HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-20 adjAugUst 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
(Page 1)
195
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 20, 1986, at 3:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from August 13, 1986.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher,
Mr. J. T. Henley (arrived at 3:30 P.M.) and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney (arrived at 3:11 P.M.); and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County
Executive.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M., by the
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate a certain plat of a portion of
Pheasant Lane Subdivision for the redivision of Lot 8. Tax Map 44, Parcel 32. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on August 5 and August 12, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher said this is an unusual proceeding for the Board. A request was received from
a citizen at the July 9 Board meeting and the Board, after considerable discussion, decided to
hold a public hearing on this matter.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing Mr. William Edgerton,
addressed the Board. Mr. Gouldman said his client brought this matter to the attention of the
Board, but the introduction of the ordinance to vacate the plat was through a motion by Mr.
Lindstrom. The real issue is whether the County of Albemarle can ignore certain provisions of
its Zoning Ordinance merely because of a family division of property; the answer being no.
The Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance are two different "animals" although they
both are land use controls. Lot 8 of the Milkey tract subdivision, as originally recorded
five years ago, is approximately a six acre parcel. It is in a "critical slope area" as.
defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.2.2.1, states that each lot
created must have a minimum of 30,000 square feet of buildable area and the area making up
that 30,000 sq. ft. must meet the five to one ratio. The intent is to prevent a developer
from building on an odd-shaped building site that has no contiguous area. The County Engineer
in a memorandum dated July 15, 1986, indicated that Lot 8B did not meet the five to one ratio,
although there is 30,000 sq. ft. of buildable area. Mr. Gouldman said he interprets that to
mean that Lot 8B is unbuildable, pursuant to the County Engineer's findings because the lot is
too steep. (Mr. Payne arrived at 3:11 P.M.)
Mr. Gouldman said his argument is based on the fact that the five to one ratio cannot be
met. The family division section allows families to request of the staff waiver of certain
subdivision requirements. The request does not have to come before the Board of Supervisors
or the Planning Commission. There are certain qualifications of a family division, one of
which is that the lots created must conform to th~ Zoning Ordinance. He therefore asks the
question if a person is exempt from subdivision requirements, is he also exempt from zoning
requirements? The Attorney General, in response to a letter from Mr. St. John, stated that
the State statute, which allows families to subdivide, does not exempt those same families
from the Zoning Ordinance. He, therefore, contends that Lot 8B is not buildable under the
Zoning Ordinance and that on March 12, 1986, ther~ was administrative approval of a two-lot
subdivision erroneously. The.approval created at least one lot that is not in compliance With
the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the division was probably prompted by reliance on a certi-
ficate done by the developer's agent which certifies that there is 30,000 sq. ft. of buildable
lot space on both lots, and implications that the five to one ratio can be met. In addition
there was no notice to adjacent property owners as none is required under family division when
done administratively. Mr. Edgerton found out about this division when the bulldozers began
work.
This administrative approval was done disregarding a note on the subdivision plat recorded
in 1981 that states "No further subdivision shall be made on this property unless approved by
the Albemarle County Planning Commission." Five years ago there were arguments that neither
site contained 30,000 sq. ft. of buildable area that met the constraints of the Zoning Ordinance
Although the Planning Commission felt there was owe site of buildable area, to make sure that
no further subdivision took place, it added a note to the plat. The note is in the chain of
title.
If the Board does not vacate this plat, an i~nocent third party could purchase Lot 8B and
find himself unable to get a building permit or a precedent could be set where this Board is,
in effect, ignoring certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board is not in a position
where it can arbitrarily enforce the Ordinance.
There are several positions the developer may take: (1) Mr. Edgerton is not an interes-
ted party with regard to the statute and that the ordinance is not properly before the Board.
In response Mr. Edgerton is an interested party, as he is an abutting property owner. (2)
Section 15.1-482(b) of the Virginia Code refers to vacation of plats after land has been sold
and the developer gave this property to his wife on March 12, therefore vacation of plat
cannot be used. In response a proper reading of the State statute defines the word "sale" as
transfer of property. If the word "sale" were not to include gift and the Board knew that an
erroneous and invalid subdivision plat had been recorded, the Board would not be in a position
to vacate the plat. He does not think that was the~ intent of the State General Assembly. (3)
The developer relied on this subdivision approval on March 12 and the reliance was reasonable.
When the developer purchased the lot, it was one piece of land consisting of six acres. There
was no guarantee of subdivision from the County. If this plat is vacated, it will be return-
ing the developer to a position he put himself into, which is owner of a six-acre parcel of
land.
