HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-12(N)
5:30
1)
2)
3)
4)
7:00
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8
9
1P)
1 )
1~)
1~)
111)
I
FIN A L
January 12, 1994
County Office Building
P.M., Meetinq Room 11.
Call to Order.
*Executive Session: Personnel
Certify Executive Session.
Adjourn.
P.M. Meetina Room 7.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet) .
Publi.c Hearing to receive comments on Final Design Guidelines prepared by
the Architectural Review Board (ARB). It is the purpose of ARB
review and these Guidelines that proposed development within desig-
nated entrance corridors reflect elements of design characteristic
of the significant historical landmarks, buildings and structures of
the Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and
attractive development within these corridors.
SP-93-31. Richard & Carol Greene & Ringwood Company. Public Hearing on
a request for a private airstrip [10.2.2(19)] on 134 acs znd RA.
Property, described as TM40,P39 is located on the W side of Rt 680
approx 1/2 mi S of the Rt 810/Rt 680 intersec. White Hall District.
(Property is not located in a designated growth area.)
Approval of Service Agreement - Sheriff's Deputies for the Town of
Scottsville.
Appropriation: Transfer to Textbook Fund - $15,000. (Form #930048).
Appointments.
Approval of Minutes: March 13(A) and March 18(A), 1992.
Cancel Board meeting for January 19, 1994.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
*It is intended that the Board will hold an Executive Session under Va.
Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 (personnel matters) for the purpose of
interviewing applicants for boards and commissions.
I
CON S E N T
AGENDA
FbR ACTION:
5.1 Authorize Chairman to sign Teen Center Lease Agreement.
5.2 Proposed Legislative amendments on railroad construction and maintenance
of fences, wagonways, etc.
5.2a Appoi.ntment - Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium Managing Body.
FbR INFORMATION:
5.3 Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1993.
,. .
David P. So rman
Charlottes ille
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. umphris
Jack Jou tt
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Ma shall, Jr.
Scottsvile
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMORANDUM
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director/Planning & Community Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~
DATE: January 13, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SPBJECT: Board Actions of January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its meeting on
J~nuary 12, 1994 (night meeting) :
Agenda Item NO.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PPBLIC. There were none.
Agenda Item NO.5. Consent Agenda.
APPROVED Item 5.1 through 5.2a and accepted Item 5.3 as information.
Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign Teen Center Lease Agreement.
AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the Teen Center Lease Agreement.
Item 5.2. Proposed Legislative amendments on railroad construction and
m~intenance of fences, wagonways, etc.
APPROVED proposed legislative amendment on railroad construction and
m~intenance of fences, wagonways, etc.
Item 5.2a. Appointment - Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium
Mimaging Body.
APPOINTED Mrs. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. Walter F. Perkins to the Thomas
J fferson Regional HOME Consortium Managing Body.
Agenda Item No.6. Public Hearing to receive comments on Final Design
G~idelines prepared by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). It is the
p~rpose of ARB review and these Guidelines that proposed development within
d~signated entrance corridors reflect elements of design characteristic of the
s gnificant historical landmarks, buildings and structures of the Charlottes-
v lIe and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development
w thin these corridors.
*
Printed on recycled paper
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
January 13, 1994
2
D~te:
P~ge:
ADOPTED the attached Final Design Guidelines prepared by the Architec-
t~ral Review Board.
Agenda Item NO.7. SP-93-31. Richard & Carol Greene & Ringwood
Cpmpany. Public Hearing on a request for a private airstrip [10.2.2(19)] on
164 acs znd RA. Property, described as TM40,P39 is located on the W side of
R 680 approx 1/2 mi S of the Rt 810/Rt 680 intersec. White Hall District.
DENIED SP-93-31.
Agenda Item No.8. Approval of Service Agreement - Sheriff's Deputies
fpr the Town of Scottsville.
AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the service agreement for Sheriff's
D~puties for the Town of Scottsville with the following conditions:
. The County's commitment to this agreement is contingent upon the
State and the Town covering any and all costs associated with this
function.
