HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200700059 Minutes 2013-04-04Sumpter advised that this intersection will be
looked at in this year's list of priorities.
Alan Sumpter:
• The Board ENDORSED the idea of a temporary
structure at the Advanced Mills Bridge, and
DIRECTED VDoT to begin on the details of
accomplishing that.
9. Annual Housing Report.
Clerk: Schedule on June 13, 2007 agenda.
• Due to time constraints, presentation moved to
June 13 as part of joint work session with the
Planning Commission.
10. Appeal: SUB - 2007 -059, Meadows Estates -
Vacating Coopers Lane (AKA Terrior Road) — Final.
• AUTHORIZED, by a vote of 6:0, the private
roads for this subdivision conditioned upon an
approval of a landscaping plan by staff
substantially in conformance with the plan
presented to the Board by the applicant.
11. Natural Heritage Committee Annual Report.
Scott Clark: Proceed as directed.
• RECEIVED.
• CONSENSUS that the Natural Heritage
Committee collaborate with staff on its
conservation recommendations, including
finding funding sources to support
work/analysis needs.
12. Ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the
(Attachment 11)
Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2 -202,
Compensation of board of supervisors.
Clerk: Forward copy of adopted ordinance to
• ADOPTED, by a vote of 5:1, the attached
appropriate individuals along with necessary
ordinance.
EAR forms to Human Resources.
13. Ordinance to amend Chapter 1, General Provisions, of
(Attachment 12)
the Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 1-
119, Additional court costs.
Clerk: Forward copy of adopted ordinance to
• ADOPTED, by a vote of 6:0, the attached
Phyllis Stewart, Shelby Marshall, Sheriff Robb
ordinance.
and County Attorney's office.
14. Closed Session.
• At 1:04 p.m., the Board went into closed
session to consider appointments to Boards,
Committees, and Commissions, and to conduct
and Administrative evaluation.
15.
Certify Closed Session.
• At 2:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session and certified the closed session.
16.
Appointments.
Clerk: Prepare appointment/reappointment
• APPOINTED the following individuals to the
letters, update Boards and Commissions book,
Pantops Community Advisory Committee:
update webpage, and notify appropriate
o Robert Bossi; John Crosby; Barbara Elias;
persons.
Nancy R. Hackman; Charles Harris; Ron
Hoffman; Tucker Hurt; Glenna Kennett; Rita
Krenz; and Anthony McHale.
• APPOINTED Michael Peoples to the Regional
Disability Services Board, with said term to
expire June 30, 2010.
• APPOINTED Will Cockrell to the Thomas
Jefferson Water Resources Protection
Foundation.
• REAPPOINTED William B. Harvey to the
Advisory Council on Aging, with said term to
structure, and the option of no bridge is not really an option.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is unfortunate to have to spend $750,000 on a temporary structure
instead of accelerating the process.
Mr. Pierce said that there are certain processes that are related to the historical nature of the
bridge.
Ms. Thomas stated that she would like to see the timetable for both the temporary and permanent
bridges for a better perspective.
Mr. Pierce said that the temporary one would not delay the process for the permanent one.
- Mr. Pierce also stated that the funding for the project is federal funds and would not be able to be
used for a temporary structure.
Mr. Rooker stated that he endorses the idea of a temporary bridge, but he has a strong interest in
moving forward with the permanent structure.
Mr. Boyd clarified that it appears that the consensus of the Board is to move forward with the
temporary structure with support for expediting the permanent replacement.
In response to Ms. Thomas, Mr. Pierce said that bicycles could use the bridge in its current form
but there is no way to prevent vehicles from using it if bikes do.
Mr. Slutzky complimented Mr. Sumpter and Mr. Pierce on their work with the community.
Mr. Wyant also thanked them, adding that the community had mentioned some alternate routes.
Mr. Benish mentioned that there is usually a requirement for documenting historic structure
replacement so that may add some time to the process. He added that it is a very important structure to
the character of the area, and it is one of two remaining span bridges in the County.
Agenda Item No. 9. Annual Housing Report.
Noting that it was 11:49 a.m., Mr. Boyd suggested this presentation be moved to June 13, 2007,
as part of a joint work session with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tucker commented that anything regarding affordable housing could be communicated to
Ron White via email.