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
(Page 2)
Mr. Gouldman presented, for the record, (1) copy of slope studies introduced at the last
meeting, (2) copy of July 15, 1986 memorandum from the County Engineer, (3) copy of Attorney
General's letter dated June 17, 1986, (4) copy of his letter to Mr. Burgess dated July 15,
1986, and (5) copy of original recorded plat of the Milkey tract recorded in 1981. He noted
that his copy of the plat does not have any signatUres affixed.
Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is this particular use of the family division in the
ordinance, and asked if Mr. Gouldman had any comments. Mr. Gouldman said there is something
dreadfully wrong with the family division exemption as it exists in the Zoning Ordinance. ThE
idea being that after one year, whatever family member is deeded property under the family
exemption can give the property away or sell it. He does not believe that is the intent of
the State statute. The State statute indicates that the County may put in reasonable provi-
sions. He thought the State statute allowed counties to do certain things in the subdivision
~ordinance. In Code Section 15.1-466 it states "The following provision shall be in the
subdivision ordinance." He wonders whether the "shall" means "have to be". The idea of
enabling legislation is that the Board can put in what it, in it's infinite wisdom, thinks
should be in there. Although the County feels this family exemption provision should be
there, he does not like the provision.
(Mr. Henley arrived at 3:30 P.M.) Mr. Fisher asked with regard to the plat submitted,
what does the yellow area denotes. Mr. Gouldman said the yellow indicates the areas that are
flat enough to qualify for being less than 25 percent in slope. The remainder of the lot is
steep. Mr. Edgerton said the topography map was done five and one-half years ago by an
engineer who was working with Dr. Charles Hurt. The reason the map does not show the entire
lot is because there is a stream running through both of the lots. He did a slope study and
put the yellow lines on the map.
Mr. Agnor said at the July 9, 1986, Board meeting, Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, wag
directed to field check the site. The memorandum referred to by Mr. Gouldman is a result of
the field survey. The memorandum shows the setbacks from the stream and the setbacks from the
property line. Mr. Armm's memorandum indicated that the ratio of five to one could not be
accomplished on Lot 8B. Subsequent to that memorandum, it was found that counting the setbac~
from the property line along the slope is allowable. Although a building cannot be built in
the setback, septic systems are allowed. The dimensions for the five to one ratio would
therefore, include the area adjacent to the abutting property line, and thus the five to one
ratio can be met. The County has always used the setback from the property for determination
of the five to one ratio. Mr. Bowie asked if the site meets the 30,000 square feet building
site regulation. Mr. Agnor replied yes, by adding in the setback it meets the five to one
ratio.
Mr. Gouldman said Mr. Agnor's statements are totally new to him. When the ordinance
speaks of five to one ratio, it is with regard to buildable site area, not gross lot. He does
not accept the position of the County Engineer, nor is there a plat showing how this is done.
The site is contiguous so he does not think that including the setback will cure the problem.
Mr. Ron Wiley, representing Mr. & Mrs. Wood, addressed the Board. He said he was not
aware that this matter was under consideration at anytime prior to the meeting today. Lot 8A
is 2.94 acres and Lot 8B is 3.10 acres. The other lots in the Milkey tract average about 2.56
acres. This was a family division approved appropriately under the family division section of
the ordinance on March 1.2, 1986. He wants the Board to consider the effect if it does vacate
this plat. This is a situation in which an adjacent property owner objected to an approved
subdivision plat, already of record, 90 days after approval and suddenly the plat is under
attack. He suggests that if that scenario can occur then every property owner in Albemarle
County who owns a lot in a subdivision with an approved subdivision plat had better go to the
title insurance company to see if there is a good title for the property, because if the Board
can vacate this plat today, it can vacate any plat it wants to in the County. He does not
think that was the intent of the General Assembly. The provisions of State law that the Board
appears to be proceeding under are not applicable in this case. The statute reads that in the
event of sale of a lot in a subdivision, the plat can be vacated in one of two ways; one by
agreement of all of the parties with the approval of the governing body and second by adoptiol
of an ordinance. The General Assembly certainly knows the meaning of the word "sale". The
concept of vacating a plat against the wishes of all of the owners of lots in the subdivision
is completely novel to him. It is important to consider that all of the other sections of
State law providing for vacation of a plat, states that it has to be with the agreement of all
of the owners of property within the particular subdivision, except this one section. The
statute which outlines the affect of vacating this plat does not mention recombining the lots.
He is not sure the Board will get the desired effect if this ordinance is adopted.
This procedure, going on here today, raises an uncertainty in title to practically every
lot in an approved subdivision in the County. There Ks no time limit on the statute which th~
Board is proceeding under. The Board would be creating a great deal of uncertainty as to the
validity of approved plats under this procedure. There also is the risk that Mr. Wood could
have sold Lot 8B. The family division ordinance said the new lot cannot be sold for a year,
it does not mention the residue. The Board is also putting a burden on the staff. The staff
must rely on notes and statements from certified land surveyors in the community. If the
staff can't rely on that information, then it must go out and field test all these items. The
procedural issues involved here and the consequences are very important.