. If the Compensation Board does not fund these positions, the
County assumes no responsibility in providing funding for this
agreement.
. A separate agreement is to be developed between the Police Depart-
ment and the Sheriff's Department as to mutual assistance, which
agency would be considered primary for handling calls for service
and criminal investigations, and how federal and state crime
reporting requirements will be met for this area so that duplica-
tion of crime statistics is not an issue.
. The Town of Scottsville will be required to pay its pro rata share
of the Emergency Operations Center Police Dispatch costs for
dispatch services provided by that entity. (These costs will be
assessed after a full year of data for calls for service is
established. )
. County's 599 funding will not be reduced or diminished.
Agenda Item NO.9. Appropriation: Transfer to Textbook Fund - $15,000.
(Ii'orm #930048) .
APPROVED. Appropriation Form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments.
APPOINTED the following:
Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff to the Planning Commission as the at-large
m~mber with said term to expire December 31, 199!)
Ms. Monica Vaughan to the Planning Commission as the representative for
t~e Charlottesville District with said term to expire December 31, 1997.
Mr. A. Bruce Dotson to the Planning Commission as the representative for
t~e Samuel Miller District with said term to expire December 31, 1997.
Mr. Ken Clarry to the IDA as the representative for the Rivanna District
w th said term to expire January 19, 1998.
I
I
<<
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
January 13, 1994
3
Dlite:
P~ge:
Mr. Martin requested that he be replaced on the Hazardous Materials
Cpmmittee. There was a CONSENSUS that Mr. Bowerman serve on the Hazardous
Mliterials Committee replacing Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 12. Cancel Board meeting for January 19, 1994.
CANCELED meeting for January 19, 1994.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BpARD. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn.
At 10:12 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
E~C/jng
A tachment
c~: Richard E. Huff, II
Bruce Woodzell
Amelia McCulley
Roxanne White
Jo Higgins
George R. St. John
Larry Davis
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 972-4060
DaVld P Sowerman
Charlottesville
Charlotte Y. Humph",
.Jack ,Jotlf'fl
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr
Scottsl/llle
January 20, 1994
Ms. Nancy K. O'Brien
413 East Market St
Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22901-5213
Dear Ms. G"Brien:
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Walter F. Perkins
WhilE' Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 12, 1994, the Board appointed the
following to the Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortiume Managing Body:
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas
901 West Leigh Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
and
Mr. Walter F. Perkins
Route 3, Box 79
Crazet, VA 22932
If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
EWC/jng
cc: Sally H. Thomas
Walter F. Perkins
*
Printed on recycled paper
Sincerely,
C1 //1 ,I /
wtl0U (tIvUj
Ella W. Carey 2)
Clerk, CMC
II
-~.-_.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLffr ~ ~IDL~l_, .
,,-:. 0\:\/;:'1:.'// \~r
;;~i 11i~ .~ l\.~ \ ,
v~ l' . \ '
':-.. - - :r:, ~, 1 \.
.oJ. (l. ,J.. L-- . ~.1
,1_ Jl.. '. ,',.I, : \" _.............-....~ .-_,
, '~...-' f ) . il ,".
Ij[iG\1:-\\\'o t f C:UP':.H\ ,:;"/'
h"'OARO 0 ':-'---_., ",."
'c~;":::"----
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~ ~
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive~ (
January 12, 1994
Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium Managing Body
At its meeting on January 6, 1994, the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission unanimously recommended that Commission members
be appointed as the Managing Body of the Thomas Jefferson Regional
HOME Consortium. Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director of TJPDC,
is requesting that the Board of Supervisors officially appoint its
two PDC representatives, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Perkins, to the
Managing Body of the Regional HOME Consortium. Each locality
within the Planning District 10 must take this official action to
create the Managing Body of the Consortium.
