HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-01
FINAL
9:00 A.M.
July 6, 1994
Room 7, County Office Building
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) Citizen Recognition Program.
6) Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7) Approval of Minutes: June IO(A), July 1 and July 8, 1992; May 4, May 9(A), May 18, June 1 and
June 8, 1994.
8) Transportation Matters:
a) Jack Hodge - Discussion of Transportation Issues.
b) Letter dated June 30, 1994, from Robert E. Martinez, Secretary of Transportation, re: sequenc-
ing of construction for Route 29, the interchanges and Alternative 10.
c) Request to set a public hearing to prohibit truck traffic on Route 656 (Georgetown Road).
d) Relocation of Route 627 and abandonment of existing section (Enniscorthy).
e) Other Transportation Matters.
9) 10:30 A.M. - Public Hearing on a request from Charlottesville Oil to amend the service area boundaries
of the Albemarle County Service Authority to extend sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcels 77 :md 80B,
located on Route 250 West. (Defer until August 3, 1994).
10) 11 :00 A.M. Publie HeariRg OR an OnliBanee ta ameBa and reerdaiR Chapter 2, .^.aHl.iRistratieR, .^.rtiele
1, Ill. GeRefal, af the Caae af .^JBeHl.arle, ill. ~eetiBR 2 2.1, CampeRsatioB Bf BBara Bf ~l:lfl€lrvis0rs. The
ameIuhneRt proposed vlill iacreaBe the salary af the Beard members {Br Fiscal Year 1994 95 by fi'/e
]3ereeet {Br a tetal salary of $9,549.75. (To be removed from the agenda.)
11) Discussion: Policy on mandatory connection to Albemarle County Service Authority public water ,md
sewerage systems.
12) Adopt Resolution of Intent - Amendments to Development Review Fees.
13) Request for approval of Amendment #2 to the agreement between Albemarle County, Virginia, and GTE-
GIS, Inc., for the E-911 building locator system.
14) Discussion: Letters from Piedmont Environmental Council concerning the Comprehensive Plan and land
use taxation.
15) Presentation by Nancy K. O'Brien on a proposal for a public/private regional economic development
partnership.
16) Presentation by Michael C. Collins, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, re: Prioritization
of Third and Fourth Order Watersheds in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District.
17) Requests to set public hearings for August 3, 1994, to amend the County Code in the following sections:
a) Chapter 15, Personnel, Article I, In General, Section 15-1, to add the Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue
Group and the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Division, as additional organizations deemed to be an
integral part of the safety program of the County.
b) Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, Section 11-12, to require all personal property and transient
occupancy taxes be paid prior to issuance of a business license.
c) Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property--In General, Sections 8-68 and 8-69,
to extend proration of personal property Taxes to boats and trailers.
d) Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, Sections 19.1-5 and
19. 1-6, to add a grandfather clause for the building setback restrictions for parcels recorded prior to
July 11, 1990, and to modify the definition of sewage disposal system.
18) Appropriation:
a) Commonwealth Attorney's Office - $7,200 (Form #930081).
19) *Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
20) Certify Executive Session.
21) Appointments.
22) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
23) Adjourn.
*The Board will hold an executive session under Va. Code Sections 2.1-344.A.l (Personnel Matters) to
i..terview individuals for various boards and commissions, and 2.1-344.A.7 (Legal Matters) to consult
with legal counsel for a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 New l~igh School Site Selection Committee.
6.2 SDP-Q-026, Wray Bros., Inc., Building 3, Major Site Plan Amendment, request to establish a central well and sewage
dispos~ system.
6.3 Authorize payment of $1,186 for Albemarle County's share of rate negotiations for Virginia Power Rate Negotiation
Asses ment.
6.4 Staten ents of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit
Court
FOR INFORMATION:
6.5 Mead w Creek Parkway eligibility for primary system.
6.6 Letter dated June 28, 1994, from Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey,
Clerk, re: monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction and quarterly report of projects
under design in Albemarle County.
6.7 Letter dated June 27, 1994, from Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey,
Clerk, re: promotion of John H. Shifflett, Jr., to the position of Maintenance Manager in the Charlottesville Residency.
6.8 Letter dated June 8, 1994, from David R. Gehr, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: Addition of Village
Wood~ Lane (Route 1553) in Village Woods Subdivision, into the State Secondary System, effective June 8. 1994.
6.9 Letter dated June 14, 1994, from the Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, re: Interchange at 1-64 and
Route 742 (Avon Street).
6.10 Lette dated June 21, 1994, from Robert J. Adams, Acting Director, Department of Housing and Community Development,
re: r otice concerning submittal of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) proposal.
6.11 Copi s of letters from Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels -
Secti n 10.3.1:
a) ad~ressed to Roger W. Ray, dated June 13, 1994, on Tax Map 40, Parcel 26.
b) ad~ressed to Steve Melton, dated June 24, 1994, on Bentivar Subdivision: Tax Map 46, Parcels 143, 144, 145, 146 and
14 .
c) ad~ressed to Weldon and Ruth Wheeler, dated June 24, 1994, on Tax Map 133, Parcel 3.
6.12 Lette dated June 14, 1994, from the Honorable Charles S. Robb, United States Senate, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: Board
resol tion regarding state and local government relief from unfunded federal mandates.
6.13 Arbo Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of May,
1994
6.14 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for April 25, 1994.
6.15 Copi s of Planning Commission minutes for May 31 and June 14, 1994.
6.16 Finar cial Management Report for May, 1994.
6.17 Road Name Change Policy Review.
6.18 Lette dated June 23, 1994, from Eric J. Ellman, Associate Attorney/Manager, Government Relations, Direct Selling
Asso iation, re: recommendation for change in section in Zoning Ordinance relative to home occupations.
6.19 Memprandum dated June 16, 1994, from the Long Range Planning Committee, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
and I obert W. Paskel, Superintendent, re: Summary of public forum comments.
6.20 Memprandum dated June 30, 1994, from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, re:
Priva e entrance sight distance.
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
FROM:
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~,U~
July 7, 1994
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board Actions of July 6, 1994
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on July 6, 1994, the following
actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 9:00
a.m., by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mrs. Sara Lee Barnes, and other residents from the area, presented a
petition concerning the increase in truck traffic on Routes 22 and 231 in
Albemarle County. This corridor is a designated Virginia Byway and should be
maintained as a pleasant driving experience for both residents and people
visiting the area. The through truck and bus traffic have the potential of
ruining this Byway. She asked that Routes 22 and 231 be closed to through
truck traffic. The petition was signed by more than 150 people. She asked
that the Board hold a public hearing in the near future to discuss what can be
done about this traffic situation.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would review the traffic counts for this area to
determine the volume of truck traffic versus other traffic and the accident
data, and then make a report to the Board at a later meeting.
Agenda Item No.5. Citizen Recognition Program.
Mr. Perkins read a list of names of persons recognized by the Police
Department for their outstanding service to the Police Department and communi-
ty at-large. The persons were presented with Certificates of Appreciation by
Chief Miller.
*
Printed on recycled paper
i
~emo To:
tiate:
~age 2
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 7, 1994
Agenda Item No. 6.1. New High School Site Selection Committee.
Approved a request to use the Long Range Planning Committee to make the
~nitial review and analysis of various sites for a potential new high school.
. Mrs. Thomas suggested that the committee solicit input from all the Board
~embers, School Board members and/or Planning Commissioners, instead of only
~he representatives from the district in which the properties being scruti-
~ized are located.
Agenda Item No. 6.2. SDP-94-026, Wray Bros., Inc., Building 3, Ma:jor
Siite Plan Amendment, request to establish a central well and sewage disposal
slY-stem.
Based upon the Department of Engineering's analysis, approved a request
firom Wray Brothers, Inc., for a central well and sewer system.
Agenda Item No. 6.3. Authorize payment of $1,186 for Albemarle County's
s~are of rate negotiations for Virginia Power Rate Negotiation Assessment.
, Approved the payment of $1,186 for Albemarle County's share of rate
n~gotiations, by the joint VML/VACo Virginia Power Steering Committee, with
fUnds currently available in the Staff Services budget.
Agenda Item No. 6.4. Statements of Expenses for the Department of
F~nance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit
Cburt.
Approved as presented.
i Agenda Item No. 6.6. Letter dated June 28, 1994, from Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re:
mbnthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction
ahd quarterly report of projects under design in Albemarle County.
Mr. Perkins noted that the Tabor Street project should be included in the
list of projects under construction.
Agenda Item No. 6.7. Letter dated June 27, 1994, from Dan S. Roosevelt,
Rfsident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re:
Ptomotion of John H. Shifflett, Jr., to the position of Maintenance Manager in
the Charlottesville Residency.
Mr. Roosevelt introduced Mr. John Shifflett.
i Agenda Item No. 6.20. Memorandum dated June 30, 1994, from V. Wayne
Ctlimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, re: Private
eftrance sight distance.
Mrs. Humphris discussed the Georgetown Road Task Force report and the
ptoposed improvements at the Georgetown Road/Hydraulic Road intersection. She
m~ntioned a safety problem at the northern most driveway on Georgetown. Cars
ttaveling east on Hydraulic and then turning south onto Georgetown will end up
i
I
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 7, 1994
Date:
Page 3
right on top of that driveway. The driveway is at the edge of the commercial
property.
Agenda Item No. Sa. Transportation Matter: Jack Hodge - Discussion of
Transportation Issues.
Mr. Hodge discussed the Alternative 10 Bypass, the interchanges, the Base
Case, Berkmar Drive, the connection at Carrsbrook Drive and the Millington
Bridge.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an updated estimate for the bypass with the
changes at the northern and southern termini. Mr. Hodge said he would get
that information.
Mrs. Humphris referred to a statement in Secretary Martinez letter which
stated that "Local traffic would have to contend with large volumes of through
traffic, 16 percent of which would be heavy trucks." Mrs. Humphris said the
last number provided by VDoT that related to through traffic was 1.6 percent,
not 16 percent. Mr. Hodge did not agree and said he would verify the informa-
tion.
Mr. Hodge said VDoT is trying to find a way to keep the Millington Bridge
in the same general location. VDoT is working with the property owners and
Mr. Roosevelt will bring back to the Board a report on the final design.
Mrs. Thomas asked what is the status of Route 250 West, at the bypass
access. Mr. Hodge said VDoT is working on reconfiguring that area to come up
with the best configuration to fix the situation.
Mrs. Humphris said at the last MPO Policy Board meeting the VDoT repre-
sentative suggested that it was possible that the County would not be able to
use its secondary road funds to construct the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Hodge
said he knows of no reason why secondary road funds cannot be used for that
project. He will get information back to the Board.
Agenda Item No. Sb. Letter dated June 30, 1994, from Robert E. Martinez,
Secretary of Transportation, re: sequencing of construction for Route 29, the
interchanges and Alternative 10.
Discussed with Item Sa.
Agenda Item No. Sc. Request to set a public hearing to prohibit truck
traffic on Route 656 (Georgetown Road) .
Set a public hearing for August 10, 1994, to consider prohibiting through
truck traffic on Route 656. (Note: This meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman said at some time in the future, as the improvements on
Route 29 N occur along the new access road from Route 29 N to Berkmar Extended
near Floor Fashions, he will probably be asking the Board to look at prohibit-
ing truck traffic on Carrsbrook Drive.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 7, 1994
Agenda Item No. 8d. Relocation of Route 627 and abandonment of existing
ection (Enniscorthy).
The Board indicated a willingness to abandon the requested section of
oute 627 and authorized a resolution allowing the requested abandonment be
rought back for its approval subject to the following:
1. Evidence that all conditions of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
have been satisfied.
2. Approval of road plans and construction of the relocated section of Route
627 in accordance with those road plans.
3. Approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner.
Agenda Item No. 8e. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins asked that a speed limit study be conducted on Route 684,
Yancey's Mill to Jarmans Gap Road.
Mr. Marshall said on Route 20 S, where the construction is occurring just
yond his farm, some of the residents are concerned about a possible change
the plans. It was his understanding that the present road would remain and
rve as a private road to the four houses. Yesterday he was informed that
e road would be removed and the property owners would access at the southern
d of the new road. Mr. Roosevelt said he would review the construction
ans and get with Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that someone had posted a sign at the Warren Boat
nding, roped off the area and eliminated the parking. Mr. Tucker said staff
negotiating with the property owner to either acquire an easement or an
ea for parking. Staff is also considering a request to the Board, for
clusion in the CIP, to purchase land to maintain a parking area for the
blic.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the state has a program for purchasing access to a
r'ver. Mr. Tucker said he would look into it.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs to make a decision on the improvements
Georgetown Road/Hydraulic Road and on the modifications of the slip ramp.
addition, a recommendation from the Georgetown Road Task Force included
building the current sidewalk. The cost for modification of the slip ramp
$10,000 and the cost to rebuild the sidewalk is $26,000. The consensus of
e Board was to add this item to the August 3, 1994, agenda.
Agenda Item No.9. 10:30 A.M. - Public Hearing on a request from
arlottesville Oil to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle
unty Service Authority to extend sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcels 77 and
B, located on Route 250 West. (Defer until August 3, 1994).
Deferred until August 3, 1994.
Agenda Item No. 10. 11.00 A.H.
Public IIeariBg on an OrainaBcc to illRCHa
f\ emo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 7, 1994
I ate:
I age 5
-,
. , ,
~
~'-
.-
" ~
'.I
_L
~ "n ~-n ~~
,
~. ..,..' .,
.-
(To be removed
"
, n. :::~ ~ ~_'
-.1
f rom the agenda.)
. , ..1,1
Removed from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Policy on mandatory connection to
Plbemarle County Service Authority public water and sewerage systems.
Authorized the Albemarle County Service Authority to adopt a policy for
rr~ndatory connection for new development only and amend County rules to comply
with this requirement as a condition of approval under the subdivision and
zpning ordinances. The Service Authority would also be allowed to grant:
e~emptions to this requirement under the following circumstances:
1. Cases where an adequate private system already exists due to pre-existing
development, such as in the case of a house being rebuilt due to a fire
or other physical problem.
2. Cases where the cost of connecting to the public system (excluding tap
fees) greatly exceeds the cost of providing on-site water and/or septic
(usually due to physical constraints) .
3. Cases where the Service Authority has no available capacity.
The Board also asked that some type of waiver procedure be developed.
Tris policy is to be brought back to the Board for a public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Resolution of Intent - Amendments to Develop-
ment Review Fees.
Adopted the attached Resolution of Intent.
The Board also indicated that when this amendment comes back to the Board
fpr public hearing, the staff report should identify that action needs to be
t~ken on ZTA-94-04.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request for approval of Amendment #2 to the agree-
m~nt between Albemarle County, Virginia, and GTE-GIS, Inc., for the E-911
b~ilding locator system.
Authorized the County Executive to sign the agreement. The originals
h ve been forwarded to Tex Weaver.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Letters from Piedmont Environmental
Cpuncil concerning the Comprehensive Plan and land use taxation.
Mr. Tucker noted that there is a joint meeting of the Board and Planning
Ccmmission scheduled for August 3, 1994, to discuss the status of the Compre-
hEnsive Plan, etc.
The Board asked for information on how much land is coming out of land
Ule, whether there is abuse, how much land is going into land use. The Board
a so asked that the proposal regarding land use that came to the Board several
YEars ago be reactivated.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 7, 1994
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation by Nancy K. O'Brien on a proposal for a
ublic/private regional economic development partnership.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, that the
lbemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees to work with the Planning
istrict Commission and private interest groups to explore development of a
egional Economic Development Partnership. The Board agrees that a regional
proach to any such partnership is better for the sake of efficiency and
coherent planning. Any substantive support from Albemarle County must be
ased on the citizens' knowledge and support, and the Board's judgement of its
lue to all taxpayers and citizens of the County, following the principles on
ich this Board reached consensus two years ago:
1. any change in Albemarle County's policy regarding economic development
must be effective in solving identified problems;
2. any change in policy should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
its identified goals;
3. any change in County economic development policy should not increase the
burden on existing local taxpayers without the benefits being ident:ifi-
able, predictable and significant; and
4. no change should be made without being preceded by formal public hearing.
(Note: Mr. Marshall voted nay.)
Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation by Michael C. Collins, Thomas Jefferson
anning District Commission, re: Prioritization of Third and Fourth Order
tersheds in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District.
Requested the Water Resources Committee to review the report and use the
ta to help the Water Resources Official to prepare the water resources
e ement of the Comprehensive Plan.
Agenda Item No. 17. Requests to set public hearings for August 3, 1994,
amend the County Code in the following sections:
a) Chapter 15, Personnel, Article I, In General, Section 15-1, to add
the Blue Ridge Mountain Rescue Group and the Albemarle County
Fire/Rescue Division, as additional organizations deemed to be an
integral part of the safety program of the County.
Set the public hearing for August 3, 1994, at 10:00 a.m.
b) Chapter II, Licenses, Article I, In General, Section 11-12, to
require all personal property and transient occupancy taxes be paid
prior to issuance of a business license.
Set the public hearing for August 3, 1994, at 10:10 a.m.
c) Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property--In
General, Sections 8-68 and 8-69, to extend proration of personal
property taxes to boats and trailers.
Set the public hearing for August 3, 1994, at 10:20 a.m.
r emo To:
I ate:
I age 7
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
July 7, 1994
d)
Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, Article II, Protection of Public
Drinking Water, Sections 19.1-5 and 19.1-6, to add a grandfather
clause for the building setback restrictions for parcels recorded
prior to July II, 1990, and to modify the definition of sewage
disposal system.
Set the public hearing for August 3, 1994, at 10:30 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 18a. Appropriation: Commonwealth Attorney's Office _
~7,200 (Form #930081).
Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments.
Appointed Mr. Michael Matthews, Jr., to the Joint Airport Commission,
with said term beginning on December I, 1994 and expiring on December I, 1997.
Reappointed Mr. William Kehoe to the Joint Airport Commission, with said
t~rm to expire on December I, 1997.
Appointed Mr. Raymond E. Gaines, to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and
tpe Fire Prevention Board of Appeals, with said terms to expire on Noverrilier
2 , 1999.
Reappointed Mr. John Hood to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Fire
P evention Board of Appeals, with said terms to expire on November 21, 1999.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
B pARD .
Mr. Martin asked about the status of the Meadow Creek Parkway study.
Mrs. Thomas asked if anyone from staff is attending the Shenandoah
N tional Park Service symposium. (Note: I have forwarded Pat Mullaney
i formation on the symposium.)
Mrs. Thomas referred to a letter dated June 9, 1994, from Mr. John
Gines, President, Albemarle County NAACP, to Chief Miller, and said his
c<ncerns should be discussed at some point.
Mr. Perkins said he would be absent from the next two meetings.
Board members asked that a set of the aerials that Mr. Hodge used during
h's presentation be placed in the Planning Department.
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 7, 1994
Date:
Page 8
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a cover story on Mrs. Thomas in Virginia Busi-
ness, and said it was an excellent article.
Mrs. Humphris expressed concern about notification of a public forum on
the state's plan for historic preservation held in City Hall. She does not
feel that adequate notification was provided and thinks the department
responsible for this should be contacted and informed of this concern.
Mr. Marshall commended the Parks & Recreation Department for the mowing
on Route 20 South, from Route 53 to the City limits. The area really looks
good.
Mrs. Thomas said apparently different segments of the state have differ-
ent standards as to how often the Highway Department cuts the grass. The
standards around Williamsburg are different than in this area. She asked
staff to find out if there is some way for the Charlottesville area to have
the same standards as Williamsburg, which may allow more careful grass cutting
around the entrance corridors.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Attachments
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Bruce Woodzell
Larry W. Davis
File
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
o F
I N TEN T
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
(:ounty, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
~lbemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0, FEES, to allow
ee reduction for uses that may be subject to multiple fees, minor
pxpansions to nonconforming uses and the like, and family divisions
hat necessitate a special use permit.
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance,
$md does request that the Planning Commission send its recommenda-
ion to this Board at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
rreeting held on July 6, 1994. ~.., .. ) ) /.7
a tlu L/aA~~
er , Board of County sup~ors
R~solution No. 94.0706(7}
.
7 - / - Cj '-I
-. ,............~~....._--..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BRANCH
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOP~
214 Ninth Street N.W.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
June 9, 1994
Mr. John Miller, Police Chief
Albemarle County Police Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Miller:
We appreciated the presentation you made at our April
branch meeting. Recently you indicated to me that your
department has six African-American officers. According to
the last census data, the county of Albemarle has 6,824
African-American residents. Therefore, the percent of
African-American officers is somewhat less than the county's
African-American population.
You mentioned at our April meeting that the county will
employ six additional officers next year, 1994-95. Our
branch would like to encourage you to fill those slots with
African-Americans.
It has also been called to our attention that
complaints against the police department are reviewed by
your staff. We would like to recommend the establishment of
a review board composed of some county citizens to address
the preceding need.
Thanks again for sharing with our branch.
Since~
~aines, President
Albemarle County NAACP
cc: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, County Executive
Members of the Board of Supervisors
(V\THILE YOU \!\iE,RE 1~,,!Ji~\ '1:)
"- 1 . .. -., _'(.\~ ~/
, \,ilt if:~ ClATE_l-&... JllVld.l
RETURNED
YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
'. ,',;/.. :j... ....... ..... .;i;~,~'~,Y;i&:\~/'-;r,;~~~~~;i~,'i <\.. \. JA~{{r<<~:!,:. "'),,-.,$ .
Keswick.,cr sb:Wprkers exal1Jlner~'J9a,l Honda.~fter. it was
crushed by a':'oonrefe slab that fell from a passll1g traclor~trailer. The
car's driver, 35-y~ar-old David Mraz of Keswick, was listed in critical
;tate grant
)olsters
trua filaht
'AS"i.:";,;-"."'. . ...;.':~photObyMattGentry
cOttdi~onat University of Virginia Hospitatafter thelat:cidentJ;'ue~aay
on Route .22 just east of U.S. 250..Albemarle County police cited the
truck's driver, Charles L. Williams, for failure to keep a load secure.
Electricity demand
knows no vacation
Unused appliances pump up power bills
"
~
.----, / )
!>~c.-c I rf d I (; 91
John P. Moore
Rt.2 Box 439
Keswick, VA 22947
July 6, 1994
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, VA
Dear Chairman Perkins and Members of the Board:
I own property and reside on Virginia state route 231 near
Cismont. Over the past month or so, I have noticed an increasing
number of tractor-trailer trucks traveling on Routes 231 and 22.
This issue has become an increasing concern among residents of
this area who live on and/or travel the Route 231-22 corridor.
Individual concerns led to discussions which have culminated in
the petition before you today.
The signers of the petition respectfully request that the Board
consider closing Routes 231 and 22 north from the County line to
Route 250 to through truck traffic. There are several reasons
behind this request, the most important of which is the matter of
safety for all persons travelling these roads and especially
those who because of where they live, shop, go to school, or work
must travel these roads several times every day. The other
principal reasons for this request relate to the added cost of
maintenance to the roads resulting from damage due to increased
truck traffic and the designation of the Route 231-22 corridor as
a Virginia By-Way.
The principal issues are:
Safety
Route 231 and 22 between the County line and Route 250 is a
narrow, two-lane road. The posted speeds and numerous vertical
and horizontal curves, which reduce sight distances, decrease the
motorists ability to react to emergency.
There are numerous entrances and intersections, which, especially
when combined with reduced sight distances, make turning
movements onto and off of the road hazardous.
"
July 6, 1994
Page 2
There is virtually no shoulder along this segment of roadway.
Often, there are either deep drainage ditches on both sides of
the road or steep cut-banks rising on opposite sides of the road.
Both of these situations make avoidance maneuvers hazardous or
~ven impossible.
The posted speed on Route 231 is 55 mph and 50 mph on Route 22
south of the Route 231 intersection. These are the same speeds
posted on all four lane divided highways, except for the rural
interstates. The advisability of these posted speeds on these
two routes may be a discussion for another time. The reality now
is that people, including the drivers of through tractor
trailers, often exceed the posted speed limit on these two roads
thereby exacerbating what is inherently a dangerous condition.
Add to that rain, winter storms, and/or darkness and the dangers
quickly multiply.
We are an agricultural community, and there is a great deal of
movement of farm equipment along Routes 231 and 22. Getting
equipment onto and off of the road and travelling safely at the
low speeds this equipment is limited to has become increasingly
difficult and dangerous.
There are several school bus routes along Routes 231 and 22.
These buses are forced to make a number of stops where limited
sight distance is a problem either directly for the bus or for
the line of cars which inevitably stacks up behind them during
morning rush-hour. Stopped vehicles on blind curves are
susceptible to rear-end cOllisions, especially by vehicles with
increased stopping requirements such as trucks.
There are three convenience stores along the corridor which have
attracted trucks to make pit stops. None of the parking areas or
the entrances or exits at these stores are designed to handle the
special needs of tractor-trailers. Two of the stores, Cismont
and Shadwell, have gasoline pumps which are extremely vulnerable
to being struck by vehicles. I have observed trucks at both of
these stores parked in what I would consider to be dangerous
locations along side the roadway.
I recognize that increased traffic is a natural outgrowth of
development in the region and that as residents will have to cope
with this increase over time. This recognition, however, is part
of my concern. Large tractor-trailer trucks are less
maneuverable and are harder to stop than cars, and through truck
drivers are more apt to be fatigued from a long journey or
pressed by a schedule and therefore have an increased potent.ial
risk of being involved in traffic accident.
~
July 6, 1994
Page 3
Ten is the accepted multiplier in transportation planning for
determining the number of vehicle trips per day generated by the
average household. That means that some households fronting on
Routes 231 and 22 put themselves or the lives of their families
at risk more than ten times a day whenever they leave or return
to their homes. We acknowledge and accept some risk by driving,
but the level of risk on Routes 231 and 22 has become
unacceptable.
Maintenance
Route 22 is currently in the process of being resurfaced. I
could not help but notice that VDOT spent almost a year repairing
the edges of the pavement in preparation of this resurfacing
project. I suspect, that a major contributing factor to the
failure of the pavement, particularly at the edges, is the
passage of over-the-road, tractor-trailers which are oversized
and overweight for either the specific or the functional
geometric design standard for the road.
Two separate issues concern me regarding the repaving of the
road. They are: that the improved surface will lead to higher
speeds (the posted speed is 50 mph and 55 mph and is often
exceeded) and that increased truck traffic will reduce the
expected life of this improvement, thereby diverting money away
from future road maintenance projects in the County's Six-Year
Plan.
virginia By-Way status
The route 231-22 corridor has been designated a virginia By-Way
by the General Assembly as a means for increasing the awareness
and enjoyment of both Virginians and tourists from other regions
of the history and aesthetic beauty of the region between
Monticello and Montpelier. These state residents and tourists,
whose presence is so highly valued by the local economy, should
not be lured to a road that has become and will increasingly be
an attractive nuisance by virtue of the dangers presented by
uncontrolled truck traffic.
If the Board requires information from which to make an informed
decision regarding the restriction of through trucks on Routes
231 and 22, I request that you schedule a public hearing at which
time property owners and area residents who must travel the roads
can testify as to their concerns. I also respectfully request
that the County staff and Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) present to the Board all public information regarding
current traffic counts, geometric design standards, and accident
reports for Routes 231 and 22. Should VDOT require a new traffic
JUly 6, 1994
Page 4
cpunt I recommend to the Board that you ask the VDOT staff to
p~rform the counts at unannounced intervals and in a manner so as
not to alert the trucking industry that they may avoid the routes
and bias the count.
Ap I have stated, safety is my primary issue. This Board and
r~sidents of Albemarle County should not have to wait, as they
d~d in Fauquier County prior closing Route 17 to through truck
t~affic, for multiple traffic fatalities to occur before making
the right decision.
e tfUll~Ub itted,
P. Moore, AICP
4
['~ '1 , ...._/. 7C f/
.\j (J(~J{d:_~ ."-7
Agenda Item N). .,f~~2!.~~ )
Following is the list of persons to be recognized at the July 6
Board meeting for their outstanding service to the Police
Department and the community at-large:
Joey Bishop (Scottsville)
Mary Bishop (Scottsville)
Kim Clements (Keene)
Jessica Morris (Scottsville)
On June 15th a woman swerved into oncoming traffic on Route 250,
causing a two-vehicle collision. The above individuals assi.sted
in removing the woman from her car and attempted to get the man,
who was severely injured, out of his heavily damaged van.
Officer Jeff Vohwinkel was the original officer on the scene.
Early Francis Dudley, Jr. (Gordonsville)
Neale Frazier Craft (Ivy)
Frank Daniel Schoch (Charlottesville)
John C. Wyant (Ruckersville)
Betsy Greenleaf (Greenwood)
The above citizens were involved in rescuing the driver of a
truck that was involved in a crash on Route 22 on May 10th.
After striking another vehicle, the truck rolled over, struck a
tree and burst into flames. The five people named above helped
the driver out of the cab and away from the truck before the cab
was consumed by flames. Officer Scott Parker was the reporting
officer.
John Powell (Crozet)
County Police Officer Dave Sloope was performing routine patrol
duties when he noticed smoke from a nearby field. Upon
investigation, Officer Sloope discovered an elderly gentleman who
had fallen into the flames while burning some brush. Mr. Powell
assisted Officer Sloope in rescuing the man from the fire and
getting emergency help.
fJf;::M7~
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bob Tucker
Chief John Mille~~
June 13, 1994 \J
citizen Recognition Program
As we discussed, attached is a list of those persons
who will be recognized during the July 6th Board of
Supervisors' meeting for their outstanding service to the
police department and the community at large.
Please call if you have any questions. We
appreciate the opportunity to bring attention to these
citizens.
LC/le
CtJ-,;y-- ~~ ~"UL ~
Attachment
Joey Bishop (Scottsville)
Mary Bishop (Scottsville)
Kim Clements (Keene)
Jesica Morris (Scottsville)
::<.:J ()
On June 15th a wom4ri swerved into oncoming traffic on Rout~ causing a
two-vehicle collision. The above individuals assisted in removing the wonin
from her car and attempted to get the man, who was severely injured, out of his
heavily damaged van. (~-gcnt1cman.died- s~ T~ afFivcd~
Officer JeffVohwinkel was the original officer on scene.-and reGQI.'IIILnc1~ tnC98
-inJividll~ls f.or ~er()lsm.
~~~~:;~ipmN;g~~-aoUSll:'~~- is
Early Francis Dudley, Jr.
Neale Frazier Craft
Frank Daniel Schoch
John C. Wyant
Betsy Greenleaf
~Vehicular accident
'was the~. or~ting
~'.:1ni~ "'
\...,..~._... ~
on Rt. 220, May 10, 1994. Officer Scott Parker
officer who recommended---.t:hrsQ -i~.i r'hl~8- for
,
John Powell
Bli~~J?-g ~USh vi~. Offic
[for h~9" eI i9-/remo~/tlie
underbrush. //
Sloo recommended ~~~:-~
tleman from some burning
Mr. Early Francis Dudley
(Gordonsville)
Mr . Neale Frazier Craft
(Ivy)
Mr. Frank Daniel Schoch
(Charlottesville)
Mr. John C. Wyant
(Ruckersville)
Ms. Betsy Greenleaf
(Greenwood)
The above citizens were involved in rescuing the driver of a truck that was
involved in a crash on Route 22 on May 10. After striking another vehicle, the
truck rolled over, struck a tree and burst into flames. The five people named
above helped the driver out of the cab and away from the truck before the cab
was consumed by flames.
Mr. John Powell
(Crozet)
County Police Officer Dave Sloope was performing routine patrol duties when
he noticed smoke from a nearby field. Upon investigation, Officer Sloope
discovered an elderly gentleman who had fallen into the flames while burning
some brush. Mr. Powell assisted Officer Sloope in rescuing the man from the
fire and getting emergency help.
'!~.~>J ;
., ,or: 7:..CJ...Y---
, ,. --- , / )'
iJo. !!.J.:!'..J (;f:,:~L fd...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
f.t)-~i,(~ . \t-~~r
.BI
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board
::u:::e:::::::v~
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
June 15, 1994
RE: New High School - site Selection Committee
In May we discussed the attached recommendation concerning a site
selection committee for a new high school. At that time the Board
did not make a decision on my recommendation although I believe a
general consensus was to follow the recommendation if a new high
school was to be built. During our discussion, the Board felt a
decision had not been made to build a new high school and that any
site selection committee should await a final determination on the
building of a new high school. Subsequent to that meeting, the
Board of Supervisors and School Board met and discussed the
enrollment data concerning a new high school and ultimately decided
to support the building of a new high school.
Since the Board did not officially take action on the attached
recommendation, I am again making that request of you as part of
your consent agenda for approval. If you are supportive of this
approach, we will begin the site analysis immediately, and bring
back a recommendation to you and the School Board as soon as
possible. This process may require our taking options on a couple
of tracts of land in order to protect the cost of that property
prior to your making a final decision.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
RWTjr/bat
94.099
Attachment
c: Robert W. Paskel
Carole A. Hastings
Richard E. Huff, II
", .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board o~ Supervisors ~ ~_
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive~K1/'
April 26, 1994
---
RE: site Selection Committee - Potential New High School
Attached is a memorandum from Dr. Paskel regarding the School
Board's request to establish a Site Selection Committee to review
various sites for a potential new high school. Historically, these
committees have been appointed by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to review and analyze various sites and make
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and School Board.
Since these committees have been appointed by the Board of
Supervisors, all meetings have been open to the public and their
discussions of sites can be problematic as it relates to the cost
of land escalating prior to the actual purchase of the property.
If the Board is prepared to move forward on such a committee, my
recommendation would be to use an established committee, such as
the Long Range Planning Committee, to make the initial review and
analysis and later solicit input from the Board member, School
Board member, and/or Planning Commissioner from the area in which
the properties being scrutinized are located. This approach would
avoid public discussion of various sites which can lead to the
escalation of the value of these properties. Once alternative
sites and supporting data have been prepared, presentation to the
Boards can be made in Executive Session.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter prior to our
discussion, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RWT,Jr/dbm
94.063
Attachment
cc: Dr. Robert W. Paskel
.! ''''.
..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Office of the Superintendent
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert W. Paskel, superintendeni8P~
April 13, 1994 -~-..-- \
From:
Date:
Re:
Site Selection Committee: Potential New High School
At its meeting on April 11, 1994, the School Board requested that the site selection
process begin as soon as possible for review of sites for a potential new high school in
Albemarle County. This process has generally involved appointment of a committee
comprised of board members and staff advisors. The School Board would appreciate being
represented on such a committee.
As you know, the Long Range Planning Committee has recommended that site review
occur in the Avon Street extended, Piedmont Virginia Community College areas as well as
the current Walton Middle School site. I would appreciate your presenting this request to the
Board of Supervisors at your earliest convenience and notifying me as to whom the Board has
appointed to this committee and what further action is to be taken to obtain School Board
representation, if needed.
Thank you for your assistance on this important preliminary step in addressing our
high school enrollment needs. Should you have further questions, please feel free to call Dr.
Hastings or myself.
RWP/ac
m-940413
cc: C. Hastings
~~. :..~-'l; ; ~\\.;
-~ ;-
.>
-~
!.xPR l'~ ,:,:,...
, 'W {' EX/Jeer Success"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
7-/- 7<-;
91, (7c ,,(t,:~.)
,JUN
MEMORANDUM
,.. ..~._-~.~....,....~."
June 30, 1994
----
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Central Well and Sewer System - Wray Brothers, Inc.
Wray Brothers, Inc. has requested a central well and sewer system approval under Article III,
Central Sewerage and Water Supply Systems of the County Code, These sections of the Code
require the County Engineering Department to review the location, number of connections and
type of system and/or supply being proposed for central well and sewer systems and make
recommendation to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, The County Engineering
Department has reviewed the request, which is attached, and recommends approval based on this
system serving three connections and approximately 22 people.
The Department of Engineering supports this system with the following conditions:
(1) A maximum of 30 on-site occupants/employees.
(2) Reservation of a minimum 90% reserve drainfield
(3) Thomas Jefferson Health District approval of the plans for the additional connection and
any required modification.
(4) Verification of adequate capacity prior to issuance of permit for central well system.
Testing of the well must be performed in accordance with the Engineering Department
Administrative Policy Governing Testing of Central Wells (effective December 1, 1987).
Staff recommends your approval of this request based upon the Department of Engineering's
analysis.
RWT,Jr/dbm
94.104
Attachment
r"
Ms. Ella Carey
29 June 1994
Page 2
It is our understanding from discussions with the applicant and his agent, a 90 % reserve
dtainfield can be obtained on site. Although the County requires a 100% reserve for lots not
served by central systems, it does not regulate reserve capacity for central sewer systems.
The Virginia Sewage Disposal Regulations require a minimum 50% reserve.
Based on the review information presented above, the Department of Engineering
recommends approval of the central well and central sewer systems subject to the below
listed conditions.
1. A maximum of 30 onsite occupants/employees.
2. Reservation of a minimum 90% reserve drain field.
3. Thomas Jefferson Health District approval of the reserve drainfield.
4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the plans for the additional
connection and any required modifications.
5. Verification of adequate capacity prior to issuance of Permit for Central Well System.
Testing of the well must be performed in accordance with the Engineering
Department Administrative Policy Governing Testing of Central Wells (Effective
December 1, 1987). A copy of the policy is attached. Because no additional demand
is proposed with this connection, the Department recommends tying verification to the
Certificate of Occupancy.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions regarding these
comments or require additional information.
ACF:
attachments
Copy:
Department of Inspections
Department of Planning and Community Development
Department of Zoning
Jo Higgins
Jack Kelsey
SDP 94-026
reading file
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
CharlottesviIle, Virginia 229024596
(804) 2~5875 FAX (804) 9724060
TOD (804) 972-4012
June 27, 1994
:~EC~J\!;=C:'
JUN 2 8 1994
Mr. John Wray
Wray Brothers, Inc.
2345 Hunter's Way #1
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Determination of central sewer and well permits
required
Tax map 79, Parcel 4N, zoned LI, Light Industrial
~~; ~\f (3: ;j !\! E E p' :)
Dear Mr. Wray,
As we have discussed, the third building proposed for your
industrial site will require central sewer and well permits from
the Board of Supervisors. You have already begun the process
needed for approval: this letter merely confirms that the
wrocess you are following is the correct one. The Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance defines "central sewerage system" as
A sewerage system consisting of pipelines or conduits,
pumping stations, force mains or sewerage treatment plants,
including, but not limited to, septic tanks and/or drain
fields, or any of them, designed to serve three (3) or more
connections, used for conducting or treating sewage which is
required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant
to Title 15.1, Chapter 9, Article 5 of the Code.
The Ordinance defines central well as
A water supply consisting of a well, springs or other source
and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains, pumping stations
and other facilities in connection therewith, to serve or to
be capable of serving three (3) or more connections which is
required to be approved by the board of supervisors pursuant
to Title 15.1, Chapter 9, Article 7 of the Code.
It is my determination as Zoning Administrator that the third
building constitutes the third connection; therefore, the septic
system becomes a central sewerage system and the well a central
Page 2
Wray Determination
June 27, 1994
water supply, both requiring approval from the Board. Under
Virginia Code section 15.1.496.1, if you disagree with this
determination you may appeal this decision with,in thirty days of
the date of this letter by filing with the Zoning Department a
written notice of appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If you
do not file such written appeal within thirty days, this decision
will become final and unappealable.
Please call either of us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
1:t: G~~!~
Zoning Administrator
J~
Jo Higgins
Director of Engineering
cc: Yolanda Hipski, Planning Department
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5861
August 29, 1988
Mr. Jeffrey C. Wray
Wray Brothers, Inc.
506 Debenham Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear' Mr. Wray:
The Engineering Department is in receipt of your application
to the Board of Supervisors of April 20, 1988, for a central water
supply system to be installed at your project (Hunter's Hall). No
further information was received until your telephone call of
August 18, 1988. In subsequent conversations with the Health
Department, they likewise have no indication from you that this
well and the attached water system have been constructed and are
in a condition to provide service.
Subsequent to your telephone call of August 18th, I proceeded
to determine what would be required for approval of this central
well system. After reviewing all information, it is my
determination that the system you propose for this facility does
not constitute a central well system and as such does not require
appr'oval by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors or the
Engineering Department.
While it is correct that you intend to serve a number of
tenants from a single well, this in itself does not constitute a
central water system. Both the Code of the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the Code of Albemarle County clearly indicate that a
central water supply system is one that will serve three or more
connections. Widely accepted engineering standards indicate that
the average daily flow from the average residential connection is
100 gallons per day per person for four occupants, bringing the
water demand and sewage flow generated per day in the residential
connection to 400 gallons. The flow required for a system of
three or more connections would therefore be 1200 gallons per day
minimum. Based on the projected usage and the square footage of
your building, the sewer system and well have been approved by the
Health Department for an average daily flow of 600 gallons.
Additionally, the water supply and plumbing system for this
project consists of a single one inch line from the well running
under the floor slab of the building with risers from the single
Mr. 3effrey C. Wray
Page Two
supply line to serve individual fixtures in each portion of the
building. It is my opinion that the State and County Codes imply
that each connection must be served individually from of the
central system. In other words, each unit within a building (when
all units are in a single building) must have its own water supply
line permitting individual metering and interruptions of service
to individual units for the water supply system to qualify as a
central system.
The water supply and sewage system design at the Hunter's
Hall project have been reviewed and approved by the Health
Department as a single connection with water being supplied by a
single well and sewage service being supplied by a single septic
system. Both the well and septic system have been rated for an
average daily flow of 600 gallons per day based on the projected
building size and usage.
Should you have any questions concerning this determination
of the status of your proposed water system, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
~f!~1
Richard P. Moring, ~
Director of Engineering
RPM/ps
Copy:
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive
Ms. Lettie Neher, Board of Supervisors Clerk
Mr. Gary Rice, Charlottesville/Albemarle Health
Department
Mr. John T.P. Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development
Mr. Charlie Burgess, Zoning Administrator
Mr. Jesse Hurt, Director of Inspections
Mr. Dennis C. Friedrich, Engineering Department
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY GOVERNING TESTING OF CENTRAL WELLS
EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 1, 1987
Granting of Central Well Permits by the Board of Supervisors
requires inspection and testing of the proposed well(s) by the
Department of Engineering. The following procedures are required of
the applicant and/or the applicant's contractor in order to obtain
approval and issuance of the permit. The applicant is responsible
for the taking and testing of all required water samples and the
cost of such shall be borne by the applicant.
The applicant is hereby advised that monitoring of the well
tests by a County Engineering Inspector will not be performed
without prior formal approval of the central well permit by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
ErlQr_~Q_~~~r~_Qf_Ig~~~
1. Three copies of complete technical data on the test pump
and motor in the form of manufacturer, type, model number,
horse power, pump head, performance curves, etc., shall be
submitted for review and approval. If electric power is
not available for the test, background data and specifica-
tions for generator power shall be provided.
2. An adequate access road to the site shall be provided.
3. Three copies of the applicant's proposed test schedule
shall be submitted in advance, in writing, for review
and approval. The test schedule shall reflect either a
48 hour or a 72 hour test, as is appropriate for the well
being tested. No testing will be inspected on weekends,
holidays, or nights.
4. In addition to Virginia Department of Health requirements,
three sets of technical plans and specifications on the
distribution system, pump housing details, etc., shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Department of
Engineering.
Q~rlTIg_!bg_E~mQ_Ig~!~
5. Testing shall be performed by an individual who is qualified
to run the test and is familiar with the operation of the
test equipment.
6. All testing shall be performed under the direct supervision
of a County Engineering Inspector. Testing shall be per-
formed in accordance with the approved test schedule and
shall not start without the presence of the Engineering
Inspector.
7. Flow from the test shall be metered on a continuous basis,
preferably by a meter which reads gallons per minute directly.
8. The height of the water level shall be continuously moni-
tored and recorded throughout the duration of the test.
9. A tap or sample outlet for taking water samples shall be
installed and made available to the County Engineering
Inspector.
10. When existing wells are within 300 linear feet of the
well being tested, the existing wells shall be pumped at
their rated capacity throughout the duration of the test.
In addition to the well being tested, the monitoring and
recording of the water level in the existing wells is
required during the pump test. Should one well be rated
less than 25 G.P.M., and another rated greater than 25
G.P.M., both tests shall be run continuously for 72 hours.
11. Discharge from the pump test shall be adequately dissi-
pated to prevent flooding of adjacent properties or
erosion. Special attention shall be given to discharge
from the outlet pipe.
12. A pump log of the test on suitable forms approved by the
County Engineering Inspector shall be maintained through-
out the duration of the test.
13. During the last six hours of the test, flow and water level
readings shall be taken at a minimum interval of every fif-
teen minutes.
14. Recovery data of the well for a period of not less than 1
hour after completion of the pumping test shall be recorded
on the pump test log. Readings shall be taken at ten minute
intervals.
15. Significant interruption of the test, as determined by the
County Engineering Inspector, by power failure, pump or
meter malfunction, or other cause, shall void the test and
require retest of the well from start of test.
. ~Qqn_~q~Ql~tiqn_qf_tQ~_I~~tL
16. Two copies of the pump test log shall be supplied to the
Department of Engineering.
17. Two copies of the well completion report shall be supplied
by the well driller upon completion of the well drilling
and grouting.
18. Where Virginia Department of Health approval of the well
is required, a copy of the well operations permit shall be
supplied to the Department of Engineering.
19. Two copies of all water sample testing reports shall be
supplied to the Department of Engineering.
20. Yield results of the well will be determined by the Depart-
ment of Engineering based on the monitored readings.
APPROVED:
Michael H. Armm, P.E.
Director of Engineering
DA TE: oc.r~e;e:b 1187
---------J--------
"
POL T C Y
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, many citizens of Albemarle County have been
inconvenienced by the failure of central groundwater systems; and
~lEREAS, central groundwater systems
to be a reliable, permanent source
populations;
have not been considered
of water for sizeable
NOW, TTlF.RRFORE, nE IT RRSOLVRD, that the nOilrd of
of Albemarle Count.y, Virginia, requests that c:entral
systems be carefully evaluated;
~ ..
....uper.v~sors
groundwater
FURTIffiR, if these systems are approved, they be submitted to
the Albemarle County Service Authority for review and comment;
AND FURTilER RESOLVED, that if requested by the Albemarle
County Service Authority, these systems be designed and constructed
in accordance with their specifications.
* * * * *
..
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing, is a true, correct copy of a policy resolution unanimously
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
at a regular meeting held on February 3, 1993.
(: 00,,- \;\J ~~
~r~Board of cou"(Y Supervisors
'. "
WELL LOCATION:
OF ALe~A1
,~~ "IJi><~
3~~ iP{~W~
~. ~.~~
I'IIlGHI\to,
~"t~
OV
C;
PUMP TEST BY:
Office of County Engineer
401 McIflti~e Road
Char1otte~vi~le, Virginia 22901-4596
804-296-5861
WELL PUMP TEST DATA
Time of
Reading
Hr:Min
Meter
Reading
Size Container
Time to fill Container
Pumping
Level
DATE:
MONITORED BY:
WELL DEPTH:
STATIC LEVEL:
PUMP LEVEL:
DEPTH OF CASING & GROUT:
Pump
Discharge REMARKS
.
,
..
I
I
j
I
~
1
I
!
l
1
:
I
--. I
I
i
I
-- I
~....._..
...
Shee.t of
~'"(~
OU
C)
OF
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4~96
PRIVATE WELL SYSTEM COMPLETION REPORT
TO: Board of Supervisors
DATE:
1. Well Location:
2. Owner:
3. Well Description:
a) Depth to well bottom
b) Depth to well static water level
c) Depth to well water level during test
d) Well diameter
e) Depth well casing
f) Well drilled by:
ft.
ft.
ft.
in.
ft.
4. Well Flow Test Description:
a) Test witnessed by:
b) Date test started
c) Duration of test
Hours
d) Rated well capacity
GP!1
e) Water quality (visual observation)
5. Discussion:
WRA Y ROS., INC. · 2345 Hunters Way #1 . Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 . (804) 296-0565 . Fax (804) 296-8477
JON
lbemarle County Board of Supervisors
ounty of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
harlottesville, VA 22902-4596
e: SDP-94-14 Wray Bros., Inc. Major Site Plan Amendment
and Gentlemen:
currently seeking approval of a site plan to add a third
uilding to our property located on Hunters Way, off 250 east.
efore you this evening is the request to have our utility
systems on this site classified as central systems and along
ith that we are hereby requesting an additional modification.
additional modification concerns the reserve septic system
area. Because of the constricted nature of the site, we are
unable to provide a full 100% reserve area. However, we have
been able to define an area sufficient to provide 90% backup,
a d we would hope that this would be sufficient. It is unlikely
t at the primary septic system would totally fail and be of
use at all. Therefore, we feel that a 90% reserve area is
t unreasonable under the circumstances. Additionally, we
derstand that the State code requires only 50% reserve area
r those sites that have a percolation rate higher than 45,
a d for this site our percolation rate is 52.
are very hopeful that we can obtain these approvals and move
rward with the project. We have a tenant who is ready to
mmit to moving into our building as soon as we can get it
nstructed and get a certificate of occupancy. It is important
us to be able to move forward as rapidly as possible.
appreciate your consideration of this request and respectfully
a ait your decision. For Wray Bros., Inc., I am,
S~Z{l7~A& -
h~ E. Wray, IV ~
~sident d
-+--- _ -------
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. \-Iumphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally \-I. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 6, 1994
Mr. John E. Wray, IV
President
Wray Bros., Inc.
