Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-01June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 271 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 1, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:32 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Con~nunity Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 4.1 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recoded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses (Stat~ Compensation Board) for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, for the Month of May, 1988, were approved as presented. Item 4.2. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative - Notice dated May 13, 1988, that application has been filed with the State Corporation Commission to amend its terms and conditions to allow limited repairs on the water heaters of members who participate in the Load Management Program; received as informa- tion. ~ Item 4.3. Virginia Power - Letter dated May 25, 1988, from Mr. David W. Roop, District Manager, explaining why Virginia Power has asked the State Corporation Commission to grant an eight percent increase in revenues effec- tive July 1, 1988; received as information. Item 4.4. Division of Historic Landmarks - Letter dated May 19, 1988, concerning an interest in including CLIFTON on the Virginia Landmarks Regis- ter; received as information. Item 4.5. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for May 17, 1988, was received as information. Item 4.6. Copy of letter from Jon C. DuFresne, District Traffic Engi- neer, dated May 17, 1988, to Ms. Valerie Grottenthaler, concerning installa- tion of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 1520 (Hollymead Drive) on Route 29 North; received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to partially vacate a plat entitled "Plat of Lots 3 10" Northwood~i. Neighborhood, so as to relocate right-of-way on Lots 9 and 10. (This hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1988.) 272 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 2) Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report as set out in full in the minutes of April 28, 1988. Mr. St. John presented a legal perspective on the applicant's request. He said this was a legislative decision the Board could make; there was no law telling the Board which action to take. He pointed to the plat dated Janu- ary 18, 1979, showing the Northwood subdivision as approved by the Planning Commission. He said the surveyor, Mr. R. O. Snow drew a setback line around the cul-de-sac which differed from the setback required b~ the Zoning Ordi- nance. Despite this mistake, the plat was approved by the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. St. John then indicated the plats for lots ni~e and ten, dated February 23, 1987, which shows the house sites behind the setback line. Although the sites do not violate the setback line as shown on the plat, the setback line itself is wrong and does not meet the requirements on the Zoning Ordinance, he said. A building permit was issued, the houses were built and approved by County building inspectors. Mr. St. John said a second mistake compounded the problems caused by Mr. Snow drawing the wrong setback line. He pointed to the plats for lots nine and ten and showed the Board where the cul-de-sac was supposed to be built and where it was actually built. If either the setback was drawn correctly, or the cul-de-sac was built as platted, Mr. St. John said, neither the house on lot nine nor the one on lot ten would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He said the compounding of these mistakes created the violation. If the Board adopts an ordinance to vacate part of the plat of lots 3~10, Mr. St. John said, this ordinance would amend the plat to show the cui~-de-sac as it was actually built, with a setback line that complied with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said some of the opponents to this application were con- cerned that adopting the ordinance may make it more difficult to have the subdivision road dedicated for public use. He noted that the road has a right-of-way of only 30 feet and said more right-of-way may have to be dedi- cated. He asked what effect dedicating this additional ~ight-of-way would have on the other lots along this road. Mr. Burgess sai41 it would have no effect on houses already built, but he thought lots five, six and seven, which were barely two acres each, would probably diminish to under two acres if the owners granted the easement necessary for the road to be dedicated to public use. Mr. BUrgess said another problem the Board might consider is what to do about the road frontage of lots nine and ten. He said the subdivision was approved in 1979, and the Zoning Ordinance then did not address road frontage, only lot width. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any other legal issues would remain unresolved if the ordinance vacating the plat were adopted. Mr. St. John said he did not think there would be any more zoning violations. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Burgess, with his point about road frontage, raised the question of whether lots nine and ten would have to meet current zoning regulations or the regula- tions in effect when the subdivision was approved. Mr. Bain asked if approving the ordinance would caus~ lot eight to lose a sliver of property, a sliver that was not included in theiplatted cul-de-sac. He said this ordinance could be construed as a taking. Mt. St. John said he did not notice this problem. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Cul-de-sac could shown as it was actually built on lots nine and ten and as platted for the rest of the lots. Mr. St. John said this could be done. At 7:55 P.M., Mr. Way opened the public hearing and ~sked the applicant, Mr. William H. Bailey to address the Board. i Mr. Bailey said he bought lots nine and ten at the end of the cul-de-sac without knowing that there would be any problem. When helbegan building on the lots, he realized that there was a problem, he said, 4o he came to the County and asked for help. He said County representativeM told him the road bond had been released and the road was accepted as it was built, so he could measure his setback from the edge of the pavement. Mr. BAiley said it was critical that he locate the house on lot ten as close to ~he setback line as possible in order to place the drainfield in a location t~at would not require pumping. He said Mr. R. O. Snow staked off the location Of the house, the June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 273 County inspectors inspected the site, and issued a building permit. He said he also built a house on lot nine, sold the house to someone who sold the house again a year later, all with no problem whatsoever. In December 1987, Mr. Bailey said, Mr. David LaRue, the owner of lot eight in Northwood, lodged a complaint with the County Zoning Administrator concerning the locations of the houses on lots nine and ten. He said Mr. Burgess advised him to get a variance through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and waived the fees for the process. He said the BZA denied the request in the hope that he and his neighbors could work out their problems. He said he does not think the BZA realized that he still needed a variance, regardless of how well he and his neighbors cooperated. He said he appeared before the BZA once again, and once again his request was appealed. He said he has taken this matter to court and was told that the court was not the proper place for this request to be heard. He said the Board was his last resort. He said he believes the opposition to his request has become a vendetta against him personally and has centered more on the road than on the setback. He said his neighbors want a state-maintained road, which this road was never intended to be. If the road did become a state-maintained road, he said, the additional right-of-way that would be needed would make at least seven of the lots cease to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. He said he is becoming very frustrated. Every time his request is denied or deferred, his neighbors grow more and more certain that they have a legitlimate reason to harass him. He said the,mistakes made by the County have cost him a lot of time, effort and money and a damaged reputation. He said he has a buyer for the house he built on lot ten, but the buyer will not close until this problem is resolved. He asked that the Board do whatever it can to help him. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Bailey when he learned of the problem with the plats. Mr. Bailey said a neighbor told one Of his workmen after they had dug the foundation for one of the houses that the house was too close to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lindstrom asked if he knew 6f the problem after he received a building permit. Mr. Bailey said "no", and added that he came to the Planning staff before he received the building permit'and told them that the cul-de-sac did not seem to be in the right place. He said he thought as long as he stayed outside the setback line drawn on the plat, his houses would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom sa~d he wanted to make sure that Mr. Bailey informed the County staff of the probIem in a way that would alert them to what his neighbors told Mr. Bailey, that ~he house was too close to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bailey said he discussed this problem with the County before he talked with the neighboring landowners. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Bailey when he closed on the lots. Mr. Bailey said he thought it was in 1985. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Bailey when he first realized there was a problem and came to the County. When he came to get his building permits, he said. Mr. Bowie asked if he men~iioned the setback problem to the County staff. Mr. Bailey said "no", because he did not realize then that there was a setback problem. Mr. Bowie asked what problem Mr. Bailey did mention to the staff. Mr. Bailey said he was concerned that the cul-de-sac was not where it was supposed to be. He said the setback was supposed to be 90 feet from the center of the cul-de-sac and~ he could not locate the center. Mr. Bailey said he was told as long the house was built 75 feet from the edge of the pavement, it would be within the regulations. Mr, Bowie asked when Mr. Bailey began construction. He answered that he began sometime in 1986 and finished in the summer of 1987. Mr. Page Williams, an attorney for the Bailey Construction Company, addressed the Board. He said his client now Owned lot ten; Dr. and Mrs. David Hill now owned lot nine. He said his client Seeks to have the access easement vacated for only lots nine and ten, not lot eight. He said the situation his client finds himself in is a textual violation of the Zoning Ordinance; it is not a violation that is readily visible from either the records in the Clerk's office or from a look at the properties and houses themselves. He said his client did not develop Northwood subdivision; a company called Country Living did. Mr. Williams said Mr. Bailey had no connection with this company or with Mr. John Girdler, who ran the company. He said his client has pointed to a host of e=rors made by the County staff, 274 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting. (Page 4) including the approval of the subdivision plat with the setback drawn incor- rectly. Mr. Williams said Mr. Don Gaston, Senior Planner, wrote a memorandum to Mr. Girdler, dated December 8, 1978, concerning the preliminary and final plats for the Northwood subdivision. After reviewing the preliminary plat, Mr. Gaston wrote "can alter building setback to 75 feet from right-of-way line or 90 feet from centerline" and "cul-de-sac needs radius of 50 feet". Mr. Williams said the Board cannot ask his client to seek redress from Mr. Snow, since Mr. Snow would just point to this memorandum and say he was relying on information from the County. Mr. Williams said there was a difference of 35 feet between the setback as it ought to have been and the setback as it was. He said the house on lot ten was 33 feet from the incorrectly drawn setback and therefore was two feet over the correct setback line. The house on lot nine, he said, was 19 feet from the incorrectly drawn line and so was 16 feet over [he correct setback line. The second problem, Mr. Williams said, is that the road was built in the wrong place, yet the County released the bond held on the road anyway. He said Mr. Roger W. Ray, of R. O. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., wrote a letter to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., then the Director of Planning~ dated March 9, 1983, which stated: "This is to advise that I have inspected the road that was constructed to serve Northwoods neighborhood, located approximately two miles north of Watts, and certify that it was constructed in accordance with the attached As-Built Road Plans". Mr. Williams said it was:~clear from a copy of the as-built road plans that the road was built in the wrong location. Nevertheless, on June 28, 1983, Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, wrote a memorandum to Ms. Linde Thompson, Inspections Department,~ asking that the bonds for this project be released. While the developer may have made the error, Mr. Williams said, the County tacitly approved the mistake by releasing the bond. He reminded the Board that all this occurred before his client was involved with the property. Mr. Williams said lawyers and surveyors rely on the information the County provides. Usually, he said, the County does a good job. He showed the Board copies of two independent surveys. Dr. and Mrs. Hill hired Mr. Gary Whel~n to survey lot nine before they bought the house an~ this survey also shows the 90-foot building setback line clearly drawn onlthe plat. Mr. Williams said B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates also surveyed the lot on January 26, 1988, when the Mr. and Mrs. Ford planned to buy lot nine; this survey also shows the 90-foot setback. Each of these surveyors relied on the setback line shown on the original subdivision plat. Mr. Williams said the County staff also relied on the information con- tained on the original plat. The Zoning staff approved the building permits, the Building Inspector approved the foundation and occupancy permits were issued for both houses, all on the basis of the setback ~picted on the original plat. Mr. Williams read the following from section 15.1.496.3 of the Code of Virginia: "Where a building permit has been issued and cOnstruction of the building for which such permit was issued is subsequently!~sought to be pre- vented, restrained, corrected or evaded as a violation of~ithe zoning ordinance by suit filed within 15 days after the start of construction by a person who had no actual notice of the issuance of the permit, the court may hear and determine issues raised in the litigation even though no appeal was taken from the decision of the administrative officer to the board of zoning appeals." He said he interprets this paragraph to mean the homeowners had 15 days to begin a lawsuit to stand on their rights regarding a zoning dispute. He said his client began building the houses in January and Febru&ry, 1987; no one filed a complaint until December, 1987. ~' Mr. Williams said he has spoken with Mr. Jeff Echols~ Assistant Resident Engineer for the VDoT, about the implications of this problem for Sylvan Lane, the road running through the Northwood Neighborhood. Mr.{Williems said the State requires a minimum right-of-way of 40 feet; the County requires 50 feet. The plat shows an undedicated right-of-way of 30 feet. Adcording to Mr. Echols, he said, one of the curves may need to be modified. The State June 1, 1988 (Regular Night. Meeting) (Page 5) 275 requires six inches of stone base and 20 feet of pavement; Sylvan Lane has a four-inch base and 14 feet of pavement. For cul-de-sacs, the State requires a radius of pavement of 45 feet and a right-of'way with a radius of 55 feet. The State standards for cul-de-sacs changed in 1981. Even if the cul-de-sac on Sylvan Lane were built out to the full extent of the existing right-of-way, there would still need to be additional right-of-way dedicated around the cul-de-sac in order for it to be accepted into the State Secondary Highway system. Mr. Williams said he believes his client has exercised caution and good faith. He said his client relied on professionals, on surveys and the County staff. He said this problem has caused his client great hardships: he is unable to sell his house and interest is piling up on his overdue construction loan. Mr. Williams accused Messrs. Dunlap, Falls, Larue, Lucas and Newcomb, the objectors, of exploiting his client's situation in order to get a better road for themselves. Mr. Ron Wiles addressed the Board and said he was legal counsel for Dr. and Mrs. Hill. He said his client bought lot nine on June 19, 1987, and he represented them at the closing of the contract. Mr. W.ite.~ said both he and his clients relied upon the occupancy permit issued by the County. He said the lender also relied on the occupancy permit to make the loan. Mr. W~te.y-said he does not wish to debate when Mr. Bailey learned of the problems ,With the setback and the cul-de-sac. He said the problems were not brought to the attention of his client untilsix months after his clients had closed on the property. He said his clients are innocent parties in this situation who have relied entirely upon the facts made available to them by the County staff and in the County records. Mr. Wit'ey said it was unlikely that his iclients and their neighbors could come to an agreement, because the other property owners want the Bailey Construction Company to pay for the reconstruction of Sylvan Lane. Unlike these property owners, he said, his clients pUrchased lot nine partly because it was on a private, gravel road. He said his clients consider a paved, public road to be a bit of "surburbia" they do not want near their house. Mr~ ~l~ said there are too many conflicting interests involved for a private settlement to be a possibility. He asked that the Board help resolve this problem, which was created in part by County employees. He said approving this ordinance and leaving the houses and th~ cul-de-sac as they stand would be fair to his client and would do no damage to the rest of the property owners. Mr. Roger'Wiley said he represented five property owners in the Northwood subdivision, who opposed the request. He said there are ten lots in Northwood; besides the five owned by his clients, are two owned by Mr. Bailey; one, sold by Mr. Bailey and belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Hill; one Owned by an employee of Mr. Bailey; and the last owned by someone who wishes to remain neutral. If the Board adopts the ordinance, he said, it imposes a replatting of the subdivision on half of the property owners in the subdivision. He said Mr. Bain has made the point that the replatti~g may even involve a taking of property from Mr. Larue, although this is not one of the main reasons for the stand his clients have taken. Mr. Wiley said his clients view this request as an attempt by Mr. Bailey to have the County step in and take sides in ~hat his clients think should be a private dispute between the owners of the 16ts in the subdivision. He said Mr. Bailey and his attorney are trying to blame the County for the situation. He said he agrees the County has made some mistakes, but he does not think those mistakes constitute a basis for the Board to step in and impose its will on some people who are against the replattingi Mr. Wiley said his clients made repeated attempts to bring the violation to the attention of the County staff and Mr. Bailey during the construction of these two houses. Whatever the reason, by acdident, design, misunderstanding or miscommunication, their warnings were not heeded. He said Mr. Bailey said tonight that the topography of one of the lot~ forced him to build the house as close as possible to the setback line because of the septic field. Mr. Wiley said this necessity may have caused Mr. iBailey, consciously or 276 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 6) unconsciously, not to suggest to the surveyors or engineers that there may be a problem. Mr. Wiley said both the BZA and the court turned down Mr. Bailey's request and for good reason. Mr. Wiley said both of these bodies turned Mr. Bailey down because the problem was one of his own making. He said he does not think the Board should bail him out now. Mr. Wiley said his clients do not wish to have the two houses torn down. He said his clients recognize that redrawing the plat in some fashion is the most reasonable way to deal with the problem now that a violation has occurred. He said his clients believe that, given their repeated warnings to Mr. Bailey, he should negotiate with them to obtain accePtable terms and not come to the Board for an added advantage in the dispute. Mr. Wiley said Mr. Williams suggested his clients are trying to exploit Mr. Bailey. In reality, Mr. Wiley said, he thinks it is just the opposite: Mr. Bailey is asking the Board to help him take unfair advantage of the rest of the property owners. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Wiley how the location of the houses built on lots nine and ten directly affected his clients or their property values. Mr. Wiley said when his clients bought their houses in a rural subdivision, they sought privacy, a feeling of spaciousness and as much space between the houses as they could get. He said he thought the County ordinances were established to provide these amenities in rural subdivisions. For whatever the reason, he said, these ordinances were not followed and his clients do not think the County should shoulder all the-blame. If the Board granted this request, Mr. Bowie asked,~iwhat would the opposing lot owners, except for the owner of lot eight, Iose? Mr. Wiley said the impact of this decision may be insignificant on the Lots at the beginning of the subdivision. He said the houses on lots nine and 'ten are between 20 and 50 feet closer to the house on lot eight than they s~ould be. Mr. Wiley said he does not think the Board should try to assess the damage these viola- tions have caused property owners. He said all he and his clients are asking of the Board is that it remain neutral and let the parties involved work out an agreement. ~ Mr. Wiley said Mr. Bailey has refused to discuss a proposal his clients have made for handling this situation. He said Mr. Bailey has refused to offer his neighbors any compensation for the violations. Instead, he said, Mr. Bailey has tried every avenue he can think of to avoid having to come to an agreement with the rest of the property owners. He agreed that the Board has the legal right to amend a subdivision plat without the agreement of all the property owners in a subdivision, but, he said, the Board usually exer- cises this right because of difficulties in locating one 6f the owners. He said it was unusual for someone to ask the Board to replat a subdivision when half the owners of lots in the subdivision objected to the replatting. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that Mr. Wiley and his clients are asking the Board not to interfere so they can take advanthge of the situation. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Wiley could give him any reason why, other than to accommodate the clients' desire to negotiate with Mr. Bailey, the Board should deny Mr. Bailey's request. If, as Mr. Wiley has suggeste~, the Board is going to have to correct this plat sooner or later, he does not~understand why it cannot be done now, Mr. Lindstrom said. He said Mr. Wiley's clients should seek civil damages, if they feel they have suffered damages. Mr. Bowie 'said he thinks there is only one property 6wner whose property is affected by the violation. He said he walked through ~his subdivision and only one lot owner can see the houses on lots nine and te~ from his house. Mr. Wiley said he thinks the Board should consider w~at it is being asked to do. His clients tried to warn Mr. Bailey that he was perpetuating a mistake and their warning went unheeded. He said Mr. Large came down to the Clerk of the Court s offmce, found the necessary records mn an hour and talked to Mr. Keeler, who agreed that a violation had occurred, iMf. Wiley said Mr. Bailey could have done this, but did not. Now, Mr. Wiley ~said, Mr. Bailey is June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 277 asking the Board to side with him, the one who made the problem for himself, and not with the people who tried to stop the mistake from happening. If Mr. Bailey had appeared before the Board before he built the houses, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks the Board would have had to do the same thing it is being asked to do tonight, because Mr. Bailey would have been a bona fide purchaser of a lot which carried with it a mistake created by the County. Mr. Wiley said it has not been clearly established that Mr. Bailey was a bona fide purchaser of the lots. In the interests of time, he said, he asked the citizens who opposed the ordinance to stand. Eight people stood. Since no one else wished to speak either for or against the request, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. In the packet presented to the Board from the opponents, Mr. St. John said, there is a quote from Judge Tremblay stating that "Mr. Bailey, whether out of moral obligation or economic necessity, should negotiate with the neighborhood to settle what is a private contract dispute" Mr. St. John said he was at the hearing on behalf of the BZA and remembers something quite different. He said he remembered Judge Tremblay saying this was an inequity upon Mr. Bailey and Dr. and Mrs. Hill. Judge Trembley also said that Mr. Bailey and Dr. and Mrs. Hill experienced a h~rdship, but this hardship was not created by the statutory criteria used to grant a variance, nor was it created by Mr. Bailey himself. Mr. St. John said the judge stated that if he were sitting as a court of equity, he could do something about the inequity; instead, he was sitting under statutory guidelines to review an action taken by the BZA and he could not fit the inequity~within those guidelines. Mr. St. John said Judge Tremblay stated the County made the mistakes, and it was up to the County to correct them. Mr. St. John said he does not see how the judge could have said this is a private contract dispute, because this is not a contract dispute. The applicant has never had a contract with the objectors, he said. Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John what would happen if the Board decided to stay neutral in this matter. Mr. St. John said he does not believe the Board could remain neutral; he thinks the Board must either adopt or not adopt the ordi- nance. If the Board does not adopt the ordinance, Mr. Lindstrom added, the contract on lot ten will fall through and Mr. Bailey and Dr. and Mrs. Hill will be stuck with lots they cannot do anythi~g~ with. Mr. Bowie said if he were building a ho~se and a neighbor said it was in the wrong place and County representatives said it was in the right place, he would probably believe the County officials, i~ He said he also believes that an approved plat, signed by the proper County auihorities, entitles an owner to the legal right to build his house in accordance with the plat. He said he does not think the owners of lots three, fou~, five and seven will lose anything if the cul-de-sac is replatted. He !Said he thinks lot eight should be excluded from the replatting so there can :be no question of taking. Mr. Lindstrom said the plat would have to be corrected to show changes in the right-of-way only on lots nine and ten. ~n the revised plat, lot eight will show the right-of-way as originally appreved for the cul-de-sac; lots nine and ten will show the cul-de-sac as-built. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the ordinance as advertised, to correct the plat Go show a change only as to Lots 9 and 10; on Lot 8 only to show right-of-way ~s it originally appeared on the recorded plat, and on Lots 9 and 10 to show t~e as-built cul-de-sac. There was no further discussion. Roll was called a~d the motion carried by the following recoded vote: ~ AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. ~ 278 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting. (Page 8) AN ORDINANCE TO PARTIALLY VACATE PLAT OF LOTS 3-10, NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATED ON 30 FEET RIGHT-OF-WAY OFF STATE ROUTE 600 TO RELOCATE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON LOTS 9 AND 10 NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD WHEREAS, a plat entitled "Plat of Lots 3-10, Northwood Neighborhood, Located on 30'. R.0.Way Off St. Rt. 600 about 2.0 miles North of Watts, Albemarle Co., Va., for John Girdler" and dated January 18, 1979, was approved by the designated agent for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on September 10, 1979 and is recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 690, page 379; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid plat shows a 30' right-of-way access for all lots to State Route 600, which platted right-of-way culminates in a platted cul-de-sac located largely on Lots 9 and 10, Northwood Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, said plat shows a building setback line 90 feet from the center of the 30' platted right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the location of the cul-de-sac as built by the developer, Country Living, Inc., does not conform to the platted location; and WHERFAS, residences have been constructed~and Certificates of Occupancy issued by the County for houses on both Lots 9 and 10, Northwood Neighborhood, which houses are both set back beyond the platted building setback line and at least 75 feet from the edge of the cul-de-sac as built; and WHEREAS, Section 10.4 of the County Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 75 feet measured from the street right-of-way line; and WHEREAS, in order to bring the present houses on Lots 9 and 10, Northwood Neighborhood into compliance, it is ne.cessary to par- tially relocate the lines of the access easement oni'Lots 9 and 10; and WHEREAS, notice as required by Section 15~1-431 of the Code of Virginia has been given; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle that the lines of the 30' right-of-way as ~located on Lots 9 and 10 on the plat of Lots 3 through 10, Northwood N~ighborhood, of record in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court o~f Albemarle County are hereby VACATED pursuant to Section 15.1.482(b) of the Code of Virginia. In place of the vacated lines on the aforesaid plat are the lines designated "Relocated Access Esmt. Line" as shown on a plat by R. 0. Snow, Inc., dated 2/12/88 entitled "Plat Showing Relocated Access Easement on Lots 9 & 10, Northwood Neighborhood Located on 30' R/W Off St. Rt. 600 about 2.0 mi. N. of Watts, Albemarle County, Virginia," a copy of which plat is attached hereto and shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit CourtS, of Albemarle County, Virginia, along with a certifiedcopy of this ordinance. (Note: The Board recessed at 9:07 P.M. and reconvened at 9.'18 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-24. Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel~i(Blandemar Subdivi- sion). To cluster 61 lots (each under 21 acres) and leav& two residue tracts of 315 and 600 acres, zoned RA. Cluster size lots range from three to 18 acres to be served by proposed internal public roads. Applicant proposes to retain the right to divide the two residue tracts into seven lots with a minimum lot size of 21 acres. Property located on west s{de of Route 708, approximately two miles from the intersection with Route 29 South. Tax Map 88, Parcel 1. Samuel Miller District. (This petition was advertised in The Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1988.) ~ June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 279 Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Petition: Mrs. Lewis Rosenstiel petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to allow 61 lots to be clustered on 1376.8 acres (Section 10.5.2. of the Zoning Ordinance). The cluster- ing of lots on this property will result in two large residue tracts, one of 315 acres and the other of 600 acres which will remain in agricultural land use. The property is located on the west side of Route 708 (west), approximately two miles from its intersection with Route 29 South. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, Tax Map 88, Parcel 1. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Immediate Environments and Existing Characteristics: This property and the immediate surrounding area has topography ranging from moderately rolling hills to areas of critical slope. Portions of the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District are adjacent to the southeast and northwest. The area is typically rUral with limited low density residential development. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: This property is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Areas, and is located in Rural Area 3. Residential density standards in the Comprehensive Plan recommend a maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres for those lands located outside the water supply, watershed areas. Applicant's Request: This special permit is a request for the clustering of lots to achieve a decreased lot size, while preserving large residue tracts. 'By-right', the applicant could achieve three two-acre lots, with the remaining acreage divided into sixty-five, 21 acre lots. The applicant is therefore requesting to cluster 61 lots, with the remaining development rights to be allocated to the large residue tracts. The 445 acre Blandemar Residential Community established by this proposal will consist of 61 lots served by public roads. The home- owners association for this community wiil administer 93 acres of 'common land' which will provide a buffe~r zone from adjacent farm activities and will also allow for potential recreational uses. Two potential lake sites are identified on the plan in the common area. The average lot size is six acres with a minimum lot size of three acres. Smaller lots are arranged in the flatter areas and adjacent to potential lake site. Large lots are generally found on the steeper wooded slopes. Ail lots have been placed carefully in an effort to conceal viewing the house as much as possible from outside the subdivision. Land Use Data: Lots five acres or less Lots greater than five acres Common areas Rosenstiel Tract Blandemar Farm Tract Roadways and other Total # of ~ots Total Acreage 34 142 ~7 191 ~- 93 {1 315 il 600 ~- 35 ~ 1,376 The applicant proffers the following conditions for the special use permit: 1. Applicant proposes to reconfigure 6ii lots to cluster residential uses away from agriculture activity ~mreas. Applicant proposes that the Rosenstiel tract (315 acres) and Blandemar Farm (600 acres) shall be ~added to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. In exchange for these additions to the Agricultural/Forestal District, the applicant proposes to retain the right to further subdivide the tracts as indicated. 280 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Rosenstiel tract to be divided into not more than four parcels (one unit per 78.7 acres). Blandemar Farm to be divided into not more than three parcels (one unit per 200 acres). Special Use Permit Criteria: Since this petition does not propose an increase over the number of lots allowed 'by right', most of the criteria for the review of special use permits (Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) are not applicable. Nevertheless, all criteria will be provided for informational purposes. Of the nine criteria, the applicant is responsible for #1, 2, 3 (The ninth criteria is not applicable in this case due to the site's location outside of a water supply watershed area). The size, sb~ape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Depart- ment of Forestry. Blandemar Farm is 1,379.29 acres. Its overall length is 10,000 feet along a more or less north-south axis, and its width varies from 8,000 feet to 4,500 feet, average width is about 6,000 feet. The northern half of the property is topographically severe. Ridges of 10 percent slopes or less are narrow .and not conduc- tive to agricultural uses. The topography of the southern half is much less severe. This area is characterized by rolling hills and is suitable for agricultural use. Approximately half of the site, 700 acres, is ~poded. Steep slopes account for about 350 acres or 50 percent of the wooded area limiting potential forestal use. The rema%ning 50 percent does have potential forestal use. 2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on the most recent pub- lished maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of ~quivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. The soils of the property are suitable for bothi!agricultural and forestal uses. The southern half of the proper~y is dominated by soils best suited to hay and pasture land. Soils of the northern half of the property haVe high potential for production of trees. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestai uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasgnably available. 607 acres of Tax Map 88 Parcel 1, is in agricultural land use taxation. The applicant has maintained a limited agricultural use since purchasing the property 10 years ago. ! These farming operations have included cattle, corn, hay and ~lfalfa. The applicant has also contracted some limited tree ~cutting in the northern area of the property. The remaining a~reage receives preferential assessment for forestal use. 4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, 'the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property sh~ll be de-~-ed to be in an agricultural or forestal area xf fifty i(50) percent or more of the land within one mile of the border ~f such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal ~use within five Years of the date of the application for specia]~ use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major strenm-~ and other physical barriers which detract from the ~hesiveness of an area shall be considered. June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 281 The majority of land within a one mile radius of this property currently receives preferential assessment for either agricul- tural or forestal usage. Of the 7,743 acres in this area, 4,518 acres or 58 percent are under land use taxation. Therefore, staff's opinion is that this property is in a commercially active agricultural or forestal area. Additionally, of the 4,518 acres in land use taxation, 2,011 acres exist in the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. (It should be noted that these figures do not take into consideration the entire Blandemar Farm property, which has received preferential assess- ment for either agricultural or forestal use since the land use taxation program was initiated by the County in 1973). In regard to the effect of development on the character of the area, staff offers the following: As discussed during the development of the Zoning Ordi- nance, development in an agriculture area has direct and indirect effects. Among direct effects are: the vandalism of crops and equipment and the destruction of livestock by children and pets; the desire to regulate routine farm activities by residents of the development ~i.e., spraying of pesticides and herbicides; spreading of lime and manure; proximity of livestock to residential areaS, commercial timbering activities) and high land prices which make it difficult for existing farms to locate in the area. Indirect effects are generally related to the expectation of continued development inthe area, resulting in the impression that agricultural land is in transition. Indirect effects include: reduced or marginal production; divestment in equipment, livestock and other aspects of farming requiring large and/o~ long-term investment and idling of farmland. ~ Development in an agricultura~ and forestal area can change the character of the area, not only in the immediate vicinity but in remote areas.,i Increased residential traffic on rural roads can re~ultl in hazardous conflicts with slower moving tractors, Cruit trucks and logging trucks. New or expanded utility corridors through active farms may be required to serv~ new developments. Where development occurs in identified agricultural and forestal conservation areas, ~egulations should be flexible to permit site locations thatlminimize interference with agricultural and forestal oper~ations, that use marginally productive lands, and, that cause a minimum loss of produc- tive agricultural and foresta~ acreage. Staff is not suggesting that the proposed Blandemar Farm Subdi- vision would generate all of these negative effects. However, the subdivision would increase residential development in an area, which is viewed as inconsistent with the agricultural and forestal objective. One of the applicant's justifications for the proposed lot clustering is to preserve both bona'~ fide farming tracts and the agricultural character of the area. The applicant states, 'this arrangement allows for an attractive and sensitive development of a rural residential area. It will be in harmony with adja- cent farming activities and will blend into the rural country- side without disturbing the agricultural character of the area' The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purpose Of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if land',within one mile of the 50 percent or more of the ~ 282 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 12 boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams amd other physical barriers which detract from the cohe- siveness of am area shall be considered. This property is considered to be an undeveloped rural area because approximately 1.5 percent or 116 acres of land within a one mile radius of the subject property were in parcels of five acres or less prior to the adoption of the County Zoning Ordinance. The majority of developed land is found along Route 708 in the Rush Estates Subdivision. Other developed lots are sparsely located.. Of the 445 acres in the proposed Blandemar Residential Community, lots five acres or less account for 142 acres, or approximately 32 percent of total developed acreage. T~e relationship of the proposed developmemt to existing and proposed population centers, services land employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: Within one mile of the urban area boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan; b. With one-half mile of a co,,-,,~mity boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan; c. Within one-half mile of a Type I village or within one half mile of the major crossroads of a Type II::village as described in the Comprehensive Plan. This property is located approximately 2.0 mil~s from the Village of North Garden. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements progrmm~ing in regard to increased provision of services. There is not an anticipated need for the increased provision of services compared with by-right development. The response time for the North Garden Volunteer Fire Department is approximately seven to ten minutes. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: a. Occasion the need for road improvements; Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable road; Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road. The Virginia Department of Transportation has c6mmented that this section of Route 708 is currently tolerable. This is not a request for more lots than 'by-right' development. Traffic from the proposed development would be no greater thRn traffic from 'by-right' development. ~ Staff Comment: The analysis of the eight criteria i~dicate that this request does not meet all the criteria requirements ~or the proposed development in the RA (Rural Areas) zone. It does, however, meet the intent of some design standards of the ComprehensiveiPlan and the Rural Areas zoning goal. The Zoning Ordinance state~ in Section 10.1, Rural Areas Intent, that: ~ In regard to Agricultural Conservation, this dim%rict is intended to conserve the county's active farms Sd best agricul- tural and forestal lands by providing lot areas ~esigned to insure the continued availability of such lands ~or preferential June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 283 land use tax assessment in order to enhance the economy, and maintain employment and lifestyle opportunities. In addition, the continuation and establishment of agriculture and agricul- turally-related uses will be encouraged. It is intended that development be permitted on land which is of marginal utility for agricultural purposes, provided that such development be arranged out in a manner which is compatible with the agricultural activity of the area. In addition, it is intended that such development occur in locations and at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of the land and to the availability of public utilities and facilities to support such development. Roadside strip development is to be discour- aged through the various design requirements contained herein. In regard to paragraph 1, the Zoning Ordinance provides for 21 acre tracts in meeting the agricultural intent of the rural areas. In the opinion of staff, large tracts (21 acres or greater) designed to preserve agricultural and forestal land~ would better meet the land use objectives of the rural areas. It should also be noted that while a large percent of this property retains soils of good to moderate quality, an attempt has been made by the applicant to locate the proposed, lots where mostly marginal soils exists. Review of this special use permit will be in two parts: site design criteria and policy considerations. The site design criteria are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the iZoning Ordinance. The policy considerations are appropriately addressed under the legislative discretion of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Site Design Criteria: Review of technical criteria will focus on issues of water quality, protection of ~ritical slopes, effects of development on an agricultural/forestal!!district, and the preserva- tion of agricultural activity. Water Quality: Several unnamed streams;jtraverse this property. This property drains into the North Fork Hardware River Basin. The Comprehensive Plan recommends various ggldelines which work toward protecting stream integrity through maintenance of water quality, water temperature norms, shoreline line~ and aquatic habitat and immediate stream area. It is anticipated that the proposed development will have some adverse effects on the water quality of iadjacent streams and tribu- taries. In light of the fact, the applicant proposes the following analysis: The development of this project wil'l occur in tributary streams of the existing 35-acre Blandemar lake. This will provide added protection to water quality downstream in excess of the rigorous requirements of the State Erosion Control Permit. The expected trap efficiency for the existing large lake is very high. A removal rate of two-thirds to three-fourths of stream pollutants is anticipated. Two additional la~e sites are proposed, further adding to water quality. Protection of Critical Slopes: This prqperty is characteristic of moderately rolling hills to areas of critical slopes. The current subdivision proposal will arrange lots on the moderately sloped areas, leaving the critical slopes on Ragged Mountain mostly undis- turbed. The previous~'by right' subdivision plat approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1987,ii proposed a greater number of lots that would have encroached upon lar!ge areas of critical slopes. The 'by-right' subdivision would have additional impacts on critical slopes due to the amount of grading required for road construction and the length of road required to serve lots in high elevations. In 284 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meetingl (Page 141 addition, 'by-right' development will giVe the critically sloped areas a developed appearance. Effects on Agricultural/Forestal District: Approximately 2,011 acres of land within a one mile radius of this proposal are committed to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. These lands exist immediately to the southeast and northwest of the subject property. In the opinion of staff, this is evidence of a truly bona fide agricultural area. The negative impacts of the proposed residential development on agricultural activity is likely to increase due largely to the proposals proximity to an area were large acreages have been committed to an agricultural/forestal district. This development proposes substantially smaller lots than 'by-right' development. While the smaller lots are purely of residential nature, the 'by-right' development would propose lots intended for agricultural and forestal related uses. The effectof this type of proposal in the agricultural area is generally set forth in the discussion of special use permit criteria #4. In an effort to provide a buffer zone from the adjacent Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District', the applicant proposes (200 foot) conservation easements on lots 29, 30 and 31. Preservation of On-Site Agricultural Activity: The applicant's proposal will preserve a 315 acre tract and a 600 ac~e tract. Three division rights will be allocated to the 600 acre tract because a division right is required for each existing dwellin'g. The 315 acre tract will retain four division rights as requestediby applicant. In staff's opinion, the current proposal clearly preserves larger tracts of land for agricultural and forestal use. Staff recognizes these tracts as viable agricultural and forestal areas. The Blandemar Farm Tract is considered the most viable agricultural land with regard to soil quality and topography. ~. While well suited for tree growth, the Rosenstiel T~mct has consider- able topographic constraints which limits forestal p~oductlon. Policy Consideration: By the clustering of this property's develop- ment rights, the character of the area will be more Df a developed appearance than 'by-right'. As previously noted, th~ negative impacts of residential development can be quite subskantial in areas of high agricultural activity. In staff's opinion, .