. Bailey made the following comment:

       I don’t know that there has really been a problem. I think there is one area of the County
       that residents perceive to be a problem, which may be a problem. It may not be a
       problem. The area is zoned for the use. I think the only thing that we’re doing is trying to
       create an additional layer of bureaucracy to regulate something that really hasn’t been a
       problem countywide that will try to limit any expansion of facilities in one area of the
       County. As I had said in the Staff Briefing, so many residents of this County depend
       upon the trucking industry for their livelihood, and most of the trucking industry has repair
       facilities—service facilities. Those facilities may or may not need to be expanded or
       altered. Yes, it is not going to affect them as they currently are, but if they make any
       improvements, expansions, they are going to have to go back to the Board of Zoning
       Appeals for a Special Use Permit. We are creating a lot issues for a problem that really
       hasn’t raised itself. I don’t see why this is necessary. I certainly don’t think what has
       been proposed properly addresses a number of issues. ‘Services principally to trucks,
       tractor trailers, and other large vehicles.’ If we are going to get down to it, we need to
       start having some type of definitions. I don’t know that anybody that originated this
       thought about motor homes, campers. What is a truck? If you go by the definition in the
       motor vehicle code, I think any vehicle that is registered in excess of 7500 pounds is a
       truck and has to go across the scales. That doesn’t necessarily happen, and thank
       goodness people have common sense, or pickup trucks would be going across the
       scales all the time. A truck is not a truck unless there is a definition. I don’t see why
       there is a need because there hasn’t been a problem. I don’t think even if there is a
       perceived need, that we need to go forward with this proposed ordinance because I find
       it lacking.”

Chairman Coleman expressed need to determine what the pleasure is of the Board and
asked Ms. Sorrells to put a motion before the Board for further discussion.

Mr. Rosenberg clarified that, while Ms. Sorrells was the origin of the issue and
requested the Board’s permission to have him work on the issue, as mentioned
previously, it is countywide in nature. It is not tailored to any particular property in her
district. Nothing in the ordinance is directed towards a specific use or a specific region
of the County.

Ms. Sorrells moved, seconded by Ms. Frye, that the Board authorize advertisement of
the ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance of Augusta County, Virginia, to require
special use permits for truck service facilities in General Business (GB) Districts.

Ms. Sorrells stated that she has not done an exhaustive check into the zoning in
particular areas, but Wilson Trucking, Crosby, Houff, FedEx, and IDM are all General
Industrial; Edwards and Virginia Truck Center are General Business. She made the
following statement:

       The issue before us is the revision of the existing special use permit and is not about trucks
       or the trucking industry. We all know how important trucks are to our everyday life and that
       the trucking industry is a valuable segment of our local economy. This is about smart,
       compatible land use and community safety. And, although, my present concern is an
       unhealthy situation at the Greenville interchange, the implementation of this new special use
       permit will add a little bit of insurance for the rest of the communities in the county – an
       insurance that there will be an extra layer of scrutiny in order to insure that businesses and
       communities are compatible with each other. It is a layer of protection that provides peace of
       mind for both the businesses and the communities.

       The issuance of Special Use Permits to insure this compatibility is not new to the county.
       We have been doing this as a standard practice since 1947. Currently we issue 70 to 80
       SUP permits per year for a variety of businesses in a variety of situations. The
       Community Development and the BZA examine the application, ask for conditions if
       necessary to
106



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


TRUCK SERVICE FACILITY – SPECIAL USE PERMIT (cont’d)

       insure compatibly, and then the BZA can decide on whether or not to issue the permit. A
       special use permit is in no way designed to keep a business away or to keep it from
       expanding. Rather it insures that things are done in the best manner for a positive future.

       We have an ongoing truck traffic issue in Greenville at the intersection of Rt. 340/11/I-81.
       It was everyone’s hope that once the truck plaza was up and operating for a period of
       time that things would smooth out. In no way has that happened. If you figure how much
       has been spent by the taxpayers publicly and privately to address the situation it
       represents a clear loss: businesses, private landowners, and the schools have suffered
       expensive and continuous losses. Within the last six months the bank in Greenville again
       had its drive through damaged by an illegal truck turnaround. We have replaced signs
       and guardrails. As a small example: Estimate by VDOT to replace one "no truck
       turnaround sign"...$157.00 x 55 (in one 12-month period) = $8,635. This needs to be
       multiplied again by 6 years. Estimate to replace a damaged section of guardrail on the
       exit ramp $6150.00 x 3 = $18,450 – that’s in the last 18 months alone.