A building site of at least 30,000 square feet can be found on both lots to satisfy the
five to one ratio requirement. He presented a drawing prepared from a topographic map with a
surveyor's certificate affixed. The map shows the areas of the critical slope based on actual
physical survey. The map also shows the septic setbacks from the stream. The narrowest
dimension on Lot 8B is in the back inside corner. The surveyor redid his calculations and
found that there were 66,188 square feet of buildable area on Lot 8B.
The subdivision ordinance does not require notification to abutting property owners for
family division. The notation on the original subdivision plat encumbrances a requirement of
the subdivision ordinance. The provisions of the subdivision ordinance are not applicable to
family division~. Mr. Horne approved this plat acting as agent for the Planning Commission
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, f986)
(Page 3) .... · ·
and his approval of the plat is tantamount to Planning Commission approval. There is nothing
in the ordinance requiring Planning Commission consideration. The Health Department consid-
ered the application for these two lots and did not find any reasons why two septic drainfield
sites were not available on each lot.
He does not believe the Board should adopt this ordinance. The consequences of vacating
a plat under this procedure is a nightmare from a lawyer's standpoint. He does not think
State law authorizes the Board to do so because the applicable State law the Board is proceed-
ing under applies only when there has been a lot sold. The specific objections raised by Mr.
Edgerton with regard to these particular lots have no merit.
Mr. Fisher said he does not know the intent of the General Assembly when creating the
family division provisions. He then asked if Mr. & Mrs. Wood reside on this property. Mr.
Wiley said there is no house on the property. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. & Mrs. Wood owned this
property prior to March, 1986. Mr. Wiley said the property was purchased in 1986. Mr. Fisher
asked where Mr. & Mrs. Wood reside. Mr. Wiley said he does not think that is relevant, but
they live in Waynesboro. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. & Mrs. Wood has ever lived in Albemarle
County. Mr. Wiley said he does not know. Mr. Fisher said he is asking these questions to
understand, in his mind, the concept of the family division and whether this is what the
General Assembly might have contemplated when the legislation was drafted. He sees a conflict
between the normal subdivision process and the process that the State requires for family
divisions. He is not sure the legislature ever contemplated this set of circumstances where a
nonresident person would buy property, divide the property, and presumably sell the property.
Mr. Wiley said he is more inclined to go by statements than by intent. The General Assembly
stated that the subdivision ordinance shall include reasonable provisions Of providing for
division of land between immediate family members without going through all the rigmarole of
the subdivision ordinance. The words have to speak for themselves. There is nothing that
indicates that the Woods do not intend to build on the properties and live there. Mr. Fisher
asked if the husband will live on one lot and the wife will live on the other lot. Mr. Wiley
said that would be running contrary to the concept of homesteading. He thinks that the reason
"spouse" was included was as a way of dividing family property so that it could be disposed of
differently than just homesteading. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wiley if he wanted to make any
statement of intent for his clients as to whether or not they intend to reside on either or
both of the properties. Mr. Wiley replied no; he does not think it is relevant to considera-
tion.
Mr, Bowie commented that Mr. Wiley made a statement earlier that he was not aware until
today that this matter was being considered, yet there is a letter on file dated July 24
concerning the matter with the Woods receiving a copy. He asked if the Woods received the
letter. Mr. Wiley said he did not know this issue was being considered at prior meetings of
the Board, which he believes was rather extensive. Mr. Fisher said this matter was placed on
the agenda at the request of a citizen. Following that discussion the Board decided to hold
this hearing so that it could hear from both parties and not take action without both parties
having an opportunity to be present.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Wiley commented that the newly created lot could not be sold for a
year, but the remains of the original lot could be sold immediately, and asked if that was the
intention of the property owners. Mr. Wiley said that is how he interprets the statue;
however it is not relevant. Mr. Lindstrom asked which is the new lot and which the old lot.
Mr. Wiley said the new lot is the one transferred to the new owner; lot 8A was transferred to
Mrs. Wood.
Mrs. Cooke said she is confused about the family division. It was her understanding that
family divisions had to be made to a member of the family and that a husband could not deed
something to a wife. When the property was divided and a house built, the family member had
to reside on the piece of property a year before it could be sold. Mr. Payne said the ordi-
nance defines family division as a single division of a lot or parcel for the purpose of sale
or gift to a member of the immediate family of the owner of such lot or parcel. The term
"member of the immediate family" is defined as the natural or legally defined offspring,
spouse or parent of the owner of the lot or parcel of land. There is no requirement in the
ordinance or statute expressly with respect to any residence. The ordinance requires that it
not be conveyed by the recipient family member to a third party for a year. Mrs. Cooke said
that at the end of the year the property does not have to revert back to the family grouping.