2345 Hunters Way #1
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: SDP-94-026, Wray Bros., Inc.
Building 3 Major Site Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Wray:
Your request to establish a central well and sewage system
was received and has now been referred to the County Engineer.
When she has completed her review, this request will be placed
before the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.
Sincerely,
EWC:mms
J;j2~LJ Lt0UX
Ella W. Carey, C1erv
cc: Jo Higgins, County Engineer
*
Printed on recycled paper
WRA Y ROS., INC. . 2345 Hunters Way #1 · Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 . (804) 296-0565 . Fax (804) 296-8477
1 June 1994
rk of the Board of Supervisors
nty of Albemarle
nty Office Building
McIntire Road
rlottesville, VA 22901
SDP-94-026 Wray Bros., Inc. - Building 3 Major Site
Plan Amendment
Ms. Carey:
In accordance with Section 10-17 of the County Code, this is
file notice of intent to establish a central well and sewage
tem at the referenced site location.
The central system is to be capable of serving three
for water out of an existing well.
Please transmit a copy of this notice to the County Engineer
review and place this matter on the earliest regular board
ting agenda.
If you have any questions, please call me at 296-0565.
ectfully subm}tted,
()U-t,-4" !iA-CLA/
E. Wray, IV ()
sident
JE /vlh
Engineering Dept.
Zoning Dept.
Planning Dept.
WRA Y ROS., INC. · 2345 Hunters Way #1 · Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 . (804) 296-0565 . Fax (804) 296-8477
JM'.'
lerk of the Board of Supervisors
ounty of Albemarle
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
SDP-94-026 Wray Bros., Inc. - Building 3 Major Site
Plan Amendment
Board Members:
Wray Bros., Inc. requests that our present well and septic system
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as
central water supply system. We were informed by Jo Higgins
at the next available board meeting would be June 8, 1994.
please call me at 296-0565.
spectfully .s. :Ub,. itted,
.- (Jh/( (vf?ftrf.
J h E. Wray, IV
~sident .
Engineering Dept..
Zoning Dept.
Planning Dept.
.....
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,.-.I.">cJl)',L~) TC ';';-~'':'<.D ,\-\:.:,';,~;~,Ci~~
UN ___I]:.. / - '7 </
-,-,.~.."'~;.......__.. ~_..... . r_ ~ __..__" '"
/
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Power Rate Negotiation Assessment
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
9'1 () 71/ ~. ( i, . 3- )
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request for approval of payment of $1,186.00
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
x
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFP CONTACTlS):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Electrioal rates for jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia are negotiated every
three years by joint VML/VACO Virginia Power Steering Committee. As part of this process,
a utility consultant as well as the general counsel for both VML and VACO handle the
complex rate negotiations. In order to handle the expenses of negotiations and the
related consultant costs, each jurisdiction is asked to voluntarily contribute toward the
estimated $160,000 necessary to complete rate negotiations. History has demonstrated that
the savtngs to local governments throughout the Commonwealth, due to these negotiations,
far exceeded the costs of the negotiations themselves.
DISCUSSION:
The voluntary assessment for Albemarle County's prorata share of the contract negotiations
based on electric usage has been estimated by VACO at $1,186.00. According to VACO, the
last negotiations saved approximately $4.1 million during the first year of the contract
alone for local governments as a result of negotiations.
RECOMME~ATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve a payment of $1,186.00 for Albemarle County's
share of these rate negotiations with funds currently available in the Staff Services
budget.
94.088
JJt~
Prc~jdel1t
Peg~//R. \^..'iley
Green~'iI1t:' Co~n\:r'
President-Elect
William H.H. Blevins
Smyth County
First Vice President
Harper R. Wagner
Bath County
Second Vice President
Katherine K. Hanley
Fairfax County
Secretary- Treasurer
E. Virgil Sampson Jr.
Scott County
Immediate Past Presidmt
Harry G. Daniel
Chesterfield County
Region 1
Gregory L. Duncan
Accomack County
Region 2
Marion B. Williams
Prince George County
Region 3
Rudolph V. Jones
Charles City County
John A. Waldrop Jr.
Henrico COWlly
Arthur S. Warren
Chesterfield Courtty
Region 4
John J. Purcell Jr.
Louisa County
Region 5
Charles W. Curry
Augusta County
Region 6
John M. Nolan
Orange County
Region 7
Ferris M. Belman Sr.
Stafford County
Hubert S. Gilkey m
Rappahannock County
Region 8
William J. Becker
Prince William County
Thomas M. Davis m
Fairfax County
Robert B. Dix Jr.
Fairfax County
Michael R. Frey
Fairfax County
Gerald W. Hyland
Fairfax County
John D. Jenkins
Prince William County
Mary Margaret Whipple
Arlington County
Region 9
Wanda C. Wingo
Botetourt County
Region 10
J. Michael Davidson
Campbell Courtty
Mason A. Vaughan Sr.
Pulaski County
Region 11
M. Jay Hubble
Smyth County
Region 12
James H. Gibson
Lee County
Past Presidents
Kathleen K. Seefeldt
Prince William COWlty
W.o. Gray
Richmond County
Jack D. Edwards
James City County
Executive Director
James D. Campbell, CAE
~ General Coun~el
~ C. Flippo Hicks
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1001 East Broad Street · Suite LL 20 · Richmond, Virginia 23219-1901 · (804) 788-6652 · fax (804) 788-0083
M.'E.M.O.~5I.!A&f}).f{1.9rf
'To:
Key Officials in Virginia Power's Service Territory
!F1W9d:
R Michael Amyx, Executive Director, VML
James D. Campbell, Executive Director, V ACO
Sf{1'13 J'UYI:
Virginia Power Contract - Assessments
1J!lLPE:
May 20, 1994
The VMlJV ACO Virginia Power Steering Committee has begun its work in
connection with negotiating a new contract with Virginia Power for electric service. As
you know, the existing contract expires June 30, 1994. Unfortunately, we have not yet
received Virginia Power's proposed rates for the new contract period. We expect to
receive them soon and will forward them to you immediately.
We have, however, received the proposed terms and conditions for the contract
The Steering Committee held an organizational meeting Apri118 to review the proposed
contract and identify issues of concern. The Committee also voted to recommend
hiring The Columbia Group, Inc. to serve as utility consultant and the general counsels
of the VML and V ACO to handle the negotiations.
The Committee further agreed that all local governments within Virginia Power's
service territory should be assessed in order to handle the expenses of negotiations and
the ongoing questions which arise during the three year contract period. This cost of
$160,000 is to be raised by a prorata assessment to all jurisdictions in the Virginia
Power service area on the basis of electric usage. Enclosed is an invoice for your
locality. It is based on the electric usage in your locality for the general government and
schools during 1993.
Although the assessment is voluntary, we urge your locality to contribute its fair
share in order to ensure that this very important work can be continued as in the past.
All local governments benefit greatly from negotiating their electric rates as a group
with Virginia Power. Joint negotiations are beneficial in that the cost of the
negotiations are shared and are more successful because of the clout of the group.
over for 2nd page
COlJr-'j~f\( ~~;.~-:
uv\ LL~'!,'hh_.
i L~ i/
i ;\i ~j MAY
~ ~ <. . ,\
U U tt;;'~'~h
20 \994
,
,
.1
.j
,; i
i":'..'_; '.j '.~
EXECUTiVE OFFiCE
'-.
Key Officials in Virginia Power's Service Territory
May 20, 1994
Page 2
Effective negotiations on the part of local governments are necescary in order to
keep electric rates for local governments as low as possible. The expenses of
negotiations are always substantially less than the savings realized as a result of
negotiations. During the last negotiations, local governments saved approximately $4.1
million during the first year of the contract alone as a result of negotiations.
We hope your locality will contribute its share of the negotiating costs. Since V ACo
is handling the accounting for this joint committee, checks should be made payable to
V ACo EPR Fund and mailed to:
VMUV ACO Virginia Power Steering Committee
c/o Virginia Association of Counties
Old City Hall 1001 E. Broad Street, Suo #LL20
Richmond, Virginia 23219
If your locality has not provided names of members to be on the VMl1V ACO
Virginia Power Steering Committee and would like to do so, please call Sarah Hopkins
Finley, (804) 783-6481. Issues of interest to local governments in connection with the
tenns and conditions portion of the contract are being identified now. A meeting is
scheduled June 6, 1994 in Richmond to discuss the direction of the Steering Committee
on these issues.
,.., - / - 'i:.Y-.
. . I ,. -. I .,
~..::" 1 :,"" "...\,hi.J _...........................,. \
:..:...:C...." .' t!t..:;~" '7()(,.:/~/ 'I)
Ag!!nda Item No ...2-.1...:.Y-I____.__._.
State Compensation Board
Month of Je.u.... 1 I qCI4-
STATEMENT OF EXPENSES
ii!!! :!!!!;!~!!!!!r!i!!i;!!;;!tiii!iirHi!!i!;!i!!!;!H(!!r!iiiiii!!!!!!i!i!ifi!!!i!!%!!!!!U!!?i!!!!!!i?!/ ..... -.... ... ... ... ....... ... ..
ill.....! li'!!!!!iiIIl!iil!!1
.u......>...)<........i>...(/...................)................ .. uuu......~lfii'g.......................i
lerk, Circuit Court
- 0 -
~tvO,/S
~ 0- () I /5
Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
wh'ch the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
not the total office expenses of these departments.
J
'7_ . Ci '
1),stflt,'t:::cI to iJoarCi: _..L!..-.1.1-.
/~ )
L .'~7. " ,
Item No. fl,-i..!._~ill,J ,-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACfION:
ITEM NUMBER:
fI'l/ (YlO(;, (c..,S)
INFORMATION:
AGENDA ITLE:
Meadow C eek Parkway-- Eligibility for Primary System
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
SUBJE ROPOSALIRE UEST:
Request t evaluate road for eligibility for primary system.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACfION:
INFORMATION: X
REVIEWED BY:
----
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKG OUND:
The Boar requested that staff review the VDOT criteria for transferring roads to the primary system to determine Meadow
Creek Par ay's eligibility for that system.
DISCUS ION:
This is to rovide the Board with a status report on Staff's evaluation of Meadow Creek Parkway's eligibility for the primary
road syste . Staffhas limited capability to evaluate some of the criteria because they are based on traffic characteristics that
we are un ble to forecast very accurately in-house. The VDOT criteria is specifically for evaluating the transfer of an existing
road from e secondary to primary system. Since this is not an existing road, response to these criteria must be based on
projection. To further evaluate these criteria, staff will need assistance from VDOT on projections for percentage of light and
medium ck traffic, tractor-trailer and bus traffic, "foreign" vehicles, and length (distance) of vehicle trips.
Attachme t A is the VDOT criteria for evaluating secondary roads for transfer to the primary system. It includes Staff's
comments on the criteria, to date.
ENDATION:
endation. Staff will be meeting with VDOT in July to further evaluate the criteria.
PRIMAR
94.093
,...
".
ATTACHMENT A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA FOR TRANSFERRING SECONDARY ROADS TO
RY SYSTEM
Recomme dations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for additions to the Primary System will be based upon the
criteria es ablished by the policy listed below.
Roads ma be transferred from the Secondary System to the Primary System if:
III constit es a link of interstate or intrastate highway;
e Meadow Creek Parkway alone would probably not be considered an intrastate highway. However, it will
ction as alternate facility to Route 29 for access to downtown Charlottesville.
place of great historical or scenic interest;
s. Provides direct access to the downtown historic district. It also improves access to Monticello, Ashlawn, Michie
T vern, and provdies an alternative access to University of Virginia grounds.
T e Meadow Creek Parkway will not directly connect county seats. It will provide a more direct access to City Hall
d the County seat from northern destinations.
inimum traffic of 750 vehicles per day;
T e average daily trips expected for the Meadow Creek Parkway surpasses VDOT's requirement. The average daily
ps based on currently available projections (MINUTP) for the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Rd to Route 29
r ges from 8,000 to 16,600, depending on which alignment is chosen.
carries a minimum of...
III 20 per ent light and medium trucks;
III 2 perc nt tractor-trailers and buses;
I S~"'i is unable to respond to the above three criteria at this time. Staff is working with VDOT in evaluating these
c ~teria. The intent has been in the design of the road to limit the truck traffic on the parkway to the extent feasible.
Rpute 29 is intended to be the primary truck route.
" 20 per rent of the traffic on the road is on trips of 25 miles or more in length;
S aff is unable to evaluate at this time. The parkway is intended to provide access to downtown from the developing
gJ owth areas north of town. It will also provide a more direct route for traffic heading to the east side of
CJtarlottesville or downtown, including commuters from northern counties and tourists. Some of these trips will be of
25 miles or more, but the percentage has not been determined,
" 5 perc ent of the traffic on the road is on trips of 100 miles or more in length.
Unable to evaluate at this time. See above.
DAVID R. EHR
COMMISSIO ER
Ii t. ,
/'< ,:;
__. .1 _-, _- :' ......-,
(>Cj, ,n t (. I G~, (0)
.. . '_~. ._ _,,_ _._ ..L,'---,.....
J.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Ella W. Carey, Clerk
d of Supervisors
ty Office Building
McIntire Road
lottesville, VA 22901
Ms. Carey:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. o. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
June 28, 1994
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Current Projects
Construction Schedule
Attached find the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently
r construction and quarterly report of projects under design in Albemarle
ty. Please see that this information is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
ers. I will be prepared to discuss this matter with them at the next rneeting
hey so desire.
DSR smk
att chment
cc: R. W. Tucker, Jr. w/attachment
David Benish w/attachment
Yours truly,
~ l R~~ 2_~..C- \ ~
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
;. PROJECT LISTING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JULY 1, 1994
CURRENT PREV. EST.
RTE LOCATION - DESCRIPTION ADV. ADV. CONST.
NO. DATE DATE TIME
29 FROM RIO ROAD TO RIVANNA RIVER (WIDEN TO 6 LANES) 07-94 24 MO.
29 S.FORK RIVANNA RIV. TO AIRPORT RD. (WIDEN _TO 6 LANES 06-97 24 MO.
610 FROM ROUTE 20 TO 1.8 MI. E. RTE. 20 (GRAVEL ROAD} 10-96** 07-96 6 MO.
631 FROM ROUTE 743 TO ROUTE 29 09-97** 07-97 12 MO.
631 FROM NCL CH'VILLE TO CSX RR (RIO ROAD) MEADOWCREEK PKY. 01-97 12 MO.
637 FROM ROUTE 635 TO 0.55 MI.W. RTE. 682 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-99** 07-99 12 MO.
649 FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 606 (AIRPORT ROAD) 09-99* 9 MO.
656 FROM ROUTE 654 TO ROUTE 743 09-99** 10-97 6 MO.
671 BRIDGE & APPROACHES OVER MOORMANS RIVER (MILLINGTION) ? 12 MO.
682 FROM ROUTE 250 TO 1.7 MI. S. RTE. 250 (GRAVEL ROAD) 08-95 12 MO.
711 FROM ROUTE 712 TO ROUTE 29 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-97** 07-97 5 MO.
712 FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 692 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-96** 07-96 9 MO.
743 FROM ROUTE 657 (LAMBS ROAD) TO ROUTE 631 08-96** 06-95 12 MO.
759 FROM ROUTE 616 TO FLUVANNA CO. LINE (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-99* 5 MO.
760 FROM ROUTE 712 TO ROUTE 29 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-98.. 07-97 12 MO.
866 FROM ROUTE 743 TO ROUTE 1455 09-99'** 07-97 9 MO.
1403 FROM WOODBROOK DRIVE TO WALMART 10-94* 9 MO.
* IND CATES NEW PROJECT
** INl ICATES REVISED DATE
ADV. NDICATES THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED
NOTE: ADV. DATE REVISIONS DUE TO CHANGES IN REVISED 6 YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN.
.
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JULY 1, 1994
+------+-
:ROUTE :
:NO. :
+------+-
-----------------------------------+-~----------------------------------+----------- +
I
I
: COMP.DATE
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
LOCATION
STATUS
ESTIMATED
I
I
: 631 TH STREET EXT. CONSTRUCTION 88% COMPLETE AUG 94 *
: . ROUTE 1-64
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I
I
: 20 ROM 3.4 MI. S. ROUTE 53 CONSTRUCTION 37% COMPLETE OCT 94 *
: 0 3.8 MI S. RTE. 53
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I
I
: 29
I
I
+------+-
ROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO
I
I
I
I
10 ROAD :
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
CONSTRUCTION 25% COMPLETE
DEC 95
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I
I
,
,
I
I
+------+-
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
+------+- -----------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
* REVIS D DATE
** NEW P OJECT
DAVID R. EHR
COMMISSI NER
Ms.
Boar
401
Char
's;r:)uted io Board: -2._:!..:.[i.~
;?end~ Item No. ~.i:..Zf.Ce1t?1 7 )
':) 01'::~:...
'.',.c,.."'.'._.____
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
I). S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
June 27, 1994
lla Carey, Clerk
of Supervisors
cIntire Road
ottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
posi
for
He h
has
repl
Char
in e
DSR/S k
I am pleased to announce the promotion of John H. Shifflett, Jr, to the
ion of Maintenance Manager in the Charlottesville Residency. John has worked
the Department for over twenty years, all of that time within this residency.
s held numerous positions within the maintenance organization and most recently
been the maintenance superintendent at the Free Union Area Headquarters. John
ces Bill Mills who has been promoted to Assistant Resident Engineer here in
ottesville.
In his new position, John will be responsible for the maintenance forces which
ain the some 1,000 miles of secondary, primary and interstate roads in the
ottesville Residency. He can be reached during business hours at 293-.0019 and
ergency situations at his home number of 296-4500.
request that you inform the board of supervisors of this change. It is my
to bring John with me to the July board meeting to introduce him to the board
Please advise if such action is not satisfactory.
Yours truly,
~~ K~ ~\I~J V
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
cc: . W. Tucker, Jr.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
'/-/ - 9t
91,a 7 () ~. ( c. 'f)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
JUN
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
June 8, 1994
Secondary System
Addition
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated October 20,
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County
effective June 8, 1994.
1993, the following
is hereby approved,
ADDITION
LENGTH
VILLAGE WOODS
Route 1553 (Village Woods Lane) - From Route 660 to 0.13 mile
Northwest Route 660
o . 13 Mi
Very truly yours,
'lw~. ~
David R. Gehr
Commissioner
(' c " E~~ IU'U; f\ ~
(). :/
I ( CUI f\; f\ \:
() ,'- ()
t. MA_~j,-/
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
IHO~S J. BULEY, JR.
... .. ;~I!'(RICT. VIRG~'A
7-/-,'1. '
9''1' J '''t'StjI!lP~'0t~lCo/ \
:!241 RAVBURN bFFICE BUIL~G
(202) 225-2B15
MEMBER OF:
COMMITTEE ON ENERGV
AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
~ongrtss of tht tlnittd ~tQtts
iflonsr of 1Rrprrsrntati\lts
Dl as hingron , B~ 205)5-t607
June 14, 1994
DISTRICT OFFICES:
SUITE 101
4914 FITZHUGH AVENUE
RICHMOND, VA 23230-3534
(804) 771-2809
H800)--438-3793
CULPEPER OFFICE PARK
SUITE 207
763 MADISON ROAD
CULPEPER, VA 22701-3342
(703) 6Z5-8960
'fiN r,
_,;l. t'
The Honorable David P. Bowerman
Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
'~--,,,,~.,,,,,.....,,,,,,-,,,-..._l.;.
Dear David:
Thank you for your letter requesting me to write a letter of
support to Secretary Martinez for reopening debate on an
interchange at 1-64 and Route 742 (Avon Street). I apologize for
the delay in my response.
I know that the traffic problems you all are dealing with are
very real and that solutions must be found if the Charlottesville-
Albemarle area is going to be able to accommodate the number of
motorists who travel through the area, solutions must be found. I
have enclosed a copy of a letter I have written to Secretary
Martinez urging the Virginia Department of Transportation to reopen
consideration of the interchange.
I shall be back in touch as soon as I receive a response.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
C~l~'~
Thomas/J. Bliley, Jr.
Membe~of Congress
TJBj/elb
. THO~S J. BLILEY, JR.
7TH DISTRICT, VIRGINIA
WASH!NGTON OfFICE
2241 RAYBURN OFFICE BUILDING
(202) 225-2815
MEMBER OF
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND COMMERCE
Q:ongress of the CJanited ~tates
!louse of 1Rrprcsrntatillcs
iroashington, 1)[: 20515-t607
June 14, 1994
DISTRICT OFFICES
SUITE 101
49'4 FITZHUGH AVENUE
RICHMOND, VA 23230-3534
1804) 77 '-2809
1--f800f-438-3793
COMMITTEE ON THE DI$TRICT
OF COLUMBIA
CULPEPER OFFICE PARK
SUITE 207
763 MADISON ROAD
CULPEPER. VA 2270'-3342
(7031825-8960
The Honorable Robert Martinez
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Bob:
I am writing on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors concerning the need for an interchange at 1-64 and
Route 742 (Avon Street) .
It is my understanding that previous requests by the County of
Albemarle to the Virginia DOT to reopen consideration for this
interchange have been denied for a number of reasons, includin~r a
current or anticipated compelling public need, safety and
operational considerations, and the safeguard of the interstate to
serve long versus local trips.
The increasing traffic demands which need to be met by the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area seem to be quickly increasing rather
than stabilizing. Solutions must be found and I believe that no
option should remain off the table. For this reason, I urge the
consideration by the Virginia DOT of this interchange.
I thank you in advance for consideration of this matter and I
look forward to your reply. With kindest regards, I am
It
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Member of Congress
TJBj/elb
c.:.J
D'Sl'ibut:~.:O t ~:3:cFl:i~("?4 ' / ,)
iN 4~j
NEAL J. BARBER
DIRECTOR
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
: i"
June 21, 1994
Jackson Center
50.1 North Second Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1321
(804) 371-7000
(BC>\) 371-7090 - FAX
(BCI4) 371-7089 - TIP
The Honorable Walter Perkins
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Perkins:
Thank you for your submittal of a Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) proposal in the 1994 competition.
The Department of Housing and Community Development has
completed its review of the CDBG proposals received in the first
round of competition. An objective rating system was used to judge
the applications. Of the 1,000 points available in the rating
system, your project received 592 points. Grant offers have been
made to local governments with projects rating 696 or more.
The Department received Community Improvement Grant proposals
from sixty localities amounting to $41,886,184 in funding requests.
Although most of these applications were for very worthwhile
projects, grant offers could be made to only thirty-nine
communities with the $21,833,666 available.
If you would like to discuss the review process or the rating
of your application, Barry Brown (804/371-7030) of the CDBG
Technical Assistance Office is available to assist you.
We appreciate your interest in the Virginia Community
Development Block Grant program.
W;~-
Robert J. Adams
Acting Director
-
RJA:kb
cc: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
.I
_ Buildmg Better Communities
.........-. ),
. .., . ." .' '7:-1- c-'1U
1'1 ". 1",,;,;:..- .l..... ;1,- ..'''',- /.L
;~~::':~J'::I.::~V N'~'.'31"~~.~~f1;" I/q )
hS~":""l;;,i I Cl!, . _ _.._.... .
June 13, 1994
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
TOD (804) 972-4012
JUN
Mr. Roger W. Ray
Roger W. Ray and Associates, Inc.
1717 Allied Lane
. Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
RE: Offioial Determination of Number of Paroels _ Section 10.3.1
Tax Map 40, Parcel 26
Dear Mr. Ray,
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the chain of title you
have submitted for the above-noted property. It is the County
Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
this property consists of one parcel.
This determination considered the descriptive clause of Deed Book
317, Page 396, which describes the property as:
all that certain tract or parcel of land situate in the
White Hall Magisterial District of Albemarle County,
Virginia fronting on State Highway No. 810 (the Crozet-White
Hall Road) containing 668.54 acres...
This consideration is based on the findings of the Va. Supreme
Court in the case Faison v. Union Camp 224 VA 54.
The most recent deed of record as of the date of adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance is found in Deed Book 366, Page 293. It is
dated February 28, 1961, from Glen J. Sherrard and Joan H.
Sherrard to The White Hall Hunt Club, Inc. This deed refers to
the parcel as "the 668.54 acre parcel of land".
Under Virginia Code Section 15.1.496.1, if you disagree with
this determination of violation you may appeal this decision
within thirty days of the date of this letter by filing with this
office a written notice of appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
If you do not file such written appeal within thirty days, this
decision will become final and unappealable.
June 13, 1994
Parcel Determination
Page 2
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
~GJ:i/!f~
Zoning Administrator
AMP/bt
CC: Jan Sprinkle
Gay Carver
Estelle Neher, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
NOTE: 0 additional parcel(s)
1 by Tax Map, 1 by determination
'. ;' ~.~..... 'I 5
/ - / - 7'1
9</, {lY}Oh (i~;/b)
,.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45%
(804) 296.5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
TOO (804) 972-4012
June 24, 1994
Steve Melton
c/o Dr. Charles Hurt
P. O. Box 8147
Charlottesville, V A 22906
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1
Bentivar Subdivision: Tax Map 46, Parcels 143, 144, 145, 146 and 147
Dear Mr Melton:
This is to confirm for your files, that which you have previously been informed of verbally.
The County Attorney, Jan Sprinkle and Ron Keeler of Planning and I have reviewed the title
information and supporting documents you have submitted for the above-noted property. This
multi-paged information from the Clerk's office, extensive cover memo and illustrative map with
overlays was most helpful for a very complex determination of such long history. I appreciate
yours and Mr. Fred Payne's industry in producing these for our use. In addition, we examined
the information from the several subdivision files on Bentivar. We agree with your findings.
Because your conclusions are accurate and succinct, I will use some of your language and not
attempt to paraphrase.
As a point of clarification, let me note that this determination is a finding for parcel 147. The
other parcels exist and are not determined to be more than shown on the tax map as parcels.
That parcel is found to in fact be three parcels. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and
my official determination, that this property noted by five (5) parcel numbers on the tax maps,
consists of seven (7) separate parcels:
*(1) Parcel I is the residue of Parcel P, less lots 29 and 30, which were lawfully
created in 1977. It is shown on the County tax maps as part of parcel 147,
lying on the northerly portion of that which is on the east side of the Bentivar
farm road. Because it contains less than four acres, about 2 acres, parcel I has
one (1) development right.
June 24, 1994
Steve Melton/Bentivar
Page 2
*(II) Parcel II is Parcel Q, plus a portion of old parcel R, which was added in 1982.
The attempt to divide it into lots 36-39 and 47 on plat at DB 748, p. 512 is
disregarded as having been unlawful. It is shown on the tax maps as the southerly
portion of that same part of parcel 147, lying on the east side of the farm road.
Because its "kernel" contains more than 10 acres, about 30 acres, parcel II has all
five (5) development rights.
(III) Parcel III is parcel C, less a small parcel added to parcel T -1. It is all of what is
shown on the tax maps as parcel 146. Because its "kernel" contains more than 10
acres, about 68 acres, parcel III has all five (5) development rights.
*(IV) Parcel IV is the residue of parcel S. The attempt to divide it into lots 48 and 49
on plat at DB 748, p. 512 is disregarded as having been unlawful. It is shown as
the part of parcel 147 which lies alone on the east side of the farm road, south of
and adjacent to parcel 146. Because its "kernel" contains more than 10 acres, about
20 acres, parcel IV has all five (5) development rights.
(V) Parcel V is parcel Z. It is shown on tax maps as all of parcel 145. Because its
"kernel" contains more than 10 acres, parcel V has all five (5) development rights.
(VI) Parcel VI is parcel Y. It is shown as all of parcel 144. Because its "kernel"
contains more than 10 acres, about 18 acres, parcel VI has all five (5) development
rights.
(VII) Parcel VII is parcel X. It is shown as all of parcel 143. Because its "kernel"
contains more than 10 acres, about 16 acres, parcel VII has all five (5)
development rights.
The portion of parcel 147 referred to as the "eyebrow" parcel is essentially an outlot, and is not
<iletermined to be a separate parcel with separate development rights. It should be combined with
adjoining property in some fashion which would be logical according to the use of the land.
This determination results in two (2) additional parcels than are shown with a parcel number on
the County tax maps. They are described in the preceding as parcels I, II, and IV (see asterick).
The other Roman numeral parcels describe existing tax map/parcels.
This determination considered the descriptive clauses of the deeds and the results of subdivision
transactions. These cites are too numerous and complicating to restate in this determination
letter. Please refer to the applicants' submittal "derivation of parcels at Bentivar" and deed
dopies for this information.
June 24, 1994
Bentivar Parcel Detennination
Page 3
In accordance with State Code Section 15.1-496.1 anyone who is aggrieved by this decision may
file a written appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, or this decision shall be
final and unappealable. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your
convemence.
Sincerely,
~A- .M, 1U!~
Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P.
Zoning Administrator
AGM/mms
cc: Ian Sprinkle, Planning Department
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
NOTE:
Two (2) additional parcel(s)
Five (5) by Tax Map, seven (7) by determination
)stTlbuted to t3oaro -.2~L?L
AYr-nrl ~ " .. .. /1- II
... - -,,, ql!r" r\;!'l G. r, C; 70/. / J )
v, ...i_..:.____~/(
,
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
TOO (804) 972.4012
,.
June 24, 1994
Weldon and Ruth Wheeler
Route 1, Box 20
Esmont, V A 22937
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1
Tax Map 133, Parcel 3
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler:
This letter is to confirm for your files, what I have previously informed Mr. Donald Morse,
Associate Broker. The County Attorney and I have reviewed the information you have
submitted for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my
official determination, that at the date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, this property
aggregating about 318 acres (305.43 acres by County Real Estate records), consisted of three
(3) separate parcels:
(1) That parcel which lies on the west side of St. Rt. 722, which is in the southerly portion
of the property. It is physically separated from the remainder of the property by the
state road. It consists of unknown acreage, estimated to be about 10 acres in size.
It is entitled to up to 5 development rights, based on 2 acres per development right.
(For example, if it is only 9 acres, it can have only 4 development rights.)
(2) That parcel which lies on the east side of Rt. 722. Together with that parcel referenced
in number 3 below, it constitutes the property lying on the east side of Route 722, Green
Mountain Road. It consists of about 92.57 acres and is entitled to all 5 development
rights.
(3) That parcel which also lies on the east side of Rt. 722. It consists of about 216 acres and
is entitled to all 5 development rights.
This determination results in two (2) additional parcels than are shown with a parcel number on
the County tax maps.
June 24, 1994
~
'-
June 24, 1994
Wheeler Parcel Determination
Page 2
This decision is based on two different sets of "proofs." The criterion which found the parcel
described as number 1 in the preceding is based on the findings of the Albemarle Circuit Court
in the case of Ann H. Sanford v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County. Virginia, and
City of Winston Salem v. Tickle. 281 2d 667, of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (1981).
These cases determined among other things, that ownership by another, such as for the Interstate
right-of-way, serves to sever the common ownership of the property, thereby subdividing it into
separate parcels. The factors most generally emphasized are unity of ownership, physical unity
and unity of use, in determining property to be one whole. Parcel 1 is not contiguous with the
remainder of the property for either unity of ownership or physical unity.
County Real Estate records reflect that the parcels described as parcels 2 and 3 were at one time
shown on tax maps as parcels 3 and 4. (See the 1977 plat by Robert L. Lum.) Additionally,
Faison. et al v. Union Camp Corporation. et al Va 294 S.E. 2d 821 asserted the significance
of the treatment of ownership by the descriptive clauses of the deed. The deed of trust DB 641,
Page 629 and the property description with the Lum plat with DB 641, Page 636 both described
parcels 2 and 3 separately. Parcel 2 (referred as parcel A) was conveyed by Deed Book 313,
page 521 in March, 1920. Parcel 3 (referred as parcel B) was conveyed by Deed Book 258,
page 327 in November, 1943.
In accordance with State Code Section 15.1-496.1 anyone aggrieved by this decision may file
a written appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter or this decision shall be final
and unappealable. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
tl~ ~:ttfeIlDOnl ~
Amelia G. McCulley~.
Zoning Administrator
AGM/mms
cc: Jan Sprinkle, Planning Department
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk of Board of Supervisors
Reading File
Don Morse
NOTE:
Two additional parcels;
One by Tax Map, three by determination
~
(;o-IARLES S. ROBB
. VIRGINIA
~;P~"'7}; f
7 - j-'i'-/
01 COMMITTEESj I )
Y' 4R~~.~~VJ~~' ( d-
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
Russell Senate Office Building
First and Constitution Avenue, NE, Room 493
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
ilnittd ~tatts ~matt
COMMERCE, SCIENCE.
AND TRANSPORTATION
FOREIGN RELATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4603
Chairman. East Asian and
Pacific Affairs Subcommittee
June 14, 1994
JUN. JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Vice Chairman,
Derrocratic Policy Comminee
Ms~ Ella W. Carey
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Ch~rlottesville, Virginia 22902-4579
De~r Ms. Carey:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the recent resolution
regarding state dnd local government relief from unfunded federal
mandates. I appreciate your taking the time to share this with
me.
Over the past few weeks, I've heard from many state and
local officials on this subject, and I am glad to have had their
input. Based on these exchanges, I feel it is important to let
you know that I am in full support of the goals of Senator
Ke~pthorne's bill, S. 993. Like Senator Kempthorne, I am
committed to ending the practice of unfunded federal mandates,
an~ I am confident that the Senate will pass legislation this
ye~r that will help Congress recognize and restrict future
mandates.
Having served at both the federal and state level, I feel
that I am in a good position to identify an effective legislative
solution. In my estimation, it is critical that we define
pr~cisely what constitutes an "unfunded federal mandate"
an~ provide a proper enforcement mechanism to prevent their
imposition. I have not cosponsored S. 993 because it lacks a
re$ponsible enforcement mechanism and I believe its vague
definition of an "unfunded mandate" could lead to unintended and
adterse consequences.
I've been working with Senator Glenn, Chairman of the
Governmental Affairs Committee, to ensure that any legislation
reported by the committee addresses these points, and I will be
an'original cosponsor of the legislation Senator Glenn plans to
Stata Office:
Regional OffIces:
Old City Hall
1001 East Broad Street
Richmond. VA 23219
(8041 771-2221
Dominion Towers. Suite 107
999 Waterside Drive
Norfolk, VA 23510
(804) 441-3124
8229 Boone Boulevard
Suite 888
Vienna. VA 22182
(703) 3511-2006
1 Coun Square
Suite 340
Harriaonburg, VA 22801
(703) 432-1551
Dominion Bank Building
Main Str..t
Clintwood. VA 24228
1703) 9211-4104
Signet Bank Building
530 Main Street
Oanville. VA 24541
(8041 791-0330
Crtlstar Bank Building
310 First Street SW, Suite 102
AO:lnoke, VA 24011
(7031985-0103
(i)
.
.
Ms. Ella W. Carey
June 14, 1994
Page 2
introduce to the committee on June 16, 1994. I'll try to keep
you informed on the progress we're making to end the practice of
mandating federal priorities for state and local governments.
Again, thank you for keeping in touch with me on this issue.
Sincerely,
~~
Charles S. Robb
CSR\rpb
.A
.T~
!),strihuted to Boar;' 7-/-9<-;
~"-"~-...z:.~
P .0. Box j~an,!''i t~o -gJ--J2~il~ 1(.3 )
Belcamp, Maryland 21017
410-575-7412
(\.PC. f);':<l 'V'}::';I!\L SERVICE..'),INC
June 9, 1994
JJN
'~~
Mr. Bob Richardson
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Post Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Enclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
of May 1994.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 410-575-7412.
Sincerely,
~ 'fl,v~K~~
Sheila H. Moynihan
Project Monitor
/shm
enclosures
cc: .b4s . Ella W. Cax;ey",,,Cleck.# QtC
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
aONe PROGRAM REPORT
Monlh May V.., ~
Property: Arbor Crest Auartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) PrO;<<1 .: 051-35371
.
Location: Charlottesville, VA Numbe, of Unils 66
S",bm,"ec2 D.,: Loretta Wyatt June 6, 1994 Effective 5/31/94
M.~~, O.Te
Total Occupied 66
I. LOwt" INCOWl Bond OCcupied 19
The 101l0wlng unll' ".~ t)coen drs'gn.t'.d IS ..~, Ineom." unlls
1 Arbor Crest Dr 21 Dorothy B. Hubicsak 41
el.
4 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Beverly T. Lane
2 42 62,
3 5 Arbor Crest Dr 23 Margaret L. Mawyer 4)
63,
4 9 Arbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton 44
64.
S 12 Arbor Crest Dr 25 G. Robert Stone 4S
e~.
6 14 Arbor Crest Dr 26 Evelyn Dover 4e
ee.
7 . 15 Arbor Crest Dr 27 Jane Wood 47
e7.
a 20 Arbor Crest Dr 25 Evelyn Mandeville 45
II
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr 29 Gertrude Breen 49
68,
10 30 Arbor Crest Dr 30 Mary Cox Allen 50
70.
\1 44 Arbor Crest Dr 31 Sam M. Atherton
SI 71.
12. 56 Arbor Crest Dr 31 Violet DuCharme 52
72
13 76 Arbor Crest Dr 33 Barbara Datz 53
73.
14 78 Arbor Crest Dr 34 Ernest M. Nease 54
74.
IS 84 Arbor Crest Dr 35 Juanita Boliek 55
75.
16 90 Arbor Crest Dr 36 Betty B. Elliott ~
7e.
11 92 Arbor Crest Dr :11 Dorothy H. Reese
57 77.
lIS 94 Arbor Crest Dr 38 Sarah E. Fischer
51. 78.
19 106 Arbor Crest Dr 39 Katherine T. Nowlen
59 7'.
~'O 40 60 10.
T /'Ie c".n~s "om pI hoOuS repntl 'f'f1eeled in ",I lboy. h~llng it.
O.I.llonl Add 111 ON
t Anne Lee Bullard 11 102 Arbor Crest Dr
, . 11.
Z '2 '1 12.
3 13 3 13.
.. 14 4. 14.
5 15 5 15.
6 16 6 le.
7 \7 7 17.
I 11 e. "..
. 19 t t'.
to 20 10. 20.
Effective May 31, 1994
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lanbard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apart::rrents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and' management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 19 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(l) and (2) is 47 .
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitut~ of the total number of
units in the Project is 29%.
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF1 the undersigned has signed this Report as of
June b, 1994 ,~X
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~ fJf~
A thorized R resentative
J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'...;"j"'C) T~) :::'\:,:<D ,\.'L~i\'\~-~~nS
oN__'2-/-9V
AGENDA TITLE:
May 1994 Financial Report
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
qt.( () r; C~ ((" / <;: )
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
May 1994 Financial Report for the General
Fund, School Fund, and Fund Balance
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
--
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Attached is the May 31, 1994 Monthly Financial Report for the General and Education Funds.
Projected General Fund revenues are based on collections through March.
revised in April.
They were last
Projected General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time.
Projected Education revenues have been increased $49,556 as a result of increased joint
County-City operations.
Projected Education expenditures have been decreased an additional $298,990. The reductions
are a result of lower than anticipated administrative and fuel expenses. The totals
displayed on this Financial Report are consistent with those from the May 31, 1994 School
Board Financial Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the acceptance of the May 1994 Financial Report.
94.094
Ni if'
01
(J)
Z I-
o
i= a:
<C 0
a: a..
w w
a.. a:
~ ~ ~
I- Z
Z <C "..
::> Z CD
8 u: ~
w ~ ::IE
...J J:
a: I-
<C Z
~ 0
~ ~
...J
<C
1--'
zo
wa:
00..
a:-
wo
o..~
w
a:~
<Co
~o
I-
o
"ItW
ml-
-0
C")w
m-,
(to
a:
a..
o
W
1-1-
:S:w
a:(!l
0..0
0::>
a: CO
a..
a..
<C
w
(!l
Z
<C
J:
o
,0 ,0 ";:/( ,0 ,0 ,0 ";:/(1 ,0
0' 0' 0 0' 0' 0' 0 0'
l!)C\l'<:t0'>f'..C")0.....
l!)C\lf'.......O'>.....Oo
0oo0r--:r--:uio-.t
oof'..<ooo'<:tClO CIO
l!).. ............0'>. ..........C'). ...l!). ~....C') 01C') ~
f'..Of'..'<:tv"lt "It
'<:to .~ ...... CIO. l!) m 0'>
C\lC')0'>'<:tl!)ui' l!)
f'..O'>O'>l!)C')LO LO
C'). C") "": '<l:. C") .f'.. f'..
<0 vC\l c<i C')
~ . C\lClO CIO
<0 0 0 ;:- C')j CIO 0 I CIO~
00 f'..l!)CIO CIO
<00 .....f'....... .....
to 6 l!)o '<:t <0- <0
C')l!) 00.......... .....
~ :s CIO CIO
<0............. . f'..f'..~ C\lC\l~."It ~
<0.....0<00'> "It 0 "It
0'>. ~ 00. C\!. '<:t ..... V LO
0C').....l!)0'>...;0'>0
C') 00'> l!)0'> CIO..... 0
.....0 l!) C\!. f'..o <0 C") C') f'..
l!) <0 l!) - .....
<0 C\l CIO 0'>
~ 0'> 0'>
g::: 0 ~ ~~~ ~~~ti
C').<o.oo.'<:t.f'.. 0'> '<:t C')
v C').....o '<:t.,f0'> "It
O'>l!)O'>'<:too<o.....CIO
"": '<:t C\l. 0'>0 <0 LO C') CIO
'<:t <o~ f'..-.....CIO
~ 0'> 0'>1
(J)
w
::>
z
w
>
w
a:
(J)
(J) a:
o H:
o Z (J)
z:) (J) Z
:) u.. W <C
u.. _ CJ ::> a:
...J(/)Z z I-
<(...J- W
0::0~ >zJ:
WO<( w-~
ZI~ a:g?3:
~g:) ....J...Jw...J
__(/) <(<Cu..<C
....J....JIWo::l-(/)1-
<(<(u..l-wOzO
o O...J <(01-<(1-
OOWI-W 0::
....J....J(/)(/)u.. I-
<f.<f.<f.<f.
0'>f'.......0
~~'<I:Cl:!
0000l!)C\l
000'>l!)00
<0 f'.. f'..~.0.~
<0.....00'"
00'>f'..f'..
~l!)of'..f'..
V'<:tC')C\l
......C').O'> '<:t
.....'<:tC')0'>
C\l C\l
000101
l!) f'.. .....~ C')~
.....C\lC')f'..
"'. '<:to C\l C')
C\l....."'.....
0C')0'<:t
o'<:t.....l!)
~ '<:to '" l!)
C\l C')
l!) f'.. .....~ C') I
.....C\lC')f'..
f'..'<:tC\lC')
N...... f'.. .....~~
g~~~
~ ~ f'..ll!)
C\l C')
(J)
w
(J)
Z
w
a..
X
w
(/)
Z I-
o z
i= W
<( ~
0:: Z
W 0::
a.. W
o >
I- 0
z....J CJ
w<( ....J
~I- <(
ZZ 0::
o::W W
W~ aJ
> I- "..
00:: ......
CJ<((/)....J
....Jo..o::<(
<(WWI-
ou..o
0::1(/)1-
~Zzrn
WO<(:)
CJz~(/)
<f.<f.<f.
0C\lC\l
l!)f'..f'..
C')l!)C\l
oof'..oo
..... l!)~ <o!
C\l000
v 0'> v
<O.C') 0
C\l<OO'>
qf'..f'..
f'..'<:t.....
'<:t l!)
c:o 011
00 00
0'> 0'>
C') C')
C') C')
t:::.. f'..
<0 .....~ f'..~
0'>00'>
",,:000'>
f'.......00
.....0'>0
C')C\l<o
<o<oC\l
l!) <0
C\l .....~ C')~
00000
......00 0'>
..... .....~ C\l
l!)0'>'<:t
0C\lC')
f'..<OC')
l!) <0
z
(/) 0
z(/)W
00-
i=z;2:
<(:)0
0::u......J
wCJO
00.. Z 0
-I
OZO
Z<.((/)
:)I-....J
u..(/)<(
....J:)I-
0(/)0
011-
Iu..rn
....J:)
OW(/)
(/)(/)
(J)
W
(J)
Z
W
a..
X
W
...J
<C
I-
o
I-
?ft
LO
I':
C\l
CIO
I
;
~ ;
~
CIOl
ml
;
~I
i
@
(J)
W
(J)
Z
w
a..
X
w
a:
w
>
o
(J)
w
::>
z
w
>
w
a:
u.
o
W
o
Z
<C
...J
<C
CO
.
o
Z
::J l-
Ll.. CC
...J 0
< 0..
CC W
W CC
Z ...J -t
W ~ ~
e" U ,...
> Z
I- < ,...
Z Z t")
::J Ll..- >
o <
u > :E
...J
W J:
...J I-
CC Z
< 0
~ :E
co
...J
<
1-"")
zO
WCC
uo..
CC......
wO
o..~
CC~
<<
wO
>0
I-
o
Ww
I-e"
Uz
W<
"")J:
~U
0..
o
-tW
0)1-
......U
t")W
0)"")
(to
CC
0..
o
W
1-1-
~W
CCe"
0..0
O::J
CCco
0..
0..
<
<fi <fi <fi '* <fil '*
LOVOC\lOco
LOV<oCOO....
<0 N N '0 .
coO'lV~ ~
1.0<0 -t~,LO., OILO~
I'--<OCOC\l C\I
V. t"). 0 O'l 0)
C\lVC\lcO co
1'--0000'lLO LO
C'>.C'>. co co
<ovO 0
~(O (0
<0 Ii) C'>I-t 01 -tf
O"-LO-t -t
<0. v, I'--~ 0) 0)
<OC'>V"': ....
C'>C\l"-C\I C\l
~~ .... 1'--,
<0 V. C'>~.t")Vj""~
<0 1.0 CO 01.0 LO
O'l. l": ..- 0) C'> C\I
o C'> <0 O~ <0 ....
C'>LO"-OV-t
"":1'-:.C\l,...COO)
LOv O~ 0
~ .... I'--
55 ~ g~ ffi ~~ ~ll
C'>..-'<:t0)C'>t")
.,f r' ..- C\I" <0 0)
O'l 1'--0.... '<:t..-
..-. O'l. C\l t") co C\I
~V 0)" 0
Y.l- (0.... I
C/J
W
::J
Z
W
>
W
CC
C/J
CC
W
Ll..
C/J
C/J Z
W <
::JZCC
Z-I-
WC/JJ:
>0:1-
....lWUJ-
....l ~cc~3:
<(~UJ...JZ...J
0<(0<(<(<
o I-UJI-o: I-
....l(/)Ll..01-0
I- I-
<fi<fi<fi<fi<fi<fi<fi<fi<fi<fi,*
cocoC'>coC'>I'--v1.0 I'--..-CO
~~~~"!~~~~'<l:,...
COC\lO'l<OCO"-O<OCOLOr-.:
co O'lCO....COO'lO'lCO O'l LOCO
O'l O'l co <0 co co C\l v I'-- I'--! CO~
I'--O'l..-'<:t'<:to '<:tC'>..-CO....
C'>..-C\lCOO..-..-C\lO"lI'--CO
v' .,f co' O'i 1.0' co. N 0 IIi I'-- LO
CO LOO'l<O..-COCO v VC'>..-
<0. C\l, '<l:. <0. q 1'--. C'>. ~ C'>. O'l C\I
C'>"-<O"-V..-C\l"-VC'>
C'> ,...
(0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0:
C\l I'-- C'> I'-- 1.0 0 I'-- v I'-- ''-It'')~
<OC\lO'l<OI'--'<:t<0 C\lC\lC'>..-
I'--COO'lC'>COO'lC'>LOVC\Jt")
r:ti CO- 1.0' cD 0 r' N O'l' ..-- I'-- O"l
<0 V C\lCOLO 1'--C\l0'lC'> 0..-
"": C'>. C\l. "": 1.0. <0. <0. ~ '<:to ..- C\I
V"-I'--C\l V vC\l,,-v 1'--0
C'> ....
C\l I'-- C'> I'-- 1.0 0 I'-- v I'-- "-1 t")1
<0 C\l O'l <0 I'-- v <0 C\l C\l C'> ..- ,
1'--. co. O'l. C'>. co. O'l. C'>. ~ '<l:. C\lj t")~."
coco 1.0<00 1'--C\l0'l..-1'--0"l
<0 '<:tC\lCO 1.0 1'--C\l0'l C'> 0,...
..-, C'>. C\l. ..-. 1.0. <0. <0. co. '<l:. ..- C\l~.
'<:t"-I'--C\l'<:tVC\l..-'<:tI'--O
C'> ....,
C/J
W
C/J
Z
W
0..