The Managing Body will review policies and provide direction to a
regional housing program which is guided by the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy, HUD and local government
jurisdictions. Again, I am recommending that you appoint Ms. Sally
Thomas and Mr. Walter Perkins to the Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME
Consortium.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
RWT,Jr/dbm
94.010
~ ~~. ~'1 dJ~
/7/- 4-1:' f~bF ~ ~ ;;f}dZjM
(~~ , 1/~/.A101-52f3
:k~jJluM/ iN'!/ ?P- j f.Z 0
/1
/ f/--rrvnu4<lljJf1/
~
iINlJ~TY c)F AlBiM,t..h....t"
.., '", 'ft" ~. . I . ~ .....
. ~:_il,_._."'-"'_ '.. .<t"
],
I, JAN 11 1994 . t "
,/ ~ '.
~~G~'~ ")1 ~if~.
IXJCU''''. _"1ft
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Robert Tucker, Albemarle County Executive
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director ~
Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium Managing Body
January 10, 1994
At t e January PDC meeting, on a motion by Stanley Powell (Greene),
seco ded by John Purcell (Louisa) the Commission unanimously
reco ended appointing the Commission members as the managing body. I
am w iting to request the Board of Supervisors appoint the two PDC
repr sentatives, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas, to the Managing Body of
the homas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium. This approach will
acco lish two things: it will insure continued elected official
invol ement in the program and it will simplify the management of the
prog am.
The original agreement signed by all localities participating in the
Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium included naming the City of
CharI ttesville as the Lead Agency, the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District as the administrative agency and left a managing body to be
appoi ted. The managing body is to be appointed by the local
gover ing body and consist of two persons from each jurisdiction.
naging Body will review policies and provide general direction
program. The ~rogram is primarily guided by the Comprehensive
g Affordability Strategy, local government, and the U. S.
ment of Housing and Urban Development. Policies which differ
hose in the original agreement will be brought to each locality
view and approval.
d appreciate your putting this on the agenda at the earliest
Ie date. If you have questions, please call me. Please notify
the da1:e the topic will be considered.
Thank you.
cc: W Perkins, S. Thomas
-/11..:,'" r"'j,./j/",I,: '~"I._. ~ '1 -';
../IA..,"&"n.tL' . I...JXi."',:! J ,<" l~r,A c JJ. (.1. ~ , j Mi.. . cI ',({ , ," ,'u,. . Lj i-f"v:U ( i'U/: I.a .
"
y. /' ~/"
0{.J<{, L~, / 'lL.{.jOi L ,>!A.T,L;
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
:~') '_'~n__@.JU \\q ~l '-1
.' ) 1 '-~'..,
I 1 Ii,. ,
:") 1 .
,i
'j
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 1993
J
AGENDA T TLE:
Teen Cen er Lease Agreement
RS
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA: x
ACTION: x
INFORMATION:... d.'
I - ;7 - Yf--
q,d "'/ / '.:5/' "' .
.r ,/ t:... /""""'~
,
-"
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Request
sign Tee
to
~);
BACKGRO
On Nove
Westfie
Negotia
REVIEWED BY:
Yes (~
I
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
Huff, and Mullaney
1993, the Board of Supervisors approved funding for a Teen Center site on
On December 6, 1993 funding was approved by City Council for the site.
the lease agreement have now been completed.
DISCUSS ON:
The sub ect property is located at 446 Westfield Road and is owned by JKL Land Trust. The
owner's agent is HasBrouck Real Estate Corporation. The lease is for a term of 2 years
beginni g January 15, 1993 and ending January 14, 1996. The City and County have the option
to term'nate the lease after one year if proper funding is not appropriated. The rental area
is 2700 sq. ft. at the rate of $8.00 per sq. ft. per year, payable in equal monthly
install ents of $1800. At the end of each calendar year of the lease term the rent will be
adjuste upward at 5%.
The Cit
service
removal
includi
less th
compreh
and County are responsible for payment for gas, electricity and trash removal
The owner is responsible for payment for water & sewer, exterminator and snow
services. The owner is also responsible for the maintenance of mechanical systems
g, plumbing, heating, cooling and wiring, except that any individual repair charge
n $250 is the responsibility of the City and County. The City and County must carry
nsive general public liability insurance on the property.