Mr. Payne said that is correct. The ordinance does permit the following situation. A father
conveys half of his ten acre lot to his son. The son retains the ownership of the lot for 12
months and one day, and then conveys to a third party. That is not unlawful.
Mr. Bowie asked if a noncounty resident could be restricted.
be unconstitutional.
Mr. Payne said that would
Mr. Gouldman said the heart of the matter is whether these lots have 30,000 square feet
of buildable area that can comply with the five to one ratio. He thinks that the Zoning
Ordinance does not allow inclusion of setbacks. The Ordinance states that the septic system
must be within the 30,000 square feet. By definition, the setback lines cannot be part of the
building site. Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Gouldman is saying that by definition a building
site has to be a place where a building can be located. Mr. Gouldman said the septic fields
have to be on slopes that are even more gentle than the building area.
Mr. Fisher asked if the lots must have two useable drainfield sites. Mr. Agnor said yes;
the County has always allowed septic drainfields to be built within the setback lines. The
setback is for the protection of the adjacent property owner from anything being built above
ground.
Mr. William Edgerton said the approval referred to by Mr. Wiley is the standard approval
given by the Health Department. The approval states that the lot sizes are such that there
appears to be enough area to install septic drainfields. Because of the concerns he expressed
five years ago, the same engineer was unable to convince the County Engineer that there was
adequate septic location on this six acre piece of land to support four drainfields ~s
required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the requirements were less severe th~n they
are presently. Now apparently the same engineer is certifying that on the same piece~f land
there are four septic drainfield sites. He is not convinced that the sites are available.
198
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
(Page 4)
Mr. Wiley said in Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance it states "the term building site
shall mean a contiguous area of land in slopes less than 25 percent as determined by ...
exclusive of such area as may be located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District and which is
located under water." The ordinance does not mention anything about excluding an area within
100 feet of streams. Septic systems being in no greater than 20 percent slopes is merely a
directive and not a specific requirement. "In the review for the issuance of a permit for the
installation of a septic system ... and particularly mindful of the intent to discourage
location of septic tanks and/or drainfields in slopes of 20 percent or greater." It would not:
be appropriate to deprive a person of his right to build on the property. The only approval
available is the Health Department's standard approval. Through his conversations with Mr.
Buddy Edwards, one of the engineers, he was informed that the original plat showed these lots
as two lots. Mr. Edwards said they were prepared to back that up but were more interested in
getting the subdivision approved, put to record and getting Mr. Edgerton off of their backs.
That is the reason the lots were put together as one lot.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked if the subdivision plat that was approved under the family division
provisions is the exact same subdivision that was rejected by the Planning Commission in 1981.
Mr. Wiley said yes, except the request in 1981 was withdrawn.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Zoning Administrator, the County Engineer, and the Director of
Planning have now all determined that the five to one ratio can be met and there is 30,000
square feet buildable sites available. Mr. Agnor said that is correct.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Gouldman if he contends that the area excludes the 100 foot
setback not only for building structures above ground, but for construction of a drainfield.
Mr. Gouldman replied yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the area excludes construction of a well also.
Mr. Gouldman said a structure is a structure and does not stop being a structure because it is
underground.
Mr. Fisher said the definition of a building site read by Mr. Wiley causes him consider-
able problems because it is very obvious that on a long strip of land where there is a 50 foot
or 75 foot setback, a person could end up with much of the land area for the building site in
setback areas and not a buildable area. It is conceivable that the entire thing could be
basically defined that way under the interpretation made by staff. It seems to him that a
discussion should follow on the definition of building sites to make sure everyone is in
agreement as to what it means for future divisions. Mr. Gouldman said the definition of a
building site cannot be isolated from the remaining language of the ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said this is a classic case of a subdivision plat brought before the County
for consideration five years ago under the same ordinances it is operating under today. It
was considered by ~the staff and Planning Commission, and it is his recollection that the
application was withdrawn by the applicant because the Planning Commission was not going to
approve it. The Planning Commission placed a note on the plat because it knew there were
problems. The matter came before the Board of Supervisors and was left with this parcel of
land undivided. The exclusion that the legislature has built in for family divisions seems to
indicate that it is okay if it is a family division even when it is in a circumstance he
doubts the legislature contemplated for a family division. He is worried about their intent.
It is an issue that he would almost invite the courts to review. He does not make comments
like that very often. It seems to him that the real issue is the intent of the legislature
with regards to family division and for the process being accomplished with no public notice.