X
W
Z
o
t= w C/J
<( 0:1- W
0: =>Z C/J
I-Z I-;w Z
(/)0 ~ W
Zt= I- =>~ 0..
-<( Z 00.. X
~o: UJ Z-O....l W
01- ~ Ouj~ e"
<(~ a.. ->Z z
!:-~>-(/)O ~WW i=
>~I-::.::....l UJO~ <(
OOWo:W 0:>-1-
CJ Ll..O>ZOI-O:(/)CC
<(<(>WOW-<(o:W
;;i.....l(/)>Ot=o:Zo..UJo..
O:~OOZ<(---=>WLl..O
WQ:J:J<(O~~O~...J
ZO(()(()~=>o:~Z<(<
W=>=>=>=>O<(OOO:OI-
CJ.o..o..IWo..OZI-
I-
I
~jl
~I
~
~I
C/J
W
C/J
Z
W
c..
X
W
CC
W
>
o
C/J
W
::J
Z
W
>
W
CC
Ll..
o
W
o
Z
<
...J
<(
CO
*
o
Z
::l I-
U. 0::
...J 0
o a..
o LU
J: 0:: ..t
() ...J d)
en <( Q)
C3 ....
~ Z a
Z <( ~
g ~ ~
() > ~
LU ...J
...J J:
0:: I-
<( Z
~ 0
LU ~
CO
...J
<(
1-""')
zO
LUO::
()o..
0::-
LUO
o..~
LU
o::~
~O
>0
I-
o
LULU
1-"
()z
LU<(
""')J:
~()
a..
o
'ltLU
0)1-
-()
C')LU
0)""')
(::0
0::
a..
o
LU
I- 1-'
~LU
0::"
0..0
O::l
0:: CO
a..
a..
<(
<f-<f-<f-'?ft<f-'?ft
C\JOI'-C')MCO
C\JOMOVC')
OOtOo '0 .
1'-00LO~en~
....-. 1'-.....- .!.......O). ....CO! .""'~
OI'-COC')O'lt
0)_ "'t Voo ...- 0)
MOMr--."'OOlO
en CO V Q)OO 00
MO C\J.(O.I'- 'It
~a:i -...-
...- OOMO
.... lo
o V Ol'lt 01 'lt~
OV 'It V
O. C\! C\l C\l
000 ai CO
~ M CO COI
....-M... V~. cc..OO. ~.CO.I
"'-"'-"'-C')COC\l
~ LO. M 'It en 'It
M ...- M 00- 0 0)
OOOOooLOC')
LOqVO)...-....
~...- . a LO
C\J (:;jMrt;
..- en V~ 'It OO~ C\J~
"-CO"'-O) 00 00
COC\JM....en....
MM.MOO....
LO <.0 00 LO I
V en V 0 ..-~ lo,
~ 6 O)a LO O~
C\J .... M """
C\J LO I
en
LU
::l
Z
LU
>
LU
0::
en
0::
LU
U.
en
(/) en Z
....J LU <(
o ::lzO::
o z-I-
OI LU (/) J:
>a:1-
(/) ....JLUW-
I <(O::LL;:
~wa:...J(/)....J
o~~<(~<(
Ol-wl-a:1-
....J(/)LLOI-O
I- I-
<f-<f-<f-<f-<f-'?ft'?ft
l'-enenLOenooo
":C\JLO~I'-~lo
"'-MI'-OOC\JenC'i
00 en 00 00 I'-enoo
M "'" M 00 <.OV~....
l'-enen"-MOC\l
o.......-enOOC\J'lt
ai CO. V. cD a:i 0) <.0
<.OM 0 C\JI'-O C\l
<.O.I'-.I'-.-r: I'- 0
LO...-MLO "'"
C') 'It
<:0000 0 ~OG'~
0000 000
~I'-O <.00)
000 C\JC')
I'- LO en C\J MI
~SS !::::i
M C\J I'- 00 <.0 O~ <.0 ~
C\JLOOO VOOO 0)
LOC\JOO...-MO....
M M 00. M. a:i 0 "'"
C\J<.O C\JOO 0..-....
<.0. OO.C\J. 1'-...- I'- C')
M..-VLO
V <.0
lo
en C\J I'- 00 <.0 0 I C\J I
OLOOOVOOOoo
C\J en 00 ..- M <.0 .... ,
..,f M a:i M a:i C\J~ ....:
en ..- ..- 00 0 M lo'
~ O. V.I'-. ..- I'- 01
~ C\J V LO I'-~
LOI
en
w
en
Z
w
a..
><
w
Z
I 0
I- wi=
~ 0<(
W(/)z~
IW<(!:!::
.OZO
W-<i:o en
O>I-~ LU
Za:Z__ (/)
<(W-Z Z
0(/)<(0 LU
zz~-
WOZ-I- a..
1--00 ><
1-1- ~ W
<( <( i= a: ,"
. I- <( I- ....,z
Za:a:(/)
OOWZ I-
zi=D..D..O <(
O<(~OO(/)a:
i=g:<((/)(/)a:LU
O(/)a:WWWo..
~-I-i=i=LLO
a:~....J:J:J(/)...J
1-~a::OO~<(
~0~<(<(a:01-
_<(D..LLLLI-
I-
;
i
~
011
~
en
LU
en
Z
LU
a..
><
W
0::
LU
>
o
en
LU
::l
Z
LU
>
LU
0::
U.
o
W
()
Z
<(
...J
<(
CO
C/)
Z
o
-I-
1-0:
~O
Wo..o:;t
o..WO)
00:0)
>W.....
1-0 -
ZZM
:)~>
0<(<(
OCO~
Wo
~Z
<(:)
~u.
W
CO
...J
<(
. .
...J
<(0
I-Z
0..:)
<(u.
o
...J
00
Oz
I:)
ou.
C/)
...J
<(0
ffiz
z:)
wu.
<!J
il
cry
L{)
N
L{)-
<0
.....
-
<0
<0
~
N
~
f!)o
NL{)
....."'"
N-~
(Y) -
.....
-
~
~i
000
o~
00
0- (Y)-
L{)N
.....(Y)
--
co
CO
o
<0
"'"
0)
o
.....
~
---
""'00
~""'o
00<0
"",- L{)- m-
<0""''''''
..... L{) -
--
.....
-
o
o
L{)
cry~o
<0""'0
.....mo
- "",- L{)-
.....-
-
(Y)
0)
I
o
(Y)
I
<0
o
W
o
Z
~
<(
CO
o
Z
:)
u.
o (J)~
W o..<{
I- ~o:
W <{CJ
CJ 0:0
o 00:
:) >0..
CD -l0:(J)
"I CDWI- ~
C/)(J) 0: (J)~Z ~
Zz W OwW (J)
00 I-CJZI~ >-
1-- <{Z:5(J)1- (J)
<(~ ~~I>-~-l 0:
0:- 0: ~ > 0 0 -, 0 I-W "....
W(J) >zZoo: .1-
0..0.. O:w W I- <{-l
o ZOZ<{CJ<{Z ~<{
0:001- ffia:Oo ~
o..a:l-(J) I-wOO ~w
o..<{<{OI-O:~o 0:0:0
<(WO:l-o..Ow>Ww<{-
>-0.. Ww >O:I-LL(J)
OI-OffiO-l>-(J)LLZWO
WZO:LLI<{~:=)I-W:J<{
>Wo..(J)I-O>O(J)O_o
OO:o..Z-l(J)<{<{Wz>o:
O:O:<{<{<{-lzoo:wo:o
o..:=)wo:w-l:=)a:owo_
o..OO:I-IIO:CDLLI-Oa:
<(
N
N
"'"
~
j
j
I
;
~
CO:
--
'1
~II
~I
C/)
Z
o
I-
<(
0:
a..
o
0:
a..
a..
<(
o
W
>
o
0:
a..
a..
<(
...J
<(
I-
o
I-
W
o
Z
~
<(
CO
CI
Z
:J
Ll.,
t ~, ,-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.:_2'; ?.Y _,.
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Policy Review July 6, 1994 iN, () 1 (.i' ((,Pi r7 )
ACTION: INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Review 0 road name CONSENT AGENDA:
change p ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: ~
STAFF CO
Messrs. Cilimberg, Weaver REVIEWED BY:
d's current policy regarding road name changes, initially adopted in September, 1991
nction with the approval of the new road names to support the Enhanced 911 System,
llows:
(1) ests to change Board approved road names must be submitted to the Albemarle County
Departm nt of Planning and Community Development and must be accompanied by a petition signed
by a majority of the landowners along such road. Petitions will be reviewed by staff and,
if accep able, will administratively approve the change. These changes cannot be implemented
until t e County has assumed operational control of the Building Locator System (now
projecte to be by November, 1994).
(2) ne (1) month window of opportunity was established for road name changes to be
submitte after which no further changes would be permitted. The one (1) month window of
opportun'ty for road name changes will take place after the new address notification phase
of the p oject is complete (now projected to be in the September-October, 1994 timeframe).
(3) Pr perty owner(s) incur the costs only for the fabrication and installation for new
signs. ther staff costs would be absorbed within the County budget. If the Board continues
to allo changes after the deadline, the full costs for changes should be paid by the
property owner(s).
DISCUSSI
New addr notification is targeted to begin by September, 1994. Staff currently has 38
requests for road name changes on file from County residents. Staff will begin to coordinate
the peti ,ion process with County residents requesting road name changes in July.
RECOMME ATION:
The inte t of this executive summary of the road name change policy is to provide the Board
with the opportunity to review and re-acquaint itself with the current policy as this phase
of imple enting the Enhanced 911 System can be a sensitive issue for County residents and may
generate citizen inquiries. This information is provided for the Board's information.
NAMECHNG.WP
94.087
7'
I),stritwted to Board: _'?.:!.._ '.9>:'"
Agenda Item No, ~!. O?(.~(,((,.,:J~)
DIRECT SELLING ASSOCIATION
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1010, Washington, IX: 20006-2808
202/293-5760 · Fax 202/4634569
JtJN
June 23, 1994
The Honorable Walter F. Perkins
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Perkins:
Thank you for taking time to talk to me the other day about the concerns direct sellers have with
the home occupation ordinance. I hope that the County Board of Supervisors will consider changes
to the ordinance to allow direct sellers to operate without unfairly impacting local neighborhoods.
For your convenience, I have enclosed a suggested amendment which would preserve the goal of
neighborhood preservation without unfairly impacting direct sellers,
By way of background, the Direct Selling Association (DSA) is the national trade association
representing over 130 companies which sell their products and services by personal presentation
and demonstration, primarily in the home, Our membership, with 5.1 million direct sellers,
includes some of the nation's most well-known commercial names which constitute 95% of all
direct selling in the United States. The home party and person-to-person sales methods used by our
companies and their independent contractor salesforces have become part and parcel of the
American landscape.
The typical individual direct seller is a person who operates her own business part-time from her
home. Her financial goals are simple -- to earn enough extra income for gifts, tuition, or family
vacation. The direct seller is the quintessential small business person; direct selling, the
embodiment of a small business opportunity,
I do not object to that portion of the home occupation ordinance that relates to traffic. I agree that
the sustainable volume of traffic must be based on community standards. Community standards,
of course, include occasional parcel deliveries and innocuous visits by guests to the home
occupation. My concern with the ordinance is the prohibition from selling out of the home.
Direct selling is an important enterprise conducted by millions of Americans. Direct selling allows
people to work at home to be closer to their families and it provides opportunities to earn extra
money. Direct selling also benefits consumers who enjoy the convenience of shopping at home in a
personal manner and allows consumers to maximize their purchasing options. The current
ordinance prohibits all direct selling in Albemarle County and shuts off to the citizens of
Albemarle, the benefits direct selling provides,
The Honorable Walter F. Perkins
June 23, 1994
Page 2
OSA understands the need to ensure quality neighborhoods, but a flat ban on direct selling is not
the best way to achieve that goal. OSA suggests the enclosed amendment to the home occupation
ordinance to allow direct sellers to operate without turning home occupations into retail stores.
This can be accomplished, as the enclosed amendment indicates, by permitting sales in the home to
persons who have been extended a prior individual invitation. A direct seller who sets
appointments for guests to visit the home would prevent "drop-in" traffic commonly associated
with a storefront. Further, the appointment system would preserve the quality of local
neighborhoods.
I am willing to work with the Board of Supervisors and others to ensure that Albemarle citizens are
not excluded from opportunities millions of Americans enjoy. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions,
Sincerely,
-
/)
./l'
'::" ~/
.'
/.
., .'-----
Enc J. Ellman
Associate Attorney/Manager, Government Relations
cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors
~irk Bloemendaal, Amway Corporation
Anne Crews. Mary Kay Cosmetics
~
DIRECT SELLING ASSOCIATION
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 1010, Washington, IX 20006-2808
202/293-5760 . Fax 202/463-4569
DSA Suggested Amendment
5.2 HOME OCCUPATIONS
* * *
.1 The following regulations shall apply to any home occupation:
c. There shall be He sales eft the premises, Other than items handcrafted on
the premises, in connection with such home occupation; no product shall
be sold to members of the general public. "Members of the general
public" shall not include persons on the premises by prior. individual
invitation. This does not exclude beauty shops or one-chair barber shops.
,
EXPLANATION
strickeR material indicates matter to be deleted from existing ordinance.
underlined material indicates matter to be added to ordinance.
. ,
,. .
cc: p.:,..,- ~~. "
m !:~ '_:, ..,.', ~;' 'i\RLE
I rl [r.~' f...i , ;,) "., r-J
orb;" ~~~.'""-;'~'~;:l~~-.;\;m
- r-.:lY.'~rr'./ III
' "":_':_L::.:tU ~,L
D:sll,~l~,Fc"U...tiV~ O.EFfC.~ '.~d
..;rr ,,, [1(.3'0. -_.-:.L-~~
Agend, Item r~c. -~~'~~~(9 )
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert W. Paskel, Superintendent -I:;.
Long Range Planning COmmitlee~
F om:
ate:
June 16, 1994
Re:
Summary of Public Forum Comments
In order to hear public comments about the proposed new County high'school,
t e Long Range Planning Committee conducted four public forums throughout the
C unty as follows:
DATE
LOCATION
Western Albemarle
Walton
Albemarle
Scottsvi lie
Nearly 200 individuals attended the public forums. Attached is the material that was
distributed at each of the forums. After a brief presentation by the Committee, the public
w s invited to offer comments and the following summarizes these comments in three
a eas, i.e. location, program issues, and general comments:
I. LOCATION
The issue of location was that which was most vocally addressed at the forums.
T ere was no disagreement with the Committee's general recommendation that the new
high school be located in what was termed the Southern Urban Rural Area. This area
w s defined to be anywhere from the present Cale school, i.e Avon Street extended,
P CC area, to the present Walton site.
The area of contention was between locating the school nearer to PVCC V5. that
o the Walton site. The citizenry from the southern end of the County strongly
e~pressed their opinion that the school should be located at the Walton site. Reasons for
tI is location include the following:
Length of bus rides for the southern-area students to either of the two
present high schools. Parents spoke about bus rides as long as 1 1/2
hours, one way, for their high school students and the impact this has on
parent involvement, student involvement in extracurricular activities, etc.
2 Availability of increased opportunities for students if a high school were
located near Walton Middle School. Parents cited the fact that Jouett and
Henley both have high schools within walking distance and expressed the
fact that this should increase the availability of athletic facilities,
opportunities to share staff in specialized areas, ability to have students
take courses at either of the schools based on needs of the students, etc.
They also discussed the fact that the high school facility would allow the
community to make use of an auditorium for community functions much
like that which is done in the use of Albemarle and Western Albemarle
High Schools.
3 Tax Savings. The fact that the Walton site has 50 available acres and
would save approximately $370,000 annually in transportationcosts was
cited numerous times. The southern area citizens voiced the fact that they
pay the same taxes as other residents yet do not have the proximity to a
high school afforded to others. They believe that it would be wasteful to
pay more money for land when the County owns land and to ignore the
transportation savings that would be recouped with locating the school at
Walton.
The southern area parents voiced the fact that they would not consider the
Ie cation of the new school in the PVCC area as an acceptable alternative since they feel
that this is only 10 minutes from Albemarle High School and would not address the
distance problems for their students. This argument was refuted by certain parents at the
A bemarle High School forum who are from the eastern portion of the County now
at ending Burley Middle School. The rationale from these parents for locating the new
high school near Pantops Mountain or near the 1-64/route 20 interchange was as follows:
It should be noted that additional land at the Walton site should be purchased if
the school is located there. The 50 acres that are owned by the County may not all be
SL itable for building and other facilities and represent a minimal amount of land for a
hi~h school.
1. Proximity. The students attending Burley from the area that may be served
by the new high school may, in some instances, be closer to Albemarle
High School than they would be to Walton. Many of these parents believe
that it would be a disservice to their students to have them travel further to
a new school at the Walton site.
2. Road Conditions. Many of the parents who were not from the southern
end of the County cited the condition of routes 20 south and 708 as
reasons not to build the school at Walton. They said that many high
school students drive to school and, unlike the proximity of Albemarle and
Western Albemarle High Schools to major highways, they believe that the
Walton site is unsafe for student travel. There was also concern expressed
by one resident of the Walton area about increased traffic on route 708,
noise from a high school.
3. Availability of Business Opportunities. These parents stated that their
students would not have the access to after-school job opportunities as
readily if the school were at Walton than if it were located nearer to
Charlottesville. They also said that it was important for high school
students to be able to readily avail themselves of social opportunities, i.e.
community activities that may be centered more in the immediate
Charlottesvi lie area.
4 Water Conditions. A concern was expressed that the building of a new
high school may have an adverse effect on the water availability in the
Walton area with regard to both quantity and quality. Concern about the
ability of the site to accommodate usage for drinking, cooking and sewage
was expressed without its having an impact on surrounding properties and
their water access.
II PROGRAM
Although the program at the new school was a secondary issue to that of location,
H ere were several points raised throughout the forums that should be considered:
1 Diversity. Sentiment was expressed that the County should consider the
diversity of the student body as much as possible in defining the
attendance area for the new high school. Racial, academic and
socioeconomic factors were raised as demographic issues that should be
blended in any school.
2 Size. There was support for the idea of small schools. Some people even
suggested the building of two smaller high schools vs. one larger facility.
The Albemarle High School parents have a sincere interest in having that
school's size reduced to a number nearer to that of Western Albemarle
High School. There was support expressed about how smaller schools
allow for more student contact, less disciplinary problems, etc. There was
also, however, recognition of the fact that a high school needs to be
sufficiently large to offer the comprehensive program, advanced classes and
other opportunities afforded to a school with a larger student body.
3 Flexible Space. Some speakers discussed the fact that the new school
should be built with flexible interior spaces to accommodate programmatic
changes that may occur before the County would ever build another high
school. The impact of special education and other specialized classes over
the past 20 years was cited as a need for maintaining as much flexibility as
possible in designing the new high school.
4. Technology. Strong support exists for building a "school for the future",
i.e. one that is designed to incorporate as much of the new technology as
possible for use by high school students.
5. Parity with existing schools. There was strong sentiment expressed that the
new high school must be built with the same opportunities available to its
students as those offered to other high school students in the County.
I I. GENERAL COMMENTS.
The following comments were offered in general about the building of the new
s~hool:
1. Enrollment projections. Some of the speakers expressed concern that a
problem with enrollments will occur in the next year and stated that the
building of a new high school should have begun several years ago. There
was some concern, also, about the fact that by the time the new school
opens, the peak of enrollment may have almost passed. Concern was
expressed about finding acceptable alternatives to address student needs
over the next four years as the new school is built.
~ . Past decisions. Several speakers stated that the County had made a poor
decision in its location of Western Albemarle High School anct'cautioned
that the same type of error in location may be made again if the new
school is located at Walton. Some speakers spoke to the need to have the
new school near the hub of the County, i.e. Charlottesville in projecting
where future growth needs will occur.
Rural vs. Urban. Again, there were arguments on both sides of this issue.
The southern area parents stated that a rural school would mean less crime,
less drug usage, the benefits of high school students not going off campus
during lunch periods, etc. The eastern area parents stated their desire to
have their students easily accessible to services in the Charlottesville area.
~ UMMARY
The Committee believes that holding these public forums was extremely
l eneficial and appreciated by those who attended. The location decision will be one
that presents a challenge in finding the best location for as many students
c s possible. The Committee is continuing to work on this issue with the help of Dr. Don
I rown, Systems Engineer at University of Virginia and also looks forward to assisting in
l sing the County's site selection criteria to help in the making of this very important
(ecision. If there are questions about this report, please feel free to contact any of the
long Range Planning Committee members. Your sharing this information with the
r~spective boards will be sincerely appreciated.
( AH/ac
r~-94061 6
r"tlr'''''J' ,,' 'L 7 / J J
Vl"."",c ,t:. W hoard: - ,- 't
_............r....-..I-~
;'gei'aa Item No. _ 9r.,-9..Z!!.k.~;)(})
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development[/())0
FROM:
DATE:
June 30, 1994
SJ]BJECT:
Private Entrance Sight Distance
We have been made aware this week of a change in VDOT's policy regarding minimum sight
d~stance for private entrances. (See attached letter of June 24, 1994.) I wanted to pass this along
tQ you as this change has significant potential impact and you may be hearing from affected
pfopertyowners. As an example, on a 55mph road the minimum sight distance would become
550'. This requirement will likely have the greatest affect on a rural property owner seeking to
d~vide off one or two lots. Should you have any specific questions regarding this change please
Idt staff know so that we can forward those for Mr. Roosevelt's response.
\ J\,
;!~
...; 1;;11 L 7 1994
L-,)j
fi 1r~
t,)0::~:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
D, S, ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
June 24, 1994
Private Entrance Sight Distance
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Ms. Jo Higgins
Ms. Amelia McCauley
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Cilimberg, Ms. Higgins and Ms. McCauley:
For some years this office used different sight distance requirements for
commercial and private entrances when issuing permits. The minimum sight distance
for commercial entrances has been basically ten times the operating speed of the
state road being entered. For private entrances we have attempted to obtain the
maximum sight distance feasible setting 250' as a minimum if obtainable. ::n cases
where 250' is not obtainable, we have required the private entrance to be located at
a point where the maximum sight distance available can be obtained.
Recent events have caused us to review the existing procedure for determining
private entrance sight distance. As a result of this review all future private
entrance permits will require a minimum sight distance equal to that required on
commercial entrances. I request that in your review of site plans, rezonings and
subdivision plats you take this change into consideration.
Your truly,
~ A Kcn:rs w-J V-
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR/smk
cc: D. R. Askew
C. T. Baber
J. H. Kesterson
H. W. Mills
A. G. Tucker
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsvil1e
TO:
FROM:
;P'.',,-.: ;',' .'7._./ C?~
< .o".'l., _:1.4 .,~"f ;-\...1 ',. J/'.. I\../ . .
~. .... . ~ - --q-------,....,.-
,4';11O'Id< I';.'.... tlV, C '"7/:/ flY
\....,.~-(~ '.(.:,1 I / /VI;U
-'--. -.___n__~__..~~_.:.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
CMC gJ./
DATE: June 30, 1994
SUBJECT: Reading List for July 6, 1994
~ITllnp 1 n (J:!), 1:J92 - Mr. Marshall \1;: cJ---t
July 1, 1992 - pages 13 (#8) end - Mr. Martin
July 8, 1992 - pacre5 1 - 11 (#7) Mr. MEirohall- ~..///l .
pageD 11 (#7) 33 (#8) My . BuweLllLcUl U-Jt-i
pages JJ (#8) and pilL PeLkins
May 4, 1994 - Mrs. Thomas fLto...j
May 9 (A), 1994 - Mrs. Thomas &-eLt
) 7
- Mrs. Humphris fUUL{
('1.L
lI4r. BOT\'erman' LLO- .
(leecL.
May 18, 1994
Jllnp 1 , 1991
JUne 8, 1994
EWC:mms
ML.
PeLkins
*
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Charlottes....iIIe
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Ma~shall. Jr.
Scottsvilk>
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 10, 1994
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt
Resident Highway Engineer
Pp Box 2013
C~arlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Roosevelt:
At its meeting on July 6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors took the
following actions related to transportation matters:
Agenda Item NO.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
POBLIC.
Mrs. Sara Lee Barnes, and other residents from the area, presented a
petition concerning the increase in truck traffic on Routes 22 and 231 in
~lbemarle County. This corridor is a designated Virginia Byway and should be
maintained as a pleasant driving experience for both residents and people
V!isiting the area. The through truck and bus traffic have the potential of
l:1Uining this Byway. She asked that Routes 22 and 231 be closed to through
t'ruck traffic. The petition was signed by more than 150 people. She asked
that the Board hold a public hearing in the near future to discuss what can be
done about this traffic situation. (Attached is a copy of the petition and
ljetter from John Moore.)
Per the discussion, it is our understanding that you will review 1:he
traffic counts for this area to determine the volume of truck traffic v,~rsus
ather traffic and the accident data, and then make a report to the Board at a
Later meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6.6. Letter dated June 28, 1994, from Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re:
monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction
and quarterly report of projects under design in Albemarle County.
Mr. Perkins noted that the Tabor Street project should be included in
the list of projects under construction.
Agenda Item No. 6.20. Memorandum dated June 30, 1994, from V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, re: Private
entrance sight distance.
Mrs. Humphris discussed the Georgetown Road Task Force report and the
proposed improvements at the Georgetown Road/Hydraulic Road intersection. She
mentioned a safety problem at the northern most driveway on Georgetown. Cars
traveling east on Hydraulic and then turning south onto Georgetown will end up
right on top of that driveway. The driveway is at the edge of the commercial
property.
*
Printed on recycled paper
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt
July 10, 1994
page 2
Agenda Item No. Sa. Transportation Matter: Jack Hodge - Discussion of
Transportation Issues.
Mr. Hodge discussed the Alternative 10 Bypass, the interchanges, t.he
Base Case, Berkmar Drive, the connection at Carrsbrook Drive and the
Millington Bridge.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an updated estimate for the bypass with the
changes at the northern and southern termini. Mr. Hodge said he would ~jet
that information.
Mrs. Humphris referred to a statement in Secretary Martinez letter which
stated that "Local traffic would have to contend with large volumes of through
traffic, 16 percent of which would be heavy trucks." Mrs. Humphris said the
l~st number provided by VDoT that related to through traffic was 1.6 percent,
not 16 percent. Mr. Hodge did not agree and said he would verify the informa-
tion.
Mr. Hodge said VDoT is trying to find a way to keep the Millington
Bridge in the same general location. VDoT is working with the property owners
and Mr. Roosevelt will bring back to the Board a report on the final design.
Mrs. Thomas asked what is the status of Route 250 West, at the bypass
access. Mr. Hodge said VDoT is working on reconfiguring that area to come up
with the best configuration to fix the situation.
Mrs. Humphris said at the last MPO Policy Board meeting the VDoT repre-
slentative suggested that it was possible that the County would not be able to
~se its secondary road funds to construct the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Hodge
slaid he knows of no reason why secondary road funds cannot be used for that
project. He will get information back to the Board.
Agenda Item No. Sb. Letter dated June 30, 1994, from Robert E.
Martinez, Secretary of Transportation, re: sequencing of construction for
~oute 29, the interchanges and Alternative 10.
Discussed with Item Sa.
Agenda Item No. Sc. Request to set a public hearing to prohibit truck
traffic on Route 656 (Georgetown Road) .
Set a public hearing for August 10, 1994, to consider prohibiting
through truck traffic on Route 656. (Note: This meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman said at some time in the future, as the improvements on
Route 29 N occur along the new access road from Route 29 N to Berkmar Extended
near Floor Fashions, he will probably be asking the Board to look at prohibit-
xng truck traffic on Carrsbrook Drive.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt
July 10, 1994
Page 3
Agenda Item No. 8d. Relocation of Route 627 and abandonment of existing
section (Enniscorthy).
The Board indicated a willingness to abandon the requested section of
~oute 627 and authorized a resolution allowing the requested abandonment be
brought back for its approval subject to the following:
1. Evidence that all conditions of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
have been satisfied.
2. Approval of road plans and construction of the relocated section of
Route 627 in accordance with those road plans.
3. Approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner.
Agenda Item No. 8e. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins asked that a speed limit study be conducted on Route 684,
from Yancey's Mill to Jarmans Gap Road.
Mr. Marshall said on Route 20 S, where the construction is occurring
just beyond his farm, some of the residents are concerned about a possible
qhange in the plans. It was his understanding that the present road would
tlemain and serve as a private road to the four houses. Yesterday he was
~nformed that the road would be removed and the property owners would access
~t the southern end of the new road. Per the discussion, you intend to review
~he construction plans and get with Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that someone had posted a sign at the Warren Boat
~anding, roped off the area and eliminated the parking. Mr. Tucker said staff
~s negotiating with the property owner to either acquire an easement or an
area for parking. Staff is also considering a request to the Board, for
~nclusion in the CIP, to purchase land to maintain a parking area for the
~ublic.
i Mrs. Thomas asked if the state has a program for purchasing access to a
~iver. Mr. Tucker said he would look into it.
I Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs to make a decision on the improve-
ients at Georgetown Road/Hydraulic Road and on the modifications of the slip
amp. In addition, a recommendation from the Georgetown Road Task Force
'ncluded rebuilding the current sidewalk. The cost for modification of the
~lip ramp is $10,000 and the cost to rebuild the sidewalk is $26,000. The
qonsensus of the Board was to add this item to the August 3, 1994, agenda.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
SOARD.
Mr. Martin asked about the status of the Meadow Creek Parkway study.
Board members asked that a set of the aerials that Mr. Hodge used during
his presentation be placed in the Planning Department.
Mr. Marshall commended the Parks & Recreation Department for the mowing
on Route 20 South, from Route 53 to the City limits. The area really looks
good.
. .
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt
ululy 10, 1994
Page 4
Mrs. Thomas said apparently different segments of the state have differ-
ent standards as to how often the Highway Department cuts the grass. The
standards around Williamsburg are different than in this area. She asked
staff to find out if there is some way for the Charlottesville area to have
the same standards as Williamsburg, which may allow more careful grass cutting
around the entrance corridors.
Very truly yours,
aLkL~(/LC:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~
EWC :mms
l-ttachments
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
f
..----,
./" '-..7//0- ....." ,/
(/1' c!(i "~' ,( / u ';" 1
/.,' ~j-
/... -
..\
EVALUATION OF REVISIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVE 10
ALIGNMENT TO A VOID/MINIMIZE IMPACTS
TO ST. ANNE'S BELFIEW SCHOOL
LTERNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT AS APPROVED BY THE COMMONWEALTH
SPORTATION BOARD (BLUE LINE):
A REVIEW OF THE EXISTING ALIGNMENT OF THE APPROVED CORRIDOR DETERMINED
T A SHIFf' IN THE ALIGNMENT TO THE WEST TO A VOID ST. ANNE'S BELFIELD WAS NOT
OSSIBLE WITHOUT ENCROACHMENT ONTO THE WESTOVER PROPERTY.
MINIMIZING THE DESIGN TO SAVE THE SOCCER FlEW NOT POSSIBLE. THE COMPRESSED
iJSTANCE BETWEEN PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT ROUTE 250 AND ALTERNATIVE 10 DOES NOT
'ROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACING FOR GRADE SEPARATIONS AT ST. ANNE'S ENTRANCE ROAD AND
EQUIRED MOVEMENTS FROM ALTERNATIVE 10 TO ROUTE 250.
SULTS -- A COMPROMISE IN THE DESIGN AT THIS WCATION WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
EDUCE THE IMPACTS TO ST. ANNE'S-BELFIELD SOCCER FIELD, AND WOULD HAVE ADVERSE
1 PACTS TO THE ENTIRE DESIGN OF THE INTERCHANGE.
HIFf OF ALTERNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT TO THE WEST TO COMPLETELY
VOID SOCCER FIELD - WESTOVER PROPERTY IMPACTS (YELWW LINE):
SHIFf' OF THE APPROVED CORRIDOR COMPLETELY OFF OF THE SOCCER FlEW WAS
>EVEWPED. THIS A VOIDANCE ALIGNMENT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BUT REQUIRES
'NCROACHMENT ON THE WESTOVER PROPERTY.
MEETING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES TO DETERMINE IF THIS
'NCROACHMENT WAS POSSIBLE IDENTIFIED THAT NO ENCROACHMENT WOULD BE AllOWED.
1 A LEITER DATED JULY 21, 1993 THE DHR VERIFIED THAT NO ENCROACHMENT WOULD BE
WED ON THE WESTOVER PROPERTY.
SULTS -- SAVES ST. ANNE'S BELFIEW SOCCER FIEW
IMPACTS WESTOVER PROPERTY
f
~
ONNECTION OF ALTERNATIVE 10 TO EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS
( RANGE LINE)
REVIEW WAS ALSO MADE TO EVALUATE SHIFl'ING THE ALTERNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT WITH
'HE INTENT OF SAVING AS MUCH OF THE EXISTING INTERCHANGE AT ROUTE 29/250 AS
OSSIBLE. THIS REVIEW IDENTIFIED THAT THIS SHIFl' WOULD IMPACT THE WESTOVER
'ROPERTY, AND TIE INTO THE EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 INTERCHANGE. THE ALTERNATIVE 10
IGNMENT IN THE VICINITY WAS DEPRESSED IN THE GROUND IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE NOISE
ND VISUAL IMPACTS, AND ALLOW THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT TO GO UNDER THE EXISTING
TRUCTURES AT OLD IVY ROAD, THE CSXT RAIL CROSSING AND AT ROUTE 250.
SULTS -- SA VES ST. ANNE'S BELFIELD SOCCER FIELD.
ELIMINATES IMPACTS TO UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
IMPACTS HISTORIC WESTOVER PROPERTY
RETAINING WAUS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE VICINITY OF WESTOVER IN
ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS TO THE WESTOVER PROPERTY AND THE
SOCCER FIEWS DUE TO THE WIDE SWPES CREATED BY THE DEEP CUT
IN THIS AREA.
ACCESS TO WESTOVER FROM FAULCONER ROAD AT ITS PRESENT WCATION
WOULD BE ELIMINATED.
EXISTING STRUCTURES AT OLD IVY ROAD, CSXT RAIL AND ROUTE 250 WOULD
HA VE TO BE WIDENED.
THE RAMPS AT THE EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 INTERCHANGE WOULD NEED TO BE
RECONSTRUCTED DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL LANES REQUIRED FOR THE
MOVEMENTS FROM AND TO ALTERNATIVE 10.
SOUTHBOUND ALTERNATIVE 10 TRAFFIC TO EASTBOUND 29/250 BYPASS WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO USE THE ROUTE 250 INTERCHANGE.
WESTBOUND ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS TRAFFIC TO IVY ROAD WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO USE THE ROUTE 250 INTERCHANGE.
UE TO THE MANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THIS DESIGN AND ITS IMPACTS TO THE WESTOVER
'ROPERTY THIS REVISION CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED.
I
, ~
ONNECTION OF ALTERNATIVE 10 TO EXISTING ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS AT THE
ROPOSED NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR ROAD (PINK LINE)
REVIEW OF AN ALIGNMENT TO RECONFIGURE ALTERNATIVE 10 WITH ITS TERMINI AT ROUTE
9/250 BYPASS AT THE PROPOSED WCATION OF THE NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR ROAD
ETERMINED THIS TO BE A FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE.
SULTS -- ELIMINATES ANY IMPACTS TO ST. ANNE'S BELFIELD SCHOOL
SHORTENS PROJECT LENGTH
REDUCES IMPACTS TO UNIVERSITY VIllAGE
REDUCES RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS
EliMINATES THE NEED TO REBUILD THE EXISTING ROUTE 250 INTERCHANGE
ALLOWS CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCHANGE FROM ALTERNATIVE 10 TO NORTH
GROUNDS ACCESS FACILITY. INTERCHANGE ON ALTERNATIVE 10 FOR A
NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR AS PROPOSED MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE ON
THE APPROVED ALIGNMENT DUE TO IMPACTS TO THE HISTORIC
WESTOVER PROPERTY.
IMPACTS THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA AT NORTH GROUNDS
URBAN INTERCHANGE REQUIRED AT THE NEW WCATION DUE TO TERRAIN.
ROUTE 29/250 WOUW BE THE FREE FWW MOVEMENT. THE CONNECTION
WITH ALTERNATIVE 10AND THE NORTH GROUNDS CONNECTOR WOULD BE
CONTROLLED BY SIGNALIZATION ON THE STRUCTURE, AND REQUIRE STOP
CONDITIONS.
THE CONNECTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 10 SOUTHBOUND TO ROUTE 29/250
WESTBOUND WOULD BE A FREE FWW MOVE.
THE EASTBOUND ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS MOVEMENT TO ALTERNATIVE 10
NORTHBOUND IS NOT A FREE FWW MOVE.
TERRAIN RESULTS IN EXCESSIVE RAMP LENGTH, RESULTING IN LESS THAN
DESIRABLE WEA VE LENGTHS TO EXISTING BARRACKS ROAD RAMPS.
---..,
/1-: ec('t'-<:Cc" 7/~jYY /5)C\
EVALUATION OF REVISION TO mE ALTERNATIVE 10
ALIGNMENT AT ITS NORmERN TERMINI
ALTERNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT AS APPROVED BY THE COMMONWEALTH
TRANSPORTATION BOARD:
THIS LOCATION WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONSULTANTS WHEN THE ROUTE 29
CORRIDOR STUDY WAS DEVELOPED. A FUU INTERCHANGE WAS PROPOSED AT THIS LOCATION
WITH A TRIPLE LEVEL STRUCTURE REQUIRED TO MEET THE TURNING MOVEMENTS AND LANE
REQUIREMENTS.
RESULTS - AN INTERCHANGE OF THIS MAGNITUDE AT THIS LOCATION HAS SEVERE
IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES. 10 BUSINESSES WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS
INTERCHANGE. IT IS ALSO LOCATED VERY NEAR THE EXISTING RIO ROAD INTERSECTION. THE
ALTERNATIVE 10 ALIGNMENT ALSO CROSSES THE ATHLETIC FIELD OF THE NEW AGNER-HURT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED AF1'ER THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT WAS
DETERMINED.
SHIFf OF THE ALTERNATIVE 10 NORTHERN TERMINI NORTH ACROSS THE
SOUTH FORK OF THE RIV ANNA RIVER:
IN MARCH, 1993 A REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE NORTH CHARL07TESVIUE BUSINESS
OUNCIL TO THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD TO EVALUATE THE POSSIBIUTY
F EXTENDING THE ALTERNATIVE 10 CORRIDOR TO THE NORTH CROSSING THE SOUTH FORK OF
E RIVIANNA RIVER TO TIE INTO EXISTING ROUTE 29 NORTH OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
o TERMINI.
THE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPED AN ALIGNMENT THAT WOULD PASS BEHIND THE SAMS
'LUB, WAL MART, AND THE SHERATON HOTEL AND IN FRONT OF THE FILTRATION PLANT. THE
'ROPOSED ALIGNMENT WOULD CROSS THE RIVER AND TIE INTO EXISTING ROUTE 29 AT THE
CATION PROPOSED FOR THE TERMINI OF THE MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY. A
'REUMINARY EVALUATION OF THIS ALIGNMENT WAS PERFORMED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
mSION.
RESULTS - EUMINATES IMPACTS TO TEN (10) EXISTING BUSINESSES ON ROUTE 29
PROVIDES GREATER DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RIO ROAD INTERSECTION AND THE
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 10 TERMINI.
EUMINATES IMPACT TO THE AGNER-HURT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ELIMINATES IMPACT TO THE WooDFOLK FAMILY CEMETERY
REQUIRES STRUCTURE CROSSING OF THE SOUTH FORK OF THE RIVIANNA RIVER
AND ASSOCIATED WETLAND AREAS
POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ALONG RIVER BANK
~
-1'<f-' c ;>:, ,-fc( l ( G /7 'f
j~ASE CASE IMPROVEMENTS
!jlegment I - NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE TO 0.2 MI. N. OF RIO ROAD
6029-002-119, C-501
PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
S'fgment II - 0.2 MI. N. OF RIO ROAD TO 0.02 MI. S. SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER
6029-002-119, C-501
PROJECT ON SCHEDULE FOR ADVERTISEMENT JULY 1994
S'fgment III - 0.02 MI. S. SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER TO AIRPORT ROAD
6029-002-121
NEGOTIATING WITH CONSULTANTS. ADVERTISEMENT DATE REVISED TO
8/99 TO ALLOW COORDINATION WITH THE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDY
FROM CHARLOTTESVIUE TO WARRENTON. THIS DATE COULD BE
REVISED BASED ON OUTCOME OF THE STUDY.
JULY 6, 1994
W.OPOSED INTERCHANGE PROJECTS AT RIO ROAD,
REENBRIER DRIVE AND HYDRAULIC ROAD.
VERTISE FOR CONSULTANT 1/93
ONTRACT A WARDED TO WHITMAN REQUARDT & ASSOCIATES
INALIZE AGREEMENT - NOTICE TO PROCEED 11/93
OMnETES~VE~ 3~
OMBINED LOCATION/DESIGN HEARING 7/95
EGIN R/W ACQUISITION 11/95
'LANS READY FOR CONSTRUCTION 11/97
SED ON TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND NEED, INTERCHANGES ARE PRIORITIZED AS
1 - RIO ROAD
2 - HYDRA ULIC ROAD
3 - GREENBRIER DRIVE
GHT OF WAY ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION DATES DEPENDENT ON THE
UTCOME OF PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL BY THE COMMONWEALTH
NSPORTATION BOARD AND AVAILABLE FUNDING.
JULY 6, 1994
DUTE 29 BYPASS (ALTERNATIVE 10)
-EVALUATION OF DOCUMENT TO BE COMPLETE 8/94
VERTISE FOR CONSULTANT 9/94
NALIZE AGREEMENT - NOTICE TO PROCEED 2/95
OMBINED LOCATION/DESIGN AND DESIGN HEARING 2/97
GIN R/W ACQUISITION 6/97
NS READY FOR CONSTRUCTION 3/99
PROJECT IN 6 YEAR PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND RIGHT OF WAY
NLY. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION DATES DEPENDENT UPON
UTCOME OF PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL BY mE COMMONWEALm
NSPORTATION BOARD AND AVAILABLE FUNDING.
JULY 6, 1994
~~
t~
~o
;
...
~
~
~
~
-\~
=
~
I
~
!
~
~
~
e. -tl'''\'o i,o",e1f.
~~I$o ;, I,
. . ~A
~ /YA--'lJ{O l /'
.,Q; r "iJ.t:;;'
~' ~. '. J,;'
~~.. .~~$7'\
I't I \~~; .,
':}-
r:r--
---...
~
r:-
,Ii
9'
~RR~~
"Ill
";1
.....\
'"
\':1
---~
v
<,
/~.
'\
~
~ ,,::-----
~v
Otl~
/;
(1 ~&.~
\.o~~~ /-
c; y..\\.\. /
~q. fll "" '..
-# .I(~'
~ -i,\.~
\.'\~~~
_1/g,.C;\:y..\\.\.
...--.---....
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~"",-,
/(
I
Ii
"l
<:)
,...,
j
- '
So ._~
Ur~
~
j
;c
0:
~
~'NN
___ _ A
--
RIVER
~
\.
"\
,
>=
r&1
~
c
~E
,I
.
~'
...;
#*0;
~ .l(
y
,
d
~
~'('.
'lo""",,~
,~~ ~....~
c;'+-
c.,y..~:i.~'~
O\)~
~ .
i
~,.
o
.\
~.~.
~~~_ __\)~':J .
+:~. ,:i,y.. ~':J '... J:"'\
./....,0 'il>-~ o~ i~ " "~
rAllY ~o ~r'if-..-&' J.
. -:-;;:r- ~ ~(;
o~",.-r-,j.)
A#'I. ..~
t"'Vft.\~~ ~ '
r{ji'~~~
1/
~-
9
II
~
-\
:l
~ \
. J
,I r~rl'~
--.~.p' / -
I
I
{ "
DAVID R. EHR
COMMISSIO ER
Ms.
Boar
401
Char
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
July 15, 1994
Route 29
Alternate 10 Bypass
lla Carey, Clerk
of Supervisors
cIntire Road
ottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
two
250
dist
impr
ques
DSR/ mk
Reference is made to your verbal request of last week for additional copies of
sketches showing options for the connection of the Alternate 10 Bypass to Route
ear Belair. Enclosed you will find eight copies of each sketch. I request you
ibute this information to the board of supervisors members. I am under the
ssion that the board is familiar with the two sketches. If, however, they have
ions, I am certainly available to answer those questions.
Yours truly,
"Is- ~-vf 'IT)~"c:\!<- \ V
D. s.' ~oosevelt
Resident Engineer
atta hments
cc: D. R. Askew w/attachments
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
\
~~I
]'
I
f
/
/J
)dS
z
~\ ~
i~ ~
0.0 ....
"'"'C '0
~%.
~
-1-
>: ~~.
~ '
"tJ>
~Ci
~~
C/JZ
m~
c<
zm
0.....
::00
""""
:I:d
~~
0-
cC/J
z:::!
cZ
C/JCi)
(')::0
00
ZC
z""""
mm
(')1\)
d~
::01\)
::o~
~
c
z
Q
d
(JJ
(')
)>
r-
m
c:
~
8
5
~
o
m
en
OdS
r--o: .
~'
Qg: ..
f
I
!
Q~
NOll V3!l:J3!l
SONnO!:lD Hl!:10N
() ~
(/)
d
~
:lJ
s:.:o )>
-m
Cf.I< "'0
Cf.I- "'0
Cf.ICf.I .:0
Om ~
(")0
("))> m
me 0
.:oei) (")
."z 0
-s: :0
mm .:0
c: ""z 6
~ 0-1 0
Z a :0
Q 8 )>
0 5 8 ~
~ s: :0
~ "'0 Z
(J) ,... ~
~ m
-I ~
m
r- C(
m .....
0
D;<)f
'1/'.'/7'-'
, ,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Governor
June 30, 1994
Robert E. Martinez
Secretary of Transportation
he Honorable Walter F. Perkins
hairman
lbemarle County Board of Supervisors
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, Virginia 22902
Mr. Perkins:
I have reviewed your letter of June 10, 1994 concerning the
oard's concerns regarding the sequencing of construction for
oute 29, the interchanges, and Alternative 10. The sequencing
f construction as you stated is based upon traffic developed by
verdrup in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the
oute 29 Corridor Study.
Traffic forecasts for the design year 2010 were developed
or each candidate build alternative as well as for the base case
nd proposed interchange developments at Rio, Hydraulic and
reenbrier Roads, using a regional travel demand model. The
odel was designed and calibrated based on land use and
emographic data and surveys of existing travel characteristics.
he future highway network assumed for forecasting includes all
rojects in the 1985 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study,
he MPO-adopted regional transportation plan.
The traffic study did identify that with only the base case
'mprovements in place the level of service (LOS) on Route 29
ould remain at F. The base case with the three graded separated
'nterchanges would improve the LOS on an average to B. However,
his study did not incorporate the level of service on the
onnector roads. This detailed information will be addressed in
he study currently under way for the proposed interchange
rojects.
If you look only at projected level of service, it may
ppear that construction of the base case with three grade
eparated interchanges would satisfy the travel needs for this
orridor. However, levels of service alone do not tell the whole
tory. While the projected arterial level of service on Route 29
ould be a B, the average operating speed would remain low at 30
iles per hour, and stop and go conditions would persist at the
emaining signalized intersections. This is not consistent with
n arterial routes function as a high speed facility for
ninterrupted travel. Local traffic would have to contend with
arge volumes of through traffic, 16 percent of which would be
eavy trucks.
p.o. Box 1475 · Richmond, Virginia 23212 · (804) 786-8032 · IDO (804) 786-7765
~.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
John . Milliken
Sec,u:a of Trin>DO"illOr>
Office of the GO(ICTnor
Richmond 2n19
(80-4) 788-8032
TOO (80-4) 786-7765
November 4, 1991
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman, Albemarle County
Board ot Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowie:
This letter is intended to reply in more detail to your
letter of August 1. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (eTB)
is committed to the sequence of construction as set forth in the
CTB's November 15, 1990, resolution.
The CATS Plan is 'an approved Plan for the Charlottesville -
Albemarle County area and it is the intent of the Department and
the CTB to carry out tnat Plan as funding on the primary system
becomes available. To keep the Plan on schedule, however, it
will be necessary for the City of Charlottesville to keep its
projects at a high priority and tor Albemarle County to schedule
the secondary projects in the CATS Plan.
It was never the intent of the CTB or the Department that
the CATS Plan not be carried out as.currently proposed, provided
funding was available. However, the Department and the CTa
believe that a Route 29 Bypass is an integral and important part
ot the regional transportation plan and will be needed in the
future, even with the implementation ot the CATS Plan.
with those general comments in mind, I would like to review
the status of the three phases included in the CTBls November 15,
1990, resolution which were also addressed in your letter of
August 1.