       VDOT has spent money to add signs, change signs, redesign signs. I have put up one
       streetlight and I am getting cost estimates on a second one.
       --I spent $10,000 on a study of the problems.

       But the bottom line is more than about money. It is about the everyday hassle and deep
       concerns for the safety of our community. It’s more than just about the truck fires, the
       trash, the hazardous materials spilled, it’s about SAFETY. We have had several tragic
       accidents. And, while accidents do happen anywhere, we have been working hard to
       lower the odds with very little success at this intersection. On everyone’s mind are the 13
       fully loaded school buses and 2 special needs vehicles that pass through that
       intersection twice every day as well as the students in their own cars going to and from
       school, to and from events, to and from proms.

       What is before you tonight is just one small piece in a very complicated problem that we are
       working hard on addressing. The facts are that hundreds of trucks pass through that
       intersection every day and we have a safety issue that is a long way from being solved. In
       the meantime, as the truck facility SUP is currently worded, other truck-related businesses
       could come into that property – or any other business zoned property in the county by right
       and without a second look at compatibility and safety issues – the very reason for the truck
       service facility SUP in the first place was to look at compatibility and safety issues. We don’t
       need to add to a problem we have not yet solved.

       I realize that there are some concerns about adding another layer of red tape to some
       businesses, but I think the well-being of our communities is worth that time and effort.
       However, I am not asking you to decide that tonight. All I am asking tonight is that you vote to
       take this ordinance revision to a public hearing. That way we as a board will more fully be
       able to hear from the people of the community on both sides of this issue and then we can
       debate and decide the issue with their full public input. That is all I am asking tonight is we
       give the people a chance to talk about this and to be heard.

Mr. Howdyshell did not agree with the ordinance in regards to the definition of a truck. “I
think we are opening up a can of worms that is going to be tough to deal with.”

Mr. Beyeler felt that this ordinance would not solve the problem at Pilot. “Additional
regulations is not the answer. A proper site plan and approval to start with was the
answer.”
                                                                                         107



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


TRUCK SERVICE FACILITY – SPECIAL USE PERMIT (cont’d)

Ms. Sorrells asked Mr. Rosenberg if there were a way to further clarify the definition of
trucks. Mr. Rosenberg said he would be happy to make that effort. He informed the
Board that he started working with the existing definition in the zoning ordinance of truck
stops which uses the same phrasing as indicated in the proposed ordinance - “trucks,
tractor trailers, or other large vehicles.” Given the fact that that provision existed without
further definition in the zoning ordinance and had been subject to historical
interpretation by the Zoning Administrator, and implemented in the past, he carried
forward that same phrasing in the proposed ordinance. He suggested looking at
defining those terms with greater specificity not only for the purposes of tonight’s
ordinance, but also for the purpose of other provisions of the zoning ordinance where
that same phrase is used.

Vote was as follows:        Yeas: Sorrells and Frye

                            Nays: Bailey, Howdyshell, Beyeler, Pyles and Coleman

Motion failed.

                              * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

The Board considered proposal to establish five endowed scholarships – one for each
High School.

Mr. Coffield advised that the Board received a presentation at Monday’s Staff Briefing
from Dr. Perkins and a member of the foundation, Dr. Bruce Bowman. They have
undertaken a capital campaign for endowments and have asked for the Board’s
guidance and consent of establishing endowments for each high school. They indicated
any consideration would be appreciated. The Chairman and Board asked that this be
placed under regular agenda for further discussion.

Chairman Coleman had indicated at the Staff Briefing that he was interested in finding a
way to have the Board to support deserving students from the five high schools by
making available an annual scholarship through Blue Ridge Community College’s
“Securing Our Endowment Campaign”.       This would signify the County’s long-term
commitment to the community.

Mr. Howdyshell, with the help of Mr. Coffield, did research and determined that the
County already contributes $5,000 annually towards the Foundation and contribute
$68,000 towards capital. Out of $184 million County budget, 74% goes to primary and
secondary education.

Mr. Howdyshell moved, seconded by Mr. Bailey, that the Board review this request at
the next budget cycle.

Mr. Beyeler believes in endowments, but feels that it should be done personally, not by
taxpayers.