He does not believe that the General Assembly fully intended a circumstance such as this where
the application would be reviewed by an administrator and signed off on in the presence of
expressed concern by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of such a division
taking place. He does suspect that the staff thought it was following the rules of the family
division. He would like to hear a judge's ruling on this Case. It might be useful in trying
to change State law and it might have a greater impact on future development in this area and
other parts of the State. If the Board does not take some action, every developer in this
State is going to use the family division as a way of trying to avoid the County's subdivision
requirements. He feels the Board should put up a fight. Another issue is whether a subdivi-
sion should take place through an administrative decision when the Planning Commission has
said it should not happen.
Mr. Bowie said he does not want to argue the intent of the General Assembly. The size of
the building site was determined through the same methods as used for other building sites;
the square footage and the five to one ratio. He is not sure the drainfields are an issue but
there is the letter from the Health Department. He does not think "family division," or the
one year limit is an issue. Whatever happens in a year will comply with the law. He person-
ally can see many reasons why spouses would divide property even though they are living
together. The other issue of what the word "shall" means and to him it means "it is supposed
to be that way". He thinks that compliance has been within the law. He is not basing his
decision on what he thinks the General Assembly intended to do.
Mr. Henley said he disagrees with Mr. Bowie one hundred percent. He thinks that it
stinks that somebody could use the family division to do what these people are doing. He has
four children, and he has given them land to build a house and, eventually because of this
happening he will not be able to give those children any land.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has studied the State statue very carefully. It contains a state-
ment, "The family division shall not be used to circumvent the purpose of this chapter and
code." He agrees with Mr. Henley. There cannot be too many other conclusions drawn other
than this has directly circumvented the purpose of the subdivision ordinance. Overlooking the
note on the plat shows a lack of understanding of how the Planning staff and the County staff
operate. He had a personal experience with family division. He stood to financially benefit
by using the family division provision, but declined to do so. He advises clients that if
they have any intention other than setting up a lot for a family member who is going to live
there then the person is trying to circumvent the ordinance. He feels very strongly about the
subdivision ordinance. He does not believe this particular plat is consistent with the
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
199
subdivision ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt an ordinance to vacate a
certain plat of a portion of Pheasant Lane Subdivision; a plat recorded in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book, 870, Page 344.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. She has also had experience with the family division.
This has been a long-standing concern of hers and she thinks that the issue has to be addressed
It is time for the Board to set a precedent on how it is going to handle these matters in the
future.
Mr. Henley said he is going to support this motion for the reasons stated by Mr.
Lindstrom. If the two lots met the requirements of the subdiVision ordinance he would not be
supporting the motion. He feels that the Woods are doing exactly as stated by Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Lindstrom if he thought this purchase was an attempt to circumvent
the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom responded yes, by using the family division
provisions. Mr. Bowie then asked Mr. Wood if he intends to live on the property. Mr. Wood
responded that he has not decided. He purchased the property because he thought it was in a
good neighborhood. His wife has shown interest in living on the property, but no plans have
been made.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A CERTAIN PLAT OF A PORTION
OF PHEASANT LANE SUBDIVISION; THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON
A PLAT RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 870, PAGE 344.
WHEREAS, a certain lot or parcel of land lying in Albemarle County
has been heretofore subdivided into two lots, the plat of which is of
record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 870, page 344; and
WHEREAS, it appears that all the lots in said subdivision are
still owned by the original developers; and
WHEREAS, the Board has received evidence that the said plat was
approved for recordation in error in violation of the County's Zoning
and Land Subdivision Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County has
determined that the said plat should be vacated in order to protect the
public health, safety and welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the subdivision of land shown on the plat recorded in the
said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 870, page 344, be, and the same hereby
is, vacated;
2. That the vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance
shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right of way or lot duly
platted and recorded;
3. That the Clerk of the Board shall cause a certified copy
hereof to be recorded in the said Clerk's office to be indexed in name
of the developers, James L. Wood and Roberta N. Wood;
4. That this ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
(The Board recessed at 4:35 P.M. and reconvened at 4:40 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Proposed financing by the Charlottesville Redevelop-
ment and Housing Authority of its housing revenue bonds pursuant to the Housing Authorities
Law to assist Sigma Phi Renovation Limited Partnership, Kappa Sigma Renovation Limited Partner-
ship, and Sigma Nu Renovation Limited Partnership in the renovation of certain fraternity
houses. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 8 and August 13, 1986.)
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated August 20, 1986 from his office to
the Board:
"In June 1985, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Conservation Plan for
a portion of the University lying within Albemarle County (Rugby-Culbreth-
University Avenue District). In addition, the Board authorized the
Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority to issue and sell
its revenue bonds to finance the rehabilitation of properties located
within this area.