~his development is incompatible given the area's commitment to agricultural and forestal production. ~ Further, the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for residential developments in rural~locations. Small developments within the rural areas are recommended not to exceed 20 dwelling units. This proposal exceeds thr~e times the number of dwelling units recommended for residential~developments in rural locations. It should also be noted that this proposal would create more lots of five acres or less than presentl~ exist within a one-mile radius of this property. Given the proposed number of lots, this development is more consistent with village scale development. From the adoption of the Rural Areas district in December, 1980 through January, 1988, 23 special use permits have been filed. Of those 23 petitions, seven did not request additional~lots but did request lot size variations. It should be noted tha~ a request similar to the current proposal existing within the Qne mile study area (SP-85-7 Edgar Robb Subdivision - Colston) was ~pproved by the Board of Supervisors on April 17, 1985. This request, which gained unanimous Board approval was a petition to subdivide~144.5 acres into twelve parcels ranging from six to sixteen acres. :~ If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors ~hoose to approve this request, it is important in terms of precedence ko make positive findings that by virtue of the specific aspects of t~is property location and the plan for development, that there ar~ identifiable, June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 285 overriding public benefits to be gained which outweigh the fact that this proposal does not meet all criteria requirements for proposed development in the RA (Rural Areas) district. Conclusion: The present request does not meet all the technical criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. In staff's opinion, a development of this scale will significantly change the agricultural character of the area. It is foreseeable that the approval of this development would encourage similar requests on adjacent parcels, further making the area susceptible to residential development. In the opinion of staff, approval of this petition will only increase conflicts caused by the spatial proximity of developed and agricultural uses. In staff's opinion, the request for a more uniform lot size is largely for marketing purposes only, and serves to fulfill proprie- tary rather than public interests. Staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: County Attorney approval of deed restriction documents prohibit- ing further division of the Rosens~iel Tract; Division rights attributed to the Blandemar Tract shall be utilized for existing dwelling only; lot sizes shall not exceed five acres; County Attorney approval of deed restrictions on Blandemar Tract after use of division rights; 3. A subdivision plat submitted for approval shall be in general accordance with the plat by Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc., titled 'Blandemar Farm and Residential Community', dated March 28, 1988, (revisions on Hatch 29 and Hi:fy 2)." Hr. I-Iorne said the ?lanning Commission, 'at its meeting on Hay 17, 1988, passed the petition to the Board with no re¢~maendation, due to a tied vote. Hr. I-Iorne said he would like to expand upon the issue of precedence in this request. In terms of precedence, he said, it is important that this proposal serve the public interest. Hr. Itorne said there has been some discussion that the precedent set here would ~:be restricted to lots of a similar size, i.e., parcels of around 1400 a~res. In other words, he said, this request may not set a precedent for smaller parcels, and there are very few parcels the size of Blandemar in the Couqty. There are many farms of this size, but they are usually made up of multip'~e parcels, he said. Mr. Horne said the staff believes the precedent would not be restricted to large parcels. If the decision to approv9 this development is made on a site design issue, Mr. Horne said, the staff believes this decision will set a precedent for developing tracts composed of ~ore than one parcel, as long as the site design is an improvement over what ~ould be done by-right. Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Horne was suggesting that three or four property owners might enter into a joint venture, combining several tracts and the rights upon those tracts, and bring a proposal to the Board similar to the one before the Board today. Mr. Horne said "yes"~ if the Board approves this request on a site design issue. He said it is sometimes difficult to design a good site plan on the basis of by-right develOpment. If the developer is allowed to change lot sizes, move development rights among parcels or to different areas of the site, the developer can usually come up with a better site plan. If the Board approves this request based on the site design, Mr. Home said, he believes the decision will have long-range consequences. Mr. Home said the staff was concerned, hot just about the effect of the site design on the site itself, but about theieffect of the proposed 286 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 16 development upon the area. He said the staff is also concerned that approval of this request may set a precedent for development in this area. Mr. Home said the staff recommends that the request be denied. If the Board approves the request, he said, the staff recommends that there be no division of the Rosenstiel tract. He said the Planning Commission discussed whether the four division rights reserved to the Rosenstiel tract could be moved to the area that is to be developed. If the Board approves the request, Mr. Lindstrom said, it is expected that the Blandemar Farm and Rosenstiel tracts would be become part of the adjoining agricultural/forestal district. But, he said, there is no condition requiring that this be done. He asked how the staff would react to a condi- tion that required the applicant to pursue the inclusion of the Blandemar Farm and the Rosenstiel tracts in the adjoining agricultural/forestal district. Then, he said, there would be something that would trigger the application. Mr. Home said this is what the applicant proposed, He said he thought it would be appropriate that the applicant would apply, by a particular date, to enter these parcels into the agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Lindstrom said he knows the applicant and staff~discussed deed restrictions as a way of limiting the possibility of future development. He said he could not vote to approve such a request, without seeing the deed restrictions. He asked if the applicant discussed granting an easement over these tracts to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. H6rne said they dis- cussed such an easement, but the staff prefers deed restrictions, so that whoever owns the land will be subject to the restrictions. Mr. Lindstrom said deed restrictions will not hold unless they are enforceable by several different parties. He said he is~concerned that such restrictions may amount to just another zoning examption.~ If someone buys the Blandemar Farm tract and pressures the Board five years f. rom now to allow him or her to divide the property, this request would be little more than a rezoning application, he said. Mr. Lindstrom said he kn0~s he should trust anything any Board would do, but he does not. If the BoaMd must consider this kind of density in a rural area, he said, he is more comfortable with dividing the property into 21-acre lots. He said he is concerned that moving all the parcels down into one spot would later open up the rest Of the parcel to relatively high-density development, which would be precluded by the approval of a by-right division. If development of the Blandemar Farm and Rosenstiel tracts were restricted by both deed restrictions and conservation easements, he said, then a decision as to what would happen on the property would be in the hands of two parties, instead of just the Board. ~ Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Board. ~ Mr. Thomas J. Michie, 3r., addressed the Board and s~id he was represent- ing Ms. Blanka Rosenstiel, who would like to give the Board some background on what she has done with her farm and what she hopes to do to preserve the beauty of the farm. Mrs. Rosenstiel addressed the Board and said she would like to talk a little about herself and her farm so that the Board will ~nderstand why she chooses to present the cluster plan for its consideration~ She said she moved to the County in 1978 and purchased Stillwater Farm, which she called a jewel in the rough. She said she spared no effort, using all of her time, imagina- tion and whatever else was needed to polish this jewel and bring it to the lovely condition it is in today. She said some of the work involved tearing down old barns, restoring historic houses, building roads~ miles of fences and a dam in order to create a 30-acre lake. That lake is now a filter for groundwater and tributaries to the Hardware River, she sa~d. She said she has carried out full-scale farming activities right up to this very day, raising Angus cattle and thoroughbred horses, and growing corn, a~falfa and hay. She said this is the first time she has approached t~e Board with a proposal, although she was disappointed when the Board de~ied the zoning text amendment that would have permitted Mr. Mel Zuckerman to ~ild a health resort on her property last year. She said she was not one of t~se citizens who June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 287 dashed to the County Office Building to register small lots before the Zoning Ordinance took effect in December, 1980. She said her 68 division rights were approved on December 8, 1987. She said she was not pleased with the plan; she kept visualizing a patch-work development, with no open space for farming. She said she wondered what a home built on open pasture, without trees, would look like; how the lots would be maintained; if 21 acres was too small for farming and too big for a home site; and if, ten years from now, she would be happy with the way the develop- ment looked. She said many of her neighbors and one of the County's planning staff encouraged her to consider a cluster plan to use her division rights and preserve the open farm land and forest. Despite the fact that such a develop- ment would cost her both time and money, she said, she engaged Mr. Mark Osborne to develop a cluster plan which would: eliminate a lot of driveways spilling out onto Route 708; preserve the historic aspects of the property; preserve the open farm and forestal land; create a common area of about one hundred acres, with two lakes that would enhance the quality of the local water table; and, be sensitive to the Comprehensive Plan and the public good. Mrs. Rosenstiel claimed the development'~would serve the public good in a number of ways. She said engineers have determined that the two additional lakes would enhance the water table for homes outside the development. She said the public good would also be served bythe elimination of a dozen or more driveways onto Route 708. She said the. one, well-maintained entrance planned for the subdivision would be safer and more attractive. She said she is pleased that Mr. Osborne was able to preserve so much open land while using her 68 division rights. She said 1000 acres will be left in open space: 600 acres for farm land, 315 for forest land and ~over 