The Cou ty Attorney's Office has reviewed this lease agreement and has found it to be in
proper egal order.
that the Chairman be authorized to sign this lease agreement for the County.
TCLEASE
94.003
-,
HASBROUCK REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
COMMERCIAL LEASE
1233 Cedars Court P.O. Box 5384
Charlottesville, VA 22905
THIS LEASE, made this 11h day of December ..~. by and between JKL Land Trust
"Lessor" Albemarle County. and City of Charlottesville Lessee, and
HasBrouck Real Estate Corporation, "Agent".
WITNESSETH:
Lessor does hereby let and demise unto Lessee the hereinafter described space in the
building know as 446 Westfield Rd.
DESCRIPTION OF DEMISED SPACE
Floor: 1 st Building N/A
Location on Floor Northside - see attached drawino.
Number of Square Feet (net rentable) Approximately 2700 sq.ft.
Plus Common Area Allocation N/A
TERM OF LEASE
This lease shall be for a term of g years, commencing on the 151h day of January
~, and shall end at 12 o'clock noon on January 14th, 1.9.9.Q. The Lessee has the option to
terminate lease after one year if Board of SupeNisors and City Council do not appropriate proper
funding.
USE FOR WHICH LEASED
Tenant shall use and occupy the demised premises as:
Teen Center
RENT AND ADDITIONAL RENT
The basic annual rental shall be at the rate of ~ per sq. f1. per year, payable in equal
monthly installments of liaQQ in advance on, the 10th day of each calendar month, during the
term at HasBrouck Management Corporation, P.O. Box 5384, Charlottesville, Virginia 22905. The
first months rent will be prorated and due January 15th, 1994. At the end of each calendar year of
the the lease term and any extensions, the rent will be adjusted upward at 5%.
IMPROVEMENT BY TENANT
The Lessee shall have the right, from time to time, to make all such alterations and
improvements to, and decoration of, the interior of the leased property as shall be reasonably
necessary or appropriate for the conduct of Lessor's business therein, provided that prior to the
commencement of any such alterations or improvements the Lessor shall in each case have
approved in writing the plans therefore. If within thirty (30) days after such plans are submitted by
the Lessee to the Lessor for such approval, Lessor shall not have given Lessee notice of
disapproval, stating the reasons for such have disapproval, such plans and specifications shall be
considered approved by the Lessor. Any alteration, addition or improvement made by the
Lessee after such consent shall have been given, and any fixtures which have been installed and
would damage the building if removed, shall become the property of the Lessor upon the
expiration or sooner termination of this lease; provided, however, that the Lessor shall have the
right to require the Lessee to remove such fixtures at the Lessee's cost upon such termination of
this lease, with property returned to its original condition. Lessee has the option to remove
fixtures, at Lessee's expense provided that Lessee repair ant damage, age caused by removal; to
the building's prior condition.
ATTACHED RULES AND REGULATIONS
Lessee shall obseNe and comply with rules and regulation hereinafter set forth which are
made a part hereof, and with such further reasonable rules and regulations as Lessor may
prescribe, on written notice to the Lessee, for the safety, care and cleanliness of the building and
1
..
adjacent areas and for the comfort, quiet, safety and convenience of other occupants of the
building.
MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES
Lessee shall commit no act of waste and shall take good care of the premises and the
fixtures and appurtenances therein, and shall, in the use and occupancy of the premises, conform
to all laws, orders and regulations of federal, state and municipal governments having jurisdiction.
Lessee will maintain the interior of said leased premises in good, safe and presentable condition
during the term of the lease and will surrender the premises in as good condition as they were at
the beginning of the term, reasonable wear, tear, and damage by fire, the elements, casualty or
other cause not due to the misuse or neglect by Lessee or Lessee's agents, servants, visitors or
licensees excepted. Lessor shall be responsible for the maintenance of mechanical systems
including, plumbing, heating, cooling and wiring, except that any individual repair charge less than
$250.00 will be the responsibility of the Lessee. All the property of Lessee remaining on the
premises at the expiration of the lease, or any renewal, shall conclusively be deemed abandoned
and may be removed by the Lessor, and Lessee shall reimburse the Lessor the cost of such
removal. Lessor may have any such property stored at Lessee's risk and expense.