The University has recently made a similar request to the County to
allocate $975,000 of its local Industrial Development Bond allocation
($4.395 million) for purposes of renovating the Sigma Phi, Kappa Sigma
and Sigma Nu fraternity houses located within the adopted Conservation
200
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
(Page 6)
been made to date and-the local allocation reverts back to the state
reserve after August 29, 1986. A public hearing on this matter is
required, and a copy of the necessary resolution from the Board to
accomplish the bond issuance is attached."
Mr. Agnor said this will finish the program of renovation of fraternity housing for the
University. Mr. Fisher asked for a report on the fraternity houses that have been renovated.
Mr. Agnor said the one house approved by the County for financing has been finished. The
building's usage and appearance are greatly improved. The house is now being maintained unde
strict contractual arrangements between the University and the fraternity so that deteriora-
tion does not reoccur. There are some houses in the City under renovation since summer.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ray Hunt, Vice President for the University of
Virginia, addressed the Board. There are actually six fraternity houses in the County. A
total of four houses have been renovated. Chi Phi House which is also in this district, has
embarked on its own program and is not using this method for renovation. There is one more
house for possible renovation in the future, but the limited partnership's future use is
unclear. There are 51 total houses in the district. There are four or five other properties
in the process of being renovated using other mechanisms. It has been a very successful
financial program. The support being requested today is for $975,000 to be split between
three houses and reaffirmation of the conservation district.
Mrs. Cooke asked how much housing these renovations will provide. Mr. Hunt said the 51
houses in the district can house approximately 1000 students; approximately 10 percent of the
undergraduate population. On an average, 25 students live in each house. The University, on
grounds, has 6300 housing units. Mr. Hunt invited the Board members to come view the renova-
ted houses. Mrs. Cooke asked if there are guidelines as to the number of students that can
live in a fraternity house. Mr. Hunt said these houses will meet all fire and safety code
standards. The University has the problem of attempting the fill the houses to capacity. The
financial liability of the program is based on gaining rents from the students. Approximatel~
50 percent of the brothers of a fraternity live in the houses, but all of them are responsibli
for the upkeep. Upkeep does take constant vigilance on the part of the University, but it is
hoped to be a successful program.
Mr. Fisher commented that he senses that the University is going to exert a greater
control over how these buildings are maintained. Mr. Hunt said a differentiation must be mad(
between the University and the Historic Renovation Corporation as a separate company, acting
as general partner. The properties that are under HRC, have specific individual leases with
the students as well as leases with the Housing Corporation that set forth specific require-
ments. Revisions are being made to tighten the requirements more. They feel, as a landlord
that the normal requirements of a landlord should be exercised. When these buildings are
complete, the living conditions will be much improved. The Board of Visitors wanted to find
way to make the properties safe. The Board did not want the students living in substandard,
unsafe situations. There has been a lot of support from the Alumni, the County and the City.
With no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion to adopt the following resolutions authorizing the allocation of $975,000 of
the County's local Industrial Development Bond allocation for purposes of renovating the Sigm~
Phi, Kappa Sigma and Sigma Nu fraternity houses located within the boundaries of the Conser-
vation District established by the County. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way.
Mr. Agnor commented that there is also a certificate attached to the resolutions which
an Internal Revenue Service Code requirement stating that the Board members have taken this
action without any consideration of any bribe, gift, gratuity or direct or indirect contribu-
tion to any political campaign. There is space available for six signatures, but only one
signature is required. There was no discussion of the certificate.
(Note: The resolutions as adopted are set out below.)
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "Board"), after a public hearing following reasonable
public notice, has considered the application of Sigma Phi Renovation
Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership, Madison Hall,
University Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9012 (the "Appli-
cant'') for the issuance of a housing revenue bond by the Charlottes-
ville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority") in an
amount up to $300,000 (the "Bond") to assist in the financing of
the Applicant's renovation of a fraternity house and residential
facility constituting a historic property and conservation project
(the "Project"). The Project will be leased in part to Alpha of
Virginia, Sigma Phi, Incorporated and in part to individuals. The
Project will be located at 163 Rugby Road in a Conservation District
established in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County");
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the Board to approve the
issuance of the Bond to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, (the "Code") and Paragraph 2 of
Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983;
WHEREAS, a copy of the fiscal impact statement required by
Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of
Virginia of 1983, has been filed with the Board; and
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
(Page 7)
201
WHEREAS, Section 103(n),f the Code and Executive Order 54(85)
upon the County a Local Allocation, as defined in'the Order of
$4,395,000 of bonds that may be issued to finance facilities located
in the County, none of which has yet been allocated to facilities
located in the County;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the proposed issuance of the Bond by
the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent
required by the federal and state laws referred to above, to
permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The foregoing approval of the proposed issuance of the
Bond does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond, the
financial viability of the Project or the creditworthiness of the
Applicant. As required by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall provide that neither the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the County, the City of Charlottesville
nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bond or the
interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from
revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and
credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, the
City of Charlottesville or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. The Board hereby allocates $300,000 of its Local Allocation
to the issuance of the Bond for the Project.