90 acres for a permanent green common area. There are only three other farms in the County which consist of one 1400 acre parcel, she said, and preserving 1000 acres is a unique approach and would set a worthwhile p=ecedent. She said she is pleased that many of he~ neighbors have let her know they approve of this cluster plan. She said she Knows the Board will see that she has made every effort to consider all the environmental and historic aspects of the area, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. She said she is sure the Board will see to it that the proper wording Will be used to restrict any further development other than her 68 division rights. Mr. Mark Osborne addressed the Board an~ said he is the civil engineer for Mrs. Rosenstiel's project. He showed th~; Board two plans for the proper- ty: a development as it would be by-right and the cluster plan he and his client propose for the area. According to the cluster plan, he said, most of the units will be built in areas where the sdil is not as suitable for faming as it is on the large tracts. He said he and Ms. Rosenstiel placed the proposed development in an area where it would be hidden from the road by ridges on the property. Travelers on the road would not see any of the lots and therefore would not feel they were drivin~g through an area that is in transition, he claimed. He said the by-right~ subdivision would create lots and building sites on top of the hills, where~I any houses would be noticeable. Mr. Osborne asked that the Board consider that the density of the devel- oped area under the cluster plan would be about 7.2 acres per dwelling unit, including the open space of 93 acres. Excluding the open space, he said, the density would be about six acres per dwellingS, unit. He said this figure exceeds the standards for density in a non-watershed area. If this develop- ment were proposed for a watershed with a runoff control ordinance, he said, these lots are so big that this project would be exempt from the permit process. Under the cluster plan, Mr. Osborne continued, there would be less than five percent impervious cover. He said the impervious cover currently drains to the existing lake. He said soil is washed into the lake at a rate of 155 tons per year; 23 tons per year leave the lake. He added that the two pro- posed lakes would benefit the quality of the water, particularly since erosion naturally occurs on hillsides. ~ 288 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 18 As he and Mrs. Rosenstiel planned the development, he said, they referred. often to the Comprehensive Plan and even drew from it goals and standards and posted them on the wall so he could make sure the proposal met the require- ments of the Plan. He said the Plan calls for the conservation of agricul- tural and forestal lands; this proposal would preserve a working farm of 600 acres, the main house, the cultivated fields, the tenant house, the shed, almost the entire road system, the paddocks, in short, the guts of a working farm. Mr. Osborne said a development by-right would result in houses being build all over the open fields. He said these open fields are spectacular and must be preserved. Mr. Osborne said the Plan calls for the conservation of scenic vistas; the cluster plan would hide the houses from travallers on Route 708. He said the Plan seeks to preserve water quality; the cluster plan would provide two new lakes to filter the water. He said the cluster plan would preserve critical slopes and the best agricultural soils and add 1000 acres to the agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Osborne said he tried to draw up a plan that would accommodate the maximum number of lots of less than 21 acres. He said he considered dividing the property into 20 lots of five acres each and 47 lots of 21 acres or more, which would leave only 292 acres for Blandemar Farm, about half the size of the farm that could be preserved with the cluster plan. ~He said he believed such a subdivision would not achieve many of the objectives of the Comprehen- sive Plan~ He said one of the main goals of this proposal is to use deed restrictions to keep the farm running while by'right development occurs around it, saving what may eventually be the only major agricultural center in this part of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he must pose a rhetorical questiOn to Mrs. Rosenstiel. He said Mrs. Rosenstiel, a lady of means and sophistication, has spent a great deal of time describing what must be one of the most beadtiful farms in the world. Mr. Lindstrom declared that it beggars the imagination to understand why she would do this to the property. The County may s~y Mrs. Rosenstiel has 68 development rights, he continued, but the County is not commanding her to divide the property. He said the proposal appalls him; ~t is as if someone were to look at the Hope Diamond with only an eye for ho~ many Zales rings could be carved from it. He said Mrs. Rosenstiel could divide the property into only 30 lots if she wanted; she could do something ~0od with this pro- perty. ~ Mr. Way asked that Mr. Michie proceed with his presentation. He intro- duced Mr. Bill Stevens to talk about the history of the farm. Mr. Stevens passed a summary of the history of Bland%mar Farm to the Board. He said the topography of this property, with its high ridges, makes the central area of it one of the most private and protected areas in the County. This property was once four tracts, which were assembled by Mr. Robert Patterson. For many years, until Mr. Patterson cqmpiled the separate tracts into one parcel, there was no farm bigger than 400:hundred acres in this area. He said Mrs. Rosenstiel has spent much money in an ~ffort to maintain the agricultural and historical integrity of the property. He said he thinks Mrs. Rosenstiel is asking very little in return for the taxes .she pays to the County, notwithstanding the fact that her property is in an agricultural- preferred district. He said the County would benefit greatly from her pre- serving what she has and keeping the growth centered in one spot on her property, rather than allowing it to spread all over the ~lace. Mr. Michie said some of Mrs. ' Rosenstiel s neighbors ~ere present to speak in favor of her request. He said Mrs. A. E. Cutright, Jr.~, who lives on Route 708, and her parent Mr. A. E. Cutright, Sr., were here earlier to speak in favor of this request, but Mr. Cutright fell ill, so they~left. Mr. Rip Thompson said he was the central designer an~ marketing agent for the Colston subdivision. He iterated that the public goo~ would be served by the consolidation of road access into one entrance and th~ preservation of the agricultural character of the area. The remaining acreage, would be large enough for a practical farming operation; a 21-acre lot w~s only large enough for a hobby-farm. In response to Mr. Lindstrom's statement, he said, he thought dividing the property would allow more people to enjoy the property. June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 289 He suggested that the County purchase it, if the Board wished to see the property maintained as a 1400-acre farm. Ms. Norma Battle addressed the Board and said she lived about one-eighth of a mile from the driveway into Blandemar Farm. As a neighbor, she said, she would prefer that the applicant be allowed the cluster development. She said one road exiting onto Route 708 would be safer for walkers and joggers such as herself, than 14 driveways. She said she is excited about the 600 acres being left open and is satisfied that the Board will see to it that no additional division rights are granted to anyone. Mr. Michie said he has a letter from Kyger and Cabell Forestry Service stating that the cluster plan is better for forestry than cutting the parcel up into 21-acre lots. When considering a decision, he said, he hopes the Board takes a long-range view of what is good for the County and moves away from division by-right. He said the cluster plan preserves the farm land, which the Comprehensive Plan sets forth as the most important priority of development in rural areas. He said he and his client are willing to work with the County Attorney on restrictions, easements and buffers. He said Mrs. Rosenstiel does want to bring three division rights down from the hillside areas and make three lower lots. If the Board has a problem with the fact that some of the lots are less than five acres, he said, his client can juggle them to make each lot five acres. Of course, he said, if each lot is five acres, then there will be less open space. Mr. Michie said the staff can say only that this proposal does not fit the goals of the Comprehensive Plan because the development would have more than 20 units in a cluster. He asked if it would make the Board or staff any happier if the ownership of the property wereidivided into four corporations, which would mean the property could then be divided into four clusters. Several of those clusters would be close to the highway and the historic farm would be destroyed, he said, but such a diviskon would square with the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Michie said the staff was also concerned that approval of this request might set a bad precedent. He said he does not agreewith this argument and offered an example to illustrate his belief to the contrary. If a developer put together five tracts of roughly the same size to come up with a piece of property the size of Blandemar FarM, that developer would have 88 subdivision rights, he said, while Ms. Rosens(iel has only 68 such rights. If this hypothetical developer came to the Boardland said he wanted a cluster development with 88 lots and the rest in farmSand, he said, the Board could tell him that if he wants to treat this propeuty as one parcel, he will get only the development rights for one parcel, o~ 68 division rights. Therefore, Mr. Michie averred, the precedent set by appr,ving this request could benefit the County and reduce the number of division ~ights in rural ~reas. Mr. Michie said it has been argued that clustering benefits the appli- cant, rather than the public. He said he doe~ not think this is so bad. He said the Board feels strongly that growth should be channeled away from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, which this proposal would do. Is it so bad, he asked, to allow an attractive subdivision, clqse to Route 29 South and border- ing on a road rated tolerable? He said the amount of land cut up for subdivi- sion will be the amount of land developers think the market will absorb. People coming to the County have to live somewhere, he declared. He said the Board should approve this request and channel~the influx to areas such as this that can handle the growth. Mr. Michie concluded that this proposal serves the public interest in two important ways: i~ would preserve a 600-acre farm and attract the growth to an area where it belongs. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Michie if his cli~ent were willing to consider granting an easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr. Michie said they discussed having an easement along the highway. Mr. Lindstrom asked if an easement had been considered for the large ~racts set aside for agricultur- al and forestal use. Mr. Michie asked what kind of easement Mr. Lindstrom meant. Mr. Lindstrom said "an agricultural easement". Mr. Michie said "yes". Mr. Way asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the application. 