Phase I, Short-range Reqommendations: The widening of Existinq
Route 29 to six lanes with contihuous right-turn lanes from the
Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork of the Rivanna River will be
accomplished by two projects as shown on Page 38 (Items 3 and 4)
of the 1991-92 Six-Year Improvement Program. The first project
from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is scheduled for,
construction in July 1993 and the second project, from Rio Road
to the river, is scheduled for advertisement in July 1994, all
subject to available funding, The design work is currently
underway.
~
.'
The Honorable P. R. Bowie '
November 4, 1991
Page Two
As additional funding becomes available and scheduling
permits, a design will be prepared for three interchanges to be
added to the Base Case. The design of these interchanges is, of
course, subject to public hearings and CTB approval. The
preservation and acquisition of right-of-way for each element of
the Plan was part of phase I. If this Plan is to succeed the
County and the city must do everything possible to preserve the
right-of-way required for the construction of the Base Case, the
three interchanges and the Line 10 Corridor approved by the CTB.
The refinement of Alternative 10 is currently underway, and
a preliminary plan (functional plan) will be provided to
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to assist in the
preservation of right-of-way along that corridor.
After the design has been approved and right-of-way plans
are prepared, and subject to available funding, VDOT will
consider acquiring property which meets the Department's
requirements for advanced right-of-way acquisition along
Alternative 10.
In order to work with the County in the protection of the
wate~shed, access points on Alternative 10 will be limited to
those approved by the CTB when the corridor was designated,
unless additional access is requested by the local government.
fhase II. Medium-range Recommendations: Three grade-separated
interchanges along Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road
will be built when traffic conditions dictate and funding is
available. The construction of each interchange is subject to
approval ot the design after public hearings are held durinq
Phase I so that right-of-way for the interchanges can be
preserved.
Phase III. Lon9-range RecommeDd~tions: It is the intent of the
CTB and the Department to construct Alternative 10 when traffic
on Route 29 becomes unacceptable and funding permits.
You asked us to consider how this commitment to the CATS
Plan and the phasinq of projects might be solidified. The
followinq sequence of activity spells out that commitment and I
would be pleased to seek eTB ratification of this specific
sequencing it the Board of supervisors requests I do so. Of
course, the com~it~ent of the Board and the city Council to each
do its part is n~~cssary as well.
1. The widening of Route 29 to six lanes, with
continuous right lanes from the Route 250
Bypass to the south fork of the Rivanna
River. This is currently being designed.
84 -) 84
-~ \
The Honorable F. R. Bowie'
November 4, 1991
Page Three
2. The remainder of Phase I contained in the
CTB's resolution of November 15, 1990.
3. The completion of the Meadowcreek Parkway
from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 north
as urban and secondary road funding becomes
available for the facility's right-of-way
acquisition and construction cost.
4. The construction of the interchanges on Route
29 north at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and
Greenbrier Drive as traffic demands and
fundin9 permits.
s. The preservation and acquisition of right-
of-way for Alternative 10. This will be
accomplished as fundinq is available for this
established corridor's riqht-of-way
acquisition"and construction.
In closing, I trust that this letter assures the County of
the Department's and the Commonwealth Transportation Board's
commitment to the construction of the CATS plan and that the
County will assist the Department in preservinq riqht-of-way for
the approved corridor for the Route 29 Bypass.
If the contents of this letter meet with your approval and
if the County wishes to move forwa~d with the preservation of
necessary riqht-of-way, I would be ,pleased to brinq the attached
draft resolution before the CTB fo its concQrrence.
JGM/cmq
Attachment
co: Ms. Constance R. Kincheloe
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
Richard L. Walton, Jr., Esquire
C/v6
David P. Bowe an
Charlottesvill
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Hu phris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R, Mars all, Jr.
Scotlsville
June 10, 1994
CONhvilSS.'lU." "
NE:R'S
JUN , J 1994,'
OEFIeS
Sally H, Thomas
Samuel Miller
T e Honorable Robert E. Martinez
S cretary of Transportation
C mmonwealth of Virginia
1 01 East Broad Street, Room 414
'chmond, Virginia 23219
Commonwealth Transportation Board, City of Charlottesville, County of
Albemarle and the University of Virginia Agreement
A you probably know, the County of Albemarle has recently corresponded with lvlr. Jack
S. Hodge, Director of Engineering for VDOT, to express its concern regarding the
se uencing of construction within the Route 29 North corridor as outlined in the attached
a eement. The basis for this sequencing of improvements is derived from the
E vironmental Impact Statement prepared by Sverdrup Corporation for VDOT in 1989. To
s arize, Sverdrup states that, with only the Base Case improvements (widening Rt. 29),
th level of service on Rt. 29 would remain at F. However, the base case plus the three
gr de-separated interchanges would improve the LOS on average to B. With these
i provements and the construction of a by-pass, the LOS would improve to A or B.
ere is apparent conflict between VDOT's interpretation and action and the attached
a eement as it relates to Phase II, Medium-range Recommendations and Phase III, Long-
ge Recommendations found in the CTB's November 15, 1990 resolution. Our c:oncern
at VDOT appears to be moving forward with the long range recommendations prior to
th completion of the short and medium-range recommendations, again in conflict with a
C B resolution (attached) adopted on December 19, 1991 - note fIrst paragraph, page 2. The
in ent, as we read it, is to complete the short (Phase I) and medium-range (Phase II)
re ommendations after which assessment for the need of Alternative 10 By-Pass (Phase III)
co Id be determined and, if traffIc on Rt. 29 is unacceptable and funding permits, then
*
Printed on recycled paper
H norable Robert E. Martinez
J e 7, 1994
: Commonwealth Transportation Board, City of Charlottesville, County of
Albemarle and the University of Virginia
P ge 2
c struction of the Alternative 10 By-Pass would commence. The crucial question for the
bemarle County Board of Supervisors is how can VDOT schedule a date for construction
o a by-pass in early 1998 (conftrmed by Mr. Hodge's letter of April 5, 1994) and still
c ply with the CTB's November 15, 1990 and December 19, 1991 resolutions along with
th CTB's intent to follow the sequencing outlined in the attached agreement.
e respectfully request your review of this matter and your support to delay any
a vertisement for construction of Alternative 10 By-Pass until the base case improvements -
R . 29 widening, etc. (Phase I - short range) and grade-separated interchange improvements
(P ase II - mediwn range) recommended in the CTB's November 15, 1990 resolution have
b en implemented and adequate analysis has then been made to determine if traffic is
acceptable in accord with the City, County and University agreement. We appreciate your
a ention to this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
WCL~ 1-~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
P/dbm
9 .006
A achments
cc: C.9mmonwealth Transportation Board Members
~r. David Gehr, Commissioner, VDOT
Mr. Jack S. Hodge, Director of Engineering, VDOT
Mayor Thomas J. Vandever, City of Charlottesville
Mr. John T. Casteen, President, University of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
"'. ~.
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
Ul :!"
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, the County
and the University of Virginia have reviewed the
pro posed by the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation
for the 29 North Corridor; and
6f"Albemarle
improvements
Board ( CTB )
WHEREAS, the City, County and University believe a unified and
cooperative implementation agreement with the CTB and the Virginia
Dep~rtment of Transportation (VDoT) is necessary to provide for
the~e improvements in an exp~ditious and efficient manner;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City, County and
UnifJersity jointly support and request that the CTB and VDoT
imp(Lement improvements to the 29 North Corridor in the following
seq~ence:
o Widen Route 29 North as provided for In 1985 Charlottes-
ville Area Transportation Study;
o Design the North Grounds connector road facility:
o
Address each element of CTB Phase
November 15, 1990;
,
...
recommendation of
o
Construct the
By-Pass to u.
able;
Meadowcreek
S. 29 North
Parkway
as soon
from the
as funding
Rout:e 250
is avail-
o Construct grade-separated interchanges on U. S. 29 North
at Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743), Greenbrier Drive (Rt. 866)
and Rio Road (Rt. 631) with early acquisition of right-
of-way for these interchanges based upon hardship (same
program being used for early acquisition for Alternative
10 - Western alignment):
o
Construct an alternate controlled vehicle access
traffic bound for University areas only 1 including
north grounds from Route 29/250 By-Pass;
for
the
o Complete remainder of CTB Phase II recommendation of
November 15, 1990; and
o Construct Alternative 10 after completion of the above
and when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic
conditions permit, concurrent with remainder of 1985
Charlottesville Area.Transportation Study.
"'~-~..-....."...-...,.
':-',..,'..-.'".,. .'
. :~c__:'";~~:,.:_;.::: .
. . - .:.....-,-,.:
. _.~, __'n_._ _...... ~
r" ~_
-'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be
smitted to the Virginia Secretary of Transportation, the
issioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the
lottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MFa),
esting the MPO to amend the Charlottesville Area Transportation
y to reflect this resolution's priorities.
J~~'o
F. R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
Date: ~(/Pr
/
~CL
Alvin Edwards, Mayor
City of Charlottesville
-------
/J-;1 (, /9/
. ..
\ -
o n T. Casteen, President
University of Virginia
Date: '- h-I <1 '-
SYNOPSIS OF
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S APPROVED
ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS
NOVEMBER 15, 1990
PI ase I - Short RanQe Recommendations
l> Construct Route 29 Base Case~
l> Reserve right-of-way for the three interchanges~
l> Encourage the County and City to restrict further development
in the right-of-way~
l> If necessary, VDoT acquire right-of-way~
l> Develop the North Grounds access facility~
l> Alternative lObe approved as the future corridor~
l> Refme preliminary plan for Alternative 1 O~
l> Restrict access to Alternative 10 to preserve the watershed.
PI ase II - Medium RanQe Recommendations
l> Build the three grade-separated interchanges when needed~
p Continue to preserve and acquire the right-of-way for Alternative 10.
Pl ase III - LonQ RanQe Recommendation
p Construct Alternative 10 when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic
conditions permit.
,
.r"~J. '<";d; .~;-~;l""
ii~~~~%~;;~~i~:~/.
0l~"').l;:';S.~;, .
If}l;P'"
~.,Y.
/.
Moved by
Hrs. Kincheloe
Seconded by
Mr, Davies
, that
WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth
of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation
Board,
the Commonwealth Transportation Board by resolution dated
November 15, 1990, approved the location of Project 6029-002-122,
PE-IOO in three phases; and
WHEREAS,
the three phases provided for short range, medium
range, and long range recommendations for the construction of the
project in conjunction with other projects in the city of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS,
by letter dated August 1, 1991,
the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors has requested that this Board take
positive steps to commit to the priorities which were set forth
in the Board's resolution of November 15, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that the orderly development and
funding of the various projects in accordance with the three
phases as set forth in the Board's resolution of November 15,
1990, is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS,
the Board recognizes
that state and
local
transportation priorities should be harmonized where possible;
and
WHEREAS,
it is the sense of this Board that the Department
of Transportation adhere to the schedule of improvements as set
forth in the November 15, 1990, resolution; and
-2-
WHEREAS, the Board strongly believes that the Route 29
Bypass should be constructed in concert with the remaining
construction projects of the CATS Plan after Phase 1 and Phase 2
recommendations of the Board's November 15, 1990, resolution has
been completed; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
direct the Department -of Transportatiop to take all steps and
make all efforts to complete the projects approved in its
resolution of November 15, 1990,
as more
fully set out in a
letter to F. R. Bowie dated November 4, 1991,
from John G,
Milliken, which is attached hereto and made a part of this
resolution.
Motion carried.
12/19/91
.........0..'
1_, .'.
;.::;..,{ C'~: t':. ~_~' ~;'. ,~ '\~: ~_=
,A!'>;"~;~~.~
~. ~'r,
;> '>,.;, , .
" I ~.i t"
~~ii
r:~""
MAY 251994
lC.__.7'___
. I
L CI .:~J
::AC.C;U, . '.::: Gr:i=iCE
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DAVID R G, ,if'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
J~ODGE
CHIEF ENGINEER
May 20, 1994
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear 'ME-~ter:
Today the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the
Tentative six Year Improvement Program for fiscal years 1994-95
through 1999-2000. Included in this program are the Route 29
Bypass (Alternative 10) study and the Route 29 interchange study
at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive.
The Route 29 Bypass (Alternative 10) study and the Route 29
interchange study are in the program for "Preliminary Engineering
and/or Right of Way Funds Only" just as they were in the previous
program. The Tentative Plan approved by the Board does not
provide funding for the construction of either project.
There have been no changes in funding for the interchange
study through fiscal year 1998-99. Additional funding was made
available for the interchange study in the final year of the
program (fiscal Year 1999-2000).
No changes were made in funding for the Route 29 Bypass study
through the 1998-99 fiscal year.
The Six Year Improvement Program is scheduled for final
approval at the June Commonwealth Transportation Board Meeting.
~t that time the Department will be able to establish new dates
for plan development, right of way acquisition and construction of
these projects based on the funding approved in the program.
The Department is not in violation of the Commonwealth
~ransportation Board Resolution dated 12/19/91. Current funding in
~he program allows tentative construction dates to be identified
so that plan development, citizen meetings and right of way
preservation and acquisition can proceed subject to public
~earing and Commonwealth Transportation Board approval.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
0"
--' ;
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
May 20, 1994
Page 2
The Department has not contracted with any consultant firm
for the development of construction plans for the Alternative 10
Corridor and is currently evaluating revisions to the alignment at
the northern and southern termini.
Later this summer, approximately August, it is our intention
to hold a Citizen Information Meeting to introduce the study team
for the Interchange study and present at that time the most
current proposed alternative designs for the interchanges at Rio
Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road.
Prior to any citizen's Information Meeting I will present
this information to your Board, the Charlottesville City Council,
and local businesses affected by this project.
I hope you will find this information helpful. I will
continue to keep you apprised of developments on these two
projects as they occur.
Sincerely,
!
~
'.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
((lO'1) 2965841 FAX (804) 9'124060
May 18, 1994
S. Hodge
of Engineering
V'rginia Department of Transportation
1 01 East Broad Street
R'chmond, Virginia 23219
Commonwealth Transportation Board, City of Charlottesville, County of
Albemarle and the University of Virginia Agreement
Mr. Hodge:
Attached is a letter from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Coalition,
c. regarding the above referenced agreement and concerning the sequencing of
nstruction within the Route 29 North Corridor. The concern of the
ansportation Coalition is that Phase III of the long range recommendations
ich relate to Alternative 10 are moving ahead of schedule and in violation of
e agreement. The attached letter I believe speaks for itself.
Also attached is a letter from Ms. Charlotte Humphris concerning the Coalition's
~nts and she has requested information regarding the directives that VDOT has
ken in proceeding with Phase III, whether VDOT' s Planning Department are on the
e schedule for action, and if so, based on whose direction and by what
cument is this schedule proceeding? This matter is scheduled for discussion
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on June 1, 1994 and I am requesting
a y information you can provide regarding Ms, Humphris' questions and the concern
expressed in the Transportation Coalition's letter prior to June 1.
you have any questions concerning this matter that I can elaborate on,
do not hesitate to contact me.
RW ,Jrjdbm
94.076
At achments
cc: Mr, V. Wayne Cilimberg w/attachments
COUNTY 0;:: AL8EMARLE
r;:~;~~
EXECU'fiVE OFFiCL:
David P. Bower an
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervlsor"
401 Mcintire Road
Chclrlotlesville Vir'l;niil ')00(!', 'COf,
Chilr/nllt'SV1Jl.,
Charlnlle Y. Hu phm
,Jilck J()LJl'l!
;, rrL:::ii h. M<J1Sjll:,.
Scollsville
(804) 2%5843
FAX (804) <)724060
109 Falcon Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
May 16, 1994
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Bob:
I have enclosed a copy of a letter I have received from the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Transportation Coalition, Inc, which was sent to the Board of Supervisors and to the
MPO Policy Board, Please place this on our agenda for our June 1 meeting and request
staff to provide us with all the documentation which is available. In preparation for our
discussion, we would need to know at least these facts
1, what document(s) or action(s) from the Commonwealth Transportation Board
directed the VDOT engineering department to proceed with Phase III, or what
provided the "marching orders" to proceed;
2, does the VDOT planning department have this same schedule for action, and,
3, if so, based on whose direction and by what document( s)?
The MPO Policy Board will take this up at the June 9 meeting.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
OfadtJ~
Charlotte y, Humphris
pc: George R, Larie
*
PrInted on recycled paper
Charles S Mart;n
Riv<Jnn,\
Waller F Perkms
While Hill!
Sally H Thomas
Sdmu('] Millpf
:
@&
/VI. p~
CHAR OTTESVILLE/ALBE:V1ARLE TRANSPORTATION COALITI()N, INC.
May 3, 1994
Iter Perkins, Chairman
bemarle County Board of Supervisors
Intire Road
arlottesville, VA 22901
ar Chairman Perkins:
The schedules supplied by VDOT indicate that the three Route
grade separated interchanges will be advertised for
c nstruction in November, 1996, and the Route 29 proposed bypass
w'll be advertised for construction in early 1998.
Following the approval of the Alternate 10 bypass, thE~
ansportation Board, the City of Charlottesville, the County of
bemarle and the University of Virginia all agreed to the
llowing sequencing for the construction projects:
Phase II. Medium-ranqe Recommendations: Three grade-
separated interchanges along Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive
and Hydraulic Road will be built when traffic
conditions dictate and funding is available. The
construction of each interchange is subject to approval
of the design after public hearings are held during
Phase I so that right-of-way for the interchanges can
be preserved.
Phase III, Lonq-range Recommendations:
intent of the CTB and the Department to
Alternative 10 when traffic on Route 29
unacceptable and funding permits.
It is the
construct
becomes
The proposed schedule above is clearly in violation 0: this
a reement. The bypass is a long-range project that would only be
b ilt after the completion of the other projects and only when
traffic conditions warrant and funding permits. It is difficult
to see how these conditions can be met when the bypass is
a vertised for construction in slightly over a year after the
interchanges have been so advertised. It seems clear that all
i provements in the short-medium range categories must be
completed before it is possible to determine if traffic
conditions warrant construction of the Alternate 10 bypass.
In addition, it should be noted that the 3.6 million dollar
Everdrup study established that the only area road project that
~ould significantly improve local traffic conditions on Route 29
's the building of the grade-separated interchanges. The level
cf service (the "LOS"), on a scale of A to F, on Route 29 at the
critical intersections is an F, and would remain an F after the
construction of a bypass. The construction of the grade-
ceparated interchanges would improve the LOS to a B without the
construction of a bypass (see attached page from the Draft
Invironmental Impact statement)."
We also note that the taking of funds from the medium range
'nterchange project for the long range bypass project is not in
cccord with the spirit of the City-County-UVA-VDOT agreement.
Therefore, CATCO requests that the Board of Supervisors and
the MPO review this information and request appropriate revision-
10 the VDOT schedules so as to allow adequate time after the
cctual construction of the grade-separated interchanges for
urther traffic studies to determine if and/or when the Alternate
o bypass should be advertised for construction.
Thank you very much.
s~c~r:lYi_l~'
Georg~ R. Larie~ President
(jjRL/dsm
4 nclosures
I c:~ Chairman of Metropol i tan Planning Organization
Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
.;, .. "f." , ',... '. ~ ~ .~~y.:;~!,~,J> ,":r~~~: r
: ~!'o.-~~I-' ....._'...1.. ......1 .. "_._, __~
. ;~- -.~ .
]
(J.'\r;=~ F~Oi.; i):-:ilfT ~:;'"rlr:Om:;:NTAr-, I1t2^CL' S-CI\rl';~~IS::'1 C:STi'.;?~_l;;:'=':r; ':r:,',1' !),J~_'.
COlI3 L R[jC~IOi'; OF i\ GR;\OE Si::?MU\TED Bi72nC:IMICi:: in::..r. Hrr~OV2 r;-:AFFIC O~;
:-::OL'7':; ::'J; 1':Ii.:: 7s~:r "LOCi\T:m; ,\:"-:-E:2:L'\TI..r:;S" 1f2iHIS BY~~11_S~ .'\~,TE:;~~A~IiJ;::::;.
......,.-
: IJ:"
I
Except for the area north of Charlottesville, controlled access improvements at all urbanized
are~ long Route 29 through central Virgirua, including a portion of Charlottesville, have
been uilt or committed. These improvements prevent deIays to through traffic,
A maj r part of the study was the development of a travel demand model based on detailed
land u e and socioeconomic data, household surveys, roadside surveys, historical traffic data,
and th existing road network, The model was used to project each alternative's effect on
future traffic volumes. .
The r suIts of the traffic modeling showed that in the design year, 2010, the Base Case)
would nction at level of service F. The expressway altem;.Hb:~. also would operate at leve,l
of se 'eLalthough.the express lanes- would operate slightly better at level of service E.
" ~ er all of the new location alternatives, assuming Base Case improvements are also
. ~ imple ente te2g-woilIg_stilLope-nif~~(leYeCof service-'F,_Jf, i~ddition to the Base
': Case i rovements, grade separated int~r.changes were b.ui1LaUhree.-.llltersectlOns~e
: - ,,~., avera levelots_eJYi~e on Route 29 would i~rove to B. (See Table IV-3 in Chapcer IV.) r'
flu e with thes<-agg(uooiilliIli'to,,-ell1,en!L an~ c.On.s~rustio!lnQfone of _the bypasSJ'* ' ,
, I _ alt~r:na ive~, .level of ~~~ce, ~?uld: ,i~provet_o .~ ,or ~ .'depen~~ng ,~n ~e alternati~e, <.; .,., . ';::",:
\:~~~~~';;~:~~m~~~~~Z:g;6~~,,~'~~~~~~~~g~ ' ,': "", :~:\':';:;X,;,: :,),
. , - ' , .. J..' '."".
" . :;:~},"-:.;. .;:' _.i-:-,~"::.,. "-:<~."" ,.. " . :~:. :".'. .:,::~ J_,~:.:-./,c-:' .?,'.'.. _ ':'.";' '.,:,.::,~:.:;.. .. .'. <<. : .,' , '"
',:;S;;::.There' ren~ 'kno:..m major federal actions in the same geographic are,c'However, a local '1;/:,';;';:::>;;
)t!r:iinitiativ io build a project called the Meadowcreek Parkway could potentially become a ,,{{~,;,::,/??,{{
:''!;X~"federal ction at Some future time: 'The Parkway: an element 'of the Charlottesville AreaY~f:if;!';;:::::::
C"eY(Transp rtation Study (CATS, the 'regional transportation plan) follows the3Jignment of;?i~,i':f~sn:/
::'cr,.,,cAlterna ive 7A discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement. ':The Parkway would be ~::~"\'1:~"i;':':i
~'~:,::':;:' a four:1 ne divided controlled access facility, but with a narrOWer median than ,that provided j:~:::-:?;;:::,:t:~;'.':
"" ":. by byp s alternatl' es' present d l'n'th's docu'me 't ....:... ,:.".', '~.~,l,'.'" "-. :' '.':, " ~"", ,'. ,,:,.-: '"..~ ..~.~..:.:' .:. .".Co"'.;,
"".1.',-' . V e J n . '.: ,,- ;',' "". ," .'" ".J.,. .: ,"-..'i'.- " ,'., '... ,.~. ';",,'.', .1,:, ,.;,
:*~~~t~ffi~f:i~P:(J;::,.":.: :uT~!:,,:?:t):?;i:!;}'f~:t;;f';:;"2litjs\,0 :,~!~f;\f'::i:;:~-'i:':%ijf:cti:;'~rlf\[,:':i~s'~jt~tfa;f;ri~,:;i...
.'\':....ALTE ATIVEsCONSIDERED ,...." ,.'..... ......,,-. ,'-. ""," ...,'.;...,.;..,. ...1.., ',-,'", '
Ii ,:;, ;\, c,:'" ',' ,,',' ", ',' ,,' ," -' " " , , ," /':.,,':2,; :~:;:: '.' ii' ',;,'}: 3>';};: D"::/~::,;~,:::
,'~;::~" BetWee Ociober, 1987, and June, 1988, many potential bypass alternatives were examined. ";;-i,('~:""Y>j,,:
; :;'!;} These W re screene? based O? environmental, traffic, and, engineering fac,to,:, and those that'::;;!["~:;;~i'i~t
". were no feasible, dId not satISfy the need, or had severe Impacts were ehrrunated. In June, ." , ;:,:.'. ~:.. :^!~.. _. .
. ~. 1988, 27 conceptual alternatives were presented to the public with a recommendation that . :' , , :,.':.; .
' five be etained as Candidate Build Alternatives in addition to the Base Case and the ' . , ,l:,..
...' ': ~ expressw yalternative. Subsequt":ltly, two additional4(f) avoidance alternatives were added '...,..,
,":' to avoid impacts to McIntire P""k, Pen Park, and Rivanna Park. ,All of the alternatives :'ki:,::,,;,:,~..:,/
were the refined as additional data became available, Figure S-l shows the Candidate ',..'
Build AI ernatives. The alternatives considered are as follows:
."
5-2
C();.J~\J-r\(
t,
'~~U:-.
r?:;; ;~;-: 0
~ '
i
/.
APR 8, 1994
. .n_,
, I
, :i
i
;}
, I
II
" 1 ~) )
"-
~ j ~ ; 0
L ~_, L_
._'._ .'n.. _.. ._
t:,.:1\-. -~_-. ~_, l; ! : \0'-__""
: i....
10<-,,,,"-
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PE HTEl
COMMISSI NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
April 5, 1994
JACK HODGE
CHIEF ENGINEER
Route 29
Project: 6029-002-F 1 9, PE-103
Interchanges at Rio Road, Hydraulics
Road and Greenbrier Drive
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE-101
Alternative 10 Western Bypass
Albemarle County
M . Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
C unty Executive
C unty of Albemarle
4 1 Mcintire Road
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
J50iJ
ar Mr. T ud~.er:
I have reviewed the tables provided with your letter of March 21, 1994.
Th dates indicated are in accordance with our current schedules for these
Route 29 projects with regard to the public hearings, availability of right of way
pi ns and advertisement dates.
On the Bypass project, completion of the supplement to the Environmental
D cument and the required review is anticipated by July 1994. This delay is not
ex ected to affect the Design Public Hearing date of April 1996.
DOn the table for the grade separated interchanges, the line indicating
Lo ation Public Hearing would be more accurate if it were revised to read
Combined Location/Design Public Hearing. Assuming the advertisement date is
m t as scheduled, construction would begin by early spring 1997.
As indicated in my letter of March 7, as we proceed with plan development
an upon completion of the Six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years
19 4/95 this summer, we will have our first indications of our ability to meet these
sc edules.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
M , Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
A ril5, 1994
P ge 2
I feel that through a coordinated and cooperative effort between the offices
of the County of Albemarle and this Department, both projects can be completed in
a imely manner.
Sincerely,
. S. Hodge
Chief Engineer
Vl
Vl
elS
Q.,
~""
~~
"O~
~-
Vl""
00
Q.,c.-
o 0
~ ~
~~
'"
0 ~
00.= -g
~~ ..... ~
:E z
0 ~ ~
- I::
o ....
.g-g < \0
r;j.[ 0\ l-
~ V) 0\ 0\
-.:t' "C 0\ ..... 0\
"C .... :;:l 0\ ~ 0\ .....~ .....
~ 0\ J ..... .,g
~.B ..... "> "0 o~ b.O
"> ~.9 ~ ~ ..... 3 e I::
Il.l ~ ~ .C::
r::r::: U.l 0 ~ ~ -. c..
0 r.n
oo:;:l Z
1::"0
;a' f
I:: ;g
o I::
~ og ~
- 0
0_
::x:: I::
I:: ....
0
c;
=
.&J
.1:
o ~
0\
.....
~
~
=
ell
-.
= ~
.~ 1!
Y I::
-< 0
u
.....
cQ
l\>l
.€
~
<(
-.:t'
0\
0\
.....
\0 \0 00
0\ 0\ 0\
~ 0\ 0\
..... .....
:a Q) €
~~~
:a
~
I::
o
] I::
<>'d g og
..;:1 0
t) gp.Vi 2
~ .~ oS ~
..... ::x:: ~ 0
'5 .~ >. ~
I:: :0 ~ cQ
o d:;;> l\>l
~ So '0 o€
.~ oS .Vi ~ ~
I:: E 0 :"":l 'oJ
U.lr.n 0 J;:;, <(
Vl
~
bll
s::
elS
..s::
u
~
~
-
s::
-
"0
~
-
elS
~
elS
Q.,
~
IF.J
~
"0
elS
~""
c.,:,~
O\~
N~
(lj0
-c.-
:s 0
o ~
~~
c;
c
.&J
"I:
o ~
0\ V)
..... 0\
0\
~ .....
~ :a
~ ~
o~
~
c
OIl
c ~ .~
-S "3 ~
:( ;g 0
~ .~
cQ .3
l\>l -g
.€ .s gp
o 'E.C::
-6 ~
<( 8::x::
V)
0\
0\
.....
\0
0\
0\
.....
.....~
~
~
o
o^
I::
:;:l
-.
'"
I::
.60
o
m
c
o
..;:1
.Vi
.S
0'
(,)
<(
~
....
o
-
.=
OIl
~
I::
o
.is
.;
'"
I::
o
U
.....
cQ
o
'"
.€
o
-6
<:
<:
Z
I::
'60
o
m
.9
c
.9
....
(,)
.;
'"
I::
o
U
rI.)
C1J
bll
=
=
..c
C.J
I.
C1J
.....,
=
~
'"0
C1J
.....,
=
I.
=
~
C1J
7JJ
C1J
'"0
=
I.
~
Z
0\
~
.
.....,
~
'"0
=
=
rI.)
rI.)
=
~
~
~
'"0
C1J
rI.)
o
~
o
I.
~
I.
~
C1J
=
.-
-
C1J
8
.-
~
;1::;:JmI:;r:r..~:mi!
~;. .; .. ;..; . ,<
s;: . ~: ~
.~ '..
~; ~ i '
s;,
: or, .
'I:T~:i!irr!Hii'EJ~~TI~
!lj!..~ll,,+[~+j I ! m[ , !
!lii;~JrJmrim;JJJ.:r[lj
';' ','"",: ' i
I.~ III
: j: 'i:!: ~ ~i j ~ 1 . 6; ~,
, s'~' '~'" ~ i,,:u Oii,,']:,',
::i, ~~::' ~.~i::.,.: i. ~:..: ii::..:: ::., :: ;:,.', : '_: v:
_, ~ s.I v 0...: :, !i, i: : ~: ~i
: 'C/, ~: :.::l: tl : : 6ii .....,,: 'C/: ....:
: ~: 1 i i ~ i .ij i i i o~ I l g: 61 i ~ i 1 i
' ' '<C''''l::' .~.~. . ,6. ,~,~, '<C''''l::'
Jlf+:m!=~~==.~
: III: ~
::::: ~
'~l]
-s:
..:
I>D'
j:
.
.
29-002-119, C-501
NCL Charlottesville
Rio Road
Project Awarded
29-002-119, C-502
Rio Road
S, Fork Rivanna River
29-002-121
S. Fork Rivanna River
Airport Road (Rte. 649)
C. arlottesville Bypass
P oj: 6029-002-122, PE-100
S IP PG. 46, Line 2
Consultant
Agree. Notice to Proceed
itiate E.I.S. (Supplement) &
Location Studies on
a) Interchange to North Grounds
b) Extension to Meadowcreek Pkwy
mplete Loc. Studies & E.I.S. on above
C mplete Surveys
Field Inspection
C mbined/Design Public Hearing
Begin R/W Acq.
Adv. for Construction
emarle Interchanges
j. 6029-002-119, PE-103
Greenbrier Drive, Rio Road,
Hydraulic Road
P Pg. 46, Line 3
for Consultant
alize Agree/Notice to Proceed
plete Surveys
ld Inspection
bined L & D Public Hearing
in R/W Acquisition
. for Construction
r. J.S. Hodge
Ibemarle County Board of Supervisors
7-12-94
Advertised 7/93
To be consultant
Designed. Metric
1-94
6-94
4-95
8-95
2-96
4-96
6-96
1-98~
1-93
11-93
3-94
1-95
4-95
6-95
11-96
October 6, 1993
...--'
Ilt\1E
1
J~\"I ~i IC1~t
AC.Dn\ ITIM ID.
, (r)
~) . \. J, ( {l '- rJ
AGNl.\ IllMNf6I> _--A~cc~~~~~~"f.l>J"
()j 120
DEFFRRID {MIL __r~__~= <';. 1'~'( I 0
-0-- --(j-------------------'----
eit!, (]"70 ~ ~:20
Po rm. 3
7/25/86
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ON
D!ST!':::': 'JTl7D 'T:J CO,~.!'.O i.\'Mj;l;oR~;
")-/- ff~
.....-.,.....,..,.,
4J11~
AGEND TITLE:
Abando ent of State Route 627.
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
91, t70 ~. '1~!
INFORMATION:
ACfION: X
IPROPOSALIRE UEST:
Relocate a Portion of Route 627 at
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACfION:
INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
~
ATTACHMENTS:
BA KGROUND:
The wner of Enniscorthy proposes to relocate at their cost a portion of State Route 627 and abandon the replaced portion
to all w the existing road to be used for private access to the Enniscorthy house and the Coles family cemetery.
DIS USSION:
The Ibemarle County Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and
finds mpliance provided that certain conditions are met. (See the attached action letter and staff report,) The applicant is
CUl11 tly working towards satisfying those conditions of the Planning Commission. The applicant proposes to submit road
plan to the County Engineer and VDOT for approval provided that the Board of Supervisors indicates a willingness to
aban on the existing section of Route 627. The County Attorney has advised that the road may be abandoned as enabled
unde Section 33.1-155 of the Virginia State Code. (See the attached Code section.) In summary, the Code allows
aban onment of an old road section when a new road section has been constructed in lieu thereof. Approval of the
Co onwealth Transportation Commissioner and a resolution ofthe Board of Supervisors is required,
RE MMENDATION:
Staff ecommends the Board of Supervisors indicate a willingness to abandon the requested section of Route 627 and authorize
a res lution allowing the requested abandonment be brought back for its approval subject to the following:
1. E idence that all conditions of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied.
2. A proval of road plans and construction of the relocated section of Route 627 in accordance with those road plans.
3. A proval by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner.
c:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
J e 23, 1994
. Joseph W. Richmond, Jr
2 4 East High Street
arlottes~lle, VA 22901
Relocation of State Route 627 at Enniscorthy
Tax Map 121, ParcellA
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 21, 1994,
d termined that your client's proposal to relocate State Route 627 is in compliance
.th the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 15,1-456 of the Code of Virginia,
p o~ded the following conditions are met:
1. The applicant shall take appropriate and reasonable measures to retain the
existing road trace as outlined by the Director of the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, A covenant shall be recorded to insure that subsequent
owners are made aware of the requirement to protect the road trace;
The road construction plans shall meet all necessary runoff control measures
as prescribed by the Water Resources Manager;
The road plans to be approved by the Department of Engineering should
reflect the above two. conditions; and should indicate access to the Coles
family cemetery. It is expected that a written agreement regarding such
1
P ge2
J e 23, 1994
access will be concluded with the Coles family representatives.
e Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will meet on July 6, 1994 to discuss
e procedure regarding the proposed future abandonment of a section of State
oute 627.
/'lJAlfJr<;Ctt t<'---
c : Ella Carey
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Kurt Gloecmer
Bob Paxton
2
MARY JOY SCALA
JUNE 21, 1994
EVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. CODE SECTION 15.1 - 456 REVIE : RELOCATION OF ROUTE
6 7.
S 'on 15.1 - 456 requires that the Planning Commission review and approve the general or
a proximate location, character, and extent of a street or public area unless such feature is already
s own on the adopted master plan,
T e vacation, or change of use, of streets requires approval as does a change in location or extent
o a street or public use.
ttached is a letter dated March 24, 1994 which requires review of the intended relocation of
S te Route 627 through and contained on the Enniscorthy property (Tax Map 121-ParcellA)
n Keene. This will require dedication ofa new 50 foot right-of-way (approximately 3,300
. ear feet) and abandonment of the existing 30 foot prescriptive right-of-way. Also attached are
aps showing the proposed relocation.
T e applicant's justification is to eliminate two undesirable right angle turns and to move the road
a ay from the main house.
T e subject property is designated Rural Area. Route 627 in this area is the watershed boundary
fi r Totier Creek reservoir. The relocation of the road will move it further into the watershed.
Tenet long term impact to the watershed from this relocation project would not likely be
si . cant since the existing alignment is located on the watershed boundary and currently drains
t the watershed. Required erosion control measures should minimize the impact of construction
ivity to the watershed. Run-off control measures as identified by the Water Resource Manager
s ould also be incorporated in to design and construction plans.
1
E 'scorthy was placed on the Virginia Register and on the National Register of Historic Places in
1 2. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following goal and objective:
Goal: "Protect the County's natural, scenic and historic resources in the Rural and
Growth Areas". (p.73)
Objective: Conserve the County's historical and cultural resources, including historic
sites, structures and landscape features; archeological sites; and other unique man-made
features ". (p.90)
R ute 627 at this location has an average daily traffic count of 756, and is considered a
no -tolerable road.
B cause the applicant is not requesting funding for this project, staffs main concern is the possible
im act of the relocation on the County's historic resources. Attached is a letter dated May 24,
19 4 from the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources regarding their review
of he project. His conclusion is that the existing Route 627 is a road trace which has existed
si ce the eighteenth century and its relationship to Enniscorthy, and the potentially National
R gister eligible Carter Family Cemetery, should not be altered.
T e Director states that the project, as proposed, will not have an adverse effect on Enniscorthy
or the Carter Family Cemetery provided that the following condition is met:
The historic road trace should be left in place with a portion of the road continuing to
serve as a entry to Enniscorthy. The unused and remaining portion of the road bed should
remain although it will not continue to serve as a public road. It is suggested that the
historic portion of Route 627 that will no longer be used for public access be severed from
public use with vegetation. This would also provide screening.
ortion of the existing road is intended to be used as the driveway to the house/property.
St agrees with this assessment and finds that the proposal is in compliance with the
C mprehensive Plan with the following conditions:
1. The applicant take appropriate and reasonable measures to retain the existing road
trace as outlined by the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources;
2. The road construction plans meet all necessary run-off control measures as
prescribed by the Water Resources Manager;
3. The road plans to be approved by the Department of Engineering should reflect the
above two conditions; and should indicate access to the Coles family cemetery.
2
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 1994
WALTER L, COLES
2600 BARRACKS RO, APT, 333
CHARLOTTVESILLE. VA. 22901
Planning Df3pt
>>hU; ,/jl J 7 7'J-
. /
(",/
(J ..'.' ]77 (2 .'
7\;"' ~ ,2/7 // ,;":l.. _ Ll L~ tCiCt ~-
n q /' fj41trA{~1 !l'J&1 ~;!i-, Ie)
./..>> /'//1"1../ '--~ / j! 1#.'-0'.. '~//J/< /~h /I ;.<---!-/. ~>i i!:;.7 .-
/ . / . -t:>~~ "y. ..L-. (. tJ ..vL.{"" V/
'JJ ~Mi.;dt?I!J/lI/Lfj /; /~iZc,1 /!ri-P7
cJ<:L /Ju'bc,.fJ jn/)T!?J PilL VI})E/) aczt~J--
.c /1, z/d.- J,1aJ-)j4ii~ /7Jt-'1 ti~JuLl!tj
in a:J41l/hIAUl ~ /2j-.' 717t7lcf tM'
'. ,b / " ' 7.. / ~//~
J:.uy f4.2hid and I2n71 a?!'d/l15. 1!rue,
i ~ j/7 ~ ~ /
/,(2.(; """' I /J.i 7 i
~~)/L .'~. ,~~. /
~/~{;.'k. ,y. U'ot2..;L _
Ej :.j/
<.:l
0::: 0
~ LJ L..J" \,
L..Jo <.:l. ~'-
~~~~' ~ 0:: 0,--
=2:_
:.c _'
o .~ ~o~ ~ ~J.:
!!!~~~ ~l.J~~ ~ ~
0:::l.JL..Jt;'j ~L..J0 0:: l/) ,',1
~~~-EEj~::J)... ~ is ~ ~~ ~' \..
~0~R: ~:'(~~, ~ t:) 1--)- ,:.~
~ <.:lOO~L..J~L..Jk ~ ,
~l "-. "
04J O:::zo ~O t:) V), '~.
~ ~L.j~Ql.JL..J"'" I-- ,< Q L..J "",, I
e:l-'vl~lIlq!l--l/) ~ ~ 0:::
~< A:'
~ !i!L..J~e5l.JE ,~~ '....., ~I\ ~, .\
15, f-O~~~O::: ~l/)~ ~ ~ -l/) z~
~~~e~~:~~ ~~) ~~ ~ '-.;:.
~ oL..J l/)
0 o Cl=2::.UJ 12 ~~ ~
iii!!!:S~~~~oti ~ 0::: ~,
8~~!5~g:s~~ 0:: ~~ O. .}\
0:: 0"; 0 '-.,
~ =:)
UJa::"l:O::J UJ 0 0 UJ~C))>-
~~~~g:0~~0 0 ~1Il~~
"
/,..
/,..
/,..
/,..
/,..
/,..
/"
4,-
/,..
/,..
/,..
1-
/,..
~ ~\ -("
.....~~'r' ~:O-
~ / ~~
w~o
~~. /'~ !z<
~""'~Cl.~ \I 00
~V '- ~-'ll 0...0::
&.... /,..N ~
-..I J~ IX)
f/ N
17
h/
/9 !z
/9" 'wo
1/ u::Ez
J" a=:)5
;~ u51..L.
" ::0
,\-'V
<\
0::
w
Z
~
=:)1Il-
~nr-
INn
~ I I
VlNo>
On<o
<wNn
00 . .
nCi:o...o...
I!;eNn
~W<Du)
-lIlNr-
Qu..aiai
::0...... . .
f-ZOO
o
"*:
r-
0>
r-
w
.:J
~<
n~
- 0
N~
s
~./,f)O~
en
IX)
<.:It:)
Z~
~j~
_w
~~
~
'5t;
9:Vl
w
Z Z_
-:-Q ~~
.....~!;er-Bl-
W-~NO .
U 0.... N
.. ~11&a:~N
x 0...i=0 o::lii
w _0:: U <ow=:)
=:) NW "'Zt.:l
o _a...W-::t::~
- O':i-u<(
~ 9;.g:3=ai~"
0:: ~ c( , 0
~do~~
~~O >-C!i
.... <( al
o
o
'"
-
t;
o ~
g ~
o ~
o u
n Vl
o
-
~ ~
,- ~zo~'"
I': ~ _ Z <( f-
:,::;::;; 00
,.~ '- C) ~""...J
':"1 '~ ...c a.. cz: .
N
u
~
w
, z ~m
-:0 00>
G:l~~~Bl-
U-o""ON'
O::uio... N
"~wo::a:~~
>- i=o o::VI
~NffiU~~~
o..-a..Wr-:::.:::l
~9.0~':i-0<
o::~o...~ajgCi
x~wOt:)~
:'(-,0 >-0
I-' < al
~
0...
at; I.'
9: Vl ~7
u
~
III
w I~ ~ O~
lD ~oilii::>
1Il~ <Xl ll-t;~
en 'r: o~~ VI
""Ill 1O"'!'*
1o~~~I\'
IX) II II ,.~
Z 0::<( \
~ \~\~
~ r'"
~ '~~
4.. I'IS
"" -i ~~O
~g~ (t.
~o- ~\ ~
'O-.\=- \~ ~
% \~
<II \\
16
0-
o,?>
:s
0...
VI
A
-.
~
~
c:::
<(
~
~
~
~
o
0:::
~
"'''''
-Ill
_ <0
I I
Vlo>n
wo""
B-tO
u . .
N 0...0...
j...J III 0
~ffi~C)
o...~aiai
::0< . ,
r-~ao
E-<r--
UN
~CO
E-<Pij
~E-<
t=l~
....:10
....~ll::
~Pij
~~~~~ ~
E-<~eaGU) Z
~~~;j~ 8~
Pa:1.... OPij m
Z~Nr>i....:lZPa:1Q)
0t)....;j<Pa:1~....
(f.i<~>Qr:<:lll:: _
~~~~~~~~
QO E-<<~~:>-< ~
r:Il -.:t< :>< 0 t) ~ ~ < gp
~ .... < U 0 Z < ~ 12/
en N E-< en ....:I Iv '
~!
ti/I
t;~
C?!
I~/
~,I
1::,'
,)f/
rI('
^'i'
~
13~
0::0::
~~
NIIl
on
n~
ci~
1Il-
OlN
[j
U ...J
~,. ~
0...< ~ ., ..
~x>-
~r;j ww
~U _=:)=:)
~ "'00
9.00... -i:ji:j
~~ ~o::lt:
~~ ::0
t- ~
~
~~
0::0::
~~
~~
nOl
':'..,j.
Ol-r
P')'"
~
Z
.......
t.?
~
>
n
o
r-
r-
~
o
0>
at;
9:Vl
cJ
~~ '"
~~B~
lS~~g
tIll ~
l'I.l :z:~
~I:~
~ Iol~
~ I ",I::
Sl~~
~g u
S
eJ
o
I--
I--
o
=2:
~
e
D:
I--
~
~
ll..
o
[j.
:;......
L..J~
00
1')1--
l/)lI)
=2:1.u
-0:::
~lJ
L..J.q:
0:::(0
><~
~~
~~
~~
o
I--
I--
a
=2:
l/)
I--
e
D:
I--
~
~
o
.....
L..J'
:;......
L..J.q:
06
l\J1--
lI)lI)
~~
~lJ
L..J.q:
0::: V
)...~
~Ej
QL..J
lI)lJ
L..J><
O:::UJ
30
~~
~
.--.--r-
, /
/ ZI '
" /
~j
) \ 22
72A
RE:CEIVED
GLOECKNER, SMITH, COLEMAN, INC.
Engineers - SlIrot'Yors - LlIIrd Planners
:\i*' ~ ~ 1')94
HARLOITESVILLE
Kurt M Gloeckner, P.E., P.L.S.
B ian P. Smith, P.E.
March 24, 1994
P I <.:UJo}i~Q: 0 e 01.
Robert W, Coleman, Jr., P.L.5.
r. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Relocation of state Route 627 - "Enniscorthy"
Tax Map 121 Parcel 1
Dear Wayne,
On behalf of my clients I wish to formally request a Cou~ty
review of the intended relocation of state Route 627 through and
totally contained on the property known as Enniscorthy (Tax Map
121 Parcel 1). This will require a dedication of a 50 foot
right-of-way of approximately 3,300 linear feet and a formal
vacation of almost the same length of existing 30 foot
prescriptive right-of-way. The relocation will eliminate 2
undesirable 90. turns at the same time moving the state Route out
of the front yard of the home being restored.
Please let me know if other applications, fees or preliminary
meetings are necessary. since time is always of the essence, I
will go through the County review with schematic drawings while
we are preparing actual construction documents for VDOT review
and approval. Once VDOT approves the plans we will prepare the
erosion and sediment control documents for County review and
approval. Also, all plats of vacation and dedication will be
provided along with drainage easements as necessary.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
..-..
~~-_.
Kurt M. Gioeckner, President
GLOECKNER, SMITH, COLEMAN, INC.
----
KMG:tpm
cc: Bob Paxton - Architect
Bill Mills - VDOT
MAIN OFFICE: 710 East High Street, Charlottesville, V A 22902 · Tel: 804-971-1591 · Fax: H04-293-7612
RANCH OFFICE: p.o. Box 119, N. Valley Street, Scottsville, V A 24590 · Tel: 804-286-7777 · Fax: 804-286-6666
CC 02-1 '~l':,,; 12.; :::: F'I I FF'Cill H Cl [[,loIHF:[I'=.
TC)
2'337612
P.1J2
\
,... ,
/ \)
'-",
I
..'
)
) -'
./
/
V
,/..., " Cl
\ 00
V I;'
'\
!
---. J
r
- ...
......... -.. -- -- "". .
~ -n---fjffi;<}\:' k-.-.. \/
.'.>.".".' " . ..... y ""'yo"""
'';''''':~~ '
? ,. " .... -- I . l,. ~
I -" - ~
r'
\../
r...__
\ ....
I ...
\ /'
/ \
\ /' I I I
V /
'- ....,-J I
)
(...., f
./ v"'.... J I
\.. I
,,- ....... -1"'- '- --'
" "\
'- -
)
I
'\ ..l
,-"
.
,
j
,
-~ ..
""l )
-' - ) ( (
. ..._.I-Jz./ \
, ..l
\
'"'; . I
) _./ )
I I / (
\ \ /
\ \
" \
I
/
ro. ....
-- -' '\ \ .
\ /---
\.,1
--..
\
\
'- -
)
!
./
,
'" -)
...... -....