Mr. Boyd said that his report would be available at the work session as well.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: SUB - 2007 -059, Meadows Estates - Vacating Coopers Lane (AKA
Terrior Road) — Final. Request to vacate a previously recorded public street right -of -way. Concurrent with
this vacation is a request for authorization by the Planning Commission to allow creation of a private street
in the Rural Areas, in accordance with Section 14- 232A(3). The property, described as public street right -
of -way and known as Cooper Lane, is approximately 5.26 acres. Meadows Estates subdivision is zoned
Rural Areas (RA). This site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the southeast side of
Carters Mountain Road (State Route 627).
Mr. John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development, reported that this is an appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of a private road authorization request. He explained that the final plat was approved
on March 1, 2000 for an eight -lot subdivision in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Carter's Mountain
Road, with a public street as part of the approval which is almost complete. He stated that three lots
within the development contain development rights. Mr. Shepherd said that the owners of the lots have
determined they want a private road that the Homeowners Association would maintain, and they have
submitted a plat that shows abandonment of the existing public right of way and the creation of a private
street easement serving lots one through eight. He noted that on April 3, 2007, the matter was placed
before the Planning Commission with staff review that included analysis of the request for compliance with
Section 14.232.A -1 and Section 14.232.A -4.
Mr. Shepherd said that the first section addresses significant environmental degradation, and staff
found that the road had been constructed to VDOT standards and conversion to a private street would
impose additional regulation to future subdivisions due to required Commission review for adding lots to a
private road. He said that staff was unable to make findings under Section 14.323.A -1 to recommend
approval; the Commission unanimously denied the request. Mr. Shepherd said that staff did not address
the second criteria for private road approval: Section 14.232.A -3 (general welfare), which states that "one
or more private streets may be authorized if the general welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interest of
the subdivider, would be better served by the construction of one or more private streets than the
construction of a public street."
(Page 34)
Mr. Shepherd explained that if the Board chooses to approve this, it would have to be done under
the criteria of "for general welfare," adding that the Commission approved a similar request in December
2006 to convert a public road to a private road for Ingleside on Garth Road, a 12 -lot development.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board overrode the Planning Commission's decision, would it reduce the
number of development rights. Mr. Shepherd replied that it would not, adding that additional lots on a
public road could be created by -right with a subdivision plat; on a private road, lots would require Planning
Commission approval.
Mr. Rooker commented that the County does not want to approve lots on a private road that
would not be able to take place on a public road. He noted that is not the case here or in Ingleside. He
also noted that there is an advantage to having a private group assume responsibility for a road at their
own expense.
Mr. Slutzky added that this also helps to make it more difficult to do some development in the rural
area, which is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Mr. Shepherd added that this road would be designed and built to VDOT standards.
Mr. Davis said that the Planning Commission looked at the environmental degradation standard,
but it did not consider the general welfare standard.
Mr. Rooker stated that he spoke with his Commission member, and he indicated that he had
changed his mind about denying approval after learning more about it.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the Planning Commission was unanimously in support of staff's
recommendation, and the Commission was sensitive to Mr. Edgerton's concern that this was a by -right
development in an agricultural /forestal district. He said that he saw no benefits to reducing the standards
of the road nor were there benefits to the community in making exceptions to this road. Mr. Cilimberg also
said that there was concern raised that additional lots could be developed. It was mentioned by the staff
person, Summer Frederick, that a public road would allow this but a private road would require
Commission review.
Mr. Shepherd said that it is a difficult set of criteria in the general welfare criteria to make a
positive finding, and staff did not specifically address that. He added that they did recognize that the
homeowners' association's ability to take responsibility for road maintenance is a factor in favor of a
finding of general welfare.
Mr. Davis noted that the standard under general welfare is that it supports the general welfare
instead of the proprietary interest of the subdivider, looking at whether it would save the subdivider money
or whether it is somehow furthering his interest rather than the general interest. Mr. Davis said in looking
at this, it is more of a neighborhood issue and not a money issue. He stated that he does not think that
there is any indication that this is for the proprietary benefit of the developer.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he is not swayed that there would be a cost savings attributed to a
homeowners' association. He stated that he is sympathetic to the application because of the reduced
capacity and because it is difficult for development rights to be exercised.
At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Mr. John Grabb, President of First Colony Company, based in Charlotte, North Carolina,
addressed the Board on behalf of Vineyard Estates, LLC. Mr. Grabb said that there are five reasons for
privatization: rural character of the road would be better preserved and maintained with a private road;
aesthetics would be enhanced with a private road; environmental quality would be better preserved;
taxpayers and the County will benefit; and VDOT will benefit.