4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption. The allocation made in Paragraph 3 above shall be void
if the Bond is not issued on or before August 29, 1986.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "Board"), after a public hearing following reasonable
public notice, has considered the application of Kappa Sigma Renovation
Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership, Madison Hall,
University Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9012 (the "Appli-
cant'') for the issuance of a housing revenue bond by the Charlottes-
ville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority") in an
amount up to $300,000 (the "Bond") to assist in the financing of
the Applicant's renovation of a fraternity house and residential
facility constituting a historic property and conservation project
(the "Project"). The Project will be leased in part to the Bologna
Society of the University of Virginia, and in part to individuals. The
Project will be located at 165 Rugby Road in a Conservation District
established in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County");
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the Board to approve the
issuance of the Bond to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, (the "Code") and Paragraph 2 of
Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983;
WHEREAS, a copy of the fiscal impact statement required by
Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of
Virginia of 1983, has been filed with the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(n) of the Code and Executive Order 54(85)
(Revised) of the Governor of Virginia (the "Order") have imposed
upon the County a Local Allocation, as defined in the Order of
$4,395,000 of bonds that may be issued to finance facilities located
in the County, none of which has yet been allocated to facilities
located in the County;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the proposed issuance of the Bond by
the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent
required by the federal and state laws referred to above, to
permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The foregoing approval of the proposed issuance of the
Bond does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond, the
financial viability of the Project or the creditworthiness of the
Applicant. As. required by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall provide that neither the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the County, the City of Charlottesville
nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bond or the
interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from
revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and
credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, the
City of Charlottesville or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. The Board hereby allocates $300,000 of its Local Allocation
to the issuance of the Bond for the Project.
202
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting. from August 13, 1986)
(Page 8)
4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption. The allocation made in Paragraph 3 above shall be void
if the Bond is not issued on or before August 29, 1986.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "Board"), after a public hearing following reasonable
public notice, has considered the application of Sigma Nu Renovation
Limited Partnership, a Virginia limited partnership, Madison Hall,
University Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9012 (the "Appli-
cant'') for the issuance of a housing revenue bond by the Charlottes-
ville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority") in an
amount up to $375,000 (the "Bond") to assist in the financing of
the Applicant's renovation of a fraternity house and residential
facility constituting a historic property and conservation project
(the "Project"). The Project will be leased in part to the Hopkins
Society of the Sigma Nu Fraternity and in part to individuals. The
Project will be located at 1830 Carrs Hill Road in a Conservation District
established in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County");
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the Board to approve the
issuance of the Bond to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, (the "Code") and Paragraph 2 of
Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1983;
WHEREAS, a copy of the fiscal impact statement required by
Paragraph 2 of Chapter 514 of the Acts of the General Assembly of
Virginia of 1983, has been filed with the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(n) of the Code and Executive Order 54185)
(Revised) of the Governor of Virginia (the "Order") have imposed
upon the County a Local Allocation, as defined in the Order of
$4,395,000 of bonds that may be issued to finance facilities located
in the County, none of which has yet been allocated to facilities
located in the County;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the proposed issuance of the Bond by
the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent
required by the federal and state laws referred to above, to
permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The foregoing approval of the proposed issuance of the
Bond does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond, the
financial viability of the Project or the creditworthiness of the
Applicant. As required by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall provide that neither the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the County, the City of Charlottesville
nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bond or the
interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from
revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and
credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County, the
City of Charlottesville or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. The Board hereby allocates $375,000 of its Local Allocation
to the issuance of the Bond for the Project.
4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption. The allocation made in Paragraph 3 above shall be void
if the Bond is not issued on or before August 29, 1986.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor requested that Agenda Item No. 14, Affirm Purchase Option - Southern Regional
Park, from tonight's agenda be taken up at this time.
Mr. Tucker said the County has secured a 120 day option on property the staff was direc-
ted to study for its feasibility as a Southern Regional Park. The property is a 416-acre site
located on Route 631, less than one mile from Route 708 on Walnut Branch which flows into the
Hardware River. The purchase price of the property is $293,000. Mr. Agnor signed the
purchase option on Monday and the staff immediately started advertising a RFP to study the
feasibility of the site. A lake is planned for the site. There will be a preliminary master
plan drafted. If this site is feasible for the intended use, the staff will prepare an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for approval by the Planning Commission and the Board.