290 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 201 Mr. Dave Bass addressed the Board and said the applicant may be request- ing a special use permit, but the request might as well be an application for rezoning. He said the proposed development would not be like the County Fair, something the Board can approve for a year and, if it should prove unaccept- able, reclaim the land for agricultural use the following year. Once lots are sold and homes are built, he said, there is no way the Board can rescind this special use permit. If the Board approves this request, he said, it is rezoning a portion of Blandemar Farm to a density the Comprehensive Plan assigns to Villages, yet the nearest Village is two miles away. Mr. Bass said the proposed subdivision would be three times greater than what the Plan suggests as a guideline for rural areas, and would be the largest subdivision in the rural areas of the County, and it would be surrounded by an agricultur- al/forestal district. Mr. Bass said the proffer promising that the 600-acre Blandemar Farm tract and the 300-acre Rosenstiel tract would be added tO the Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District is a hollow proffer. He said the applicant'is giving up nothing, since the rights would already be stripped from the 900 acres. He added that this proffer mocks the intent of agricultural/forestal districts, which are established by people who Wish to give up their develop- ment rights. ~ Mr. Bass said this development was not proposed to preserve the environ- ment or the historical farm, otherwise the farm would not have been proposed for a health resort a year ago. He said this plan is proposed because it makes business sense for a development. He said five acre lots are as market- able, if not more so, than lots of 21 acres. What this proposal leaves, he said, is a farm of 600 acres for the applicant, as well as 300 acres of forest land, which he estimates is somewhere between one and two million dollars worth of property the applicant can hold on to because she opted for a cluster development. If the Board approves this proposal, he thinks, other such proposals will come before the Board. ~ To return to the by-right development of this proper~y, Mr. Bass said, just because there are 68 lots allowed does not mean ther~ will ever be 68 houses. Some of these lots will fall on steep slopes, some in the flood plain, some along the highway, and some will be under the~ spillway of Ms. Rosenstiel's dam which, he said, would not be an ideal home for anybody. He agreed that theoretically there may be 68 division rightS~ but some of the lots could be combined through marketing into farms. He i~omputed that there would be about 14 mountain lots, eightroad frOntage lots~and one spillway lot, which comes to 25 marginal lots in a by-right subdivision on this prop- erty. Deducting these marginal lots would leave 43 buildable, lots, he said. If the applicant were to present a plan of by-right subdivision, with 43 homes and the deed restrictions mentioned tonight, he suggested~ the Board might be able to approve such a plan on the basis of its protectio~ of the environment. He added that approving such a plan would not set a precedent that would later damage the rural areas. If the Board denies the applicant!s proposal tonighti Mr. Bass said, he believes the Board will see a second proposal in a month ~r two with fewer lots. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Bass based his argument oh the assumption that there are not 68 marketable lots on this property unless ~he lots are clus- tered as proposed. Mr. Bass agreed. Mr. Nakasian said he is not a neighbor of Mrs. Rosenstiel, but he does own and farm some land. He said he appreciates the comments made that parts of the County should be kept rural and agricultural, but he would like to know how landowners are supposed to pay for this amenity. He said the servants of the citizens should show some restraint when expressing theirp opinions about what landowners do with their land. Perhaps Mrs. Rosenst~el wished to divide her property in order to share her land, he declared. He!said he thinks the cluster plan is a sensible way to use the property. As lq~g as the applicant is within her legal limits, which he thinks she is, the Bdard should realize that this kind of quality development is what the citizens want, instead of the kind of development that has occurred along U. S. Rou~e 29 North. He June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 291 asked that the Board discount Mr. Bass's argument because it was facetious and insincere. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board members retain their first amendment rights. Mr. David Bentiline addressed the Board and commended the staff for trying to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan. He said he thinks a development of 21-acre lots would have a much more gradual impact on the community, because large lots sell slowly. He said he subdivided his own land into larger lots and it did take longer to sell the properties, but he thinks it resulted in a more attractive subdivision. If Mr. Osborne and Mrs. Rosenstiel were so compelled by the idea of open space, he asked, why did they submit the original plat for 21 acre lots? Mr. Lewis Johnson addressed the Board and said he owned Moreland Farm, which adjoins Blandemar Farm. When he was growing up at Moreland, he said, he was related to all his neighbors and was able to roam the surrounding proper- ties as if he owned them. Obviously, he said, he wished that these properties might never be developed. He said he is realistic enough to realize that some development is bound to occur. He said he feels lucky that Mr. Bass bought the property he did, because he has done nothing to change the property. Mr. Johnson said he still feels like he cam roam'over the property, even though Mr. Bass owns it now. He said he thinks Mrs. Rosenstiel has the right to do what she wants with her property, to an extent. He said he must see something good for the County come out of this request and, so far, he sees no such thing. He asked that the Board not allow cluster development to be more profitable than by-right development, because he has other neighbors Who are just waiting for that kind of decision. Ms. Tamara Vance, of the Piedmont EnvirQnmental Council, addressed the Board. Ordinarily, she said, clustering the~Jhouses on small lots would be desirable, because it would preserve the sloped, wooded areas and productive agricultural land. According to the Comprehensive Plan, she said, this proposal calls for a development on the scal~ of what is called a conventional development, with a number of units more appropriate to a village or an urban area. Furthermore, she said, the development would be surrounded on three sides by an agricultural/forestal district. She said State law asks that local governments consider agricultural/forestal districts when making land use decisions. She said she knows of only one precedent for the approval of a special permit for property adjacent to an agricultural/forestal district, when a landowner was granted his request to divide one or two additional lots on his property next to the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District. This applicant is proposing a rearrangement of existing lots rather than adding lots, she said, but she thinks what the Board decides may influence future decisions on land next to such districts. She said she thinks the applicant's request for a special permit hinges upon the cost of road development and the marketability of the lots. If the Board denies this special permit, she said, t~e applicant will come back with a proposal that is more in keeping with the Ci6mprehensive Plan's recommenda- tions for rural areas. If the Board decides to require deed restrictions and conservation easements for approval, she said, she thinks ~he Board should take the time to examine the restrictions and easements before~granting the request. She recommended that the Board defer action on this request tonight. She warned that courts can sometimes undo deed restrictions, which must be carefully worded to insure the long-term retention of the land. Easements held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation are very difficult to extinguish, she said. The provisions for extinguishing such an easement!include proving that the land no longer serves a public purpose and providing !and to replace what was once held in the easement. On the other hand, she~said, easements to the State can be designed in such a way that property as small as 50 acres can be allowed under arrangements made between the State and llthe landowner. She said the Board will want to be specific about the language of the easement, to guard against granting the applicant even more potential for development. 292 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meetingl (Page 221 Ms. Vance said the number of units resulting from this subdivision would be even greater if this were a matter of recombining parcels. At one time, she said, Mrs. Rosenstiel thought she had nine parcels, which could have given her over 100 lots. She asked that the Board consider the number of units allowed in this case when it meets to discuss revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and recommended that the Board raise the lot size of 21 acres which is used to determine the number of lots allowed. Mr. Way asked if anyone else wished to speak against this request. Since no one else wished to speak in opposition, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. (Note: The Board recessed at 11:01 P.M. and reconvened at 11:08 P.M.) Mr. Bowie said the public hearing reminded him of a~song that says "there are no good guys, there are no bad guys, there's just you and me and we just disagree". He said he believes that everyone who spoke was sincere and just because someone disagrees with someone else does not mean either party is wrong. He said his hat is off to people who bought their farms with the avowed purpose of losing money, but he does not see anything wrong with making money. Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board is faced with a critical decision that may determine the future, not only of the rural areas, but the urban and growth areas as well. He said members of the Board must ask themselves if they are willing to toss aside the concept of the rural areas that was consid- ered so carefully years ago, when the Planning Commission and the Board spent years putting together the present Zoning Ordinance. He said he is concerned that approving this request may eventually force the Board to amend its Zoning Ordinance and do away with the required lot size of 21 acres in the rural areas. He said he appreciates ~he time and effort the applicant has spent in presenting a cluster proposal and he thinks her proposal has many good features. However, he said, he thinks the legislative act the applicant is asking the Board to pass tonight will not serve the rural areas as well as do the present terms of the Zoning OrdiHance. He said he cannot support this request. Mr. Bain said he sees nothing wrong with someone trySng to make a pro- posed development both profitable and compatible with the?!Comprehensive Plan. He just does not think this proposal is in keeping with t~e long-range goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which has been in effect for e~ght or nine years. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the cluster approach do~s offer a better approach to rural development, in the context the Board i~ forced to work within in this County. He said he cannot guess whether M~. Rosenstiel can sell 68 lots according to her first plan, the by-right dev. elopment. He said he suspects she could sell the large lots, just not as qu%ckly. He said he is concerned about the long-term effects df this decision. He thinks this request and its outcome are being very closel~ watched by some people in the room tonight and the development community. ~ There can be doubt, he said, that the applicant has chosen an approach to development that makes it easier to sell the lots. If the Board approves this approach, he said, the development of other farms will be more likely. If the cdunty decides, through a deliberative process, that this is what it wants to do, he is willing to work with this decision. He said he would rath~er have such an important decision be the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan process and the result of an analysis of the County's land use policies. There are too many issues, he said, to make a decision based on one case. He said it has been difficult for him to reach a deci~sion on this re- quest. He said he believes clustering isa better approach, if the County must have rural development. He said he knows the Planning Commission and the staff are considering clustering as an alternative in the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. But, he said, he does not want to institute clustering by granting one application, especially when the benefits to The County and the density that could be achieved are questionable. ~ June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 293 Mr. Way said for him the central question is whether a piece of property should be developed in the best possible way or according to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which may not result in the best use of the land. He said it is important to decide whether the proposal is a good or bad plan. He said the property is going to be developed and this plan is better than what the applicant may do with her property if the Board denies this request. For this reason, he said, he will support the application, but he wants to make sure the deed restrictions are proper and he does not think the Board can make certain of this tonight. He said he would also like time to consider the possibility of easements. Mr. Bowie said he is not sure that all 68 lots would sell under the by-right plan of development. He said the lots along and near the road would sell, which includes the lots on the best part of the farm. He said the County would lose the most beautiful and useful part of the property under a by-right development. Mr. Lindstrom said the staff's comments_on precedence and the possibility of developments waiting in the wings reinforce his belief that, if the County chooses the clustering approach, it do so after deliberation, rather than as a reaction to this application. Mr. Perkins said another question is whether the applicant will really go through with the by-right subdivision. If the applicant plans to proceed with a subdivision of 21 acre parcels, he thinks Che Board should approve the special use permit. He said this County has given property ownersdevelopment rights and this proposal seems to him to be a case of just rearranging these development rights. He said he would like to know how many concessions the applicant is willing to make, particularly if she was willing to go beyond the recommended conditions for approval and place a permanent conservation ease- ment on the remaining 900 acres. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks it is clear ~hat the applicant is determined to develop the property in some way. She sa~d the cluster plan gives the County an opportunity to control the future Of this property. There is a buyer in this community, she said, for all s~rts of real estate, a buyer who could buy this property and remove it comple~ely from the control of the County. That buyer shall remain nameless at ithis point, she said. As much as she would like to see the rural areas remain rural, she said, she feels the cluster plan before the Board is far more desirable that what could happen to this property under another plan or owner. She said she thinks she will support the request. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer action on this special use permit to July 6, 1988, until deed restrictions and easements could be drafted for the land proposed to remain for agricultural and forestal use. Mr. Michie said he would be happy to work with Mr. St. John on this. Mr. St. John asked who the easements would run tot Mr. Lindstrom said he would like the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to have a look at the draft. Mr. Michie said this would take more time. Mr. Bowie said he would rather the future of the County be left to a future Board, rather than future State officials. He said he does not oppose letting the Virginia Outdoors Foundation read!the draft, but he would also like to see some deed restrictions that would~be under the control of a future Board. If the Virginia Outdoors Foundation decides it no longer needs the property 20 years from now, Mr. Lindstrom sai4, the County can insist that the use of the property remain the same. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There w~s no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the folldwing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. 294 June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 24 Mrs. Rosenstiel asked if she could respond to Mr. Lindstrom's comments. She said she has heard that if she does not take advantage of the current zoning regulations, the County will soon adopt a minimum lot size of 40 acres in the rural areas. She said property owners all around her are subdividing their land and houses are being built very close to her property. She said she just wants to keep the property rights she has. When someone appears before the Board and speaks as eloquently on preser- vation as Mrs. Rosenstiel has, Mr Lindstrom said, he can only respond by saying she does not have to develop her land to its maximum and take advantage of the minimum standards set by the County for development in rural areas. If Mrs. Rosenstiel is truly concerned about preservation, he said, she can make money from the farm on a lot less lots than 68. Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Lot Regulations proposed under ZTA-87-03. Due to the lateness of the hour (11:42 P.M.), Mr. Way said this item would be included on the agenda of June 8, 1988. Agenda Item No. 8. Mill Creek Subdivision: Approval of Gas Line Easement. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, dated May 25, 1988: "Enclosed you will find a deed of easement between the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville granting the City easements for gas lines to be installed in the Mill Creek Subdivision. These gas lines are to provide service to the residential dwellings in this area and this deed is a standard format that is exe6uted to provide for this service. I would like to request that the'~hairman of the Board of Supervisors be authorized to sign the deed~;~ It appears that there may be a more efficient way to process these routine easement requests than requesting Board of SUpervisors approval in each individual case. Based on our conversations, I would like to suggest that the staff or the Chairman' be authorized to execute the easements as a routine matter without direct Board of Supervisors approval where the service is being provided within the designated growth area. I believe this method should take care of a majority of the cases. Service outside the growth area can be handled on an individual basis by the Board of Supervisors. This method should save unnecessary use of Board 'of Supervisors' time." Mr. Bain said he would rather the Board authorize the staff to execute easements routinely only in the growth areas that are also a part of the urban areas of the County. Mr. St. John asked if the roadways that would contain the easement for the gas line were ever going to be included in the State system of secondary roadways. Mr. Home said "yes". Mr. St. John said the deed of easement should include a provision that states that if the roads are ever widened, the gas lines will be moved at the City's expense. Otherwise, he said, the State will not take these roads into the system once the easement has been granted. Mr. Home said Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation had approved, in an earlier deed of easement, the same language staff used in this deed of easement. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. iBain, to authorize the chairman to sign the easement set out below, and to allow staff to sign such easements for the urban area only in the future. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 295 "THIS DEED, made this day of , 1988, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, hereinafter "County", and THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantee, hereinafter "City", whose address is P. O. Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby GRANTS and CONVEYS with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the City, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right-of-way five (5) feet in width to construct, replace, maintain and repair a four (4) inch natural gas line within the roadway known as "Gray Stone Court", and a two (2) inch natural gas line within the roadway known as Boulder Spring Court, as shown on plats made by the Gas Division of the Public Works Department of the City of Charlottesville dated April 5, 1988, which plats are attached hereto and made a part of this deed; to construct slopes, cuts, fills and ditches in connection therewith, and convey across said property natural gas through said natural gas lines. Said easement and right-of-way are shown on such plat with a broken line as the center line of the easement. The conveyance of this easement and right-of-way includes the perpetual right of ingress and egress for the above-mentioned purpose. Said easement and right-of-way cross a portion of the property dedicated to the County of Albemarle bylsubdivision plat dated July 23, 1987 and revised August 7, 1987, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarl9 County in Deed Book 955, page 13. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plat for a more complete description of the property over which this easement and right-of-way cross. As evidenced by its acceptance and ~recordation of this deed, the City covenants that it will perform the ~installation of the natural gas lines in a proper and careful manne~. Disturbed portions of Grantor's property will be restored to ~ condition comparable to that which existed prior to such installation, except that no flowers, shrubs or trees within the easement wilt~ be replanted, or replaced if destroyed. In consideration of the granting o£~ this easement, the City covenants that at such time as Graystone Court and/or Boulder Spring Court are to be taken into the State road system, the City will, at the request of the County or the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion, quitclaim all of its rights in this easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of Albemarle has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf ~by Peter T. Way, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Albemarle County, Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Charlottesville has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf ~by Francis L. Buck, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. Agenda Item No. 9a. Appointments: Lewis. Mountain Neighborhood Study Committee. Mr. Lindstrom requested that this matter be deferred for another week. Agenda Item No. 9b. Other Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mrs. Cooke to an Ad-Hoc Committee for the Italian Student Exchange Program. Roll was called and the motion carried by the folldwing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. 296 NAYS: None. June 1, 1988 (Regular Night Meetingl (Page 261 Mr. Bowie said that he and Mr. Bain had conducted interviews for the vacancy on the JABA Board and would like to recommend the appointment of Dr. Daniel Phillip Harrington, a pharmacist at the University. Dr. Harrington has a specialty in geriatric medicine and is also a psychiatrist. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to appoint Dr. Harrington as a member of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Board of Directors, for a term which will expire on March 31, 1990. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Way nominated Mr. S. Keith Rittenhouse, an engineer who lives in Marshall Manor to serve as the Scottsville District representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to appoint Mr. Rittenhouse to replace Mr. Harry Wilkerson on the Planning Commission, with a term which will expire on December 31, 1991. There was no fUrther discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 19 (Night), 1986, and November 11, 1987. Mr. Bain had read pages 1 to 11 of November 11, 1987, and found them to be "in good shape." Mr. Bowie had read pages 15 to the end of March 19, 1986, and found only a couple of typographical errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.~Bain, to approve those minutes read. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins. '~ Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on thei!Agenda from the Public and Board. Mr. Agnor said he has three announcements to make. Firstly, the Gover- nor's Office wants nominations by Monday, June 6, 1988, for members of the Rivanna Scenic River Advisory Committee. Secondly, the Sheriff's Departments of Madison and Greene Counties and the County's Police. DePartment will demon- strate the accomplishments of three newly trained K-9 dogs, on the baseball field at the end of the parking lot of the County Office Building, at 1:00 P.M., 'June 2, 1988. These dogs were all trained by Mr. Randy Davis, a County Pelice Officer. Thirdly, the annual employees' will be h~ld at Pen Park, beginning at 1:00 P.M., June 4, 1988. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjournment. With no further b~siness to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:56 P.M.