Mr. Grabb presented information on entrances along the road, noting that the Morven Farm
entrance measures 19 feet from column to column; the Albemarle House is 21 feet wide; and 3846
Carter's Mountain Road is 18 feet wide. He showed photos of the approach to Cooper's Lane, noting that
the wide -open entrance has trees close to the roadway, and they do not want a wide -open road for The
Meadows. Mr. Grabb explained that there are currently three public roads off of Carter's Mountain —
Secretary's Road, Blenheim Road, and President's Road. He added that Cooper's Lane would be the only
public cul -de -sac in this corridor, and it only serves eight lots. He showed a public road entrance plan,
with 40 feet of right of way and five -foot drainage easements on either sides; the entrance for this would
be 50 feet and would be radically out of scale with the other properties. Mr. Grabb showed a private road
entrance that would be 22 feet wide, and thus more in keeping with the character of the area.
Mr. Grabb said that building to public road standards would require planting outside of the right of
way; private roads allow for landscaping to be brought up to the roadside. He explained that VDOT's
maintenance obligations would be removed in lieu of homeowners' association care; over five acres would
be added back to the tax rolls.
Ms. Thomas asked how the planting would impact the treatment of stormwater and runoff. Mr.
Grabb replied that there would still be drainage easements on each side, and would not affect it.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is actually a benefit to have plantings closer to the road.
(Page 35)
There being no other comments, Mr. Boyd closed the public comment period.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier moved to authorize private roads for the Meadows Estates Subdivision.
Ms. Thomas asked if there could be conditions.
Mr. Davis replied that the Board could, but staff did not recommend any. He said that a condition
for staff would be to approve a planting scheme.
Mr. Wyant said that he would prefer that it say a planting scheme would be done by a certain time.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the finding in favor of this application would be that this meets the
general welfare criteria of the Ordinance, and also meets the conditions of Section 14 -234. He noted that
the motion could simply be to authorize the private roads for this subdivision conditioned upon approval of
a landscaping plan by staff that is substantially in conformance with the plan presented to the Board by the
applicant.
Mr. Dorrier then restated his motion to approve SUB - 2007 -059 for Meadows Estates, to
authorize the private roads for this subdivision conditioned upon approval of a landscaping plan by staff
that is substantially in conformance with the plan presented to the Board by the applicant.
Mr. Wyant seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas commented that she is leery of private roads as a number of them have become
problematic.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Natural Heritage Committee Annual Report.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that on July 6, 2005, the Board of Supervisors authorized
the creation of the Natural Heritage Committee. The Committee was described as:
"...an advisory committee that maintains the County's Biodiversity Assessment; advises the Board
of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and County staff on applying biodiversity information to
land -use decision - making; and supports biodiversity education in the County."
The Natural Heritage Committee Fact Sheet provides more details on the Committee's charge.
The Committee has divided itself into four subcommittees to address major work areas.
The Committee's Annual Report for fiscal year 2006 -07 has two purposes:
To report on the Committee's activities over the last year. These activities,
summarized in the section titled "Progress to Date," include development of a
work plan to meet its charge, as well as progress on the four major work areas in
that plan:
• Biodiversity Assessment — cataloging and analyzing the County's
biological resources, as a foundation for effective conservation planning
• Rapid Conservation — identifying biological resources within the County
that are in need of conservation in the short term, and identifying
appropriate tools
• Education — finding methods to communicate natural heritage information
to the public, and developing a communications plan
• Strategic Conservation — developing a long -term conservation plan for
biodiversity in the County
The report also includes the Committee's goals for work in these areas in the upcoming year.
2. To recommend specific sites for conservation (as a result of the Rapid
Conservation subcommittee's work, building on the October 2004 report of the
Biodiversity Work Group). The Annual Report recommends six sites for
conservation, and lists voluntary conservation tools (including conservation
easements, land- purchase programs, and County assistance in funding natural
resource management efforts, and stewardship- recognition programs - -all in
concert with education programs) that could be applied to protect them.
There are no budget impacts directly related to the Annual Report. At future meetings, staff will
report on the budget implications of any of the Committee's conservation recommendations that the Board
would like to investigate.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the Natural Heritage Committee's annual
report, and direct Community Development staff to report to the Board on options for implementing the