Ms. Sorrells expressed the importance of Blue Ridge Community College turning back
well-educated students into the community who could then be better contributors to
society. “When you look at a one-time investment to do five students a year forever . . .
that is under $3 for each person in Augusta County one time to make sure that we lift up
the community as long as Blue Ridge Community College is there.”
108



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE (cont’d)

Chairman Coleman suggested doing a $50,000 endowment as follows:

                       BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
                             $50,000 Endowment
$50,000 would generate $2,500 annually
       Buffalo Gap High School           $ 500
       Fort Defiance High School         $ 500
       Riverheads High School            $ 500
       Stuarts Draft High School         $ 500
       Wilson Memorial High School       $ 500
                                         $2,500
Each school would annually evaluate academic and income criteria to select
Blue Ridge Community College recipient.
Funding Source:    Infrastructure Account
       Beverley Manor             #80000-8011-30      $ 7,142
       Middle River               #80000-8012-43      $ 7,143
       North River                #80000-8013-21      $ 7,143
       Pastures                   #80000-8014-48      $ 7,143
       Riverheads                 #80000-8015-36      $ 7,143
       South River                #80000-8016-39      $ 7,143
       Wayne                      #80000-8017-49      $ 7,143
                                                      $50,000

Mr. Howdyshell added that, after discussion tonight of people in need (Food Pantry),
this issue needed to be reviewed at budget.

Mr. Beyeler expressed that the Board supports Blue Ridge Community College.
Chairman Coleman agreed. Ms. Sorrells suggested that the Board consider the
$50,000 donation and then review at budget. Mr. Pyles did not feel that this should
come from infrastructure accounts.

Vote was as follows:       Yeas: Howdyshell, Frye, Beyeler, Bailey and Pyles

                           Nays: Sorrells and Coleman

Motion carried.

                            * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY COUNCIL

The Board considered recommendation of Agricultural Task Force regarding creation of
Agriculture Industry Council.

Mr. Coffield advised that this was discussed at the Monday Staff Briefing and distributed
a proposal to the Board.
                                                                                        109



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY COUNCIL (cont’d)

Mr. Beyeler did not feel a list was needed. He felt that each Board member could make
a suitable appointment. Ms. Sorrells agreed. She felt a template was already in place.
 Mr. Howdyshell felt that the liaisons were not needed for all the meetings, but would be
helpful to have an on-call basis. Chairman Coleman understood that the liaisons would
come in as requested.

Mr. Rosenberg clarified that this was for guidance purposes. He reminded the Board
that there was a draft ordinance to establish not only a Purchase of Development Rights
Program, but also the Agriculture Industry Council. It would be that ordinance that
would specifically set forth the composition of the Council. If it is the Board’s desire that
the composition of the Council be limited to seven individuals appointed by the Board of
Supervisors, that is what the ordinance can state. Approval of this proposal does not
establish the Council; that would require an enactment of an ordinance, which will
reflect whatever is decided.

Chairman Coleman clarified that what is to be considered is the number of members to
serve staggered terms. It was the consensus of the Board that seven members are to
be appointed by the seven magisterial district supervisors and the ordinance would not
mention the other groups. The Agriculture Director will be the Executor Director of the
Council. Mr. Pyles asked what the compensation would be. Mr. Coffield said that
compensation would be followed under the current Boards and Commissions procedure
which would be a Class III, which is $50 for meetings and $25 for work sessions. Ms.
Sorrells asked if there would be a limit of terms that members could serve. Mr. Beyeler
agreed with term limits. Mr. Howdyshell asked how to determine which members would
serve two-year terms and which would serve four-year terms. Mr. Bailey suggested that
the magisterial districts be alphabetized and the districts 1, 3, and 5 serve two-year
terms. The Board agreed.

                              * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

RIVERHEADS AREA – WATER TANK

The Board considered feasibility study in an amount not to exceed $27,000. Funding
Source: Riverheads Infrastructure Account (#80000-8015-35).

Mr. Coffield advised that the Board received a proposal and presentation from the
Service Authority at Monday’s Staff Briefing and that the Board directed to place on
regular agenda for further discussion and consideration.

Ms. Sorrells commented that, in discussion with Mr. Rosenberg, he is investigating
whether a public entity like Augusta County can be involved with a Privilege Fee
Agreement. In the original proposal of $27,000, it was specifically to draft a Privilege
Fee Agreement, she broadened that to have Mr. Rosenberg investigate the legalities of
the Privilege Fee and explore other possible funding scenarios as part of that feasibility
study that would also include the geotechnical and engineering services.