?.o Dox B2J
Chl1r1(lIl~w;!lc, va, 22902
t IArid! ?OC,.d7JJ
r/t.%G-7T
~f:J?1 V.eN6&
~iTAT6 /2IJ~p _
;.., .- A 1 1'/.( I .t iJ /":-'i 17
Dale: ~,t. - <f '-(
VAN Y,~HRES
ASSOCIATES
~ '.. , ',..LI'I;,.-t,: C
lCn~:ccp:: "',~.. '.~ J, ,j) ,
Projecl It
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Sc:uh.:; / t, = J; dO
'i
,.... . ""111.r n
'JfX-::2'<~'"
.M"."~'" '
(,.'s~,:,:",,~
'.,' J~i'.'.'" '. . "\;f. \
,.,{ '\-;\1':" ~",.,
;. , \ i,.. i"
, . S ;:/ '-A
',~7;~,2J~~~';' MA 1 2 6 1994
.~~~t?"
I")! '
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA annlng Dept.
RECEIVED
Department oj Historic Resources
221 Go\ernor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
TDD (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX (804) 225-4261
Hugh C, Miller Director
M . Mary Joy Scala
S ior Planner
C unty of Albemarle
D partment of Planning aild Community Development
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
R : State Route 627, Albemarle County
VDHR Project # 94-0876-S
Ms. Scala,
T ank you for submitting the proposed re-alignment plan for Route 627, Albemarle County,
V'rginia. After a careful review of the proposed project by this Department, it has been
d ermined that the present alignment of Route 627 is a contributing feature of the historic
I dscape surrounding Enniscorthy: a property listed with both the Virginia Landmarks
R gister and the National Register of Historic Places, Distinguishing landscape features that
li k buildings to their environments should be retained, Standard 2 of the Secretary of the
In erior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitatin Historic Buildin s
c Is for retention of the distinguishing original qualities of a building, structure, or site and
it environment. The existing Route 627 is a road trace which has existed since the
ei hteenth century and its relationship to Enniscorthy, and the potentially National Register
el" gible Carter Family Cemetery, should not be altered.
T e proposed new alignment will not disturb archaeological or historic structure sites. No
si s have been recorded in the project area. Therefore, construction of the new road
al gnment can be implemented without threat to additional resources.
T e project, as proposed, will not have an adverse effect on Enniscorthy or the Carter
F mily Cemetery provided that the following condition is met:
T e historic road trace should be left in place with a portion of the road continuing to serve
as an entry to Enniscorthy. The unused and remaining portion of the road bed should remain
al hough it will not continue to serve as a public road.
M . Mary Joy Scala
VI])HR project no. 94-0876-S
May 20, 1994
It . s suggested that the historic portion of Route 627 that will no longer be used for-public
acj:ess be severed from public use with vegetation. This would also provide screening.
S1 ould you have questions or concerns regarding this review, please feel free to contact Bill
Cosby at (804) 225-4258. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to respond to
th s project undertaking,
Sincerely,
l, l c \1t: ( ( "-'--'
H ~gh C. Miller
St~te Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Browne, Eichman, Dalgliesh, Gilpin and Paxton, P.C., Architects
JAMES BRADY MURRAY. JR.
June 13, 1994
JUN f
";-"..-,. ~ ....~..."...,.,.,..~"..~.,._ J
Jacquelyn Huckle, Chairman
Albemarl County Planning Commission
County 0 Albemarle
Departme t of Planning & Community Development
401 Meln ire Road
Charlottes ille, Virginia 22902-4596
-'--'-"'-""'-~:""~,~~"...,...."oi
Enniscorthy - Request to Relocate Route 627
Tax Map 121, Parcel 1
Dear Mrs Huckle:
will be unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June 21,
regarding he relocation of Route 627. On behalf of three neighbors namely ourselves, Greenmont Farms, Ltd.
and Brass Inc., we would like to express to you, to the members of the Commission and to the Board of
Superviso s our wholehearted support for the proposed move, As one of the county's historic landmarks,
Enniscort y has long suffered the detraction of this nearby public highway which owes its location to the
quieter m es of transport from past centuries. The relocation of the public highway further from the front
yard of thi magnificent landmark is an improvement that has been long overdue. We believe the county should
enthusiast' ally support this proposal,
If we can supply any information to further support the proposed relocation, please feel free to give
us a call a 971-8080.
S'ncerely, i j ,
a ~ V~~~--
tV-bl A/\~O
James B. M~~}. Jr. tj Bruce R. Murray
Greenmont Fanus, Ltd.
cc: Mr and Mrs. John O. Pickett, Jr,
W ter Perkins, Chairman
Al emarle County Board of Supervisors
"0" COU RT SQUARE, P. 0, BOX 1465, CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI ReiN IA 22902
(804) 971-8080
~ 33.1-155
CODE OF VIRGINIA
~ 33.1-155
When real estate heretofore or hereafter acquired by the Commonwealth
incidental to the construction, reconstruction, alteration, maintenance and
repair of the secondary system of state highways which does not constitute a
section of the public road is deemed by the Commissioner no longer necessary
for the uses of the secondary system of state highways, the Commissioner
shall so certify, in writing, to the Board such facts, and it may authorize the
Commissioner to execute, in the name of the Commonwealth, a deed or deeds
conveying such real estate, interest therein or any portion thereof, either for a
consideration or in exchange for other lands that may be necessary for the
uses of the secondary system of state highways.
Any such conveyance shall have the approval of the Board by resolution
recorded in the minutes of a meeting of the Board. (Code 1~j50, ~ 33-76,11;
1950, p, 733; 1956, c. 106; 1970, c. 322; 1981, c. 323,)
Applied in Board of Supvrs, v. Horne, 215
Va. 238, 208 SE,2d 56 (974),
~ 33.1-155. Alternative procedure for abandonment of old road or
crossing to extent of alteration. - When any road in the secondary system
or any road in the secondary system containing a railway-highway grade
crossing has been or is altered and a new road which serves the same citizens
as the old road is constructed in lieu thereof and approved by the Common-
wealth Transportation Commissioner, the old road and/or the public crossing
may be abandoned to the extent of such alteration, but no further, by a
resolution of the board of supervisors or other governing body of the county,
declaring the old road and/or the public crossing abandoned. (Code 1950,
9 33-76,12; 1950, p. 734; 1952, c. 127; 1970, c. 322.)
Procedure under this section and under
~ 33.1-151 distinguished. - The General
Assembly intended by this section and
~ 33.1-151 to specify two procedures available
to the governing bodies in abandoning roads in
the secondary highway system, The underlying
purpose of the two sections appears to rest in
the construction of a new road under the
alternative procedure provided in this section,
whereas the more complicated procedure pro-
vided by S 33.1-151 makes no provision for the
construction of a new road in lieu of the
abandoned road. Hudson v. AMOCO, 152 F,
Supp, 757 (E,O, Va, 1957), aff'd, 253 F2d 27
(4th Cir, 1958),
When abandonment proceedings are under-
taken under this section, the construction of a
new road in lieu of the old which serves the
same citizens as the old road is contemplated,
The more complex procedure provided for in
S 33,1-151 is not predicated upon, nor does it
require, construction of a new road in lieu of
the abandoned road. When a new road is
constructed, the county board is not required to
adopt the procedure provided for in 9 33,1-151
but may act under this section. AMOCO v,
Leaman, 199 Va, 637, 101 S,E.2d 540 (958),
commented on in 44 Va. L. Rev, 628 (958),
Discontinuance and abandonment are
not the same thing. Ord v, Fugate, 207 Va,
752, 152 SE.2d 54 (967),
The phrase "a new road which serves
the same citizens as the old road" is to be
liberally construed and a wide discretion
must be accorded the board in its determina-
tion to abandon or alter a road, otherwise the
purpose of this section, enacted for the benefit
of the public, would be impaired or defeated,
AMOCO v, Leaman, 199 Va, 637, 101 S,E.2d
540 (1958), commented on in 44 Va, L. Rev,
628 (958),
The wording of this section providing for a
new road "which serves the same citizens as
the old road" must be liberally construed to
permit discretionary action by the board, Hud-
son v, AMOCO, 152 F, Supp, 757 (E,O. Va.
1957), aff'd, 253 F.2d 27 (4t.h Cir, 1958),
Essential findings. - This section makes
no provision for a finding that some "public
utility" or "public interest" must be served by
any abandonment or vacation, The essential
findings are: 0) that the road be altered; (2)
that a new road be constructed in lieu thereof;
(3) that the new road serve the same citizens as
the old road; and (4) that approval of the State
Highway Commissioner (now Commonwealth
Transportation Commissioner) be obtained,
Hudson v, AMOCO, 152 F, Supp, 757 (E,D, Va.
1957), atrd, 253 F,2d 27 (4th Cir, 1958),
Review oC action oC count.y board. _ The
General Assembly made no provision for an
appeal to a court. from the county board's
78, .
1
~ .:1:3.1 -156
r
1I1(i1lW A YS. BHIl)(~ES AN \l FEIWIES
~ :13,1-157
findings and action under this section, In the
absence of such a provision the Supreme Court
of Appeals may not review the board's action in
the absence of fraud or manifest abuse of
discretion, AMOCO v, Leaman, 199 Va, 637,
101 S,E2d 540 (1958), commented on in 44 Va,
L, Rev, 628 (958),
As the General Assembly made no provision
for an appeal to any court, from the resolution
of the county board of supervisors making such
a finding that a new road will "serve the same
citizens as the old road," it must be assumed
that courts were not intended to review such
findings in the absence of fraud or manifest
abuse of discretion, Hudson v. AMOCO, 152 F.
Supp, 757 (ED, Va, 1957), afT'd, 253 F,2d 27
(4th Cir, 1958),
Weight of board's finding that new road
will serve same cHizens as old. - When the
road to be altered or abandoned is not a way of
necessity and does not abut the property of an
objector but is reached by traveling over or
across another public road that abuts the
objector's property, a finding by the hoard that
the new road serves the same citizens as the
old road may not be successfully challenged in
the absence of fraud or flagrant hardship
evidencing abuse of discretion by the board.
AMOCO v. Leaman, 199 Va, 637, 101 S,E2d
540 (1958), commented on in 44 Va. L. Rev.
628 (958)
Ultimate exclusive use of abandoned
highway may be for private interest. - A
highway may be lawfully abandoned when
another and more adequate highway serving
the same citizens as the old road is constructed,
although the ultimate exclusive use of the
abandoned highway may be for a private
interest. Hudson v, AMOCO, 152 F, Supp, 757
(E.D, Va. 1957), afT'd, 253 F,2d 27 (4th Cir,
]958),
Complainants were {lot in the class of
citizens who were being "served" by an
abandoned secondary road where they had
access to it only by way of a private road
easement, not a way of necessity, and also had
access to another secondary road, Hudson v,
AMOCO, 152 F. Supp, 757 (E.O, Va, 1957),
afT'd, 253 F,2d 27 (4th Cir. 1958).
A secondary route was legally aban-
doned and a primary route altered, im-
proved and relocated as permitted by and in
accordance with the provisions of this section,
AMOCO v, Leaman, 199 Va, 637, 101 S,E2d
540 (1958), commented on in 44 Va, L. Rev,
628 (1958),
Applied in Board of Supvrs, v, Horne, 215
Va, 238, 208 S,E,2d 56 (974),
ARTICLE 12.
Abandonment of Roads Not in State Highway System or Secondary
System.
S 33.1-156. Arplication of article; "road" defined. - The provisions of
this article shal apply mutatis mutandis to county roads maintained by a
county and not part of the secondary system, and to roads dedicated to the
public but which are not parts of the State Highway System, or the secondary
highway system, The term "road" shall include streets and alleys in case of
dedication to the public and shall likewise include an existing crossing by the
lines of a railway company of such road and a crossing by such road of the
lines of a railway company. (Code 1950, 9 33-76.13; 1950, p. 734; 1970, c. 322,)
Cross 'references. - For provision that
nothing in Article 12 shall affect Chapter 10 of
Title 15.1, see ~ 33,1-167,
Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law
on property for the year 1972-1973, see 59 Va,
L. Rev, 1570 (1973),
S 33.1-157. Abandonment of certain roads and railway crossings by
governing body of county. - When a section of a road not in the secondary
system is deemed by the governing body of the county, hereinafter in this
article referred to as governing body, no longer necessary for public use, or an
existing crossing by such road of the lines of a railway company, or a crossing
by the lines of a railway company of such road, is deemed by such governing
body no longer necessary for public use, the governing body by proceeding as
hereinafter prescribed may abandon the section of the road no longer deemed
necessary for public use, or such crossing by the road of the lines of a railway
company, or crossing by the lines of the railway company of the road, as the
case may be.
I
I
I
I
L
79
-
/
RAFT of Request to relocate a portion of
t. 627 on the Enniscorthy property.
(Portion of Planning Commission minutes of
une 21, 1994.)
**************************
- Request to relocate a portion of Rt. 627
o the Ennlscorthy property. This request requires a
Virginia Code Section 14.1-456 review of the Albema]~le
C unty Planning Commission to determine if the proposed
c ange is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan..
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The report
e plained the applicant's justification as being "to
e iminate two undesirable right angle turns and to move
t e road away from the main house." The staff
a sessment of the proposal found it to be in compliance
w'th the Comprehensive Plan with certain conditions
o tlined in the staff report).
e applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Paxton, the
chitect for the project. He offered to answer
estions. There were no questions.
blic comment was invited.
. George Coles, a Trustee for the Carter Family
metery, addressed the Commission. He explained that
has been working with the applicant to address his
ncerns, which include the agreement that (1) The
cess to the cemetery will be maintained at the
a plicant's expense; (2) A turnaround and parking area
w'll be provided; (3) Blockage of the access to the
c metery will be allowed to make it a private access.
A binding agreement has not been reached but "we have
a understanding with the representative." (Because the
o ner is out of the country, a binding agreement cannot
b reached until he returns.) He expressed no
o position to the proposal, "as long as we are in a
b'nding position before the Board of Supervisors
m ets." He confirmed that the cemetery is still used
b the family.
;2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
OTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the request to relocate
a portion of Rt. 627 on the Enniscorthy property be
found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant take appropriate and reasonable
easures to retain the existing road trace as outlined
by the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic
esources.
2. The road construction plans meet all necessary run-
off control measures as prescribed by the Water
Resources Manager.
. Leback asked how a new owner (if the property were
be sold) would be aware that the road trace is to be
I ft in place in accordance with the Department of
H'storic Resources. Mr. Blue explained: "When the
Bard entertains the vacation, they are only going to
v cate the portion that is not going to be used, in
n hpr wnrrl~. thpv Rrp nnt oninn tn VRrRtp thp rnRrl tn
-.. -. .. r ~ J.J " . - . -
t- A f'pm"r,,'!"'u 0'!'" +-hn '!"0;;:'!rl f'0m;nrr lln t-0 t-ho nt-nor C{;rlp
-...- ---....- - --..,L ---- -.....- - --- -----...-......'::J -J'::" ...... -. -...-- ...... ----...... --- -........
'T' ,c" -::>",C An' H NA; nN t-A TT-::>r"-::>t-C t-hC Y'\A",t-; An t-h-::>t- T.TO -:1,..'0
..L. ""'-1 "'""'......'-" 'J.4J.~1 ':::''''''.........1.':1 '-v V\.4v\.A.\...'-' '-.&..1.'-' .t;:-'"",,L.\..-..J...,-,,J.,J. \"........l".,.&,\",.. ...,- '-L..L.'-'
~ ..... ..",^__,......;........-J ,,",t-.._""'I'.f-" 1\6Y< r\,"",,,,,,,":...., -...r........l""'\~......,,~. "rT1h^
!! L.. VVV.1...1...Le:u O.lJVUL... 1<.1.1... UOV.L.;:) e:^.f:-'.LO.L!le:U. .L!!e:
p"oceduYe that this would follow is not a vacation, it
i an abandonment. What complicates this, and I would
h ve to think about it and look at it more closely, is
t at since there is just a perscriptive easement here
a d there is not a fee ownership, when you abandon it
y u take away the public use of it which basically does
a av with th~ ners~rintive nublic use." Mr. Blue-
~ .I...a...I..
a ~ed: "I thought the fee ownership was with the
nt.Tn,:;;> r II Mr f);nr; cp "T t- n; n ~ t- n ~ t- ; q f'n r ro r't-
--"........--. ......-. _'""""'v....._. ..a.. _...........,I.~..... _......~'- __ __.-_......._._
The road plans to be approved by the Department of
gineering should reflect the above two conditions;
d should indicate access to the Coles family
metery.
. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
situation.
T-F thn <::'+--:>t-...... A'" t-hA r"A"nt-" AT.Tn t-h......
..L..L. ~..l'- u\,...(;.4\"..\';'" V.L. c....J,....'- '-v\,..I.......'-1 VV'f~~ .........~
3
road, then we would have control of the fee and could
fut whatever restrictions on it that we wanted to. In
this particular instance, since we don't own the fee,
it may be difficult for us to dictate that unless the
cwner voluntarily puts a restriction against the
f roperty. "
Ms. Imhoff noted that the first condition that "the
applicant take appropriate reasonable measure to retain
the existing road trace." She noted that the minutes
could reflect, and the representatives of the applicant
could relay back to them that one of the ways to do
that would by covenant or by some other action.
~r. Cilimberg added: "I guess the Board, before it
took the abandonment action, could take testimony that
they were in fact doing that as a part of the
understanding of the action."
Tne previously stated motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
une 23, 1994
. Joseph W, Richmond, Jr
14 East High Street
harlottesville, VA 22901
Relocation of State Route-627 at Enniscorthy
Tax Map 121, Parcel1A
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 21, 1994,
etermined that your client's proposal to relocate State Route 627 is in compliance
ith the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia,
fovided the following conditions are met:
1. The applicant shall take appropriate and reasonable measures to retain the
existing road trace as outlined by the Director of the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources. A covenant shall be recorded to insure that subsequent
owners are made aware of the requirement to protect the road trace;
2. The road construction plans shall meet all necessary runoff control measures
as prescribed by the Water Resources Manager;
3. The road plans to be approved by the Department of Engineering should
reflect the above two conditions; and should indicate access to the Coles
family cemetery. It is expected that a written agreement regarding such
1
age 2
une 23, 1994
access will be concluded with the Coles family representatives.
e Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will meet on July 6, 1994 to discuss
e procedure regarding the proposed future abandonment of a section of State
oute 627,
Sincerely,
;;u1Pr<;Cct t,,-
ary Joy Scala
Senior Planner
MJS/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Kurt Gloeckrier
Bob Paxton
2
TAFF PERSON:
LANNING COMMISSION:
MARY JOY SCALA
JUNE 21, 1994
EVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
VA. CODE SECTION 15.1 - 456 REVIEW : RELOCATION OF ROUTE
27.
ection 15.1 - 456 requires that the Planning Commission review and approve the general or
pproximate location, character, and extent of a street or public area unless such feature is already
hown on the adopted master plan.
he vacation, or change of use, of streets requires approval as does a change in location or extent
f a street or public use.
ttached is a letter dated March 24, 1994 which requires review of the intended relocation of
tate Route 627 through and contained on the Enniscorthy property (Tax Map 121-ParcellA)
ear Keene. This will require dedication of a new 50 foot right-of-way (approximately 3)00
inear feet) and abandonment of the existing 30 foot prescriptive right-of-way. Also attached are
aps showing the proposed relocation.
he applicant's justification is to eliminate two undesirable right angle turns and to move the road
way from the main house.
he subject property is designated Rural Area. Route 627 in this area is the watershed boundary
or Totier Creek reservoir. The relocation of the road will move it further into the watershed.
he net long term impact to the watershed from this relocation project would not likely be
ignificant since the existing alignment is located on the watershed boundary and currently drains
o the watershed. Required erosion control measures should minimize the impact of construction
ctivity to the watershed. Run-off control measures as identified by the Water Resource Manager
hould also be incorporated in to design and construction plans.
1
~nniscorthy was placed on the Virginia Register and on the National Register of Historic Places in
992. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following goal and objective:
Goal: "Protect the County's natural, scenic and historic resources in the Rural and
Growth Areas". (p.73)
Obiective: Conserve the County's historical and cultural resources, including historic
sites, structures and landscape features; archeological sites; and other unique man-made
features". (p.90)
Staff Comment:
~oute 627 at this location has an average daily traffic count of 756, and is considered a
on-tolerable road.
~ecause the applicant is not requesting funding for this project, staff's main concern is the possible
ilmpact of the relocation on the County's historic resources. Attached is a letter dated May 24,
994 from the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources regarding their review
~fthe project. His conclusion is that the existing Route 627 is a road trace which has existed
ince the eighteenth century and its relationship to Enniscorthy, and the potentially National
ltegister eligible Carter Family Cemetery, should not be altered.
"'he Director states that the project, as proposed, will not have an adverse effect on Enniscorthy
l>r the Carter Family Cemetery provided that the following condition is met:
The historic road trace should be left in place with a portion of the road continuing to
serve as a entry to Enniscorthy. The unused and remaining portion of the road bed should
remain although it will not continue to serve as a public road. It is suggested that the
historic portion of Route 627 that will no longer be used for public access be severed from
public use with vegetation. This would also provide screening.
f\ portion of the existing road is intended to be used as the driveway to the house/property.
Staff agrees with this assessment and finds that the proposal is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan with the following conditions:
1. The applicant take appropriate and reasonable measures to retain the existing road
trace as outlined by the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources;
2.' The road construction plans meet all necessary run-off control measures as
prescribed by the Water Resources Manager;
3. The road plans to be approved by the Department of Engineering should reflect the
above two conditions; and should indicate access to the Coles family cemetery.
2
AEt:;EI'VEi)
WALTER L. COLES
JUN 1 7 1994 . 2600 BARRACKS RD. APT. 333
CHARLOTTVESILLE, VA. 22901
fJlanning Dept
,...-_C)u )1-1' /1) ) Y pJ-)
C/o
~" , ll7 ~i'
, -. .' /,/ ;;J,
\/ .Ctc a? / ,</_, v. ,-' a: 14
.-} , . 1 '
" , f~~!Jlj')(4J:t!/ ~/h' j(jl, <l
[) ,," . ~f It'~; JJI/' J" J ' " J-- t i-
t/ tl--VU \., / Ytvf'/~' /::},. ,./J!\ l(1./tif,///J7 /0
j'l ,..t' 'd J i.. ~ i-' AJ j
_ .j _~ _ .' ..' . J J .'. - -- #.......'"
'Iii ;;:J} ,ilJJ,1:<, ,1, /17,fLl! b /2 ~ 1('(, t J'>' <,-17
,(j;) !/l?1t L'" Ii [}} /)7//) I 7'///1 )/; j) ED /!tJztd-:1-
i:;;), b'o~t?aL!j4j/~ /71/'1 tld~L"tj
i,; ay dM~u') ~,J:}~ ~J /Jt?I~ trhu} ,
_I "i'J i"'l/!u;J Oll i 11/2')1 if? {!I'II 1. /:gfJ<' e .
l ~ /-- Z
Yl'h I,'} /1 /} '[ t
/ ;.:"-'[,?.... ---'- 7-
, /
// /.1. ,,,--;/; /-' /
L.-;.:>:?4.I'/'Z ' LX. c.}JO z2.:L _
ll::
~ ,Lj
hJ Q. (~
ai!:~'" ~ 0::
a~lo... .~ll:: ~aS ~
~~olQ ~~~~ -h f.1
ll::Lj"'~ Lj"'0 ~. 0::
3~!!:~~fj~~>- ~) 0
dot}lt",~;!:g: :::<'~<::, (:> ~
t.laOt.ll<JVll...'.... "'( ~ ~
~W~lt~~:-i~O .~ Q.
~e:~ oll::lll<(f-!ii ~ ~
~"'~~~~~~~ 0 ~
f:: i!: s ~ -J 1.1:\ VI 0
\:i;I;LJO~!Q5~i!: ,~,\:l:
t:;:t.l ~t- f" ~ lDJ
~:t~fj ~:;;IO~ '"
o Cl~ .~O""
~~8~~~~fj~
Qkjt.lLjIl)~o~><~
,...ll::<(Q~c;jliJ 0
i!:~~~e:Qi!: t.l
~
~
~
~.
~
o
~,' j I
0::
0::
~
U
w
'"
(:>
a
LJ,
-i....
0....
~,
GI-
'< .':
(J) ,.;',,,,-.
~ ~ -, I '
f- >- ,:, ",.
~ <( '<':
~fl ~',,-,\
g: < ~'
~i'~ " \
~~ ~'~.:
....f:: ~ ".\
8 LJ II) "
I.. ~ 5i
ll:: :::<,
~ ~o ,8',})
I') -
LJ~Ol>-
i!:lll ~:::<
'..
/'l
/'l
/'l
/'l
4,-
/'l
/'l
/'l
/'l
/'l
/'l
0/
/'l
:<V ~\ .{'l
.,,~ *'(- /,~
:'\J / ~,..
:o;y~
.<:-<V. I'~ ~~
b.-.... ,k(} .~ II 0 0
~~. '- 0~ 'll D. 0::
c;...... 4/ N ~
-", ,}; <Xl
7/ N
/'/
h/
~ ~
/9' 'wo
/,; U::lEZ
4/ 5::l5
4/ U5.....
1} ~
,\-'V
<\
~ ~
:; .:;zu~~
:i :::~ZOD
"! - (1 :5 W oJ
:" ~. ..( Q.. (r .
N
u
~
.J
, Z ~a;
- .:0 Om
...J~~"""ffi~
W-:5~ON
..~t:i~a:.)j:
>- EO o::VI
w"'l:JUlO"J::l
::lND.W~Z(:>
g"'o~~G~
el9log:3:ai~ "
O::;:i :s ......0
'~wo(:>~
~..,o >-C!i
... <( m
~
D.
5~ I.'
~ VI ~~
'-
L.J~
. $1 i5'
'V- t,) Y:
pr0/#
"'nJ
[;;1
<01
1
1/)1
z 5~
~t, ~ VI
~ Icy C,
'..9 <',9 I;G.!
(' I; '{" ~
~ ..9.. /6 S
'ct'p. .s' \'f '" ~
~~~
(:>(:>~;....
Z~ .,
i=:J II b~
!!lW~ I/!J,,:
X3: I No
Wo 1/ ~m"""m
I, ;; ~ ~ ~
3: II lO lO
~,
\o':'~"""""""
~.... ,
n'
o~
L Ul Zz
...N O::l
~ ~12
0::
W
Z
~Ul~
l<:n......
INn
Iii I I
ONOl
nlO
<(wNn
au , ,
nirD.o.
I !;iNn
~W(QtO
~mN"""
o."-aiai
::;...... . .
f-ZOO
W
~~
!:"IS
NI-
b>
<Xl
Z
.go
U::lEZ
Z::l::l
Oz12
Uo
::;
o
o
N
o
g ~
g ~
n VI
o
'"
10
......
~
o
":
......
'"
......
Gj
~
s
:zrJ.f)O~
U
~
'6~
9; VI
,"i
z z_
'9 :s 8l
d~~"""ffi~
U-O~ON
..~I1~a:.)jN
x a..~o 0::1ii
~ NWu~~~
o ...-QhJ"-Y::J
13 fi~~~<(
0::~o.3a!go
~wo(:>l~
~-,o >-C!i
I- <( m
:5
0.
\ UlUlOO
W 1 ":I-Z
It> ~",Vl::l
Ul~ <Xl l\~ ~12
m'''1O~IVl
....If) lO If'! \~
loa .... N
~ ....n
<Xl II II \.}
Z 0::<( \
"i- \~\~
'; ~ '.D
'j, .~ vl
-.J:, .\,\ '?
...-:;<~\o
,,19~ct-
?-I>- ~\ vl
'&or- \~ ':&:.
It, ~V>
'a, "\~
'6
I>-
'0
r>
VI
A
~
~
~
i=:
<(
~
~
~
~
o
~
(f)
rz:l
<~
o
H<
rz:l
01.()
ea~
P-.~
......
C\l
N....
~If)
~lO
I I
VIOlr'l
wo-.r
<5-tO
U . .
N D.o.
l-lll)o
No::"'......
~~~~
o.:;;Imm
~3:00
~r--
UN
i):lCO
E-<rxl <!:!
~E-< H
~::J ~
......3g ~
~rz:l ~
~~~~E ~
~~~~: s
H(f)p...~Z 0(')
P-.r>::l...... Or>::lUQ)
3lJ~~~&3~~
~~~~~~~~
~O e-.<ear>::l:;.-. ~
III .q: :><: 0 U r>::l P';j ..ex: ~ p
::J.-l<UOZ<~ ~/
(I) C\l E-< (f) H ~ "
rf/
ti,'
..(,
tl
~,'
~/
".
~r/'
<v'
"j/
e
eIeI
0::0:
~~
Nll)
on
nq
0;-
ll)~
(DN
d
U ..J
~.. ~
0.<( 0:: .. ..
(tx>-
Nd ww
~U ~::l::>
~ NOO
~D. ~1313
~~ ~o:o:
~~
I- ~
I-
!:lei
0::0:
~~
~~
::!~
~~
n
o
,...
,...
~
o
01
6~
~V1
cJ
~B N
~~B~
o~~i
~I=~
Ol!~
~13~
~i"1
rilS u
:3
~
o
l-
t-
o
~
II)
I-
i3
ii:
t-
~
1.IJ
~
rj.
:0.-1
LJ~
Qa
1<)"-
II)lI)
zl,lJ
-[1:
<l:u
t;j<l:
ll::lJ)
)(~
ltiQ
~l,IJ
fill'!
LJ)(
ll::l.IJ
o
l-
t-
~
~
i3
ii:
t-
~
~
-J
LJ'
:o.-J
LJ<l:
Q6
l\jt-
~~
-0::
f!u
L.J<l:
ll::v
>-~
~fj
filtJ
~~
I 1/"
'" /' I 11 I/O ~___
/ lJ;/
>0
---'"
~
""'-v
---J-.
"'"
""
\
\
I C
/"
f
--r
...-- '
, /
!" /
~J
"\
'I '\
7ZA
/
RECEIVED
GLOECKNER, SMITH, COLEMAN, INC.
ElIgillcas - Surveyors - Lawi Pla/lllas
1\: LIr\ , ) 1~94
Cl/tlRL07Tt:SVII.Lt:
Kurt M. Gloeckner, P.E., P.L.S,
Brian P. Smith, P,E,
March 24, 1994
PI(.Ha(;fj~g: Deot.
Roberl W, Coleman, Jr., P.L-S.
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Relocation of State Route 627 - "Enniscorthy"
Tax Map 121 Parcel 1
Dear Wayne,
On behalf of my clients I wish to formally request a County
review of the intended relocation of State Route 627 through and
totally contained on the property known as Enniscorthy (1'ax Map
121 Parcel 1). This ~ill require a dedication of a 50 foot
right-of-way of approximately 3,300 linear feet and a formal
vacation of almost the same length of existing 30 foot
prescriptive right-of-way. The relocation will eliminate 2
undesirable 90. turns at the same time moving the state Route out
of the front yard of the home being restored,
Please let me know if other applications, fees or preliminary
meetings are necessary. Since time is always of the essence, I
will go through the County review with schematic drawings while
we are preparing actual construction documents for VDOT review
and approval. Once VDOT approves the plans we will prepare the
erosion and sediment control documents for County review and
approval. Also, all plats of vacation and dedication will be
provided along with drainage easements as necessary.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
/' SincerelY~.1\ ____
--V ~ 7fkl~J--~~~___ __ "
~vM. '~oeckner, President
GLOECKNER, SMITH, COLEMAN, INC.
KMG:tpm
cc: Bob Paxton - Architect
Bill Mills - VDOT
MAIN OFFICE: 710 East High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 · Tel: 804-971-1591 . Fax: H04-293-7612
BRANClI OFFICE: P,O. Dox 119, N. Valley Street, Scollsville, V A 24590 · Tel: 804-286-7777 . FilX: 804-286-6666
II~, CI':: L<',j
1 .e': _:':,1,'11
f':TCIII ,', I~, [[IJ,lfIF'[I'=.
TO
2':r37612
P.02
";~
! '- ~)...-..--
~'J~
~ ~\
" \
)oar".
'--, '
I
.I
)
,
~ / \ '::~
V /'"
" ! /
) ""--.1 /
(....., I
../ \..,"......
..- ~ I..J I
....../ '--.I
~I
--~-:.' ~J
~~f. ~ffj-;,;; ~~/ ~
. :,': ",'>":: : ) -'y>
.rt /" \ .,'
\../
\ '
"
.
.
i
,/
~-
-
N
/
"\
.
,
\
\ I,
'l \
?O 1\0.02.1
" I" II " ~~<?I\~
\ \
/--- --... I
\ , \...1 )
I
I .--
.....' ./
(
7 IGif/;7T Dole; ~. 1.... q ~
/(EJ..;/ eNa Proiecl 1/
Drown by:
~/'T ATE- /2!JA P Checked by:
-",,1 Scult,;; /":: ~ "0
VAN Y1\HRES
A~SOCIATES
lcnO~CGpe A:~~::~(lj. 'oe.
RECEIVED
!\fA 1 2 6 1994
1'')1 .
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA annlng Dept.
;."~'~'{.':',~:]~
fO";tl. " ",\.,
~ 1:;Ir''':, '
, ',1 ,1,1 . i
,'. ~,): n~
. 'l',.... . ',".'
\(: .. ~\ . ,':.". "...,;
~,>..",'~.y,... ,~
'!l:., ',' ,::,.-...,,/~w
~-i~-;~-,~Y'
ay 24, 1994
Department (~f lIi\.toric Resources
~~ I (;mcrnm Slr.:d
H ichlllOlll1. Virginia 2:\219
TOO (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX (804) 225-4261
Hugh C Mil er, DIrector
s. Mary Joy Scala
enior Planner
ounty of Albemarle
epartment of Planning arId Community Development
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
e: State Route 627, Albemarle County
VDHR Project # 94-0876-S
ear Ms. Scala,
hank you for submitting the proposed re-alignment plan for Route 627, Albemarle County,
irginia. After a careful review of the proposed project by this Department, it has been
etermined that the present alignment of Route 627 is a contributing feature of the historic
andscape surrounding Enniscorthy: a property listed with both the Virginia Landmarks
egister and the National Register of Historic Places. Distinguishing landscape features that
ink buildings to their environments should be retained. Standard 2 of the Secretary of the
nterior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitatin Historic Buildin s
aIls for retention of the distinguishing original qualities of a building, structure, or site and
'ts environment. The existing Route 627 is a road trace which has existed since the
ighteenth century and its relationship to Enniscorthy, and the potentially National Register
ligible Carter Family Cemetery, should not be altered.
he proposed new alignment will not disturb archaeological or historic structure sites, No
sites have been recorded in the project area. Therefore, construction of the new road
alignment can be implemented without threat to additional resources.
The project, as proposed, will not have an adverse effect on Enniscorthy or the Carter
Family Cemetery provided that the following condition is met:
The historic road trace should be left in place with a portion of the road continuing to serve
as an entry to Enniscorthy. The unused and remaining portion of the road bed should remain
although it will not continue to serve as a public road.
Ms. Mary Joy Scala
fJDHR project no. 94-0876-S
May 20, 1994
t is suggested that the historic portion of Route 627 that will no longer be used for public
~ccess be severed from public use with vegetation. This would also provide screening.
~hould you have questions or concerns regarding this review, please feel free to contact Bill
Crosby at (804) 225-4258. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to respond to
his project undertaking.
~incerely ,
IS L C Yn,,'ll ""--'
~ugh C. Miller
State Historic Preservation Officer
~c: Browne, Eichman, Dalgliesh, Gilpin and Paxton, P,C., Architects
._-1
David P. &I.IX'nnan
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R ivannd
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
WhiteHall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
SCollsviile
Sally H. Thomas
Sornul'l Miller
July 10, 1994
Mr. J. W. Brent
Executive Director
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Brent:
At its meeting on July 6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors discussed a
policy on mandatory connection to Albemarle County Service Authority public
water and sewerage systems. The Board took the following action:
Authorized the Albemarle County Service Authority to adopt a.
policy for mandatory connection for new development only and amend
County rules to comply with this requirement as a condition of
approval under the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The Service
Authority would also be allowed to grant exemptions to this
requirement under the following circumstances:
1. Cases where an adequate private system already exists due to
pre-existing development, such as in the case of a house
being rebuilt due to a fire or other physical problem.
2. Cases where the cost of connecting to the public system
(excluding tap fees) greatly exceeds the cost of providing
on-site water and/or septic (usually due to physical con-
straints) .
3. Cases where the Service Authority has no available capacity,
The Board also asked that some type of waiver procedure be developed.
This policy is to be brought back to the Board for a public hearing.
If you have any questions concerning the above action, please call me.
ver~aY trU~lY your[s, I
~~-
,/ , /;Lf{ Y/{2
~ W. Carey, rk
UA.
U
EWC:mms
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
*
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE0.~,~2"I.?;i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
MandatoI)' Connection to Albemarle County Service
Authority Public Water/Sewerage Systems
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
9</. t, 'lee, 1-2-'-/
INFORMATION:
ACfION: X
SUBJECf/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Consideration of MandatoI)' Connection Policy for New
Development
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACfION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
STAFF CONT ACf(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Keeler, Davis
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In an April 26, 1994 memo to Mr. Tucker, Planning staff alerted Mr, Tucker to inconsistencies in requirements for hook-up to
public water and sewer. (See attached memo.) This came after discussion with Mr, Davis as to the operation of current provisions.
DISCUSSION:
The memo speaks to disparities and recommends a possible Board adopted policy for mandatol)' connection for new development
with concurring Service Authority rules. Mr. Bill Brent has written to Mr. Tucker indicating that the Albemarle County Service
Authority Board of Directors is willing to require connection to water or sanitary sewer for new construction adjacent to existing
lines provided that the Board of Supervisors concurs. (See attached letter of May 26, 1994.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff notes in its memo concerns about inconsistencies and reasonableness of existing procedures for mandatoI)' connection. Staff
recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize the Albemarle County Service Authority to adopt a policy of mandatol)'
connection for new development only and to amend Cmmty rules to comply with this requirement as a condition of approval under
the subdivision and zoning ordinances, Under certain circumstances the Board may want the Service Authority to grant exemption
to this requirement. Staff has identified the following circumstances that would be reasonable for exemption:
1. Cases where an adequate private system already exists due to pre-existing development, such as in the case of a house being
rebuilt due to a fire or other physical problem.
2. Cases where the cost of connecting to the public system (excluding tap fees) greatly exceeds the cost of providing on-site water
and/or septic (usually due to physical constraints).
3, Cases where the Service Authority has no available capacity.
ACSAMAN.VWC
94.089
cc: Bill Brent
ALBtMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
p,O, Box 1009 401 MciNTIRE RD, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-5810
May 26, 1994
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Re: Mandatory Connections
Dear Bob:
I have reviewed Wayne Cilimberg' s memorandum to you
dated April 26, 1994 with the Board of Directors. By
majority vote, the Board has indicated its willingness to
amend its rules and regulations to require that new construc-
tion adjacent to an existing water or sanitary sewer line
connect to such line. As you know, such a requirement is
unenforceable unless the Board of Supervisors concurs with
that requirement.
Please advise me if the Board of Supervisors wishes t:o
pursue this.
Very truly yours,
;5~
J.W. Brent
Executive Director
JWB/lbt
c.c: James M. Bowling, IV
j"'"r'\r r r'I'''.' ( '-'..-_
\'1'..1 _,'J".. ~ r ~ .1(" l~l F);:::~~,qj~. j')~ E
jflil ,'" "il" it:~~;~j~:
,,c, .,' li ..~. ,\ i i I
;' . " PI l I I, l
j' I r ,~.-Al .2. 7, 1994.,./. i i. J.'
U f' i_ ;., , j r lI',1 U
EXP'IJ"j' j\U,-_'. "
vl ,~OfFICE
~
l__
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & communityuloJC-/
Development
DATE:
April 26, 1994
RE:
MANDATORY CONNECTION TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY PUBLIC WATER/SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
The purpose of this memorandum it to alert of inconsistencies
regarding usage of public water/sewerage utilities. Disparities
exist between procedure/requirements of the zoning/subdivision
ordinances and issuance of building permits. These disparities
result from lack of uniform policy related to usage of public
utilities. Brief comments regarding these disparities are as
follows:
1. Section 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires usage of
one or both utilities based upon lot size. Building
permits are routinely issued in accord with this
section without regard for availability of public
utilities. Lots created prior to the ordinance are
treated as non-conforming and this section is not
applied at all.
2. Both the site development plan section of the Zoning
Ordinance and the SUbdivision Ordinance require
connection to public utilities regardless of lot size
when deemed "reasonably accessible".
3. Under 1 and 2 above, a citizen could obtain two
building permits on one parcel with appropriate Health
Department approvals for well and septic systems,
proceed to construct two dwellings and then be required
to hook to public utilities upon subdivision of the
property. Realized problems are more complex and
, .
Robert W. Tucker
Page 2
April 26, 1994
citizen reaction is obvious. Larry Da~is has advised
that the reasonableness of such a process is
questionable.
4. Thus, the current situation is that decisions as
whether or not to require connection to public
utilities are an operation of the site development plan
and subdivision ordinance regulations. Ideally,
decisions as to usage of public utilities should rest
with the public utility under uniform criteria endorsed
by the County. Decisions as to usage of public
utilities should not be post facto operation of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances (except in regard to
applicable lot size/intensity of use regulations).
Albemarle County currently has no policy requiring
mandatory connection.
RECO~ENDATION
1. The Board of Supervisors request the Albemarle County
Service Authority to provide comment as to the issue of
mandatory connection for new development within its
jurisdictional areas. Such recommendation, if in favor of
mandatory connection, should be in detail including criteria
for exception.
2. If deemed appropriate by the Board of Supervisors and the
Service Authority, adopt a policy of mandatory connection
for new development and concurring Service Authority rules.
RSK/VWC/blb
cc: Bill Brent, Executive Director, ASCA
Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Larry Davis, County Attorney
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning
,
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
o F
I N TEN T
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0, FEES, to allow
fee reduction for uses that may be subject to multiple fees, minor
expansions to nonconforming uses and the like, and family divisions
that necessitate a special use permit.
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance,
and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommenda-
tion to this Board at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on July 6, 1994'~.., JA/ ~
a flU L_'-LUl~
er , Board of County supe~)ors
V
Resolution No. 94.0706(7)
..
: ::'.t) 1",,;< U....;..'...- ".
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
':''''-",
"] .:L::1:!i-. --..-..,~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Amendmen s to Development Review Fees
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
if '/ c (;0 ~'. Yd- S--'
I -
ACfION:
X INFORMATION:
SUBJECf ROPOSALIRE VEST:
To amend ose fees for uses that may be subject to
multiple feqs, small additions to churches and the like, and
family divi~ions that necessitate a special use permit.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACfION: INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
--
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKG~OUND:
The Boardi of Supervisors rejected a pnor zomng ord1Oance amendment which would have allowed the Board to reduce fees 10 a
I
particular ~ase based on certain criteria. The Board directed staff to develop amendments under which fee reduction would be
implemented at staff level and cited the three specific circumstances referenced above (see attached draft amendments).
DISCUS~ION:
1. Family! division under Virginia Code applies to subdivision, not zoning matters, Staff previously recommended that special
criteria be ~eloped in the zoning ordinance when a request for a special use permit for additional lots in the Rural Area resulted
from a proposed family division. The Board did not direct pursuing such amendments. Criteria for review remains the same for
family di~ion as for a lot to be sold. Since review of a family division necessitating a special use permit in the RA zone would
be the sam~ as for any other review for additional lots, staff has no basis for preferential fee other than to provide applicant relief.
The attac~ed amendment proposal would provide a fee corresponding to "minor amendment to a zoning map amendment."
Language!ofthe proposed amendment (35.0.a.1) would not allow preferential fee to be available in cases in which the original
property ~ developed as a combination of family/for sale lots or for a situation where the owner purchased with no development
rights and I later proposed a family division.
2. Small ~tion to non-conforming churches and the like would be treated in the same manner as "minor amendment to a valid
special u~e permit." Determination of minor amendment is currently an administrative one and would also be so for small
additions. I Should specific criteria be desired, Section 8.5.6.3 and Section 32.3,8 (attached) may serve as guidelines.
3. Multipl~ fees would be addressed by addition of a new Section 35.1 FEE REDUCTION. It has become customary for many
rezonings ~ special use permits to be accompanied by site plan/subdivision plats, Currently, due to overlay districts, multiple
special use permits may be necessary to establish an individual use (i.e.-Floodplain and scenic stream for a stream crossing).
RECOM~ENDATION:
In accordarnce with the previous direction of the Board, adopt the following resolution of intent to address certain fee changes:
The Al~arle County Board of Supervisors, to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice
has adopte(l a resolution of intent to amend 35,0 FEES of the Zoning Ordinance to allow fee reduction for uses that may be subject
to multiple! fees, minor expansions to non-conforming uses and the like, and family divisions that necessitate a special use permit.
FEEAMEND.VWC
94.090
\
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, SECTION 35.0,
FEES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 35.0, Fees, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section
35.0 as follows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning
administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied
by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home $35.00.
L Rural area division for the numose of "familv division" where all
orig:inal 1980 development rig:hts have been exhausted under
"familv division" as defined under section 18-56 of the subdivision
ordinance - $175 00.
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a snecial use
nermit to allow minor exnansion of a non-conforming: use - $85.00.
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - SI0.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
2
1
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $390.00. (Added
6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. (Added
6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres-
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres-
$1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals
of zoning administrator's decision) -$95.00, to be refunded if the
decision of the zoning administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential- $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential- $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000 square feet.
f. Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site
development plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site
development plan - $630.00.
3
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size,
location - $75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board -
$160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of supervisors -
$190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of
supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be
refunded. $50.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape
waiver by agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development
plan:
1. Road - $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
1. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
J. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use
permit or zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
4
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the
first bond estimate - $45.00.
I. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00
o. Sign Permits
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the
architectural review board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board -
$60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter
11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the
same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all
applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any application. For any
application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be
refunded.
~5.1 FEE REDUCTION
The orovisions of 3 5.0 notwithstandimz. fees shall be reduced under the followinlZ
circumstances:
it.. In such case in which a oreliminarv site develooment olan and/or
oreliminarv subdivision olat is filed as suooortive of and to be reviewed
simultaneouslv with an aoolication for zoninlZ maD amendment and/or
special use oermit. no fee shall be aoolied for review of such oreliminarv
site develooment olan and/or oreliminarv subdivision olat.
5
b... In such case in which multiple special use permits are reauired bv operation
of this ordinance to establish an individual use. the lanlest sin ale fee shall
be....applied to the reyjew of a11 such special use permit apolicatioos...
c.. In such case in which determinatiunls made subsequent to filina any
aoplication under 35.0 that sucllJlpplication is not required to a110w
estahlishmentofthe_use. suclLaoplicationf<<-Sha11 be refunded in full
6
8.5.6
8,5.6.1
8.5.6.2
8.5,6.3
8.5.6.4
FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLATS
CONTENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDIVISION PLATS
Unless modification is permitted by board of supervisors' action
pursuant to sections 8.5.4 and 8.5.5, all site development plans shall
comply with section 32.0 of this ordinance and all subdivision plats
shall comply with Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle. (Amended
9-9-92)
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDIVISION PLATS
Approval of site development plans and subdivision plats shall be
based on: compliance with site development plan or subdivision
regulations applying at the time the land was designated as a PD
district; or at the option of the applicant, compliance with such
regulations currently in effect. (Amended 9-9-92)
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED APPLICATION PLANS
Variations in site development plans and subdivision plats from
approved application plans may be permitted by the director of plan-
ning and community development upon a finding that such variations
are: generally in keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved
application plans; in accordance with the comprehensive plan; and in
accordance with regulations currently in effect. Changes other than
permitted herein shall be made only by rezoning application. (Amended
9-9-92)
BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PERMITS
After PD designation, no building permit including special footings
and foundation permits shall be issued in such district prior to
approval of site development plans or subdivision plats for the
development of the area in which such permits would apply. In the
case of a subdivision plat, the director of planning and community
development may authorize issuance of a grading permit for road
construction upon approval of road plans by the director of engineer-
ing or the Virginia Department of Transportation as the case may be.
(Amended 9-9-92)
-86-
(Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
r
, .
32.3.5
32.3.6
32.3.7
32.3.8
of the developer to notify the zoning administrator when
each stage of the development shall be ready for inspection
for compliance with the approved site development plan in
accordance with schedules and regulations promulgated by the
zoning administrator and as approved by the board of super-
visors. (32.6.4, 1980)
IMPROVEMENTS--CONSTRUCTION AND BONDING
All improvements required by this section shall be installed
at the cost of the developer, except where cost sharing or
reimbursement agreements between Albemarle County and the
developer are appropriate, the same to be recognized by
formal written agreement prior to site development plan
approval. (32.5.1, 1980)
The approval of a site development plan or the installation
of the improvements as required by this section shall not
obligate the county to accept improvements for maintenance,
repair or operation. Acceptance shall be subject to county
and/or state regulations, where applicable, concerning the
acceptance of each type of improvement. (32.5.23, 1980)
Prior to the final approval of any site development plan,
there shall be executed by the owner or developer an agree-
ment to construct all physical improvements required by or
pursuant to this section which are to be dedicated to public
use. The agent may require prior to final approval, issu-
ance of a building permit, or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, a bond with surety approved by the agent in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated costs of such
improvements. In determining the estimated costs of the
improvements to be bonded, the owner or developer shall
submit an estimate of such costs which shall be reviewed and
approved by the county engineer. The agreement and bond
shall provide for and be conditioned upon completion of all
work within a time specified by the agent. The completion
of all other improvements required by or pursuant to this
section shall be certified and/or bonded as provided in
section 31.2.3 of this ordinance. (32.5.2, 1980; Amended
5-1-87)
REVISIONS
No change, reV1S10n or erasure shall be made on any
preliminary or final site development plan'nor on any
accompanying data sheet where approval has been endorsed
on the plan or sheet unless authorization for such change
is granted in writing by the agent, except where such
change has been required by the site plan review
committee or commission. Any site development
-206-
(Supp. #37, 3-18-87)
I f
?-3-9</
C',I"
'1',. ',. ,~U .