The master plan will be part of the feasibility report. Mr. Payne said action required by the
Board today is ratification that Mr. Agnor acted on behalf of the County. Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion to confirm that Mr. Agnor was authorized to sign a purchase option for the
Southern Regional Park. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
(Page 9)
Mr. Fisher said he has received a notice that the Greene County Board of Supervisors will
hold a joint public hearing with the Greene County Planning Commission on next Tuesday to
consider a rezoning petition for property which either adjoins or is directly across the road
from County property. The petitioner is Forrest and Jean K. Roark, property adjacent to Route
645. Mr. Fisher handed the notice to Mr. Agnor and asked that he see if the County has any
property adjoining the request.
Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from Hunton & Williams, a law firm in Richmond,
representing United Virginia Bank. The letter states "The Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation is considering changes to the intersection of Rio Road and Rt. 29 North. Those
changes could have a material and adverse impact upon the operation by the bank of its branch.
Therefore, I would appreciate your directing this letter to the response of a staff person and
request that he forward to me copies of the latest plans for the intersection, anticipated
time schedule, dates of public hearing scheduled and any other information that is relevant to
the bank's interest." Mr. Agnor said he thinks it would be appropriate for the legal staff to
respond. Mr. Payne said he thinks the appropriate response is to inform Hunton & Williams
that all of this information is available and if there are specific questions, to request such
information. It is incumbent on them to compile information on general questions such as
this. It is possible that this was directed to the County because of the six-year highway
plan. He is reluctant to commit the County to providing information on a request this gene-
ral. Mr. Fisher handed the letter to Mr. Payne and asked that he respond as necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom said he received a registered letter from a constituent,^Ingleside~ concern-
ing a drainage problem which he though~had been resolved. Mr. Tucker said the staff is still
following the problem. A drainage structure has been prepared, but not completed. A good job
of backfilling around the structure has not taken place. The staff is working with the owner.
There was a meeting held Monday morning. There may be a need to call the bond. He intends to
suggest to Mr. Armm, County Engineer, perhaps having a contingency fund so that the Engineering
Department can get the work done more rapidly. Mr. Lindstrom commented that this has been
going on for about a year. It has to do with improvements that are required by the ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 5. Adjournment. Mr. Agnor requested an executive session for the
discussion of personnel matters. At 5:10 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that effect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
None.
At 7:29 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session, and immediately adjourned.
CHAiR~A~N~
August 20, 1986 (Adjourned Meeting from August 13, 1986)
(Page 9)
Mr. Fisher said he has received a notice that the Greene County Board of Supervisors will
hold a joint public hearing with the Greene County Planning Commission on next Tuesday to
consider a rezoning petition for property which either adjoins or is directly across the~road
from County property. The petitioner is Forrest and Jean K. Roark, property adjacent to Route
645. Mr. Fisher handed the notice to Mr. Agnor and asked that he see if the County has any
property adjoining the request.
Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from
representing United Virginia Bank. The letter
Transportation is considering changes to the in
changes could have a material and adverse impac
Therefore, I would appreciate your directing th
request that he forward to me copies of the lat
time schedule, dates of public hearing schedule
the bank's interest." Mr. Agnor said he thinks
respond. Mr. Payne said he thinks the appropri
that all of this information is available and i
information.
this.
plan.
ral.
~unton & Williams, a law firm in Richmond,
states "The Virginia Department of Highways &
tersection of Rio Road and Rt. 29 North. Those
t upon the operation by the bank of its branch.
is letter to the response of a staff person and
~st plans for the intersection, anticipated
~ and any other information that is relevant to
it would be appropriate for the legal staff to
~te response is to inform Hunton & Williams
there are specific questions, to request such
It is incumbent on them to compil, information on general questions such as
It is possible that this was directed to the County because of the six-year highway
He is reluctant to commit the County to providing information on a request this gene-
Mr. Fisher handed the letter to Mr. Payne and asked that he respond as necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom said he received a registere~
ing a drainage problem which he though~had been
following the problem. A drainage structure ha:
of backfilling around the structure has not take
There was a meeting held Monday morning. There
suggest to Mr. Armm, County Engineer, perhaps hi
Department can get the work done more rapidly.
going on for about a year. It has to do with i~
Agenda Item No. 5. Adjournment. Mr. Agno~
discussion of personnel matters. At 5:10 P.M.,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, roll was
recorded vote:
letter from a constituent,^Ingleside~ concern-
resolved. Mr. Tucker said the staff is still
~ been prepared, but not completed. A good job
~n place. The staff is working with the owner.
may be a need to call the bond. He intends to
~ving a contingency fund so that the Engineering
Mr. Lindstrom commented that this has been
~rovements that are required by the ordinance.
: requested an executive session for the
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that effect.
~alled and the motion carried by the following
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
At 7:29 P.M., the Board
Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
reconvened into open session, and immediately
adjourned.