Mr. Pyles pointed out that the Service Authority is willing to work with people and
respond to their request. This was not a Service Authority request. He wanted it clear
that infrastructure is being put in where there is agricultural zoning. “If we start putting
in that money and later when zonings come up, people would think it is a foregoing
conclusion that this would be rezoned. There could be some repercussions from that.
The Service Authority does not have money for this. I want to be sure that people are
willing to fund that sort of money.”
110



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


RIVERHEADS AREA – WATER TANK (cont’d)

Ms. Sorrells added that the customers of the Service Authority should not be paying for
fire flow. As far as the zoning, the majority of the property is zoned Residential. The
two subdivisions that are currently in planning and the school would be the majority and
it would also help the Foxfield subdivision, which is already in existence.

Ms. Sorrells moved, seconded by Mr. Howdyshell, that the Board approve the request.

Vote was as follows:           Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                     Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                               Nays: None
Motion carried.
                     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TEAVERTON TRAFFIC CALMING

The Board considered resolution to develop a Traffic Calming Plan with VDOT.

Mr. Coffield said that this was discussed at the Monday Staff Briefing. There has been
a petition reviewed by VDOT. A process has been identified by the State on how to go
forward. A resolution needs to be approved by the Board to initiate a Planning
Committee to investigate the guidelines of the State and come before the Board for
approval of its recommendations.

Ms. Sorrells moved, seconded by Mr. Bailey, that the Board adopt the following
resolution:
                                         RESOLUTION
                                       ROUTES 1360/1365
                                     TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN

          WHEREAS, an application was received from residents of the Teaverton community to erect
traffic calming devices; and

        WHEREAS, the VDOT Guidelines for approval and installation of Residential Traffic Calming
devices require a resolution from the local governing body; and

      WHEREAS, the Citizen petition and appropriate supporting documentation has been received by
VDOT; and

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Augusta County Board of Supervisors
partnering with the petitioners and VDOT hereby request that the State assist in developing a “Traffic
Calming Plan” with appropriate citizen and governmental bodies for Routes 1360 and 1365.

Vote was as follows:           Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                     Bailey, Coleman and Pyles
                               Nays: None

Motion carried.
                                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                                                                                     111



       September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


TRAFFIC CONTROL

The Board considered Sheriff’s request to purchase Traffic Counter device. Funding
Source: Account #31020-8002 in the amount of $1,602.

Mr. Coffield advised that he shared with the Board at Monday’s Staff Briefing a request
by the Sheriff. In addition to running radar, having a speed box, and providing service in
monitoring traffic, this service has been valuable to the Board and VDOT. The current
equipment is limited to two lanes. This request would provide an upgrade for four lanes.

Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Ms. Sorrells, that the Board approve the request.

Vote was as follows:       Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                 Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                           Nays: None

Motion carried.

                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Howdyshell moved, seconded by Ms. Sorrells, that the Board approve the following
consent agenda:

MINUTES
Approved minutes of the following meetings:
   • Joint Meeting, Wednesday, September 13, 2006
   • Regular Meeting, Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Vote was as follows:       Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                 Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                           Nays: None

Motion carried.

                            * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                          (END OF CONSENT AGENDA)
                            * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF
Staff discussed the following:

   1. Administration office renovations – File room will be renovated for two offices:
      Ag Director and Environmental Manager; file room will be relocated at the current
      library; repositioning of Ms. Austin’s desk.
   2. Courts meeting – Meeting with judges on Friday, September 29th.
   3. General Assembly (Transportation) – Mr. McGehee distributed Pete Giesen’s
      Report to the Board.
   4. Household Hazardous Waste Day – Saturday, September 30th, 8:30 a.m. to
      12:00 noon at the Government Center (old gas pump area). Distributed
      information on how to dispose latex paint.


                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
112



         September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.


ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the Board, Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by
Mr. Bailey, the Board adjourned subject to call of the Chairman.

Vote was as follows:      Yeas: Howdyshell, Sorrells, Frye, Beyeler,
                                Bailey, Coleman and Pyles

                          Nays: None

Motion carried.

                           * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *




______________________          ______________________________
      Chairman                        County Administrator




H:/minutes9-27min.06

				
Fighting Yank Fighting Yank
About These documents were primarily taken from government websites as part of a personal project to archive political and governmental documents on Docstoc. Please email gov.archive.project@gmail.com for prompt removal if you discover a copyrighted document. Thank you!