"C(:'<J:!.ycO'.;
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road JUN
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 2965823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
DATE:
June 2, 1994
RE:
ZTA-94-4 Fees
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May
24, 1994, by a vote of 6-1, recommended passing the above-noted
zoning text amendment to the Board with no recommendation. This
amendment is described as:
ADD as the final language of Section 35.0 FEES, the
following:
The Board of Supervisors, in a particular case, may reduce
the foregoing fees in accordance with the following
procedures and findings:
a. The applicant shall file in writing for such fee
reduction at the time of application to the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors. Such filing shall state
justification for the requested fee reduction in accord
with c. below;
b. Such request shall be entertained and acted upon by the
Board prior to public notification as required by
Section 15.1-431 of the Code. The Board may reduce
such fee to an amount not less than that estimated to
provide public notice as required by Section 15.1-431
of the Code;
.
Page 2
June 2, 1994
c. No fee shall be reduced unless the Board determines
that:
Requirement of payment of full fee would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
applicant from pursuit of public hearing or other
review relative to the use of the property; or
The Board is satisfied, upon evidence heard by it,
that the granting of such fee reduction will
alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship, as
distinguished from a special privilege or
convenience sought by the applicant.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review this amendment at
its June 15 meeting. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
RSK/jcw
cc: Larry Davis
'STAFF PERSON:
PL&~NING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RONALD S. KEELER
MAY 24, 1994
JUNE 15, 1994
ZTl>.-94-04 FEES
ORIGIN: Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: To permit the Board of Supervisors
to reduce fees in a particular case in order to provide access to
the review process by all citizens.
STAFF COMMENT:
This amendment originated at the Board level but was not
inclusive of all application fees covered under 35.0 FEES of the
Zoning Ordinance. Subsequently, as a matter of timing, staff
requested the Planning Commission to adopt a more comprehensive
resolution. (As a matter of procedure, it may be appropriate for
the Board to withdraw its original resolution following action on
this amendment,)
Planning, Zoning and the County Attorney have met on this issue
and would recommend language similar to Code provision for
finding of hardship by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Planning
would provide the fee estimate under proposed b. below.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT:
ADD as the final language of Section 35.0 FEES, the
following:
The Board of Supervisors, in a particular case, may reduce
the foregoing fees in accordance with the following
procedures and findings:
a. The applicant shall file in writing for such fee
reduction at the time of application to the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors. Such filing shall state
justification for the requested fee reduction in accord
with c. below;
b. Such request shall be entertained and acted upon by the
Board prior to public notification as required by
Section 15.1-431 of the Code. The Board may reduce
such fee to an amount not less than that estimated to
provide public notice as required by Section 15.1-431
of the Code;
3
c. No fee shall be reduced unless the Board determines
that requirement of pa}~ent of full fee would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
applicant from pursuit of public hearing or other
review relative to the use of the property or where the
board is satisfied, upon evidence heard by it, that the
granting of such fee reduction will alleviate a clearly
demonstrable hardship, as distinguished from a special
privilege or convenience sought by the applicant.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENT:
\;,1hile this measure would provide immediate relief, staff has
identified possible drawbacks:
1. The development staff is not versed in determination of
financial hardship. Departments such as Social Services
which have detailed guidelines for eligibility evaluat~ion
devote considerable staff hours to such effort. The very
idea of the current development fee schedule has been to
offset staff hours devoted to review. Therefore,
determination as to fee relief would rest solely with the
Board.
2. As a matter of uniform administration, applican.ts would be
notified at time of application submittal of the
availability of fee reduction by the Board. Due to the fee
structure for some uses, the Board may be entertaining
unanticipated numbers of requests (Please see item #2 below
for an example).
3. The proposed amendment would be operative on a case-by-case
basis and may expose the Board to issues of equity.
For these reasons, staff would recommend that consideration be
given to other alternatives in the future. Staff has prepared a
listing of possible options. These and other options may be
pursued singularly or in groupings. While some options are
presented here in the context of fees, they may be justified for
other reasons.
Staff recommends consideration be glven to the following:
1. The current fee schedule seeks to account for all costs of
review. The County provides more notification than required
by the Code or local ordinance. Staff reports and legal ads
include information not specified by the Code or local
ordinance. Staff must be prepared to answer questions
extraneous to the required review/specifics of the case.
These are added costs of public review required by the
general public as opposed to Code or local regulation.
4
These costs may be more appropriately borne by the general
public as opposed to an individual applicant and fees
reduced accordingly;
2. Some fees are significant relative to the scale or intensity
of the use. Seeking approval of the governing body can be
an element of feasibility for an undertaking if not a
prohibition. For example, to establish a Home Occupation:
Class B the fee is currently $350 (likely to become $780 as
a result of procedure change. Please see Attachment ], -
Home Occupation: Class B).
3. Certain uses which currently require special use permit
review may be considered to be allowable as by-right uses
based on experience in review. Additional Supplementary
Regulations could be added (Please see Attachment A - Home
Occupation: Class B and Attachment B - Churches).
4. Section 6.0 Nonconformities of the Zoning Ordinance could be
amended to allow expansion of existing non-conforming uses
under certain circumstances (Please see Attachment B:
Churches).
5. Some uses are considered beneficial to the moral, cultural,
and educational fibre of the community and may warrant:
consideration for allowance by-right or reduced fee (i.e. -
churches, day care, private schools; shortly after adoption
of the fee schedule, the Board lowered fees for smaller day
care).
6. Uses may be subject to multiple fees without corresponding
multiple effort by staff and some reviewing bodies. The
total fees, therefore, may be excessive for the revieVl
provided.
7, Expanded administrative review and discretion would reduce
fees for site development plans and subdivisions.
Staff has offered seven options for future consideration as to
methods to reduce fees. As stated earlier, the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors may wish to consider some of
these options for reasons other than fees alone. Staff requests
direction as to these options.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Home Occupation: Class B
B - Churches
5
I
I ATTA-CHf."1EN-T A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept, of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
LV1EMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning \Z~
FROM:
DATE:
May 24, 1994
RE:
HOME OCCUPATION: CLASS B
The purpose of this memorandum is to request the Planning
Commission to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zon~_ng
Otdinance to allow Home Occupation: Class B as a use by-right.
Actual amendments would extinguish the distinction between Home
Occupation: Class A which is allowed by-right as an accessory use
and Home Occupation: Class B which is allowed only by special use
permit. A Class A occupation is conducted in the home with no
employees, other than family members. A Class B occupation
involves usage of an accessory structure and/or employees who are
not family members.
Eighty-five petitions have been submitted Slnce 1977 and 13 of
those were withdrawn/not pursued.
The following comments address the 72 petitions which were
pursued:
1. Forty-seven petitions were approved administratively (65%).
(This administrative approval opportunity no longer exists -
see County Attorney opinion below.)
2. Twenty-five petitions were reviewed by the Planning
COIT~ission and Board of Supervisors. (A determination of
the number of petitions which were appealed by adjoining
property owners would require review of these files. Such
undertaking would be accomplished if the Planning Commission
adopts the proposed resolution of intent. Based solely on
recollection, a significant nUInber of petitions required
waivers which could only be granted by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.)
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 26, 1994
Page 2
3. Of the 2S petitions referred to public hearing, two were
denied. Therefore, 97% of the petitions have been approved.
Based on County Attorney opinion, the administrative approval
process is no longer available. The County Attorney has
opinioned that all special use permits must proceed through the
public hearing process. (This was discussed but not pursued
during deliberation of mobile homes). The record regarding the
Class B occupation is strikingly similar to the mobile home:
1. Most petitions have been approved without public objec':ion,
indicating the use to be generally acceptable.
2. So few petitions have been denied that requirement of a
special use permit appears unjustified. (Supplementary
regulations would remain in place or could be amended).
3. The Zoning Department has reported no problems or complaints
about established home occupations.
4. The current fee for a Home Occupation: Class B petition is
$350, which would likely be recommended to increase th!? $780
as a result of procedural change. The current fee for Home
Occupation: Class A is $10 (i.e. - zoning clearance).
Increasing the fee for a Class B would further discourage
applicants who anticipate meager income from the occupation
and could promote scofflaw activity.
5. While only four or five petitions may be reviewed per year,
staff has attempted to reduce agenda time devoted to c~rrent
development in order to increase agenda time for
consideration of the Comprehensive Plan and other long-range
planning issues.
Staff opinion is that (similar to mobile homes) Home Occupation:
Class B has demonstrated to be generally acceptable within the
community and has not demonstrated deleterious characteristics
which warrant restriction to the special use permit category,
Staff recommends that the Planning commission adopt the following
resolution of intent:
The Albemarle County Planning COffi~ission to serve the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning
practice has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to allow Home Occupation: Class B as a use
by-right in all zoning districts in which it is currently
provided by special use permit.
At a mlnlmum, the language of Section 5.2 needs to be amended as
to procedural requirements.
RSK/mem
I ATTACHMENT B I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept, of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 2965823
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning ~L--
TO:
DATE:
April 20, 1994
RE:
CHURCHES
Currently, in the RA and residential districts, churches are
allowed only by special use permit, The purpose of this
memorandum is to suggest alternatives to this situation and to
request pursuit of one or more alternatives by resolution of
intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to 1980, churches were allowed by-right In the rural ~reas
and residential districts. Concern about the church location
adjacent to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was in large part
responsible for restricting churches in certain districts.
Since that time, 3S petitions for churches (including building
and use expansions) have been filed and 30 of these were pursued
to the Board. Of these 30 petitions, 29 were approved for an
approval rate of 97%. (The one petition disapproved was related
to its location in a possible aliglli~ent of the Meadow Creek
Parkway as opposed to objectionable aspects of the church
itself).
Based on this history, staff would recoITillend that current
restrictions on churches appear to be unwarranted. Staff offers
the following alternatives for consideration:
1. Allow churches by-right subject to Supplementary Regulations
based on conditions imposed on the 29 approved petitions. A
drawback to this alternative is that churches may vary
greatly in size. Staff, while not having reviewed the
files, believes that seating capacities have generally
increased in size over the years. Unlike mobile homes, home
occupations and accessory apartments, which are restricted
by practicality or regulation, an individual church could be
reasonably anticipated to affect infrastructure.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 26, 1994
Page 2
2. Allow small-scale churches by-riqht in order to overcome
objectionable aspects outlined in Alternative 1. above.
3. Allow expansion to existing churches upon certain findings
by the Zoning Administrator. This approach would be similar
to Section 32.3.8 which allows the Department of Planrting
and Community Development to authorize minor site plan
amendments and could be made available to any nonconforming
use. Suggested language would require that the use
otherwise conform to all other zoning regulation (except
special use permit) and that the expansion would "have no
additional adverse impact on adjacent properties or public
facilities."
In summary, churches have demonstrated to be acceptable in the
vast majority of cases and, therefore, total restriction to the
special use permit category may be inappropriate. Still due to
the varying scale and intensity of proposals, Alternative #=_ is
not offered without caution. Alternatives #2 and #3 could be
pursued with predictable results, reduce fees, avoid unwarranted
time delay, and avoid demonstrably unwarranted review.
RSK/mem
Mr. Joseph Adle~::&rr2r"' ~~'~~r!l~ns
p.O. Box 4022 /
Charlottesville, VA 22903
May 26, 1994
Mr. Walter Perkins
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
u",
fll!!~'"
D$ar Mr. Perkins:
I am submitting this letter to the Board of Supervisors at
y~ur suggestion as a follow-up to our telephone conversation on
May 20.
I am preparing a special use permit application for
submission to the County Zoning Department for the next
application deadline on June 27. My special use application
c~ncerns construction of a bridge over the Moorman's River to
a parcel of land I have contracted to purchase that currently
has no other access. I have been informed by the County Zoning
A~ministrator, Amelia McCulley, that bridge construction in
t~is case involves two separate special use categories: a
s~enic stream crossing and flood plain issues. Ms. McCulley
h~s also informed me that because of this, two separate
awplication fees of $780.00 are required.
The review process for this application, as I understand
it, primarily involves a technical review of flood plain issues
by County engineers and some coordination by the Planning
Division. All technical information related to environmental
a~d structural engineering issues will be provided by me to
meet the needs of the review process. My interest in this
p~operty, if the access issue can be resolved, is to build a
s~ngle residence. The fees associated with this review process
s~em unreasonably high in this case and I hope the Board of
S~pervisors will consider a reduction of the fee required for
t~e application. For the sake of comparison, I am also
required to submit a Joint Permit Application to State and
Federal agencies involved with stream crossings in Virginia.
Tney base the application fees on the cost of the proposed
p~oject. The application fee is $25.00 for projects under
$10,000.00 and $100.00 for projects over $10,000.00.
I will attend the June 1 Board of Supervisors meeting to
a~swer any questions related to this written request. Thank
YQU for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~
~dleSiC
.
,
..
...
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, SECTION
.0, FEES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA..
IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of
bemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 35.0, Fees,
hereby amended and reordained by amending section 35.0 as
llows:
FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application
made to the zoning administrator, the commission, or
the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a. fee
as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of
processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home - $35,00.
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00,
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00,
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit -
$85.00.
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9)
children - $390.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more
children - $780.00. (Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance -
$665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres -
, .
~" .
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres -
$1,255,00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under
50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or
more acres - $1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use
permit - $95.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning
appeals (including appeals of zoning
administrator's decision) -$95.00, to be
refunded if the decision of the zoning
administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000
square feet.
f. Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval
of preliminary site development plan -
$900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval
of the preliminary site development plan -
$630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking,
circulation, building size, location -
$75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the
architectural review board - $160.00.
2
. .. .
,,~ A
7, Appeal of site development plan to the board
of supervisors - $190.00,
8. Rehearing of site development plan by
commission or board of supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site
development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site
plan fee shall not be refunded. $50.00
fee shall be required to reinstate
project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from
commission or landscape waiver by agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal
of site development plan:
1. Road - $15.00,
2. Development - $20.00.
1. Extending approval of site development plan -
$35.00.
j. Granting request to defer action on site
development plan, special use permit or zoning map
amendment:
1, To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for
each inspection after the first bond estimate -
$45.00.
1. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00
3
. ;l .
..
o. Sign Permits
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs
requiring review by the architectural review
board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the
architectural review board - $60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any
notice required under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the
Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent
that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth
in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees
shall constitute grounds for the denial of any
application. For any application withdrawn after
public notice has been given, no part of the fee will
be refunded.
The Board of Supervisors. in a particular case. may
reduce the foreqoinq fees in accordance with the
followinq procedures and findinqs:
a. The applicant shall file in writinq for such fee
reduction at the time of application to the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors. Such filinq shall
state lustification for the reQuested fee
reduction in accord with c. below;
b. Such reQuest shall be entertained and acted upon
by the Board prior to public notification as
reQuired by Section 15.1-431 of the Code. The
Board may reduce such fee to an amount not less
than that estimated to provide public notice as
reQuired by Section 15.1-431 of the Code;
c, No fee shall be reduced unless the Board
determines that:
1. ReQuirement of payment of full fee would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict
the applicant from pursuit of public hearinq
or other review relative to the use of the
property; or
2. The Board is satisfied. upon evidence heard
by it. that the qrantinq of such fee
reduction will alleviate a clearly
demonstrable hardship. as distinquished from
a special privileqe or convenience souqht by
the applicant.
4
. ..
..
/]..1" S>
iJ~ ,t'\.-
, (\\-t,-
(\ ,,() -\ '..r
i .\.\Jr ,-,~
'J., ,;,./j.;/
I .. . '.\~
,1./ --<: {\ ( /\
\ \ \'-.../\
I'
j'
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Perkins and staff have both been contacted by a
citizen asking for a fee waiver for placement of a foot bridge across the
Moormans River. Because of the cost of the fee to do that, staff has looked
at the problem, and suggests that the fee be reduced down one-fourth of the
normal cost because it will not take much time and effort on the part of staff
for the review. The plan will go through the process, but staff will only
spend about one-fourth of the normal time on the review, so the actual cost
will be only about $173.00. He requested a motion from the Board approving
this waiver of cost regarding a foot bridge to be built by Mr. ~rohn Alford.
Mr. Tucker said staff is going to reexamine the fee schedules again in the
near future.
Motion to grant the request was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr.
Bain, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Bain mentioned a letter sent to the Board from Ms, Margaret McLeod
Cain giving notice pursuant to Virginia Code Section 8.01-195.6 of a suit
filed against the Commonwealth on behalf of Ms. Phyllis Tinsley, deceased. He
asked if this is simply a notice. Mr. St. John said it is not a demand under
the statute, but under the Virginia Tort Claims act, and should not have been
sent to the County, The County maintains no highways, so is immune from this
kind of liability.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned Item 5.10 from the Consent Agenda" Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority report. It has been mentioned by the press that Albemarle
County residents are recycling only one percent, but the County actually does
much more than that as shown in the report.
Mrs. Humphris asked the difference between a mass burn facility, and a
refuse-derived fuel plant. Mr. Tucker said a refuse-derived fuel plant will
actually take refuse and create pellets which can then be burned. A mass burn
is simply that, they take refuse and incinerate it.
Mrs. Humphris said this is an important report, and very clearly
written.
Mr. St. John said he has been contacted by Mr. George Gilliam who would
like to meet with the Board in executive session on May 12, 199.3, at 6:00 p.m.
for the purpose of discussing the Larry Claytor case with the Board's attor-
ney.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. At 2:45 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to adjourn this meeting until May 12, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. Room 11,
Fourth Floor, County Office Building, for the purpose of conducting an
executive session on legal matters pertaining to the police suit.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Harshall,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
/,/;7).~~/P~~~L-
~ .- Chairman
(
,
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
, ,. "7 ~ 1_~~f-\(:;D 1'~:':"\8::kS
,- ~'''''-,,-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACfION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
9/. (fie. y,Lh
INFORMATION:
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment Number Two to the Agreement Between
Albemarle County, VA and GTEGIS, Inc. for a 911
Building Locator System
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
SUBJEcrIPROPOSALIREOUEST:
Request for Approval of Amendment Number Two of the
Contract
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACfION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONT AcreS):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Weaver, Campagna
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
As a result of GTEGIS, Inc. (our Enhanced 911 consultants) selecting a new subcontractor, Network Design Engineers, Inc.
(NDE), to fulfill their obligations to provide Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville with a Building Locator System
to support Enhanced 911, we had an opportunity to revise hardware and software specifications. After several meetings between
NDE and the City, County, University of Virginia, and emergency service providers, NDE demonstrated their product and
submitted a proposal which has undergone a detailed review. The proposal was submitted as AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND GTE GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
SERVICES INe. FOR A BUILDING LOCATOR SYSTEM (attached). A full copy of the amendment is on file in the Clerk's
Office if needed.
DISCUSSION:
The approval of this amendment will result in a net increase to the County in the price of the original contract ($331,392) of
$72,572.20. The total contract price subject to the approval of this amendment will be $403,964.20. The additional $72,572.20
that represents the County share of this contract amendment will be paid from 911 revenues as part of the project and will result
in a much more useful geographic mapping system than what technology would support back in 1991 when this original contract
was signed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The change in hardware and software specifications will benefit the City and County in that we will have a system which will more
adequately meet our short term needs to support Enhanced 911 and long term goals for future enhancements to the system, In
addition, the proposed system will enable us to address issues raised by City staff concerning system maintenance in a multi-user
environment which was lacking under the previous system configuration.
Therefore, staff recommends that the County Executive be granted authority to sign and date the referenced amendment.
EXECSUM.WP
94.092
,
Cffi3
Government Information
Services
PO Box 29~'4
Tampa, FL 23601-2924
813 273-300J
Mr. Tex Weaver
Department of Planning &
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RECEIVED
JUl 1 2' 1994
Planning Dept.
July 11, 1994
Dear Tex:
Enclosed is one fully executed original Amendment Number Two to the
Agreement Between Albemarle County, Virginia and GTE Government
Information Services, Inc. For a Building Location System. Please forward this
original to the appropriate individual! department for the County's file.
Sincerely,
j/
t., ...-
/" ' -'
'.. .,( >,., ,. ,
,/ . _l d.. ~j ,.__
. /~l
I
,,/ '
),t,. LA__
/;
\. ..-
Sharon Zini
Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: P. Carter
N, Radvanczy
G, pazan
A. Miller, NDE
GTE Information Services Incorporated/A part of GTE Corporation
f ,
~
,~~ \ ;.~l:> 7 i :
GclvJmrileJt Information
Services
po-ltN 2~24
Tampa, FL ::3601.2924
813 273.3000
June 21, 1994
Mr. TexWeaver
Department of Planning &
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22902-4596
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2' 1994
Planning Dept.
Dear Tex:
Enclosed are two original Amendment Number Two To The Agreement Between
Albemarle County, Virginia and GTE Government Information Services, Inc. For
A Building Location System, The new amendment incorporates changes
discussed between the County and GTE GIS, and the County and NDE,
Please have both of these originals signed by the appropriate person in
Albemarle County and returned to me at:
GTE Government Information Services, Inc.
P. O. Box 2924, MS - 5B
Tampa, FL 33601-2924
I will then have Dan Mead sign the originals and return one to you for the
County's files.
If you have any questions on the enclosed Amendment please call me at (813)
273-4797.
Sincerely,
~ ~,;?
.. LH<'>L). ~c
/
i/
Sharon Zini
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: P. Carter
N. Radvanczy
A. Miller, NDE
GTE Information Services Incorporated/A part of GTE Corporation
'1
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AND
GTE GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES INe.
FORA
BUILDING LOCATION SYSTEM
~S AMENDMENT, entered into this 6th day of July, 1994, by and between
4lbemarle County, Virginia, having principle offices at 401 McIntire Road,
qharlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596, hereinafter called "COUNTY," and GTE
qovernment Information Services Incorporated, having principle offices at One Tampa
qity Center, 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 800, Tampa, Florida 33602, hereinafter
411ed "GTE";
I
I
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and GTE entered into an Agreement, dated the 10th day of
~pril, 1991, wherein the COUNTY agreed to purchase and GTE agreed to supply, said
Agreement being hereinafter called the "Agreement"; and,
I
I
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement, GTE is to supply to the COUNTY a
~ilding Location System, hereinafter called the "System," which consists of computer
s~ftware, computer hardware, and various professional services; and
I
I
WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the Agreement to reflect changes which have
~en agreed to by the parties;
wmREFORE, the parties agree to modify the Agreement as follows:
Ahtendment Number Two
G]fE/ Albemarle County
I
1
June 21, 1994
Airticle One
Changes
The SmartMap Maintenance Kit software and annual support for the aforementioned
s<!>ftware is hereby deleted from the Agreement and is replaced by the map maintenance
sl'stem which is described in Attachment One to this Amendment. Credit for these
itFms is described in Article Two.
Alrticle Two
,
,
Price
2n The COUNTY shall be given credit for the SmartMap Maintenance Kit software
in the amount of $25,000.00 and annual support for the aforementioned software
in the amount of $10,687.00. The COUNTY shall also, upon delivery as stated
below, be given credit for the price of the returned items, as described herein,
said price credit being in the amount of $4,172.80, Total credit to the COUNTY
shall be $39,859,80.
The COUNTY shall be charged the price of the replacement items as described in
Attachment One to this Amendment, said price being $112,432.00, resulting in a
net increase in the price to be paid by the COUNTY of $72,572,20, The total
contract price, subject to the limitations stated in the Agreement, shall now be
$403,964.20
,
I
2j2 The items, previously identified in Attachment "A" to Amendment Number One
to the agreement between the County and GTE dated July 7, 1992, to be returned
to GTE are:
212.1 HP 120 MB Tape Unit (on site at Network Design Engineering, Inc.)
2j2.2 120 MB Tape Cartridges (on site at Network Design Engineering, Inc,)
I
212.3 HP DraftPro DXL Plotter
I
212.4 Plotter Cable
i
213 Failure by the COUNTY to return any or all of the aforesaid items in possession
of the County (2,2,3 & 2.2.4) shall result in a change in the amount of the credit to
be given to the COUNTY, Items in possession of Network Design Engineering,
Inc. (NDE), (2.2.1 & 2.2.2) shall be returned to GTE by NDE.
Nnendment Number Two
GjfE/ Albemarle County
I
2
June 21, 1994
T 't
2.4 All items to be returned must be shipped, freight prepaid, in their original
packing boxes to:
GTE Government Information Services, Inc.
201 North Franklin St., 7th Floor
ATIN: Purchasing, MS - 5B, RMA #0104
Tampa, Florida 33602
2.5 All items to be returned must be marked "RMA #0104" on the outside of the box.
2,6 Compliance with the return instructions as stated herein is required. Failure by
the COUNTY to follow any or all of these instructions may result in part or all of
the aforementioned credit being denied,
Article Three
Delivery Schedule
3.1 Exhibit B to the Agreement, Delivery Schedule, is being replaced with
Attachment Two to this Amendment, Revised Delivery Schedule.
3,2 Installation is dependent on the County's final approval and execution of this
Amendment at its July 6, 1994 Board meeting. Such approval shall be evidenced
by a written acknowledgment of the approval in the official minutes of said
Board meeting as well as the timely execution of the Amendment. In the event
GTE fails to deliver in accordance with the Revised Delivery Schedule or such
other schedule as to which the parties may agree, GTE shall pay the County as
fixed, agreed and liquidated damages for each day of delay, the sum of one
hundred dollars ($100). Liquidated damages shall apply only to the extent that
the cause of delay is solely the fault of GTE or its subcontractors. In no event
shall the total sum of liquidated damages exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000),
Article Four
Maintenance on Additional Items
4.1 In addition to the maintenance being provided by the subcontractor in Section 6,0
of Attachment One, GTE will provide a one-year maintenance contract, obtained
from Hewlett-Packard, on the following Hewlett-Packard equipment, said
contract beginning at the completion of Phase Five of the Agreement or upon use
of the stated equipment, or any portion thereof, by the COUNTY, whichever
event shall occur first in time.
4,2 The equipment so covered by this maintenance contract is
Amendment Number Two
GTE/ Albemarle County
3
June 21, 1994
'i
4.2.1 Quantity of One, Part Number D2265A, Vectra 486S/20 Turbo personal
computer,
4,2,2 Quantity of Two, Part Number D2152A, 8 MB Memory Expansion,
4,2.3 Quantity of One, Part Number D2326A, 512K VRAM Expansion,
4.2,4 Quantity of One, Part Number Dl139A/ ABA, HP Ultra 17" color monitor,
4.2,5 Quantity of One, Part Number 33449A, HP LaserJet Series III Printer.
4,3 GTE also shall, under the same period of usage as stated above, pay all time and
material charges on the Calcomp Digitizer purchased by the COUNTY from
GTE.
Article Pi ve
The parties agree that the whole of this work shall be subcontracted by GTE to Network
Design Engineering, Inc. (NDE) and that the COUNTY consents to such subcontracting.
Any third party provider other than NDE shall be subject to prior written approval by
the County.
Article Six
The parties agree that all terms of the Agreement, except as modified herein or in the
Amendment Number One, shall remain in full force and effect as from the original date
of the Agreement.
Robert W. Tucker,
Name: Daniel S, Mead
Title:
County Executive
Title: General
Date:
July 7, 1994
Date:
-~ ~rUCjf
l _r'T,
_" ...JS
Amendment Number Two
GTE/ Albemarle County
4
June 21, 1994
),
ATIACHMENTONE
Amendment Number Two
qTE/ Albemarle County
I
I
5
June 21, 1994
...
SPECIFICATIONS
for
NDE MAP MAINTENANCE SYSTEM TM
a
A DIGITAL MAPPING MAINTENANCE
SOFTWARE SOLUTION
to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA
by
NETWORK DESIGN ENGINEERING, INC
.
MARCH 31, 1993
(Revised April 20, 1993)
(Revised October 19, 1993)
(Revised June 2,1994)
1 , )
NDE Map Maintenance System
NMMS
March 31, 1993
(Revised April 20, 1993)
(Revised October 19, 1993)
(Revised June 2,1994)
1.0 OVERVIEW
2.0 FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
3.0 HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS
4.0 SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
5.0 INSTALLATION & TRAINING
6.0 SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE
7.0 PRICING
i 1. 1
1.0
Overview
The development of digital mapping is a time consuming and costly project but one well worth the
investment. To protect that investment one must maintain the accuracy of the maps and
associated data. As our society is ever changing and moving, so is the data that is contained in a
digital mapping environment. In short, mapping must have ongoing accurate, complete, secure,
and correct maintenance, that must be done in a timely manner.
To provide for the maintenance of digital mapping and the associated data, NDE offers NMM:S or
NDE Map Maintenance System. This software and hardware solution will allow the "end user" to
maintain the accuracy, completeness, integrity, and correctness in a timely and efficient manner.
NMMS is designed to be user friendly and requires only a basic knowledge of digital mapping
software.
2.0
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
Functional Specifications
Master Digital Land Base Level (Alb. Lnd.)
Review, Add, Change and/or Delete (R,A,C,D) Street/Roads
Symbology or line strings
R,A,C,D Street/Road Text
R,A,C,D Hydrology Symbols and Text
All required data links will be made transparent to the operator
Prompt operator for MSAG changes as required
Structure Level
R,A,C,D Structure Symbols (Alb. Fea.)
R,A, C,D Address Text
R,A,C,D Resident Name Text
R,A, C,D Other data if applicable
All required data links will be made transparent to the operator
Boundary Level
R,A,C,D ESZ boundaries (Alb. Bnd.)
R,A,C,D Political and other boundaries
R,A, C,D associated text
User will be prompted for MSAG changes as required
2.4 Customer Data Base
2.4.1 R,A,C,D any data item in the Customer Data Base
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 3]
I i
2.4.2 Modifications will be reflected in the graphic file as required
2.5 MSAG Utilities
2.5.1 Prompt operator when changes have been made in the graphic or data files
that will require MSAG changes. These changes will be reflected in the
MSAG and will also be accompanied with the required hard copy
transmittals.
2.5.2 Export MSAG data in ASCII format
2.6 Utility Operations
2.6.1 Error check for:
* Graphic Elements with no data linkage
* Data records with no graphic linkage
* Unnamed roads
2.6.2 Data and graphic item counts
2.6.3 Tape backups via subroutines
2.6.4 Hard disk backups on time out basis
2.6.5 Plotting routines for D-size plots
2.6.6 Plotting routines for Laser printer
2.6.7 Report printing routines
2.7 Addressing Utility
2.7.1 Calculate the appropriate address for new structures being placed in the
structure layer. This address is based on an algorithm that will be defined
for each installation based on the addressing requirements.
2.7.2 Locate an address on a given road.
2.8 Query Operations
2.8.1 Query by data item
Name
Phone (if available)
2.9 Network Compatible
Novell 3.11
~ SEE DETAILS AND DRAWINGS ENCLOSED
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 4]
I
{ l ..
3.0 HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS
w SEE DETAILS ENCLOSED
4.0 SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
w SEE DETAILS ENCLOSED
5.0 INSTALLATION AND TRAINING
5.1 NDE will install and test all hardware and software m NDEls offices pnor to
shipping.
5.2 NDE will perform on site installation and test all hardware and software.
5.3 NDE will provide 40 hours of on site training on five consecutive days for up to 4
individuals.
5.4 Training for fileserver and comm server. (2 days on site.)
5.5 Operations manuals will be provided. (For EM, WS and all software & hardware)
5.6 Thirty (30) day telephone support.
6.0 SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE
6.1 NDE will provide maintenance support servIces VIa phone and/or modem.
6.2 Support will be from 9am to 5pm Central Standard Time, Monday thru Friday
except federal holidays.
6.3 Levels of problems and solutions
1 System Inoperable 48 hours
2 System failure but 5 days
operational
3 System major error 20 days
4 System minor error Next release
5 Docwnentation error Next release
Attachment One GTFl Albemarle Co. [page 5]
~ \
64
,
Hardware Maintenance
6.4.1 & 6.4.2 Intergraph
Following the initial warranty period, 90 days or I year .(see ~ode despnption for
specifications), equipment normallY is placed under a full ~{Vlce ~enan~ agreement.
Maintenance services are provided by lntergraph. Full sefVlce maunenance IS charged at a
rate of 15% per annum ofthe purchase pnce for hardware and software. Hardware spare
parts: Maintenance includes all spare parts required to fix and repair any component of the
system that is identified as not working. Albemarle County is responsible for providing
building services such as stable power and air conditioning for the equipment. Software
upgrades are undergoing constant changes to add functionality as a result of feedback from
customers worldwide and to fix identified problems. Software changes are delivered by
lntergraph Corporation on a monthly basis on CD-ROM media. These upgrades are provided
at no cost to AI\JelllBfle County as part of the Full Service Maintenance Agreement. Further,
major release upgrades that add significant functionality to products are also provided at nO
additional cost. Most software vendors charge significantly for such upgrades.
Software support is also provided, so, if a software problem is identified, dedicated software
personnel are assigned to isolate the software module affected, log the problem with the
lntergraph Corporation software development group in Huntsville, serve as a liaison between
the customer and the assigned analyst, and track the progress ofthe problem until it is fully
resolved. All these services are provided as part of the Full Service Maintenance Agreement.
7.0 PRICING
IrE SEE ENCLOSED SCHEDULE
- - -
8. 1 Final Systems July 8, 1 994
Configuration
8.2 system Testing at NOE' July 1 0, 1 994 Sept 30, 1 994
-
8.3 User Design Specifications July 1 8 20, 1 994
-
8. 4 lnstallation & Training Oct 3, 1 994 Oct 1 0, 1 994
-
8. 5 Test & Acceptance by Albemarle Oct 1 1 1 994 Nov 4, 1 994
, -
8, 6 Final Version with Updates Nov 8, 1 994
8.0 DELIVERY SCHEDULE
J) All equip",,"1 provided by County wi/I be arder<d by July 13. J 994 and" largeted 10
NDE by August 10, 1994
AttaChment One oTFl A1benW1e Co. [page 6]
,
.... \
9. Installation is predicated on the County'S final approval of this amendment in their July 6,
1994 Board meeting. Jf approval has been submitted in writing, NDl'. will be subjected to
liquidated damages of $100.00 per day for each day past the scheduled delivery dates.
AttaChment One oW Albcmaf1e Co. {page 7}
t. ! .
Hardware Specifications
for
Albemarle County, V A
NODE 1 The county will provide the fileserver to NDE for said purpose.
FILESERVER The server will also include the necessary two token ring network
cards in keeping with the updated topology. This new server will
be shipped to NDE for testing and installation. The new server
will be connected into the hub of the existing system. The county
will also provide the new hub and all wiring for the new ring.
All hardware necessary for the core operation of the new LAN
will be located at NDE for at least a week for intensive testing,
tweaking, and burn-in. At any time during this period, I would
encourage you to visit the Little Rock office to review the new
hardware in action. Also during this time, I will be in contact
with your office to get further details I require to make the new
equipment fit in as easily as possible.
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbernarle Co. [page 8]
... j to
NODE 2 Workstation:
WORKSTATION INTERGRAPH PC (model TD-1, 1220)1
(remote) 486-66 Intel Based Microprocessor
16 meg ram
Edit Station 256 K External Cache Ram
City Community 248 MB Hard Drive
Development Super VGA 1024x768 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Other Hardware:
USR SPORTSTER MODEM2 (14.4 KB
provided by county)
HP Laserjet IV SI (8 Meg Upgrade)3
HP Designjet 650C Plotter4
Surge Protector
Misc. Hardware
Other Software:
DOS 6.2
Microstation 5. OS
AE Spatial Data/9116
Foxpro 2.5
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Offsite: 2 hours (includes all software, testing, & burn-in)
Onsite: 2 hours (includes final placement, hookups, &
testing)
NOTE: Modems to be provided by the County.
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbernarle Co. [page 9]
'- , .:..
NODE 3
WORKSTATION
(remote)
Workstation:
INTERGRAPH Intel Based PC(model TD- 1, 1220)1
486-66 Microprocessor
16 meg ram
256 K External Cache Ram
248 MB Hard Drive
Super VGA 1024x768 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Edit Station
Fire
Other Hardware:
USR SPORTSTER MODEM (14.4 KB
provided by county)
HP Laserjet ill (existing PN 33449A)2
Surge Protector
Other Software:
DOS 6.2
Microstation3
SD 911
Foxpro 2.5x
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Offsite: 2 hours (includes all software, testing, & burn-in)
Onsite: 2 hours (includes final placement, hookups, &
testing)
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbernarle Co. [page 10]
'" I ..
NODE 4
WORKSTATION
(local)
Workstation:
INTERGRAPH Intel Base PC (model TD- 1, 1220)1
486-66 Microprocessor
16 meg ram
256 K External Cache Ram
248 MB Hard Drive
Super VGA 1280x1024 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Edit Station
Planning
Other Hardware:
SMC Token Card Elite(provided by county)
16-bit, dual RISC processors, 64K memory buffers.
For use with STP and UTP cabling
Surge Protector
Other Software:
DOS 6.2
Microstation2
AE Spatial Data/9113
Foxpro 2.54
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local file server and network
as well as to the wide area network.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Offsite: 2 hours (includes all software. testing, & burn-in)
Onsite: 1 hour (includes final placement, hookups, &
testing)
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 11]
'Ie I ~
NODE 5
WORKSTATION
(local)
Workstation:
INTERGRAPH PC (model # TD 1, 1220)1
486-66 Microprocessors
16 meg ram
256 K External Cache Ram
248 MB Hard Drive
Super VGA 1280x1024 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Edit Station
Planning
Other Hardware:
SMC Token Card Elite(provided by county)
16-bit, dual RISC processors, 64K memory buffers.
For use with STP and UTP cabling
HP IV SI Laserjet (8 Meg Upgrade)2
HP Designjet 650C3
Cal-Comp Digitizer(existing CAL33480)4
Surge Protector
Other Software:
DOS 6.2s
Microstation 5.06
AE Spatial Data/9117
Foxpro 2.58
Novell Rprinter.exe for background print/plot serving9
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network. Additionally, NDE
will connect, test, and loan any resident software to allow
remote printing/plotting to the Laserjet and Designjet
connected to this workstation.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Off site: 3 hours (includes all software, testing & burn-in)
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 12]
"- I i
NODE 6 UP VECTRA PC
COMMSERVER 486-20 Microprocessor (pN D2265A)*1
12 meg ram (pND2152A)*
120 MB Hard Drive*
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port*
3 1/2 floppy drives*
HP-VGA (512K VRAM) (pND2326A)*
Other Hardware:
MONITOR, 17", 1024x768 NI (pND1139NABA)2
3 USR SPORTSTER MODEMS (14.4 KB
provided by county)
SMC TokenCard Elite(provided by county)
Surge Protector
Other Software:
NOVELL NETW ARE CONNECT3
DOS 6.2
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the comm server
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network. Additionally, NDE
will connect, test, and loan any resident software to allow
remote printing/plotting to the Laserjet and Designjet
connected to this workstation.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Offsite: 3 hours (includes all software, testing & burn-in)
Onsite: 4 hours (includes final placement, hookups &
testing)
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 13]
'- l ~
Price Schedule
for
Albemarle County, VA
and
The City of Charlottesville, VA
Digital Map Maintenance System
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 1 HARDWARE
1.0 FILESER VER: provided by county
1.2 NETWORK CARDS (2) provided by county
1.3 UPS 695.00
1.4 MAYNARD 4000 DAT 2,899.00
(Micro channel version)
1.5 MISC. HARDWARE 100.00
SOFTWARE
1.6 DOS provided by county
1.7 NOVELL NETWARE 3.12 (10) 1,899.0
1.8 INSTALLATION 2,200.00
MAINTENANCE
1.9 HARDWARE provided by county
1.10 SOFTWARE n/c
SUBTOTAL, NODE #1 $ 7,793.00
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 14]
.... ," ...jI
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 2 HARDWARE
2.1 TD-l FDSP726 8,200.00
2.2 LASERJET IV SI (8 Meg Upgrade) 4,058.00
2.3 HP DESIGNJET 650C PLOTTER 7,899.00
2.4 USR SPORTSTER MODEM by county
2.5 SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
2.6 MISC. HARDWARE 45.00
SOFTWARE
2.7 DOS 6.2 N/C
2.8 MICROSTATION 5.0xx N/C
2.9 AE SPATIAL DATN911 [seat #3] 4,500.00
2.10 FOXPRO 2.5 325.00
2.11 INSTALLATION 300.00
MAINTENANCE
2.12 HARDWARE 1,230.00
2.13 SOFTWARE 600.00
SUBTOTAL, NODE #2 $ 27,237.00
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page IS]
.... "
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 3 HARDWARE
3.1 TDI-FDSP726 8,200.00
3.2 LASERJET ill (existing PN 33449A)(a) N/C
3.3 MISC. HARDWARE 45.00
3.4 SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
3.5 USR SPORTSTER MODEM by county
SOFTWARE
3.6 DOS 6.2 N/C
3.7 MICROSTATION 5.0xx N/C
3.8 SD911 (Seat #4) 4,500.00
3.9 FOXPRO 2.5x 325.00
3.10 INSTALLATION 300.00
MAINTENANCE
3.11 HARDWARE 660.00
3.12 SOFTWARE N/C
SUBTOTAL, NODE 3 $14,110.00
(a) Onsite at NDE-Part of Amendment 1
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 16]
'- t' ~
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 4 HARDWARE
TDI-FDSP726 8,200.00
NETWORK CARD by county
MISC. HARDWARE 45.00
SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
SOFTWARE
DOS 6.2 n/c
MICROSTATION 5.0 n/c
AE SPATIAL DATN911 [seat #2] 6,000.00
FOXPRO 2.5xx 325.00
INSTALLATION 300.00
MAINTENANCE
HARDWARE 1,230.00
SOFTWARE 960.00
SUBTOTAL, NODE 4 $17,140.00
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 17]
I -
'- ~ .....
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 5 HARDWARE
5.1 TDI-FDSP726 8,200.00
5.2 DIGITIZER (pN:CAL33480) existing (b) N/C
5.3 LASERJET IV SI (8 Meg Upgrade) 4,058.00
5.4 HP DESIGNJET 650C PLOTTER 7,899.00
5.5 NETWORK CARD by county
5.6 MISC. HARDWARE 45.00
5.7 SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
SOFTWARE
5.8 DOS n/c
MICROSTATION 5.0 n/c
AE SPATIAL DATN911 [seat #1] 12,500.00
SPATIAL DATA AIM 4,000.00
FOXPRO 2.5xx 325.00
INSTALLATION 550.00
MAINTENANCE
HARDWARE 2,130.00
SOFTWARE 2,800.00
SUBTOTAL, NODE #5 $ 42,587.00
*(b) on site at Albemarle County-Part of Amendment 1
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 18]
"'- .1>, "':L
ITEM
NODE 6
DESCRIPTION
HARDWARE
PRICE
6.1 HP VECTRA (pND2265A, D2152A, D2326A) n/c
(a)
6.2 MODEMS (3) SPORTSTERS by county
6.3 NETWORK CARD by county
6.4 MISC. HARDWARE 70.00
6.5 MONITOR 1024x768 NI, 17" n/c
(pN Dl139NABA) (a)
SOFTWARE
6.6
6.7
6.8
DOS 6.0
NOVELL CONNECT
INSTALLATION
MAINTENANCE
HARDWARE
SOFTWARE
n/c
2,895.00
300.00
6.9
6.10
300.00
n/c
SUBTOTAL, NODE #6
$ 3,565.00
:--
(a) on site at NDE-Part of Amendment 1
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 19]
.. .,. .........
(Node #2)
Warranty/Other information
1) Pw-chased equipment and IOftwarc arc warranted Wlder nonn.aI UIe, for a period of oine1y (90) daya from date of lhipmcnt, to operate in
accordance widt Intergraph's published specificatiOlll at thc timc of delivery and against defect in workmanship and materW. This warrant is viod if failure of 1he
produc1(s) is due to WIaulhorized modification, misuse, lack ofnorma1 mainletwlce, abnorma1 conditiOlll of operation, or W1authorized atlcmpts to repair.
Intergraph should be promplly noti1ied of any SlIIpCCted defects in equipment, equipment operation, or IOftwarc.
If mainletwlce of equipment and/or IOftwarc is desired beyond 1he ninety (90) cby warranty period, this service can be provided by a
separate contracl Nctwork Design wiD arrangc dtc contract in dtc IWDC of Albcnwic CoWlty for dtc specified timc period.
2) US Robotics Provides ill own mainletwlce and warranty upon purchace and proper registration. USR readily published its warranty
specification, provides technical support, and provides repair services.
3) lIP warrants its products for one (1) year upon registration, prinlcn comc widt on-site mainlctWlce Wlder dtc norma1 term lI1ld conditiOlll
defined by "norma1 use. "
4) CF warranty info for Node 2, article 3.
5) CF warranty info for Node 2, articlc 1
6) Alexander Engineering warrants its IOftwarc to be free of defects and to operate within dte spccificatiOlll of dtc software at dtc time of
delivery. Mainletwlce contracts for software upgrades wiD be made on a per annwn basis.
(Node #3)
1)
2)
3)
(Node #4)
1)
2)
3)
4)
(Node #5)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
concerning mainlcnce
(Node #6)
CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, articlc 3
CF warranty information for Node 2, article 1
CF warranty information for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranty information for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, articlc 6
F oxpro warranll ill products indepcndcnlly and provides ill own technical support, dtcir tenns arc readily avaibblc from Microsoft Corp.
CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, article 1
CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, article 3
CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, articlc 3
Cat Camp provides ifs own warranty and site licensing, contact Cat-Comp for further infonnation concerning mainletwlce contracts.
All DOS products arc warranted by Microsoft Corporation.
CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranty information for Node 2, articlc 6
CF warranty information for Node 4, articlc 4
Novcll provides ill own support and warranty programs in addition to support offered by NOE, contact Novcll for further infOrmation
1) CF warranty information for Node 2, articlc 3
2) CF warranty infonnation for Node 2, articlc 3
3) CF warranty infonnation for Node S, articlc 9
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 20]
[")
O=i
rr1-<
I < Z
~rr1[")0
8500
1=i-oS::rr1
I~S::S::N
I rrI C
z~
-l-l
-<
I
I
I
"
~ I
~
<:
".
~
..,
/
C
"
~
2
i'i
"
"
r
^
i'
'"
'-;:'
"
'~
::
.... -'" .-...
I o~ffi f
~(J1S::
:111
"
r
rr1Z
o
UlO
SjI"'1
<~
rrI
;0
--l
CD
Qz
-"0
-<0
"rr1
;00/
n
~:::::~~
// I ~ '" "'"
;; ~~ "\\
~~ m ~ '\
-ON X (J1
~~ ~~ 0
'n~ Z~ /;
)\ d j!
~1~ ~~:/
z a: ~ ~--=ff----/
Ul "' ~__ ____
rrI (/1
[") ITI
n
EXISTING
PROPOSED
fTl
X
Ul
-.,
Z
;:00
00
90
:... s::
-0
C
-.,
fTl
::u
l
I
I
I
I
~:=====~
r "\~
1 ~ \
~:j
.;::
;0 lii
Z--l
0~j
Zoo
~2
:::f::O
~~ ~ /
~~======~;/
()
o
S::z
S::o
(/)0
1"'1 rrI
~O'l
,"'1
;0
rrI
S2
-.,z -0
-00 r
rO 0
~ ("Tl -.,
ZU1
Z
o
:::fd
Ul~
-fJ
o
C'i
...,.
~~
'1l
::0
o
'1l
o
UJ
t':l
t:l
t':l
...,
~
o
;>J
~
o-'l
;:r::
t".I
>
t".I 2~
~ o-'lt".l
C, ..... >-<: is::
~5 is:: 0>
~~ ~ '=:I~
~~.... t""'Ot".l
'''''is::;J;-;:r::
1:']-<>Z>8
'L~ l-4 ::0 c:
() Z t""Z
;~ ..., 0...,
t':l ...,......
1:'] Z o-'l"'
1:'] > t".I-
~j Z cn<:
;~ 0 <:>
(l t':l r-
t""
t".I
....,
~~
cn
-<
cn
...,
t':l
is::
('J
[")
o
C
Z
-l
-<
s::
)> )>
o -0
~Zs::;g
~1"'1l>0
Ul-l-lJ
-.,.::EZO
;00-"
)>;orrlg:!
::!^~C
o Z
Z 0
rrI
CIl
~
r
o
Z
o
~
M I
o~
--l ..,.
-00
r-O
i~ rrI
;~ -Po
:::fd
Ul~
-".
()
-- ... .......
ATIACHMENTTWO
REVISED DELIVERY SCHEDULE
The following delineates the revised project implementation schedule effective
with Amendment Number Two to the agreement between Albemarle County,
Virginia and GTE Government Information services, In. for a Building Location
System.
1.0 Phase 1 Completed 6/91
2.0 Phase 2 Completed 9/91
3.0 Phase 3 Completed 6/92
4.0 Phase 4 & 5 To be completed November 8, 1994"
5.0 Phase 6 To be completed October 10, 1994 ..
6.0 Phase 7 To be completed November 4,1994"
.. Note: These dates are as defined in Section 8.0 Delivery Schedule, Attachment
One of Amendment Number Two to the Agreement Between Albemarle County
and GTE Government Information Services, Inc. for a Building Location System.
Amendment Number Two
GTE/ Albemarle County
1
June 21, 1994
CE:iD
J~~15r.w7rsj"
,GOvernment Jrlform~1ion
Services '
IIlI ') n iCl')I]
PO~J ~2-4 ;, . /",'
Tampa FL 33601.2924
813 273.300t} .
June 21, 1994
Mr. Tex Weaver
Department of Planning &
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22902-4596
RECEIVED
JUN 2 Z 1994
Planning Dept.
Dear Tex:
Enclosed are two original Amendment Number Two To The Agreement Between
Albemarle County, Virginia and GTE Government Information Services, Inc. For
A Building Location System. The new amendment incorporates changes
discussed between the County and GTE GIS, and the County and NDE.
Please have both of these originals signed by the appropriate person in
Albemarle County and returned to me at:
GTE Government Information Services, Inc.
P. O. Box 2924, MS - 5B
Tampa, FL 33601-2924
I will then have Dan Mead sign the originals and return one to you for the
County's files.
If you have any questions on the enclosed Amendment please call me at (813)
273-4797.
Sincerely,
jJ /?
yJ~4bL?~L
./
Sharon Zini
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: P. Carter
N. Radvanczy
A. Miller, NDE
GTE Illformatlon Services Incorporated/.A part of GTE Corporation
NDE Map Maintenance System
NMMS
March 31, 1993
(Revised April 20, 1993)
(Revised October 19, 1993)
(Revised June 2,1994)
1.0 OVERVIEW
2.0 FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
3.0 HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS
4.0 SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
5.0 INSTALLATION & TRAINING
6.0 SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE
7.0 PRICING
1.0
Overview
The development of digital mapping is a time consuming and costly project but one well worth the
investment. To protect that investment one must maintain the accuracy of the maps and
associated data. As our society is ever changing and moving, so is the data that is contained in a
digital mapping environment. In short, mapping must have ongoing accurate, complete, secure,
and correct maintenance, that must be done in a timely manner.
To provide for the maintenance of digital mapping and the associated data, NDE offers NMMS or
NDE Map Maintenance System. This software and hardware solution will allow the "end user" to
maintain the accuracy, completeness, integrity, and correctness in a timely and efficient manner.
NMMS is designed to be user friendly and requires only a basic knowledge of digital mapping
software.
2.0
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
Functional Specifications
Master Digital Land Base Level (Alb. Lnd.)
Review, Add, Change and/or Delete (R,A,C,D) Street/Roads
Symbology or line strings
R,A, C,D Street/Road Text
R,A,C,D Hydrology Symbols and Text
All required data links will be made transparent to the operator
Prompt operator for MSAG changes as required
Structure Level
R,A,C,D Structure Symbols (Alb. Fea.)
R,A, C,D Address Text
R,A,C,D Resident Name Text
R,A, C,D Other data if applicable
All required data links will be made transparent to the operator
Boundary Level
R,A,C,D ESZ boundaries (Alb. Bnd.)
R,A,C,D Political and other boundaries
R,A,C,D associated text
User will be prompted for MSAG changes as required
2.4 Customer Data Base
2.4.1 R,A,C,D any data item in the Customer Data Base
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 3]
2.4.2 Modifications will be reflected in the graphic file as required
2.5 MSAG Utilities
2.5.1 Prompt operator when changes have been made in the graphic or data files
that will require MSAG changes. These changes will be reflected in the
MSAG and will also be accompanied with the required hard copy
transmittals.
2.5.2 Export MSAG data in ASCII format
2.6 Utility Operations
2.6.1 Error check for:
* Graphic Elements with no data linkage
* Data records with no graphic linkage
* Unnamed roads
2.6.2 Data and graphic item counts
2.6.3 Tape backups via subroutines
2.6.4 Hard disk backups on time out basis
2.6.5 Plotting routines for D-size plots
2.6.6 Plotting routines for Laser printer
2.6.7 Report printing routines
2.7 Addressing Utility
2.7.1 Calculate the appropriate address for new structures being placed in the
structure layer. This address is based on an algorithm that will be defined
for each installation based on the addressing requirements.
2.7.2 Locate an address on a given road.
2.8 Query Operations
2.8.1 Query by data item
Name
Phone (if available)
2.9 Network Compatible
Novell 3.11
e' SEE DETAILS AND DRAWINGS ENCLOSED
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 4]
1
3.0 HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS
~ SEE DETAILS ENCLOSED
4.0 SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
~ SEE DETAILS ENCLOSED
5.0 INSTALLATION AND TRAINING
5.1 NDE will install and test all hardware and software m NDE's offices pnor to
shipping.
5.2 NDE will perform on site installation and test all hardware and software.
5.3 NDE will provide 40 hours of on site training on five consecutive days for up to 4
individuals.
5.4 Training for fileserver and comm server. (2 days on site.)
5.5 Operations manuals will be provided. (For EM, WS and all software & hardware)
5.6 Thirty (30) day telephone support.
6.0 SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE
6.1 NDE will provide maintenance support servIces VIa phone and/or modem.
6.2 Support will be from 9am to 5pm Central Standard Time, Monday thru Friday
except federal holidays.
6.3 Levels of problems and solutions
1 System Inoperable 48 hours
2 System failure but 5 days
operational
3 System major error 20 days
4 System nunor error Next release
5 Docwnentation error Next release
AItacluncnt One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page S]
6.4 Hardware Maintenance
6.4.1 & 6.4.2 Intergraph
Following the initial warranty period, 90 days or 1 year (see node despription for
specifications), equipment normally is placed under a full service maintenance agreement.
Maintenance services are provided by Intergraph. Full service maintenance is charged at a
rate of 15% per annum of the purchase price for hardware and software. Hardware spare
parts: Maintenance includes all spare parts required to fix and repair any component of the
system that is identified as not working. Albemarle County is responsible for providing
building services such as stable power and air conditioning for the equipment. Software
upgrades are undergoing constant changes to add functionality as a result of feedback from
customers worldwide and to fix identified problems. Software changes are delivered by
Intergraph Corporation on a monthly basis on CD-ROM media. These upgrades are provided
at no cost to Albemarle County as part of the Full Service Maintenance Agreement. Further,
major release upgrades that add significant functionality to products are also provided at no
additional cost. Most software vendors charge significantly for such upgrades.
Software support is also provided, so, if a software problem is identified, dedicated software
personnel are assigned to isolate the software module affected, log the problem with the
Intergraph Corporation software development group in Huntsville, serve as a liaison between
the customer and the assigned analyst, and track the progress of the problem until it is fully
resolved. All these services are provided as part of the Full Service Maintenance Agreement.
7.0 PRICING
IGi' SEE ENCLOSED SCHEDULE
8.0 DELIVERY SCHEDULE
::i;!!I:::ij:l:l::ij!ii:::i:i::;:::1::::!::::::::::!i::::::::lil::!:::il!:!::I:::!:!:!!I,::j!li:11i:!::I:!:::::I!::I:i1j::::lll:1ilill::1:' :::[liI:1i::1:i:1i:!:!!!:!i::::i:iili!::!:i:ii!!!::l::t::@i!:i:i1;::::::::::::!:!:::::::::;::i1:::ii::::!i1:::1;!:i::!::!:::: ::,:II:::j:l:::i:::::l11111il::I!::::jl::1:::::::::ll::1::I;:ij:l!I::::I::1:1::1::11;~ill:j:::l::j:l:jljl::!1!1:1::1111::!:::::ii!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::::;:::;:::
8. I Final Systems July 8, 1 994
Configuration
8.2 System Testing at NDE' July ] 0, ] 994 - Sept 30, 1 994
8. 3 User Design Specifications July ] 8 - 20, 1 994
8.4 Instal]ation & Training Oct 3, 1 994 - Oct 1 0, ] 994
8. 5 Test & Acceptance by Albemar]e Oct 1 ] , 1 994 - Noy 4, ] 994
8.6 Final Version with Updates Noy 8, 1 994
1) All equipment provided by County will be ordered by July 13, 1994 and is targeted to be on site at
NDE by August 10,1994
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 6]
9.0 Installation is predicated on the County's final approval of this amendment in their July 6,
1994 Board meeting. If approval has been submitted in writing, NDE will be subjected to
liquidated damages of$100.00 per day for each day past the scheduled delivery dates.
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. (page 7]
1
Hardware Specifications
for
Albemarle County, VA
NODE 1
FILE SERVER
The county will provide the fileserver to NDE for said purpose.
The server will also include the necessary two token ring network
cards in keeping with the updated topology. This new server will
be shipped to NDE for testing and installation. The new server
will be connected into the hub of the existing system. The county
will also provide the new hub and all wiring for the new ring.
All hardware necessary for the core operation of the new LAN
will be located at NDE for at least a week for intensive testing,
tweaking, and burn-in. At any time during this period, I would
encourage you to visit the Little Rock office to review the new
hardware in action. Also during this time, I will be in contact
with your office to get further details I require to make the new
equipment fit in as easily as possible.
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 8]
NODE 2 Workstation:
WORKSTATION INTERGRAPH PC (model TD-l, 1220)1
(remote) 486-66 Intel Based Microprocessor
16 meg ram
Edit Station 256 K External Cache Ram
City Community 248 MB Hard Drive
Development Super VGA 1024x768 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Other Hardware:
USR SPORTSTER MODEM2 (14.4 KB
provided by county)
HP Laserjet IV SI (8 Meg Upgrade)3
HP Designjet 650C Plotter4
Surge Protector
Misc. Hardware
Other Software:
DOS 6.2
Microstation 5.0s
AE Spatial Data/9116
Foxpro 2.5
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Offsite: 2 hours (includes all software, testing, & burn-in)
Onsite: 2 hours (includes final placement, hookups, &
testing)
NOTE: Modems to be provided by the County.
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 9]
NODE 3
WORKSTATION
(remote)
Workstation:
INTERGRAPH Intel Based PC(model TD- 1, 1220)1
486-66 Microprocessor
16 meg ram
256 K External Cache Ram
248 MB Hard Drive
Super VGA 1024x768 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Edit Station
Fire
Other Hardware:
USR SPORTSTER MODEM (14.4 KB
provided by county)
HP Laserjet ill (existing PN 33449A)2
Surge Protector
Other Software:
DOS 6.2
Microstation3
SD 911
Foxpro 2.5x
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Offsite: 2 hours (includes all software, testing, & burn-in)
Onsite: 2 hours (includes final placement, hookups, &
testing)
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 10]
NODE 4
WORKSTATION
(local)
Workstation:
INTERGRAPH Intel Base PC (model TD- 1,1220)1
486-66 Microprocessor
16 meg ram
256 K External Cache Ram
248 MB Hard Drive
Super VGA 1280x1024 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Edit Station
Planning
Other Hardware:
SMC Token Card Elite(provided by county)
16-bit, dual RISC processors, 64K memory buffers.
For use with STP and UTP cabling
Surge Protector
Other Software:
DOS 6.2
Microstation2
AE Spatial Data/9113
Foxpro 2.54
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Off site: 2 hours (includes all software. testing, & burn-in)
Onsite: 1 hour (includes final placement, hookups, &
testing)
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 11]
NODE 5
WORKSTATION
(local)
Workstation:
INTERGRAPH PC (model # TD 1, 1220)1
486-66 Microprocessors
16 meg ram
256 K External Cache Ram
248 MB Hard Drive
Super VGA 1280x1024 17" Non-interlaced monitor
Local Bus S3 928 video Card w/2 meg Ram
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port
3 1/2 floppy drives
CD-ROM Drive
Edit Station
Planning
Other Hardware:
SMC Token Card Elite(provided by county)
16-bit, dual RISC processors, 64K memory buffers.
For use with STP and UTP cabling
HP IV SI Laserjet (8 Meg Upgrade)2
HP Designjet 6500
Cal-Comp Digitizer(existing CAL33480)4
Surge Protector
Other Software:
DOS 6.2'
Microstation 5.06
AE Spatial Data/9117
Foxpro 2.58
Novell Rprinter.exe for background print/plot serving9
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the workstation
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network. Additionally, NDE
will connect, test, and loan any resident software to allow
remote printing/plotting to the Laserjet and Designjet
connected to this workstation.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Off site: 3 hours (includes all software, testing & burn-in)
At13clunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 12]
NODE 6 UP VECTRA PC
COMMSERVER 486-20 Microprocessor (pN D2265A)*1
12 meg ram (pN D2152A)*
120 MB Hard Drive*
2 Serial Ports, 1 Parallel Port*
3 1/2 floppy drives*
HP-VGA (512K VRAM) (pND2326A)*
Other Hardware:
MONITOR, 17", 1024x768 NI (pNDI139NABA)2
3 USR SPORTSTER MODEMS (14.4 KB
provided by county)
SMC TokenCard Elite(provided by county)
Surge Protector
Other Software:
NOVELLNETWARECONNECr
DOS 6.2
Hardware Installation:
Network Design will configure and test the comm server
with the specified hardware and software. NDE will also
assure communications to the local fileserver and network
as well as to the wide area network. Additionally, NDE
will connect, test, and loan any resident software to allow
remote printing/plotting to the Laserjet and Designjet
connected to this workstation.
Software Installation:
NDE will insure that all specified software is installed and
functioning.
Installation Time:
Offsite: 3 hours (includes all software, testing & burn-in)
Onsite: 4 hours (includes final placement, hookups &
testing)
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 13]
Price Schedule
for
Albemarle County, VA
and
The City of Charlottesville, VA
Digital Map Maintenance System
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 1 HARDWARE
1.0 FILESER VER: provided by county
1.2 NETWORK CARDS (2) provided by county
1.3 UPS 695.00
1.4 MAYNARD 4000 DAT 2,899.00
(Micro channel version)
1.5 MISC. HARDWARE 100.00
SOFTWARE
1.6 DOS provided by county
1.7 NOVELL NETWARE 3.12 (10) 1,899.0
1.8 INSTALLA TION 2,200.00
MAINTENANCE
1.9 HARDWARE provided by county
1.10 SOFTWARE n/c
SUBTOTAL, NODE #1 $ 7,793.00
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 14]
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 2 HARDWARE
2.1 TD-1 FDSP726 8,200.00
2.2 LASERJET IV SI (8 Meg Upgrade) 4,058.00
2.3 HP DESIGNJET 650C PLOTTER 7,899.00
2.4 USR SPORTSTER MODEM by county
2.5 SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
2.6 MISC. HARDWARE 45.00
SOFTWARE
2.7 DOS 6.2 N/C
2.8 MICROSTATION 5.0xx N/C
2.9 AE SPATIAL DATN911 [seat #3] 4,500.00
2.10 FOXPRO 2.5 325.00
2.11 INSTALLATION 300.00
MAINTENANCE
2.12 HARDWARE 1,230.00
2.13 SOFTWARE 600.00
SUBTOTAL, NODE #2 $ 27,237.00
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page IS]
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 3 HARDWARE
3.1 TD1-FDSP726 8,200.00
3.2 LASERJET ill (existing PN 33449A)(a) N/C
3.3 MISe. HARDWARE 45.00
3.4 SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
3.5 USR SPORTSTER MODEM by county
SOFTWARE
3.6 DOS 6.2 NIC
3.7 MICROSTATION 5.0xx N/C
3.8 SD911 (Seat #4) 4,500.00
3.9 FOXPRO 2.5x 325.00
3.10 INSTALLATION 300.00
MAINTENANCE
3.11 HARDWARE 660.00
3.12 SOFTWARE N/C
SUBTOTAL, NODE 3 $14,110.00
(a) Onsite at NDE-Part of Amendment 1
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 16]
r-----
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 4 HARDWARE
TD1-FDSP726 8,200.00
NETWORK CARD by county
MISC. HARDWARE 45.00
SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
SOFTWARE
DOS 6.2 n/c
MICROSTATION 5.0 n/c
AE SPATIAL DATN911 [seat #2] 6,000.00
FOXPRO 2.5xx 325.00
INSTALLA TION 300.00
MAINTENANCE
HARDWARE 1,230.00
SOFTWARE 960.00
SUBTOTAL, NODE 4 $ 17,140.00
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 17]
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
NODE 5 HARDWARE
5.1 TD1-FDSP726 8,200.00
5.2 DIGITIZER (pN:CAL33480) existing (b) NIC
5.3 LASERJET IV SI (8 Meg Upgrade) 4,058.00
5.4 HP DESIGNJET 650C PLOTTER 7,899.00
5.5 NETWORK CARD by county
5.6 MISC. HARDWARE 45.00
5.7 SURGE PROTECTOR 80.00
SOFTWARE
5.8 DOS n/c
MICROSTATION 5.0 n/c
AE SPATIAL DATN911 [seat #1] 12,500.00
SP ATIAL DATA AIM 4,000.00
FOXPRO 2.5xx 325.00
INSTALLA nON 550.00
MAINTENANCE
HARDWARE 2,130.00
SOFTWARE 2,800.00
SUBTOTAL, NODE #5 $ 42,587.00
*(b) on site at Albemarle County-Part of Amendment 1
Attaclunent One GTFJ Albemarle Co. [page 18]
ITEM
NODE 6
DESCRIPTION
HARDWARE
PRICE
6.1 HP VECTRA (PN D2265A, D2152A, D2326A) n/c
(a)
6.2 MODEMS (3) SPORTSTERS by county
6.3 NETWORK CARD by county
6.4 MISC. HARDWARE 70.00
6.5 MONITOR 1024x768 NI, 17" n/c
(pN Dl139NABA) (a)
SOFTWARE
6.6 DOS 6.0 n/c
6.7 NOVELL CONNECT 2,895.00
6.8 INSTALLATION 300.00
MAINTENANCE
6.9
6.10
HARDWARE
SOFTWARE
300.00
n/c
SUBTOTAL, NODE #6
$ 3,565.00
--
(a) on site at NDE-Part of Amendment 1
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 19]
(Node #2)
Warranty/Other information
1) Pw'chased equipment and software are warranted IIl1der IlOI1II.IlI1le, for a period ofninety (90) dayw from da1e of shipment, to opcrak in
accordance widi Intcrgraph'. published specifications lithe timc of delivery and against defect in workmanship and materiaL This warrant is viod if failurc of the
produc1( s) is due to unauthorized modification, misuse, lack of normal mainlenance, abnormal conditions of operation, or unauthorized allcmpts to rq>air.
Intcrgraph should be promplly notified of any suspected defects in equipment, equipment operation, or software.
If mainlenance of equipment and/or software is desired beyond the ninety (90) day warranly period, this service can be provided by a
separate: contracl Nclwork Design wiD arrangc dic contract in dic namc of AIbcnwtc Counly for die specified timc period.
2) US Robotics Pro1.ides ill own mainlenance and warranly upon purchace and proper rcgistratiOlL USR readily published ill warranly
specification, pro1.ides 1echnic.al support, and provides rq>air servicea.
3) HP warranll its products for onc (1) yc.v upon rcgislration, prinlcn comc widi on-oile mainlenance IIl1der dic DoroW lem1 ....d conditions
dc:fined by "normal use."
4) CF warranly info for Node 2, articlc 3.
S) CF warranly info for Node 2, articlc 1
6) Alexander Engincerina; warrants its software to be frcc: of defecll and to operale within the specificatiOIll of dic software Ildic time of
delivery. Mainlenance contracts for software upgr3dca wiD be made on a per anDwn basis.
(Node #3)
1)
2)
3)
(Node #4)
1)
2)
3)
4)
(Node #S)
1)
2)
3)
4)
S)
6)
7)
8)
9)
concerning maintence
(Node #6)
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 3
CF warranly information for Node 2, article 1
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 6
F DxprO warranll ill prodUCIl indcpendcnlly and pro1.ides ill own technical support, dieir terms are rcadiIy availablc from Microsoft Corp.
CF warranly infOrmatiOD for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 3
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 3
Cat Camp pro1.ides ies own wamnly and sile licensing. conlal:t CaI-Comp for fiu1hcr information concerning mainlenance contracts.
AD DOS products are warranted by Microsoft Corporation.
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 1
CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 6
CF warranly information for Node 4, articlc 4
NoveD pro1.ides ill own support and wamnly prognuns in addition to support offered by NDE, conlal:t NoveD for fiu1hcr information
1) CF warranly information for Node 2, articlc 3
2) CF warranly information for Node 2, article 3
3) CF warranly information for Node S, articlc 9
Attaclunent One GTFJAlbemarle Co. [page 20]
I
I
I oQ
fTI-1
I <-<
r;pO~
0000
1=i-uS:::fT1
I~s:::s:::
fTICN
Z~
-1-1
-<
r-;:;l--
l~~
~=E!=::::~
# ,,~ ~"
~~ mg ~
it ~ N\
] -Itll ,- tll
fTI0 ~~ 0
~' z~ I
\ ~~ ,,; I
@~~ mg ~
~ ~ ~-H---:=~
OITI ~
(')
EXISTING
----------------.
PROPOSED
OJ
,
fTIZ
~g
gi'l
<~
fTI
~
fTI
X
~
-I
Z
::0 (;)
00
~o
:~ s:
-u
c
-I
fTI
::u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
l__________J
II
1-.,
~D
o
-z
-10
-<0
OJfTI
:D'"
n
()
o
S:::z
S:::o
(/)0
I"T) (T1
~(J)
1'1
;0
l
I
I
I
I
;::::==::===:~
~ ~~
/1 ~
! ~ "\
( fTI _.,
z.-
.;::
~Ln
z-.,
C)~j
~~o
-1.2:
:E~
\ ~ I
~ ;/
~--~
------------
fTI
o
-Iz -u
-u0 ,
,0 0
~ fT1 -I
ZU1
Z
C)
:Ed
Vl.
--B
Q
C)
'Z
t"J
'"'3
'U
::tl
o
'U
o
U)
t':l
o
>-3
-
......
t':l
>
t':l OL'
\0 ......1Il
_ >-3t':l
- -<:s::
:s:: 0>
:I> '=]::tl
'U L'
'Z1Il r:-'ot':l
t':l-<:s::~::c:o
'Z > '>0
o Z ::tlc:
- >-3 S'Z
'Z t"j >-3>-3
t':l 'Z >-3-<
t':l :I> t"j-
~ 'Z U)<:
'Z 0 <:>
o t':l L'
L'
t':l
::lO
o
::tl
::>::
o
t':l
U)
-
o
-
'Z
()
U)
-<
U)
>-3
t"j
:s::
o
o
c
Z
-I
-<
s:::
fj ~
$:7 u
zrTiS:::U
UJ-I:!::O
-I:EZ-U
~O-lO
~;ofTIU1
-I^ZfT1
(5 ~O
Z 0
CD fTI
C
,
o
Z
Cl
~
~
" I
CJ~
-~ /"
~JO
r- 0
~> fTI
~; ~
:Eb
~I
-,
,-
G)
ATIACHMENTTWO
REVISED DELIVERY SCHEDULE
The following delineates the revised project implementation schedule effective
with Amendment Number Two to the agreement between Albemarle County,
Virginia and GTE Government Information services, In. for a Building Location
System.
1.0 Phase 1 Completed 6/91
2.0 Phase 2 Completed 9/91
3.0 Phase 3 Completed 6/92
4.0 Phase 4 & 5 To be completed November 8,1994"
5.0 Phase 6 To be completed October 10, 1994 ..
6.0 Phase 7 To be completed November 4, 1994"
.. Note: These dates are as defined in Section 8.0 Delivery Schedule, Attachment
One of Amendment Number Two to the Agreement Between Albemarle County
and GTE Government Information Services, Inc. for a Building Location System.
Amendment Number Two
GTE/ Albemarle County
1
June 21, 1994
.... " ::r _ '..~ ../'
(.h....nl..1!1 ut tlH' f\()a,l(\
nlMk~...; WhH..t'll"II,I~I'
t:".c..:II~ll"Irulll
)..I'~'III f.;""l-lfilw.a
S\'a~I'l"Y
~"'~','l' (' lJ~l'IIII"
Tr('.'l!O',lrcr
J<,'lll.j'II('!,H).:
I'r""hll!.\t
1(.''''''1 T. Dmni.
ttu3rd ul Uh&::ctun
^lb"l'WI.I.' \.:....",)'
~ Chd,llIlb,.vllh'
~,'mi'~ I 1',4IMI(:irh
M.:"hl.I'\'lll'!lltt"
Y"ub"II n..l:
M,.., VVjU~t&llll~(')I,t&Yliffl
a'd~'1 , t.111~1..'"
n~h,'r.II;h'I,,'IoX:t..
MrA. tJ. I "'0('1"1 ~J.""ISI'h", IU
Lln'it.! A. "l'f
tl.,'id P. TUlN'f
I J,'1";, t ,'..", tl~'';fu'I'
(Iu'k,' C:olinty
1(,,'11\ K ~ill"
M", ~'I,"t1\(.IW M.1Chy,s,'l'lill\l
M"UI.I'Jh....!/"'"
C\.llpC'H'r '~IIU''')'
.."..II......\..li\"" (."',1(11.'1
-'\1,tnu 1:,1...,1'\.11.
f".1U'l u ii"~ l"1Io111Iy
C,',rnli1i" D, h~')',,(.
J1U. I \. ol~'1'-
Il....jt.,).l'.....j,\"""
MI'.~ 1\.111 FOI4t..
!\"';~,I" l,"IJJ"~!'It".
I ....".' \H~ l4oli,.
Mr. J~'hl\.'\. !:'\II'.rrm.H'
I. hilrk',!eo. \\'JII\I,d"HI'~"
(;ft.""'II" ('ount"
"'M\!J B!,lr.~)'
LOl.ldOll1l ClIun1y
I ..,,,~!; ': t...
I11.1\l''''lIlJ,4\'i,.
""HI,l I': J 1 I )(ot.:.
~ ~ 1:'\'..J\.ri....~, 1:~\'Till
\\.'IH K J h,d.~.r~fl~IlI)1
C A 1I'I'I:\ln.lr
!J:,c",! ~'j;'~~bur~' ~nlllh ~:j.....to(.,,\'
..'L..n"., [': I'r...,ioo \
I~'nf\\' \''1',',' ,.1 I 'fl
1'\ IIHl1.,utt '~'(lUIl(Y
f~,\h'd I i~I~I.ln~..1
!~ir',.;" V l( ~;jl.,\.~...I,'h}fd, .11
1,11110 '. I.. ~. 1..' ~l\-vll
<'l'<llllol" l'Uillllly
~r... lotHIll, I,..~.l'.
/,'''''''11."1 Mc':onnrll, Jr
';':In~: A. "I....nl"1~", Ul
W~'.411 ^ \'IIUUli.;\~
""rl'"h~IIII"I'k ('Ollllly
~~'.','1.I: \ I~ HH',wk'
Ili..tln Hllhl"
"'''' .-"hurn;I', [ EI'I,~I';,lm
11',"111.';.1',
~'..h.l:d 1... \(I'NI'.lf
LhOl.' 1111'" 1.:u....r"\I~
1', J'" ..~., II ~ J.'1 ri:"'~I\. 11',
I L~"..;,jl....,,:, ..lllllliH....
, .. . ..... '1 ~L(?i- ,.
';~~,' 'l.' .,....J)....'. -. """.. .. 1
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL ~€]t-~/, ~i!~f :.'1;;
t>r(Jt(~('/il/;.; 1he [llUr'WIlIllt?llt is LlIayl'lOtt,I(S BIISIIWSS
xz,.t2;;tl" ~.. t:z;t~
~ll~~)ro~_.s~ _
I;' /.-t"l.. : .,.~ ~/6<:.. '1-'~ ~&.(.(
Jf!.J!; Ic?Af.{/ ?t-1U.'-~
June 2, 1994
The Bon. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Albemarla County BOard of suporvisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesv~lle, VA 229Ul-4~9b
Dear Hr. Karshalla
I ~ writiug to yuu on behalt or the CharlotteSville I
,Albemarle Board of the Piedmont Environmental Cnuncil
(F~C). A copy of this letter 1s being sent to each member
of the BOard of Supervisors.
PEe is very concerned about the apparent willingness of the
Cuunty to entertain piecemeal amenel.mantfil to the Comprehen-
sive Plan on the eve of the Plan's review. For Qxample,
the Board reCently approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment
submitted by the Towers Land Tru8t. Also, Staff has now
!begun tevi~winq three other comprehensive Plan amendments
I in th9 Holly.mead Gro~h Aroa. Finally, tho Board has also
directed the Planning Commlss~on to proceed with the
amendment Bubmitted by tlle univerSity ot virq1nia Real
Estate Poundation, although UR!F has yet to re-submit its
proposel for ~evelopmeut.
III our judgment, these actions serlously undermine the
Comprehensive Plan as an instrument of long-range planning
and land use policy. Decisions to add new large areas of
residential, commercial, or industrial development,
aertc:l!nly tho8e qeneX"Al.ecl by tlu:s U~..1HUJ or a 81ngle
landowner, should be considered in the context of the
j overall neeas ot the conunun1ty. Reviewing 811r.h "~ql1estg
within the context of the entire plan will allow the Board
und Staf! to determine wl1etber and where the need for new
huulSluy und industry eX1StS ana how tnat neea ca.n best be
8ati~fied at the lowest possible cost in 8chools,
utilities, and Harvie.H.
I We4ppreci~te the tact that U~~ is anxious to begin
planning its development, an anxiety surely generated in
large part by concern that the length of time now
appftTfltnt-.'y 8fi1l C\.sidQ by the 80ard t:.or 1.t8 ro~j.ow or the
Plan stretches decision making too far into the future.
PEe shares tha~ concern. It the process were accelerated,
review of the Comprehensive plan amendments could proceed
45 IIQfl'Lt!1 Str(!~t, llox 460, Warl'(>nton, Virginia 22Hifo./703--::l47-2334/Pal< 319 900:~
1010 Harris Slreet, Suite 1, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901/804-977-2033
The Bon. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
June 2, 1994
Pago 2
apace with r~view ot the Plan itself. Acceleratin9 the review of
the entire Plan would also help keep the pUblic involved: if the
process is too long, citi~enB can lose interest and stop
participa~inq. Furthermor&, nOL only th~ publ1c bUt pro~ese1onals
and decision makers as well can lose sight of the connections
between issues and require time-wastino itera~ion9 to stay on
track.
Ono way to dceelerAL~ ~h~ ~~ocess WOULQ De to use the county
Staff's expertise and knowledge, rather than relying on out-of-
town consultants for surveys, public relatione, and vision. If
Staff were to ~ake the lead in reviewing the Plan and involving
the pUblio, perhaps the County could avoid the delays we bave
experienced witn other projects hired out to consultants, such as
the fiscal tmpact model study, H911 mapping, the telephone survey,
and the pUblic p8r~i.oipation offQrts. Reviewin9 the CompLuhens1ve
Plan amendments in a coordinated fashion with review of the Plan
itself would alao enable Staff to work more efficiently becaU&A
th~ dnalys1s neeaed for the one would simplify the review of the
other. PEe is particularly concerned, I mi9ht add, about the
failurA of the fisoal ~pact committee a~ yet tu produce a mooel
because of the vital importance of this kind of analysis to
implementing overall planning decisions. This parti~ular study
has been pending now for over two ~ears.
An 4cc.1.~.Led, uIlerqet1c rev1ew ot tbe Plan, including review of
amendments, will keep the Supervisors, the Planning Commission,
the S~aff, and the public best focused on th9 issues and thoir
inter-relation. The very complexity of the Plan demands an
expeditious review. If, on the other hand, the process moves
uluggishly, the vital conne~tion8 will be lost between data and
reasoning, aotion and consequence, goal and strategy, our vision
and how to reach it. PEe now ~Rk9 you, the leadors of AlbemArle
County, to establish the scope and pace of review--and a SChedule
for such review--likely to result expeditiously in a Comprehensive
Plan ~hat will re!lect the needs and wants of the entire
community.
Sinoerely,
~~~~
~euben Clbrk, Chair.man
Ch4rlotteaville/Albemarle BOArd
'.
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Pmtt'ltill8 nIl' f)l~)inIII11WIl.t /s EveryJ)odrS bus/Ins.';
une 2, 1994
. Anita Shelburne
dito~ial p~ge Editor
ho D~ily Proiroe.
10 Rio Roa.d
hcu:lottesville, VA 22901
ear HS. Shelburne:
n recent months, co~siderable attention has been paid to the
alidity or the "land use tax" as a COnRQTvat:lnn And t1Acal tt')nl
UL A1IJenu:u.ltl Cuuut)'. This tax allow8 rural land. to be taxed at a
alue ret!ecting its actual 49r1cultural use rather than the more
pecu~at1ve value generatea Dy the potent1al tor aevelopment.
h@ 1and use tax clearly has a11o~ed manf rural 1an4ownere to
on8erve rather than develop their lana, all to the substantial
nvironmental benet1t ot Albemarle county. On the other hand, as
ecent critics have pointea out, this program has, by reducing
arrying costs, often enable4 a numbsr of local developers and
tlud >>pvculatorB -eo hold rura.1 1and more oheafly tor :CuturQ
evelopment.
u.x:,(ently Albemarle County "deters" about $~.4 million annually in
041 ~8tate taxes due to the land use tax. These are QOllarS
hich wou1d be co11ecte~ currently from rural landowners 1t ~here
ere no lcmd use tax. This is unquestionably a lot ot money and
ounty citizens have a right continuously to review, and to demand
ccount.abilit.y .t.conc, the land. uee tax program.
he 1"ie<bnont BnvironmenLal Counc.!.l (~PISC" 1, wn1cn nali 10n9' Deen an
dvocate of the land use tax program as a constructive fiscal
c:hanl:sm to ellCOU.l:aqe cural land COQSQTlrat: 1 on, sUPFr-t;s SUCh a
eview. To this end, there are ~portant tacts that we want to
ntroduce into the debate wh1cb spea.k to the essent1a11ty ot this
.I. vy.L aJll ius.. al.l.Jema.I.'.1e coun'ty. fiowever, we wouJ..a alSO orfer a
suggestion for improving Albemarle'S land use program Which we
lieve would aaare8S moRt n~ the l8gitimatQ critiai.~ ~hat have
en IIUlde.
4;, 1lona:J Strct'l, Box 460, WarrenlO1\, Virginia Z2186/703<~47-2334JFax 349.9003
1010 Harris Street, Suite 1, Charlottt!svill(l, VirBinill 22901/804.977-203..~
'.
s. Anita Sl1ellJu1.lle
una 2, 1~94
age 2
some facts;
Land 1n tbe 10n4 a50 ~a& provc.. 9auo~.~.. aunu.l uot
tax surplus.. to Alb..arle countl" Zt 1. ..t1aated
that in 1"3 this surplus wa. over ~3 .11110n.
1Ii& tJurplus comes about because, eveu at reduced tax rate-lis,
ndeveloped rural land costs county taxpayers only about $0.21 in
ounty servioes for every $1.00 it generates in real eBtQte tQ~
evenues. This result comparee most favorably with the $1.16 in
erv1ces demanded by res1dentially developed land tor eve~ $1.00
uch land 9Emerates in real ..tate tax revenues.
hU5, un~ovelope~ rura~ land toddY, even at reQuced l~nQ ue$ ~4~
ates, substantially 8ubs1d1zee residential develofment in
lbemarle County. 81tminating the land use tax proqram, whioh
ould torce some fa~ers to sellout to developers an~ 01scourage
thers trom constructing tmprovements to land having a hi9h
ssessed value, might aOtuallY increase the burden on COUDtf
Axparers rather than re~uoe it. such consequences ~ould be the
orat ot all worlds tor ~h. ci~~~en. or A~emArle countf.
~h. laad u.. taK 40..DO~ .p~1J ~o r..1d.u~lal lanO,
r..1d.~c.. .a4 o~h.r 1.~roT...at..
he reduced ta~ ratee a110wed under the ~an4 use p~o9r~ do not
1ve rural landowners a break on any lan~ in res1~ent1al use, or
n houses, bcu:ns, or any otbex: impI:uvemunt on their land. The
'aduced I:~teB Apply ~ to land actually in agriCultural,
rcha.r.'d, or open space use. And because a. pristine rural setting
rten enhanoos tho ~pprA18Al on re8i~~nceD, land preserved by tbs
And use t~x m4Y add to the assessed value at rural residences
hE!l:alJy a.ctulllly increasing COunty tax revenues.
A9rtcul~ure re..iDa aD i.pOrtaDt par~ of Alb.marle's
.aouQ-T aad abould be eRQOar.V.d.
lbemarle 1;o.nk8 20th out ot 91 rural jurisdlct.1onfl in Virginia in
.he value ot a9r1oultural produots prOduced annually: over '19
llion per year. Albemarle ranks 2nd in irape proouct1onI 3rd in
orses, 5~h in apples, ~tn 1n nay; ~th ~n pine stumpage va U8i
Otb in fore8t products total added value; 14th in sheep and
ambs: 16th in hAAt catt19' an4 22na in bardwood atumpawevalue.
urtbermore, a9r1cul~ure in Albemarle COunty provides employment
or approximately 700 people.
dditionally, agriculture contributes as much as any other sin91e
. l!I("Jt".O( t".o Albttmarle county'. international ropu-tat:ion as one of
he moat beautiful communities 1n the world 1n wbich to live. MS.
-
r . '~
Anita Shelburne
Juno 2, 1994
paqQ J
Thi~ ~'eputct1on contributes immeasurably to what is one ot the
mOI5l. vibrc.n\. loco.l econom1eaJ in \;be Uultt:(! ::i1;.at~l:j. p,lS(; lJt.t11eve~
that protitable farming remains a major bast10n check~n9 the
cLeeping degradation of our rural countryside and that it must
continue to be encouraged, not penali:ted, by A1bemarle county.
.. The cap.c~ty ror reB1aenelBl Ge~elof.eDt unGer our
e.1ettug rural aoniR9 tar exceeds deaand.
Cu:r. J:t:wt Albem.l:\rle County zonin9 all.ows between 26,000 and 42 r 000
new lot~ to be developed in the county's rural areas. Atcurrent
~evelopment rates, this 1s more than a 75-year supply. The
suggestion that rural landowners should be taxed otf their land to
cr@8te moXe p~t~nt~al for re.ident~&l development in the rural
areas ie, if noL prepo8te~OU., Hurelf counter-prOductive.
A 8u9ge"t1.0Qa
~~c bol~uve8 that the ~oreqo~nq tac~5 8UpPQrL continuatiun ot the
land use tax program in Albemarle county; but we think experience
demonstrates that some modifications may be in order. There tA a
simple response to legitimate crit1.cisms or the land use prQ9rwmr
limit the availability ot tne land use tax to those landowners who
Are willing Lv WClU, u L~cu;fulU:lble CODIl1.'~ment to Jteeplng- thelr lanQ
in aqricultural use. ~uch a modification would eliminate the land
.Pec~lQ1.ors who curruntly take advantllOA 01' It le91.t.1mat.e proiram
tor land conservation. It would better insure that county
taxpayers are gel1.ing wh~t they wantl land conservation.
Unde~ cur~ent 8tate law, it 1s possible tor the Albemarle County
80ard ot SUPQTviR~rg to amond th~ land use tax program to limit
I.u,(ul land eligible t.or the program to land which is legally
~'eutricted to "open space" use. This would include all fatmland,
orchGrde, or other rural lan~ which the owner has placed in an
Agricultural Forestal District, or has placed under a permanent
C~nt3E'1rvation e~uJement:; or hae rootr1.cted 'to rural \IDe for at lecult
five years under a written a9reemant with the County. Exoept for
the con8er~ation ed8e~nt, the restrictions a9ainst development
required by such an "open space'! category would be temporary; but
they should be of sufficient duration to insure that the County is
really get~ing Dometh~ng for its inveetQwut 1n land conservation
through the land use tax program.
~l~e~dy over 73,000 acres or land in Albemarle have been
voluntarily put into Aqricultural Forestal Dietrict8 by
landowno:z.-e; Aud VV"L 10,000 acres na"e Deen VOluntarily placed
under permanent conservation easement by landowners. All of this
land meets the criteria. :for. t-ha "open spaceil" oategory and, under
',"' ,.."
. '
J
he County needs to do a hatt-.Ar jnh or. geparat:i.ng lan<1owners who
re serious about keeping their land tor agricultural purposes
rom landowners who are simply interested in gett1n9 a tax break
hile they speculate in rural lano. We believe that most rural
andQwne~~ agree with this goal and WOUIQ see it as a necessary
t.ep t..a Lhf'!! pHt8eLvation at th1. l.mpor1:ant program. L1miting
ligibility tor the land use proqram to land in the "open space"
~tegory would etfectively aooomplish this goal. The
lbemarle/Char!ottesv1lle Board of the Piedmont Environmental
ouncil so recommends to the Board ot Supervisors.
:lncerely,
'2-le...~
uben Clcu;k
Clairman, Albemarle/Charlottesville Board
P edmont. EnvirownentCll Council.
ute 1, Box 370
H rth Gaz.den, VA 22959
8. Anita ShalbuI:uE:t
uue 2, 1994
age 4
is ent1tled to land use tax benefits regardless ot
not: Albelllarle retalns lts lane! use tax program.
mftndJllg T.he COUI.lty'S l.and use pro9ram to 11.mi.t i.t to land
uo!llifying tor t.he opeu sIface category .18 a recommendation that
a~ fi~~t made in 1990 by the ~iscal Resources Advisory Committee,
ppo.1nted by the Board ot Supervisors to cons1der ways of
mproving the county's tinancial position. The County declined to
'olluw the recammen<1at1.on or thio C~1ttGe beCause tho r~ct1.on
rom ~ number of rurAl landowners was, correCtly, that their land
as dlready subsidizing residential development and that they
hould not be asked to give up development potential as well.
B notcc1 ~bove, we agreo thAt theee l~ndowners have a point.
eveL"tbeless, it appears that. the current penalties tor taking
and out ot the program ror development purposes (such as the
ive-year II roll-back" to collect deterreCl taxes when the land is
~veloped) have proved inadequate to d1scourage abuse of the
rogro.m lJ:r I:Ivwl..:U1atULtf w1tll 8hor~ eerm n01Q1.ngs.
David P lNennan
Charlott vIlle
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R Ivanrk1
Charlotte Y. umphns
Jack Jo efl
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
Forrest R. M rshall, Jr
Scollslle
Sally H Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 27, 1994
s. Nancy O'Brien
xecutive Director
homas Jefferson Planning District Commission
13 East Market Street, Suite 102
harlottesville, VA 22901-5213
Ms. O'Brien:
At its meeting on July 6, 1994, the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
ors agreed to work with the Planning District Commission and private interest
roups to explore development of a Regional Economic Development Partnership.
he Board agreed that a regional approach to any such partnership was better
or the sake of efficiency and coherent planning. The Board further stated
hat any substantive support from Albemarle County must be based on the
itizens' knowledge and support, and the Board's judgement of its value to all
axpayers and citizens of the County, following the principles on which this
oard reached consensus two years ago:
any change in Albemarle County's policy regarding economic development
must be effective in solving identified problems;
any change in policy should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and its identified goals;
any change in County economic development policy should not increase the
burden on existing local taxpayers without the benefits being identifi-
able, predictable and significant; and
no change should be made without being preceded by formal public
hearing.
Very truly yours,
c~_
Ella W. Carey, Clerk
-"'\
, //
I j/,
L{JL
/ I C'
. L LA..- 'X/
(- )
<.J
WC:mms
*
Printed on recycled paper
.-' ---,
<-(~ a~ re.( 7/ ~/7 y
'~~~~J]~C~
17 -f13W~~J3U-. ~j~
(~) 1/~/.:<101-52f3
~ '1~/ 'P-J7.z~
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Chairman and Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director, TJPDC .i~~
Regional Economic Development Partnership ~
July 6, 1994
Request of Board. The Albemarle Board of Supervisors is asked to
support the development of a regional economic development partnership
either by resolution or letter similar to the letters passed by
adjoining localities, University of Virginia, and Piedmont Virginia
Community College.
History.
1992 Discussions about the possibility of a regional partnership
began in 1992 among Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber, UVA,
PVCC, and local government people.
1993 Group expanded to include PDC area, called itself Ad Hoc Group
to develop a regional economic development partnership,
received facilitation assistance from the Commission on Rural
Development (CORD), affirmed mutual interest and regional
nature of economy.
1994 Presented findings to local government officials who encouraged
the group to continue.
Held regional forum, REV UP, developed Action strategy to
create a regional economic development partnership
Private sector individuals announced interest in fund raising
for regional economic development office
1995 PDC met with private sector, directed staff to work with
private sector in determining local interest in a regional
partnership.
Five localities, the University of Virginia, PVCC, and the
Greene County Chamber have considered the partnership and
written letters of support (letters attached) requesting the
group to return with an organizational structure, a board, and
a budget.
Why reqional? Build on past successes: Legislative program, PDC,
library, MPO, PACC, Region Ten, United Way. The economy is regional:
residents live, work, shop, and learn across government boundaries.
Efficiency and effectiveness: duplication of effort eliminated, costs
shared, supports local priorities.
Why Albemarle? As a partner, Albemarle would be in a position to
encourage development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As a
partner, Albemarle would be able to assist the neighboring localities
to diversify their economies and perhaps not have to travel as far to
~ C~JCAJ.Af~, Jk~~u.~CQ'~j'f~(~. Z~C~, N~~
ITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 911 . Charlottesville, Virginia. 22902
Telephone 804-971-3113
jU" 09 \994
June 9, 1994
Mr.- Nancy O'Brien
Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
413 E. Market Street, Suite 102
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Dear Ms. O'Brien:
This is to notify you that at its June 6th meeting, the Charlottesville City Council
voted to support the Regional Economic Development Partnership. The Council looks
forward to working with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
Charlottesville! Albemarle Chamber of Commerce and governmental, educational and
private sector partners on this joint venture.
Sincerely yours,
~;.VA-.r41~
Thomas J. Vandever
Mayor
Jerome J. Booker. (804)842-33/1
Fork ion District
Thomas . Payne. (804) 296-5243
Palmyr District
Donald . Weaver. (804) 286-2687
Cunnin ham District
Leonard . Gardner. (804) 589-3074
Rivann District
Andrew . Sheridan. Jr. . (804) 589-4151
Colum ia District
FLUVANNA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P.O. BOX 299
PALMYRA, VIRGINIA 22963
A. 'Terrell Baskerville
County Administrator
(804)589-3138. (804)286-2890
FAX (804) 589-4976
:,'0\" \) IJ \~~&,
June 8, 1994
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
413 E. Market street, Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22901-5213
RE: Regional Economic Development Partnership
Dear Nancy,
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors thanks you, Mr. Morris and Mr.
Myers for the presentation June 6th regarding the regional economic
development partnership. The Board resolved "to support the efforts of the
Regional Economic Development Partnership and looks forward to working with
other localities in this worthwhile endeavor".
Please keep us informed of the progress of the Partnership.
Sincerely,
~~~
A. Terrell Baskerville
County Administrator (Interim)
ATB/b
County of Louisa
Post Office Box 160
Louisa, Virginia 23093
(703) 967-0401
FAX 703) 967-9531
June 7, 1994
~t>G\ ~.l \i\\t
Ms. Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
413 East Market Street
Suite 102
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-1720
Re: Regional Economic Development
Dear Ms. O'Brien:
At the June 6, 1994 regular Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board voted unanimously to
support the proposal for a regional public/private economic development partnership. The
Board concurred that such a partnership would benefit everyone in Region Ten.
Should you have any questions on the above, please contact me.
Sincerel y,
.~~C.~\,
William C. porter,\]r.
County Administrator
cc: Members, Louisa County Board of Supervisors
A:\REGED.094
,.lUll
.,),;><.+ J.V'V-, ,"U.VVJ. I'.VL'
JAMtS ... HENSHAW
6T,o,"l"I'iD$VILLE D.STAICT
BoARD _ ,1;!?!.!tf.RVISOR!}
JOANNE . eURKHOLDtA. CH^trlM"N
AuCK(IlS 'LLE DI$Hf.CT
J. BRAD ERRY. VICE CHAIIH.lAN
,o,T L.o.RtOE.
;
.
i
;
t
!
4
1
t
~
~
f
I
,
MICKE:Y
MO"lI'iOf" 151RIC;1
?
,
"
,
STANLEY M. POWEL\..
"T 1.....~"E
JULIUS L. MORRIS
COuNfV ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
P. o. BOX 3~e
STANARDSVILLE. VIRGINIA 21973
T1:LEPHON[. S/e!H1201
June 2, 1994
Nancy R. O'Brien, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commiss~on
413 East Market street - suite 102
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-5213
Re: Economic Development Partnership
Dear Ms. O'Brien:
Thank you for your presentation at the May 31st Board of
Supervisors' meeting. The Board supports the concept of
pursuing a regional economic development partnership for our
planning district.
The Board looks forward to working closely with you and the
other identified partners in developing the goals' for the
organization.
Sincerely,
~
/"'~---
. . orris
County Administrator
;'
. .:1,
:7~
',i
~i
~::.'
$'~
r~
:.t"
t:
*
i
~,
\f~
it
~;.
~
~.
I
I,
1$
f
~
~,
....
'I):
~,
~
~',"
'"
ti..'
lit
i
i
'!
S;
li
i?"
!
...
~:
't,
P'
i
:\..
:,-.
i
J~fJ;.
....:
i;,
,.
ft-
";.-
t';';
rl
~'~
'"
r{
~~
"
iI'
;"
-;;
~~
jj
~
'"
Z.;:;
\'..
~j
"
~
,u,
~
~-
r
,
ELLA W. BROWNING
Administrative AssistanV
Fisc:al Otticer
M, DOUGLAS POWELL
County Adminis1ra1or
VIRGIE A CARTER. CMC
Administrative Assis1anV
Deputy Cieri(
n \~(j~
'" ~:{ \. 'b
JOH NY W. PONTON
S ulh Dislric1
. ancy O'Brien
xecutive Director
homas Jefferson Planning District Commission
413 East Market Street, Suite 102
harlottesville, VA 22901
ear Ms. O'Brien:
t its May 10 meeting, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors
pproved a motion by a unanimous vote to commit their support
o the Regional Economic Development Partnership. The Board of
Supervisors believes that the entire region will benefit from
the regional economic development efforts, and looks forward to
orking with the other localities to make this a successful
venture.
ould you have any questions
formation, please let me know.
require
additional
or
. p~!? L-PJ
M. Douglas Powell
C unty Administrator
P. O. Box 336. Lovingston, Virginia 22949. (804) 263-4873 . Fax (804) 263-4135
""'''''''~''-
",.., liR['At .....-.
,,1 O~ ..........~ i'"
it- ....~.ot,...o..... ~ \
I'll': ~ ...~1
~g: ,':!~
lu:~ 1711' ~:.~
\ ....~~ .....~... I
~ "'~ 110 ~.., I
.. .....~ JIi'
~"~-!,~}JpIll'
(jreene County
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P.O. BOX 442
STANARDSVlLLE, VIRGINIA 22973
June 21, 1994
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
413 East Ma rket St.
Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Regional Economic Development Partnership
The Greene County Chamber of Commerce, as d i rec ted by a
unanimous vote of support of its board of directors, hereby
resolves to support the Regional Economic Development Partnership
as proposed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
We understand that membership is open to all local governments,
chambers of commerce, businesses, industries, industrial
development authorities and economic development commissions. We
are encouraged by the inclusion of higher education by the
University of Virginia and Piedmont Virginia Community College, and
by the emphasis on forming teams to perform specific work tasks.
The benefits of a regional partnership include economies of
scale, enhancing the diversity of our marketing area, providing a
prospect with several alternatives, improving opportunities for
all partners, enhanced economic growth which benefits all members
of the- partnership and placing our economic region in a better
position when competing for prospects within Virginia and across
the nation. Although we are unable to provide monetary support at
this time, we support the concept of a regional economic
development partnership.
On behalf of the Greene County Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors, please accept this resolution for suppor~ of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission economic development
partnership.
Sincerely,
\- 4f~ j~I't
J. Taylor Twyman, President
Greene County Chamber of Commerce
07-5-1994 14:20
8049822770
""
EXECUTIVE VP & CFO
P.02
MadJson HI. P,O. Box 9014
~UNIVBRSITY OF
bIW1tdVIRGINIA
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9014 · 804-924-32S2 FAX 804.982-2770
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF ANCIAL OPFICER
July 7, 1994
s. Nancy O'Brien
xecutive Director
omas Jefferson Planning District Commission
13 East Market Street, Suite 102
harlottesville, VA 2290 I
ear Nancy:
After consulting with Mr. Hovey S. Dabney, Rector of the Board of Visitors, and
resident John T. Casteen, I write to inform you that the University of Virginia supports a
egional approach to economic development and intends to become involved with the
roposed regional economic development partnership. We believe that a partnership
nsisting of all local government entities in the region, the Chamber of Commerce, Piedmont
irginia Community College, the University of Virginia, and representatives of the private
sector will make it possible to attract new industries that will be good for our community and
support businesses which already are located here.
We look forward to working with other regional representatives on this joint effort.
Leonard . Sandridge
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
WS:mr
cc: Mr. Hovey S. Dabney
Mr, John T. Casteen, III
l
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
On b
Comm
requ
pres
part
~~~tD~
17 1-13~?1!~~ ~jtU
(~') 1/~/.:<101-52f3
~ 7J1t/ ')P-J7-zo
MEMO
Robert Tucker, County Executive
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director~
Regional Economic Development
May 20, 1994
,,~ '~, ;;:-'31:\ 2.L.?_~L_"
... ,'. tj/j. cSZ'l 1<2 f
A.g'/y2 ::em "v. ----.- - .-.' -" .
( t/~/
~
f-:1
,l
11
NAY
~'.'.-'-....-
of the Commission, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of
and a coalition of private sector persons, I am writing to
place on the June 8, 1994 Board of Supervisors agenda to
for a pUblic/private regional economic development
enc
cc: Perkins, Thomas
Cham er members, others who have been working on the partnership, and
PDC taff will attend the meeting. They would like to make a short
pres ntation and then answer any questions that arise.
Mr.
the
othe
Supe
indi
The roposal has grown out of the fall REV UP meeting and continuing
disc ssions with members of the Jefferson Regional Economic
Deve opment Partnership. This group has meet over a period of about
two ears, discussing options for a regional approach to economic
deve opment. Increased private sector interest surfaced over the past
thre months. All of these groups are working together. The
Comm'ssion has directed the PDC staff to continue working with the
Cham ers of Commerce and private sector individuals interested in a
regi nal economic development partnership. A draft of a possible
orga izational structure is attached.
orris, Chairman of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber Board,
resident of the Nelson County Chamber, Mr. Carter Myers, and
s presented the proposal to the Nelson County Board of
visors who indicated their interest in participating as is
ated in the attached letter from Mr. Powell.
Plea e let me know if a place on the agenda is possible. Thank you.
We I ok forward to the discussion.
("'f"'\t !!'>,~7.\,'
.~ 'i_,J~__ _~;~;; 1 ,
c::~-~!
" .
~
i MAY 24 1994
!
Lli,l
,,: ..
...."':.............
,:,'.!,"ffi',I,"l
~ ~ \
.:; f
:., i I
1 ~ ; -
" ,.::; L!::J
-
EXECU1'
~- r:-i{';E
l~J Ck/~, Jk~ (otU~, ;~(~. Z~ C~, }\tdxm.~
.. DRAFT REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
To'O....................................... ....__..._-~--~...........__........_.._......---..........-_........_..~_....-........................._......._._......_....__~......__........_____......~~~................................__.___
.......-..-.-..... ....---.-----.-.----.-.-...-....---...FnncHng-Partners-...-..--.m..m.....-----m..
Government: Higher Education: Private Sector:
emar1e,Char1ottesvllle. U. Va., PVCC Chambers of Commerce, Investor
Fluvanna. Greene, One appointee each Members:
ouisa. Nelson, PDC elect six members
ne appointee each
I:::::: . -- Polic . Partners
Board of Directors
Elect four additional business members
j (Total 19)
Workipg Partners I
I Regional Economic Development Office: I
! Director. secretary, other staff as needed . I
-'---,
1
I
l
l
1
!
!
I
l
I
!
I
;
;
I
1......_........_..
Local Economic
Development staff
IDA staff
Advisory Council
R d Carpet Teams:
Local Economic
evelopment Offices
In ustrial Development
Authorities
Volunteers
Research Team:
PDC, local planning
staff, VEC, PVCC,
Marketing Team:
Darden. Mcintire, AMA,
Industry, Chambers
Other teams if
need arises
Training Team:
PVCC, Area HSs. VEC,U.Va.
-.~~........~__-..-.......,,"",~~.....,...........................___.__.._.......................,..........J............~.....~............................._._...............................-...--....-..........._.........-......
R#ii.q@lllt.sp#.(jfui6p~-y~i(jpfu##.t.]:JiU1#eI'sh.ip....n..........
...................................................................-...................
........... -................................. -..........
..........-..................-.......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . ....'..'..---.-.--............,.......,........
..... .......... .......-.... ....... .......
..... ..... ........-......-......
..-. ............
..... .... ............ .... q............... ..-. ...........- .....
..-. ..-.......... .............
.................
.......-..'.........................'............-....................-.........-.......... .-_... -...--'."..."'...-'.-...-..---.---...........,...................-......................
><<j:.M~Jft6.~tFliip6p~Htp4z[L()}dzG{)Mfhfh~RtS/qH$/1$Wfj6i}\..............
.>..:....>.:.....:.:::).<$9iij1fje.fc.~/.E}iis.i!i.e.#~)]i{4it.sfTje.s/!n.C1i4.ifr4!1)eyJ46i/tj1~1jl)>.):.: ..........
............:......:::;;:::*-:;::;:;HI4%.'fdf$ii%O~~~~f!:x~f1~gmt~~~ilA~flr:'~$4~,..:i..:...:...:.....).:.....:...:...
... ..... ......{:{..:/ff/fi4i.ffgPj~Y/rgCjfiii4#on..H....:..:<:::.\:...:.....:.:.:........ ....
H.............iiii??~?Ir![4fifi;f.ZGliJW~ffff:p.h:t~9ntj[.otsf;AfifiAWefNTftf&??:ti::.tttit ....:. ....... ... ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................
Regional conomic Development Partnership
Contact: ancy K O'Brien (804)972-1720
Organization Draft
Page 1
April 27, 1994
Fax (904) 972-1719
~ dr~/ ~ dJ~
17/~ ~~ w~ fi4d: ;!adZ) jj2
(~) 1/~~101-52f3
~ '101'/ <Jf.2-}720
r:7nffm4M~n//
~
COUNTVOF m;;i;':,RLE
I r,; r;:::::: r:::-; r=' \T .'\ n ::';;, m'
l\l)l~~~<~~I~~~-'\\1 II
, " , ' -., I
I i\ \ ';-i,u'-'~'-.""~-"r._c~ ./ ~ ~ li
Ii l' "..,.,. I, :;r~.,."",
u ___" ~_~~ ~ ~jIo .......,."".!o 1,-0<............1
Ey~E(:;UTt\jE ()Fr~(;,E
MEMO
0:
Robert Tucker, County Executive
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director
Regional Economic Development partnership ~~)
May 25, 1994
ROM:
E:
ATE:
ttached please find the Nelson County letter which was not
'ncluded in the previous mailing. I look forward to meeting
ith you and the Board. Several private sector participant.s
ill be making the presentation to the Board. Others
'nvolved throughout the process may also be in attendance to
nswer questions. If any additional information is needed,
lease call.
MAY
c. '---'~._~"""""<<'-,""",""""'''''J1:"_"""",",..,I
l~J Ck/~, Jb~ (~3' 1KVTU-(~. L~ C~, jI!dmv~
M. DOUGLAS POWELL
County Administrator
\l\cb.
, 0 \"'.,}
"f.;L.i';-.! ".\. C . oJ
(,F,\
VIRGIE A. CARTER. CMC
Administrative Assistant!
Deputy Clerk
ELLA W. BROWNING
Administrative AssistanV
Fiscal Officer
JOH NY W. PONTON
SO th District
ancy O'Brien
Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
413 East Market Street, Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22901
ear Ms. O'Brien:
t its May 10 meeting, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors
approved a motion by a unanimous vote to commit their support
to the Regional Economic Development Partnership. The Board of
Supervisors believes that the entire region will benefit from
the regional economic development efforts, and looks forward to
orking with the other localities to make this a success ful
enture.
Should you have any questions
information, please let me know.
or
require
additional
Sincerely,
. Vt.!? Lp)
. Douglas Pmvell
County Administrator
P. O. Box 336. Lovingston, Virginia 22949. (804) 263-4873 . Fax (804) 263-4135
....
, .":':,'1 ;:~I n::(lf.:\_'Z~!_~fJ__,_
, .;" I 9 Lj, () 7() 6, Lf)) (jj
~ t2. tD~"0~ T
~fd' ~Atd: ;f}dUj~
(~) 1/~~'Ol-5.2f3
~ iJf/'P-JT-ZtJ
.,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
J.JN 2
TO:
FROM:
Chairman and Members of the Board ._____
Michael C. Collins, Senior Environmental Planner
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Priority Watersheds Report and Presentation
6/22/94
RE:
DATE:
Please find enclosed the final document for the study
"Prioritization of Third and Fourth Order Watersheds in the 'l'homas
Jefferson Planning District". John Potter and I will be making a
presentation on the results and products of the study. We will
bring large format maps showing relatively small watersheds in the
county which are now receiving one or more negative impacts or the
watershed is sensitive or vulnerable for one or more reasons.
The study also reveals those watersheds in the county that have
received some type of recognition which supports the need for a
h~gh standard of water quality, those where there appears to be
less of a need to support a high water quality standard, and those
where the quality of water desirable is yet unstated or unclear.
~The results of the study provides information which could be used
in Planning Commission and Board discussions about the "future use"
of watersheds, thereby raising questions about water quality goals
fpr watersheds in the region, watershed level planning to meet
those goals, and programs to translate the goals into action.
We look forward to the presentation and if you have any questions
please do not hesitate to call me at 972-1720.
CC: David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
Nancy K. O'Brien, TJPD Executive Director
~ l~J ClzJAT~) 1k~~4- C~y, ;~(~ ~ Z~ (~\ N.dun~
Executive Summary
In this study, the third and fourth order watersheds of the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District were prioritized to identify the watersheds where protecting the water quality is
most important, but where the water is endangered by outside impacts and pre-existing
sensitivity to these impacts. Identifying areas where this kind of conflict is occurring will
allow planners and policy makers to focus attention where it is most urgently needed.
The prioritization is a relative ranking of the watersheds of the region based on these
factors, rather than an absolute measure of the health of the watersheds.
Existing data, which were available for the entire Planning District, and are directly
related to water quality, was compiled for this project. In order to facilitate processing
of' this large volume of data, only those data which were available in digital format
suitable for use in the Planning District's Geographic Information System were selected.
A total of nine factors describing watershed sensitivity and impact were examined for this
project:
Impacts
· Nutrient Loading
· Permitted Discharge Points
. Landfills
. Swimmable/Fishable Goals
· Wetlands
Sensitivities
. Water Intake Points
· Aquatic Species Listed by Natural Heritage
. Wild & Scenic River Designation
. Sediment Delivery
The watersheds were separated by Use classification, which describes the level of water
quality necessary to support uses of the land and the water within each shed. Class 1
watersheds are those requiring a high level of water quality, while Class 3 watersheds,
because of the activities occurring within the watershed, do not require high quality
water. Class 2 watersheds are those areas where it is not clear what level of water quality
is necessary or desirable. The watersheds were then prioritized within these Use classes
by using a matrix which calculated total watershed impairment, based on the sensitivities
and impacts listed above.
Using this methodology, twenty-two watersheds in the region were categorized as Class
1 High Priority watersheds (see Map 16 of Appendix A). These are areas where water.
Prioritization of Third and Fourth Order Watersheds
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
December 31, 1993
page i
-I
I
~ ~"~ 1O.diW
17 4-13~~kJ ~j,1.z
(~-J 1/~/';?101-52f3
~ iJf/ ?f.2-JPrJ
/1 /
(v~/
"--
June 8, 1994
r. Robert W. Tucker
bemarle County Executive
4 1 McIntire Road
harlottesville, VA 22902
.$~~,~-
ear ~Ker:
ndosed please find the Executive Summary of the project entitled "Prioritization of Third
a d Fourth Order Watersheds in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District" which was recently
c mpleted by the PDC staff. The purpose of this study was to rank small watersheds
a cording to the level of water quality desired and the impairment of the water quality from
h man impacts and pre-existing sensitivity. The information presented in the project report
c n be used by elected officials and local government staff to make informed decisions
a out land use which reconcile future development with the need to preserve water quality
certain areas.
I order for Albemarle County to realize the full benefit of this research effort, I believe
t at it would be useful for the Planning District to present the results and recommendations
o this study to the Board of Supervisors. The data and the recommended watershed
m nagement strategies can be most dearly understood with a live presentation followed by
a uestion and answer period.
If possible, I would like to make this presentation at the July meeting of the Board of
S1. pervisors. Please let me know if this is possible, of if there is another meeting which
w uld be more agreeable. Thank you for your consideration.
M chael C. Collins
Se ior Environmental/Land Use Planner
COL! .'\,'TY (;" ,
fTll 1'" .
I . " .
!' .
I.. JUN 9 1994
.' ~
, '''j
'1/
; tJ'
",--,
,
fi: \
i.'; L...~ ;..h.,,> .l_._..~, c.".} ~.i
EXEcurIV"'::' OFFiCE
I
A~ Il~ J Ck/A/~ J Jk~r~ (~J;;, (}~ (~" Z~ (~, ~~('lfA~.
_ I J r _ I ~-"7
--j---
~TE___________________~__~__________________
AGEN:}\ ITlM ID. ____~~.:..iL2..:.'_C:..~~~~________________________
AGEN:}\ ITlM ~ ( 'It J S Se<2-~f J SIC t--cu (;'/)([7 i{ e/, i\( /t I-J
--~-------T-----------------------------
DEFFRRID lMIL --_i?J2~~!l-~::rr~----------------
~,j
Form.3
7/25/86
~TE___________2___~___2i______________________________
AGINlA. ITEM N>.
9 y (j 7 J & L/3)
AGINlA. ITEM N9.E (I,-,! / if. a / I ~_ )"
-____________..t-__________________________
DEFFRRID mflL / _J h /io c- 1/u-.-.5
-------------.;)-------L-------------------
Form. 3
7/25/86
DA.1E
'7 - L. 7 c/
A.C.J8'D\ 111M K>.
7 <l [ 7() i.-iJ:;-
A.C.J8'D\ 111M N9.E ___~L'__L__Z~J..fL!L~__~!l!3Y2-=.::~-------
DEFFRRID lNflL __n2_0-:j_____I"-~~!.i__________________
Po rm. 3
7/25/86
-c-
IlA.1E
'I' J.. C J
- r.,< - It
~ ITIM Nl. _____~__Y_~~!.J!!:...~t_I3.2_______________
~ ITIM ~ _~-1f(:.L!.2.Li__0 :...~~____________________
DEl'ERRID lJIlfIL __J!.J2_J.iL:&--~~rL_-----
Form. 3
7/25/86
~-
DaVld P. Bowerman
CharlolleSll'ille
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphns
Jack Joutl'tt
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
Forrest R. Ma~shall. Jr.
Scottsvillle
Sally H. Thomas
S<lmuel Miller
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, Clerk V{_//~.
July 8, 1994
TO:
D~TE:
SUBJECT:
Appropriation Request
At its meeting on July 6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved an
arpropriation request in the amount of $7,200 for additional funding for the
Clommonwealth Attorney's office. Attached is the signed appropriation form.
ElWC:mms
Attachments
qc: Roxanne White
James L. Camblos, II
*
Printed on recycled paper
.-
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930081
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GENERAL
PURP~SE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
JE;XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1100~22010110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $7,200.00
TOTAL
~;7,200.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
2100023000230101 COMPo BOARD-SALARIES ~;6,461.60
2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE 738.40
TOTAL
~:7,200.00
**************************************************************~.*********
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
tb-:ZO-?~
?Y~9i'
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
f>~~.~"~.r... t!T:~";) '~'.=.~ ::('t~\\?i) ;.i'r_J.,'\Bl::'''!.S
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
? :: I: -7:, J:., _. .,._.___,_
\I, J"\
)'~\
Office Appropriation
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
911 '.t/3'
T, 6 70(~ . T ((
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X
for the
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Camblos
REVIEWED BY:
------
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Attorney's Office is funded primarily by the State Compensation Board.
be over-expended at June 30, 1994 based on current appropriations.
ON:
rexpenditure will result primarily from the resignation of one of
s who had accumulated leave requiring a final pay-off of $7,200.
proved an additional allowance of $6,461.60 for this expense.
the assistant
The Compensation
ATION: Approval of the additional appropriation of $7,200 as detailed on
appropriation form #930081.
930081. PS
94.086
JULY 6, 1994
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2.1-344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (1)
TO CONSIDER A PERSONNEL MATTER REGARDING INTERVIEWS OF
I~DIVIDUALS CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT FOR VARIOUS BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS; AND UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGF~
COUNSEL AND STAFF MEMBERS ON A SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTER REGARDING
PPBLIC SAFETY SERVICES.
9 B03002.007
MOTION: Mrs. Thomas
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: July 6, 1994
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi-
sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1
requires a certification by the
Supervisors that such executive
conformity with Virginia law;
of the Code of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of
meet ing was conducted in
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of
each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia
law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs Marshall, Martin,
Perkins and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
County
',___ u
. ,
u
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 8, 1994
Mr. William Kehoe
1608 Garden Court
P.O. Box 4454
Charlottesville, V A 22905
Dear Mr. Kehoe:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 6, 1994, you were reappointed to
the Joint Airport Commission (as the joint representative) with a term to expire on December
1, 1 997.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Wa1tr~ 1 p~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
WFP/jng
cc: Mr. James L. Camblos, III
Brian Elliott, Airport Manager
Jeanne Cox, Clerk of City Council
*
Printed on recyded paper
.. .
/'
i
'.
"
; irJ t.'
U
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 8, 1994
Mr. Michael Rawls Matthews, Jr.
1387 Gristmill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Matthews:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 6, 1994, you were appointed to the
Joint Airport Commission, with term to begin December 1, 1994 and expire December I,
1997.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
W &" ~. ~{~~~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
WFP/jng
cc: The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
Brian Elliott, Airport Manager
*
Printed on recycled paper
- ~
County of Albemarle
MAl'
Office of Board ofCounry Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville~ VA 22902-4596
(804) .::96-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE
(please type or print)
""-'''"_.''''
,
Board/Comrrission/Committee Joint Airport Commission
Applicant's Name Michael Rawls Matthews, Jr.
Home Address 1387 Gristmill Drive, Charlottesville,
Home Phone 804-295-0982
Virginia 22902
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Scottsville
Employer N . T. Brinkman, Inc. Phone 804- 2 9 3-8004
Business Address 210 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Date of Employment 11/91 - Present Occupation/Title Management Consultant I Developer
Years Resident in Albemarle County 6 Previous Residence Suffolk, Virginia
Spouse's Name - Number of Children 0
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, 1989
Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and lor Social Groups
Academy of Model Aeronautics, League of Silent Flight, AOPA, Southern
Building Code Congress International
Public. Civic ~nd Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests
Board of pirectors, Mill Creek P.U.D. Homeowners Association
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) Volunteer
Private Pilot
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission 1 Committee
Desire to see both the recreational and business I commercial aspects of our aviation
w'
resources managed and developed prudently for the community's best interest.
The information provided on this application will be released to the public u
OS" 1,(" /9 It-
I I
Date
Return to :
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
"
~
(~~
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
WhilE' Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 8, 1994
M . Raymond E. Gaines
1 12 Easy Lane
C arlottesville, VA 22901
ar Mr. Gaines:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 6, 1994, you were appointed to the
B CA Code Board of Appeals and Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals, with terms to
e pire November 21, 1999.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
a preciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Wa1tk1~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
Jesse Hurt
*
Pnnted on recycled paper
(~'ounty of Albemarle
MAY;; 1J9iI
j
----I
,"20/~HD OF SU,PERVISOns
APPLICATION TO SFRVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE
(please type or print)
BOCA Code Board of Appeals
Board / Comrl1lS 'lOll! C:OllllllltlCCF--i+--e---P_ra-vent-i-G++--Co-de. Board of llppeal s
Applicant's Nan e Bs.ymond E. Ga i nE:;!,S__m Home Phone (804) 978- 1064
Home Address 1712 Easy Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901
'ct in which your home residence is located
f Employed
Rivanna
Magisterial Dis
Employer Se
Business Addres
Date of Emplo
Feb 1, 1987
O. Box 6255 (1006 E. Market St.) Charlottesville, VA 22906-6255
Phone (804) 979-5245
Years Resident i Albemarle County ~_
Occupation / Title Arch i tect
PrevIOus Residence Greene County
Spouse's Name N. Ga i nes ___ Number of Children 3
Education (Degr es and Graduation DatesL\,iir--ginia Polytechnic Institute 5: State University
Bachelor Architecture June 1979, Lane High School 1973
,ill} d j Q LSQ~iaLGIQll p-s
Construction S ecifications ~ns_~itute
National Association of Home BuildersLBlue Ridqe Homebuilders Association
)ublic ivic and Charitable ffice and I or Other Activities or Interests
Volunteer Holl mead ElementaCJ School
Dlllll1lSS ion / Co III mltke
community in an area of expertise.
'~
S--/2--'l1-
~eturn to : Cle k, Board of County Supervisor's
A] emarJe County
401 McIntire Road
Ch rlottesvillc, VA 22902-4596
Date
C:ounty of Albemarle
OffIce of Board of County Supervisors
40 I McIntire Road
Charlottesville), V A 22902-4596
(804) L96-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION I COMMITTEE
(please type or print)
BOCA Code Board of Appeals
Board / Comm SSlon ! ComllllneeF~--P,.....e-ve~t i on Code. Board of Appea 1 s
c RClymond E. Gain~_~___ Home Phone (804)978--1064
1712 EClsy Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901
Magisterial Di trict in which your home residence is located
Employer S If Employed
Business Addr ssp. O. Box 6255 (1006 E. Market St.)
Rivanna
Phone
(804)979-5245
Charlottesville,
VA 2c~906-6255
Date of Emplo ment Feb 1, 1987 Occupation I Title Arch i tect
Years Resident in Albemarle County -2___ Previous Residence Greene County
Nancy N. Gaines
Number of Children 3
Bachelor
rees and GraduatIon Dates)_VirginiCl Polytechnic Institute I; StClte Ur,iversity
Architecture June 1979
Lane Hi h School 1973
aLB1.lSlile..s..s. Church_illld lor Social Groups
Construction S ecifications Institute
Publi
NationClI Association of Home Builders Blue Rid e Homebuilders Association
Ie ffice and I or Other Activities or Interests
Volunteer Holl meCld Elementar School
in an area of ex ertise.
'~
The information provided on this application will be releasedt?_Y:~J>"Ublic,upo~_!:c;~~st
~ ~...~.--_::==~=~--
~ (: ~,-.- ---.-- .
.__-- --------Si]nature ..
Return to : C erk, Board of County Supervisors
A bemarle County
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesyillc, VA 22902-4596
-:.-:> ~.
! ~.,
L.-
71-
Datc
r--'~
--,\ f-"--
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scotlsvil1e
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 8, 1994
Mr. John Hood
#6 Randolph Court
Key West Subdivision
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Hood:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 6, 1994, you were reappointed to
the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals with telms to
expire on November 21, 1999.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
W dLtu 1-~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
WFP/jng
cc: Mr. James L. Camblos, III
Jesse Hurt
*
Printed on recycled paper
NEWS RELEASE u.s. department of thii~te;(or
national park sorvice
For Immediate Release
Debra Sanders (703) 999-3498
Lyn Rothgeb (703) 999-3400
SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK HOLDS BIENNIAL SYMPOSIUM
The Shenandoah National Park Symposium wil~ be held on July 28 and 29,
1994, at the Sheraton Inn in Harrisonburg, Virginia. This biennial gathering
of scientists, natural and cultural resource managers, land use planners,
public administrators, conservationists, and interested citizens is held to
foster communications between the National Park Service and others that share
common goals and concerns. The theme of this year's event is "Shenandoah,
more than a landscape: pathways to conservation~ recreation and education."
Shenandoah National Park Superintendent J. W. Wade said, "This year's
symposium promises to be the most interesting and best-attended conference
$ver sponsored by the park." Activities of special note include three panel
discussions titled "Park Values," "22nd Century," and "The Role of Science in
National Park Management." These panels will be comprised of representatives
of local government, the tourism industry, academia, and the conservation
community.
The keynote address will be given by Edward E. Clark, President and
Executive Director of The Wildlife Center of Virginia. Clark is widely
recognized as a leader and advocate for the protection of Virginia's wildlife
resources.
National Park Service Director Roger G. Kennedy will speak at the
banquet on the evening of July 28. Kennedy has established a reputation as a
strong defender of America's parks and other protected areas, and is leading
the National Park Service into an era of more interactive resource stewardship
~tressing~the building of more effective partnerships with the public.
The second day will feature concurrent sessions on park management
issues and the results of recent research. Management topics include: "Our
Changing Forest," "Clearing the Air," "Protecting Our Wildlife," "Partners in
Flight," "Protecting Our Past," "The Backcountry Experience," "Partnerships in
Education," and "Angling for Pleasure."
Summaries of 11 research studies being conducted in the park include
several discussions on the effects of acid precipitation on park streams and
other resources, research on black bears, the Allegheny woodrat, white-tailed
deer, forest insect pests, bird population monitoring, and others.
The public is invited to attend this symposium, which is sponsored by
the Shenandoah Natural History Association and the National Park Service. For
symposium registration information, contact symposium coordinator Debra
Sanders at (703) 999-3498.
*
*
*
*
*
Prepared 6/24/94
Q
~~
IO,iv A.L. ~
J,., .. - . ::",:r)'[;,.:jL'~-;
/YJ ~ 0 e.:rECT/tlES "]-/~?i..---.
t.
(j) Ael.e::Lr~r.r If tJ UT/'t ~4 FAmn.,,,;;.r--';~r;,
o AI - 6 tJ ~,./ ~ S71t.,,rf f/ rl,/A-77fJN.r; ~ ~ r;t
ptJJ 17/ t/ e 0 V7L67Z'.
~ 77J ])~(,/-t..I", &:-- J.. oAl d~Tt./~/wl4'-' FILIF eJ~
'1fJ(,ITH W/rH .r~#(;/AL ItIEE~J WI"-"" ,4t."(.,,
,A 61 AI C 1..1"" /"I J / ^' " It AI /~ r# ~ 11-1'1"'7/(/ ~ ./- II. ~ $ f'fJlVr/~
(j) I/.r.l AI e.. t:!) U IL A ~.A '..r W €A crill I't tJ,,. u.cA.
7 r~ftJdl"C:#S ;4-;.4:1 71'tt..&;AJU ""UC.H ,.,.,~r& #mM
(!j).3:i4J THiS ,ev7l.Ilf-E/ DUA ILrill YtJ t.JTH
(,o~f"C..J~ ~"ftlL """~A-t.LY) WILL "e-
r'VI " I AI .r ~ e- ..I' / A.I 6 i!' i\J E II-A (. /le CJ( ~ o~tf'-
A-c-nvlniE's /N J'",~~ /#C,<<.e-~FAA:I 7D
-nlc 8EA.le:F"7 r C#'H-"-Yo,vwC-. -Alf." ~
,." Lit.. - ~ ..7 e ~ e.~u ~ "" u-/..:>>;"" ;'kIJ I' "-
d..J..r tVJ il it J -"e A ." 77 t/ I:!" / N P:;v"./ /JIL IN" t'c7.r.
t!J {7J e-.r7i+I!$UJII J/,/u,.n-ee~,IC/~ H
7}t..V17 A (!.eun#1 t,/,.I'.Iry 7E"'I"t ::;,1111-1"".
:::C.-J. j,../ / -}-t.A.. eu,e^ el.J.I C It. u...ec~ &,r PAIl) l/ l:1
I .L ~ u luAl-fe~""':I
7-,,""" "t ('0",.. (l.. 70, ~ II V
l..f "'~-r A- 81' eOhll"l,n~C~ Bu-r A S-~d.4.~O
~ IN ;:. II E NTlJlLoC...
"....
You'TN- r= If 1-1 / pe:- 0 UT/ A/ ,&-
(f) .:Jvr /J/17S -4C;.ES
-fr-OrYI o:yenc/'es
@ P/'71-~e_ - CAr/f"
.r- A-(V /L /J /t-~ A-r-
,.
i
~
,
,'j
0'
j
.'
.'
)
1
'.1
.:::T) m 13 /l. e'W <:-/f-
6/{//N6- A-
@ A- {;-'ZNCIEJ
tIt
.~
.
() ,If ErL
c. CJ rt/l7'tCr
p t3" ;t....J CJ Af J
E: 0 G/M..f' / rJ wlf7f
.5 C"IV/ (1)/1...- C- E~T6 /L.
Q77-33{, ~
Ph/{ LVi?/G/l/VO
973 - <; 7 <8 '7
y - /S- T/!,;LU-/ rerrro./.c
6A.-ee/1-'2- L~ / 7v-/y9A
9 /1-rYJ 77 G C / 2- (~?J LJ //1-1
ro~
J7 Y77 <s 7/1:-c.L~ LE S /f-d ~
7-) E r?-? Q ...J .J7~ 0 ~
F/S H/N {/-
/ /l/ U () ~ t..I LID :
ce /VTl= ~
-rilE SENld/L
/Y7/f-J. rT71~/C- - 9771 -77J0
C/-fILOt<.eAJ t.; 0 {/rlf -r- F/trr7/L'1 So.fV'C~
I
r'i /J ~r~ 2--96 -v//F
1~r-7 ~/7/
77 /Y} /-I-V 6#-eI
( /J--/ /J ~ o-r/ e- ;'7/t?L(C-J:) ?-9 b - S?V Y
R orJ BASfo
c C~~{... ~JI' /{~
P A fl-{c...J ..r~.
../
97/-32-&'~
~- ,
/ celt/ S/t-H'/
/")11 r 2-1 w Ft /l-.i?
d 7.J--- - or t3 GN
@ E/1-<:H Y
() ui If rn u ..S" r ;+,4 c.J € {/1..A7V J I' a 1~71-77 t; /,/ p/2.... d vi/.) i! ~
~o /tNL) F/"Lc.-v1-'7 oTl-lC L/lK-t: 4~/J A I2.LF(..,GAJc'F Fa 1Z-r'1
rOIL (-I//-(3/LI7'7' 4N/J wlla to Co~c..1 /rJ CAFE of /iN
,.<"") A / ( ~ ) C rr1 (L,....,..~'1..1
t2' u c:) U A..I '/L-:C-1- S7.qTL~.J- LeX-II- ~ OF riCe=- oJ
IV 0 'f /1= I 4LJ A-IjO .:..J"t o (..I 7/A/{r-
@ pol (ce f)G::.fJo..-r7 ,"I"' ~/1/TS. A-No l2eSGu-E' 5~tt/J -5I.h.e-; -
.p EO V,'c/ ~ v 0 L~ A..I-r-GelL
'*' -
PARENTlNG, aJIlIlIemelt III The 08IIy PIOll*Io.kJne 19, 1994 ~
_ Year of the PARENT ftI
What's Happening
In $upport of Parents
ChartOttl~Vllle City Schoola
recognize a d honor parents .nd
gUlrdllna roughout the year It
aocl.leven ,In newlllttarl, with
thank you n!ltll, .t worklhops,
.nd In plr~n.1 communlc.tlons.
AI.nd-of- -ye.r awsrds cer.-
monl.. and gradu.tlons, p.rents
Ind gUlrdl . .r. given public
recognition for lupportlng th.lr
children In chool.nd the stu-
d.nts, f.cUI~ .nd ltaff during the
y..r.
sp.eIfIC~' cognition end
Involv.m. .ctivltles art lilted
below. Che k with your own
school for mora detall.d list of
.chl.v.d. d pl.nn.d .ctlvltles.
Usa the foil wing Information al
a sprtngbo rd of Id... for your
own IChoo,r othar community
group. W.'I b. Including mora
activities I IUpport of par.nts In
, upcoming I su.s.
· W.lker pPflr Elementary
School: Pa enl Apprecl.tlon O.y.
· V.nllbl EI.m.ntary School:
Par.ntl tal .bout thalr occup.-
tlona .t ..~.mbll.s; a p.renl-
volunl..r a~ard; plaques for PTO
offlc.re. i
. Burnl'H-Morlln Elem.ntllry
School: Sc~ool Hotlln.; Parent
Rllourceljlbrary; y.rd s.le.;
Item exchajtg..; Inlormal.ocl.ls
for p....nts .nd f.culty to meat on
a gettlng-t know-you baals.
· J.ck.o Via Elem.ntary
School: Pr -school.,,' parents
workshop eelf-estesm and
frl.ndlhlp unch, ,
· John. n EI.ment.ry School:
R.cognltl 01 parentsst school
rededlc.tI n; workshopl on
Attention enclt ~isorder snd
reldlng II ud to children: partlc.
Ipatlon on hoollmprovement
team: a.E. daytime classll.
· Buror Middle Sc/lool: Partlc-
Ip~tlon on chool beautll1cltlon
Ind owne hip commltt..; ItU'
denllnd p renl handbook.
· Charlo esvl/le High School:
Back.to-s~hool night '
.In Alb marl. County, Ihe Hol.
Iymesd E ment.ry Improvement
Program arent Desl n Tesm
@~ader's Comment~
~
d
II
yo
IE
We fac~ the summer of 1992 as
foster par~ts with a 17-year-old
paraplegi youth who had to deal
with his II t summer of being con.
fined to a heelchair.
Fisbinglwas a passport for peace
in our fanjily during the summer.
time. The ~ansformation of this
youth fisljing at Chris Greene
Lake was 'wondrous. My wife was
the key p~er bere since sbe grew
up on the loceanfront in Delaware.
i
I~
,III
, ld
gi
..i
lint. parent que.tlonnllre,
pllced parenting booklln the
.choolllbrary, .nd offered work.
Ihopl.
· "It lllk" . whole community
to re/ae. chlld,"wll the theme 01
alamllY event at Piedmont Vir-
ginia Community COllege. The
event waa .pon.ored by the Vir-
ginia Cooperatlvl Exten.lon Ser-
vlee, the oll1ce 01 Children Youth
and Family Service., .nd Jeller-
.on-M.dllon Regional Library.
Child care and Ichool-aged chil-
dren's actlvltl.. were provided
during the workshops.
· The Junior Lllgu, recently
choll Psrenl.Chlld Communlc.-
tlon as an organizing theme lor
their actlvltl...
· wv/RlCh.nn.l29 wlll.lr
public ..rvlce announcements
on effective parenting thl.
summer.
· Ch.rlottesvllle school board
member Tamara Turner was co-
chllrperaon of a m..tlng at
Piedmont VI'fIlnl. Community
ColI'g' to spread "The Vear 01
the Parent" during the summer
.nd the upcoming school ye.r.
Other attend..a were Jim Hen-
dereon, Johnson School prin-
cipal: Lind. Se.man, chairman 01
the Charlotteavllle echool bo.rd;
Bob Bloodgood, Charlotteavlll.
school bo.rd member; Weatern
Albemarle High School PTO prea-
Ident Chuck Ward; Donna Turner,
WAHS PTO vice president; Kal
Rady. CharloUeavllle.Albemarle
Commlealon on Youth (CACV);
Chrlsllne Thomas, coordinator
lor Charlottesville Schooll: ind
.everal teachera and parents. The
participants agreed to Include
recognition olthe celebration 01
.. parenta In their plans.
The opportunity to see this
young man change his whole focus
from despair to pleasure in the
outdoors was astounding. The
tremendous anger turned a new
direction with the peacefulness of
the lake and tbe anticipation of
th! catch orthe day. His fishing
skills came through in spite ofthe
wheelchair.
Let Dad
know he is
needed,
appreciated
and loved!
Happy
Father's
Day
Share "The Year of the Parent"
and-development approach to
childrearlng.
5. Ask police departments to
distribute resource lists of family
service agenc:iea and parent sup-
l.lnitiate counea in child devel- port systema to fami1iea under
opment, conflict resolution and atreas.
peer counseling as part otthe 6. Hold apec:ia1 evente in parlu
lIcbool curriculum for children and schoo!. wbere children can
throughout the course of their f.lay with parents and families can
education. earn to bave fun together.
2. Hold parent/child/adolescent 7. Recognize businesses and
dialogues in safe and supportive agencies whose ways of operating
environments that encourage lis- are user.friendly for p~nts with
tening and understanding rather children. Examples: Flextime,
than debate. play areas, candy-free checkouts.
3. Honor parents with certin., 8. Call upon the arts community
cates, buttons, ceremonies and for a full range of new image~ of
encourage their presence at events bealthy parent/child interactions
for children - at sporting events, and frod public settings - schools,
at schools, during holidays. bospitals, theaters - for their
4. Request birthing centers display.
(obstetrics departments, etc.) to 9. Challenge local newspapers
offer programs making new par. '
ents full partners in a learning- AA. ·
radio and TV to run features about
people whose stories demonstrate
healthy parentini- including
those who succeed against the
odds.
Spread '"I'be Yeu oCthe Parent"
in your community and ahare it
with family and friends. Here are
IOme ideu: '
10. Organize neigbborhooda and
housing projects to aupport, cele-
brate, nurture and empower par.
ents. Examples: baby.Bittini
c:oropl, communal me.aIa, bome-
work helpers, honoring cere-
moniea,letter.writing campaigns
about nurturing parents.
, 11. Be messengers of new meso
lages in support ofparenls: We
aren't born with parenting skills
and they can be learned. Fathers
and mothers are nur.
turers.Growth and development is
a life-long process.
12. Other key actions: imagine,
invent" create your own...
I am a witness to seeing him
bring in a 2-foot catfish to the
amazement and joy ofus all.
I am turning to our community
as a whole to reach out to our
youth and explore similar experi.
ences that enrich everyone.
Phil Waigand,locaI resident
, -.
Summer Re~ Children'. Book Sale
10% OFF ALL PAPERBACKS!
June 13-26
SHENANIGANS
North Wmg. Barracks Road. O>artottesviIk - (804) 295-4797
MoDday-Friday 10-8. Saturday 10-6 - SuDcIay \%.5
7-/-c;y
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BRANCH
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOP~;\
214 Ninth Street N.W. .
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
June 9, 1994
Mr. John Miller, Police Chief
Albemarle County Police Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Miller:
We appreciated the presentation you made at our April
branch meeting. Recently you indicated to me that your
department has six African-American officers. According to
the last census data, the county of Albemarle has 6,824
African-American residents. Therefore, the percent of
African-American officers is somewhat less than the county's
African-American population.
You mentioned at our April meeting that the county will
employ six additional officers next year, 1994-95. Our
branch would like to encourage you to fill those slots with
African-Americans.
It has also been called to our attention that
complaints against the police department are reviewed by
your staff. We would like to recommend the establishment of
a review board composed of some county citizens to address
the preceding need.
Thanks again for sharing with our branch.
Since~
~aines, President
Albemarle County NAACP
cc: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, County Executive
Members of the Board of Supervisors
INTERVIEW TIME SCHEDULE
July 6, 1994
TIME NAME BOARD/COMMISSION
1:00 Michael Matthews, Jr. Joint Airport Commission
1:10 Raymond E. Gaines BOCA Code Board of Appeals &
Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals
1:20 Randolph R. Rinehart BOCA Code Board of Appeals &
Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals
1:30 Michael W. Walton BOCA Code Board of Appeals &
Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals
-l-;-S{) Richard J. l\ubry, Jr. Joint J\.irport Commission
*
Mr. H. Ronald Joyce (Will) withdrew his application for the Jordan Development
Corporation. (This position will have to be readvertised.)
**
Mr. Richard J. Aubry, Jr. withdrew his application for the Joint Airport Commission.
He has accepted a position with the Nelson County Schools and will be moving.
... ..
tD
'1_=(.~.'2<L__
COUNTY OF ALBEMARE:FY3 item No 2i: 67_f'i:.V y
MEMORANDUM
TO:
fROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of Supervisors
k CMC ~1.lV
Ella W. Carey, Cler , vV'
June 30, 1994
Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
Following is a list of current member on board and commissions who wish to be reappointed:
Malone and Mr. William Kehoe are currently serving
~th terms ending December 1, 1994. Mr. Ma]on as served two, three-year terms and is not eligible for
\. '. reappointment. Mr. Kehoe has expressed his desir. to be reappointed as the joint representative for the County
and City. The terms of these appointments will pire Dec~ber 1, 1997. Interviews are currently being scheduled.
/
BpCA Code Board of Appeals: Two vacancies. MrAohn Hood is currently serving with term ending August 21,
/1'1>94. Mr. William C. Thacker has resigned fr~ this Board. Mr. Hood has expressed his desire to be
V r~appointed. The appointees to this Board als?S"erve on th~Yire Prevention Code of Appea]s. The terms of these
appointments will expire November 21, 1999, Interviewyare currently being scheduled.
//
F,re Prevention Code of Appeals: Two 'Yacancies/Mr. John Hood is currently serving with term ending August
/:;!1, 1994. Mr. William C. Thacker has resigne from this Board. Mr. Hood has expressed his desire to be
V rttappointed. The appointees to this Board al serve on the BOCA Code Board of Appeals. The terms of these
a~pointments will expire November 21, ] 9 . Interviews are currently being scheduled.
T~ Emerl!encv Medical Services Council: One vacancy. Mr. John Hood is currently serving with tenn ending
D~cember 31, 1994. Mr. Hood does not wish to be reappointed. The term of this appointment will expire December
31, 1997. No applications were received, this vacancy has been readvertised and the dead]ine for applications is July
12, 1994.
J,rdan Development Corporation: Two vacancies. Ms. Lisa Keyes Glass and Ms. Nancy Whiting Barnett are
c4rrent]y serving with terms ending August 13, 1994. Ms. Glass had expressed her desire to be reappointed.
Ms. Barnett does not wish to be reappointed. The terms of these appointments will expire August 13, 1995. One
app]ication was received, but the applicant has withdrawn his application.
PlIblic Recreational Facilities Authoritv: Four vacancies. Messrs. Andrew Middleditch, Ricardo Eugenio Preve,
and G. David Emmitt, and Ms. Norma J. Dieh] are current]y serving with terms ending December 31,1994. Mr.
Middleditch and Mr. Emmitt have expressed their desires to be reappointed. Ms. Diehl and Mr. Preve do not
wish to be reappointed. The terms of these appointments will expire December 31, 1997. No applications were
received, this vacancy has been readvertised and the dead]ine for applications is July 12, 1994.
EWC/jng
FQRMS\APPTLST.UPD
~ .
It seems there was some confusion at the last Board meeting regarding the appointments. Following are
the appointments that have been made:
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authoritv: One vacancy. Mr. William Kehoe was reappointed with term to
expire December I, 1997. The joint appointee for the Joint Airport Commission (Mr. Kehoe) is also the
appointee for this Authority.
Architectural Review Board: Two vacancies. Mr. Frank Kess]er and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom were reappointed
with terms to expire November ]4, ]998.
Housine: Committee: Three vacancies. Messrs. Leigh B. Midd]editch, Jr., Forrest D. Kerns and Howard Allen were
reappointed with terms to expire October 9, 1997. Mr. Richard Kovatch was also reappointed as the UVa
representative with term to expire December 31, ] 997.
Thomas Jefferson Housine: Improvements Corporation: One vacancy. Mr. Robert S. Parrott, Jr. was reappointed
with term to expire October 9, 1997.
JAUNT Board: Two vacancies. Ms. Betty L. Newell and Ms. Roxanne White were reappointed with terms to
expire September 30, 1997.
Jefferson Area Board on Ae:ine:: One vacancy. Mr. Mark Reisler was reappointed with term to expire October
20, 1996.
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority: One vacancy. Dr. F.A. lachetta was reappointed as the joint City/County
representative, with term to expire May 1, ]996.
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: One vacancy. Mr. G. David Emmitt was
appointed to rep]ace Mr. W. Joseph Hoeller with term to expire December 31, 1995. Mr. G. David Emmitt is
currently serving on the Public Recreational Facilities Authority and has expressed his desiJ'e to be
reappointed.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: One vacancy. Dr. F.A. lachetta was reappointed as the joint City/County
representative with term to expire May 1, 1996.
EWC/jng
"" .
INTERVIEW TIME SCHEDULE
July 6, 1994
TIME NAME BOARD/COMMISSION
1:00 Michael Matthews, Jr. Joint Airport Commission
1:10 Raymond E. Gaines BOCA Code Board of Appeals
& Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals
1:20 Randolph R. Rinehart BOCA Code Board of AppeaLs &
Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals
1:30 Michael W. Walton BOCA Code Board of AppeaLs &
Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals
1:50 Richard J. Aubry, Jr. Joint Airport Commission
*
Mr. H. Ronald Joyce (Will) withdrew his application for the Jordan Development
Corporation. (This position will have to be readvertised.)