SERVICES
The following services will be paid by:
Water & Sewer W,s,Qr
Gas Lessee
Electricity Lessee
Trash Removal Lessee
Exterminator Lessor
OilWA
FIRE CLAUSE
In the event the premises shall be destroyed or so damaged or injured by fire or other
casualty during the life of this agreement, whereby the same shall be rendered untenantable,
then the Lessor shall have the right to render said premises tenantable by repairs within ninety
days therefrom. If said premises are not rendered tenantable within said time, it shall be optional
with either party hereto to cancel this lease, and in the event of such cancellation the rent shall be
paid only to the date of such fire or casualty. The cancellation herein mentioned shall be
evidenced in writing. Not withstanding the provisions hereof: In any event of loss or damage to
the building, the premises and/or any contents, each party shall look first to any insurance in its
favor before making any claim against the other party; and TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL COST, EACH PARTY SHALL OBTAIN, FOR EACH POLICY OF SUCH
INSURANCE, PROVISIONS PERMITTING WAIVER OF ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE OTHER
PARTY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE INSURANCE.,
INSURANCE
Tenant, at tenants expense, shall carry and keep in full force and effect at all times during the term
of this lease for the protection of Landlord, Landlord's managing agent, any other parties in
interest designated from time to time by Landlord by written notice to tenant, and tenant:
(1) Comprehensive general public liability insurance with limits acceptable to Landlord written by
solvent, reputable insurance company satisfactory to Landlord. Tenant shall deliver to Landlord a
copy of said policy or, at Landlord's option, a binder or certificate showing the same to be in full
force and effect. It is understood and agreed that liability coverage provided for hereunder shall
~xtend beyond the Demised Premises to portions of the common areas of the Building used from
time to time by tenant, its employees, agent, contractors and invitees, and further, shall include
contractual liability insuring the indemnity provisions of this lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
tenant shall have no responsibility to indemnify Landlord for loss, damage, causes of action,
judgments or costs arising solely from the gross negligence or willful misconduct on Landlord, its
employees or agents.
EMINENT DOMAIN
If the premises or any part thereof or any estate herein, or any other part of the building
jnaterially affecting Lessees use of the premises, be taken by virtue of eminent domain, this lease
::.hall terminate on the date when title vests pursuant to such taking, the rent and additional rent
2
..
shall be apportioned as of said date and any rent paid for any period beyond said care shall be
repaid to Lessee. Lessee shall not be entitled to any part of the award or any payment in lieu
thereof; but Lessee may file a claim for any taking of fixtures and improvements owned by Lessee,
and for moving expenses.
ADDITIONAL COVENANTS BY LESSEE
Lessee will not assign or sublet the premises or any part thereof, without the prior written
approval of Lessor, which approval will not be withheld unreasonably. Lessor may re-enter for
default of fifteen (15) days in the payment of any installment of rent, or for the breach of any
covenant herein contained. Lessee's liability on this lease shall survive the eviction and the
Lessor shall be entitled to recover the rent reserved for the full lease term, offset only by rent
actually received or by the reasonable rental value of such of the leased premises as are actually
occupied by Lessor, not to exceed in any event the rent herein reserved, and any such
occupancy shall not be construed as a release of Lessee's liability hereunder. Lessor's remedies
hereunder are in addition to any remedies allowed by law.
WAIVERS
The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any covenant or condition
hereof, or to exercise any option herein contained, shall not be construed as a waiver of such
covenant, condition or option in any other instance. Acceptance by Lessor of monthly
installments of rent with knowledge of a default by Lessee under this lease, or acceptance by
Lessor of performance by Lessee that varies from the provisions of this lease or rules or
regulations adopted by Lessor, shall not constitute a waiver of the right of Lessor to terminate this
lease or seek damages, (a) for the continuation of the same breach or for another breach of this
lease by Lessee occurring after the month to which such monthly installment of rent was
applicable, or (b) for the continuation of the same variance or for another variance of performance
by Lessee occurring after the month during which Lessor accepted such variance. Acceptance
by Lessor of partial payment of past due rent shall not constitute any waiver or any right of lessor
to.terminate this lease for breach of its provisions by Lessee, and acceptance of unpaid rent after
expiration of a termination notice shall not constitute a waiver of the termination.
SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
This lease shall be subject to all mortgages or deeds of trust which may now or hereafter
affect the real estate of which the premises form a part, and also to all renewals, modification,
consolidations and replacements of said mortgages or deeds of trust.
ENTRY BY LANDLORD
Lessor or his agent may, but shall not be obligated to, enter the demised premises at any
reasonable time, on reasonable notice to Lessee (except that no notice need be given in case of
emergency) for the purposes of inspection or the making of such repairs, replacements and
additions necessary or desirable.
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
Lessee shall not be entitled to claim a oonstructiveeviciion from the premises unless
Lessee shall have first notified Lessor in writing of the condition or conditions given rise thereto,
and, if the complaints be justified, unless Lessor shall have failed within a reasonable time after
receipt of notice to remedy such conditions.
LESSOR MAY SHOW PREMISES
Lessor or his agent may show the premises to prospective purchasers and mortgagees at
any time, and, during the four months prior to termination of this lease, to prospective tenants,
during business hours and upon reasonable notice to Lessee.
QUIET POSSESSION
Quiet Enjoyment-The LESSOR covenants that the Lessee, on the paying of the rent
and the performing of covenants and conditions contained in this lease, shall and may
peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the leased premises. The Lessee covenants
that no use shall be made or permitted to be made of the leased premises, or any part
3
'"
thereof, and no acts done therein that may unreasonably disturb the quiet enjoyment of
any other tenant in the building or buildings of which the leased premises are a part. In
the event that the Lessee's conduct or that of his family, invitees or guests is
unreasonable injurious or damaging to the Lessor and/or the rights, privileges or
welfare of the other tenants of the leased premises or surrounding neighborhood, the
Lessor may serve a written notice on the Lessee specifying the acts or omissions
consulting the breach herein and stating that the rental agreement will terminate upon a
date not less than thirty (30) days after the receipt of the notice if the breach is not
remedied in twenty-one (21) days, and the rental agreement shall there after terminate
as provided in said notice. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to give Lessee any
right of action for damages against lessor for the noise or conduct of other tenants
renting from Lessor unless said noise or conduct of said other tenants is actually
authorized by the Lessor. In addition to the other remedies provided herein, in the event
that Lessee's conduct, whether or not authorized by Lessor, unreasonably disturbs other
tenants of Lessor that tenants or tenant may lawfully terminate their lease agreements,
with Lessor and/or sue Lessor for damages incurred thereby.
PUBLIC AREAS
Except as otherwise herein provided, Lessor will keep all hallways, stairways, elevators,
entryways, sidewalks and parking areas in a clean and presentable condition and will, as soon as
reasonably possible, remove all snow and ice from parking lots and other public areas.
LATE FEE
In the event that any installment of rent is not received by the tenth of the month for which
such installment is due, a late fee of $50.00 shall be paid by Lessee to Lessor.
RENTAL FEE
Lessor agrees the HasBrouck Management Corporation shall be entitled to receive a
commission of 5.% of all rent for the property during the term and on any extension of such term,
one half of the initial rate.
COMMISSION ON SALE OR EXCHANGE
In consideration of the negotiation of this lease or the handling or management of the
property Lessor agrees to pay HasBrouck Management Corporation a fee of if during
the term or an additional term of the lease, or within 90 days after expiration of the lease, Lessor
shall sell the property of any kind and wherever located.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee and Agent have caused this lease to be
signed by persons fully authorized thereto.
(Seal)
Lessor
Title
LJO}~ :'1fJ~
Lessee
tJ; {t01 /YltL-}~
Title
Lessee
4
Title
'i
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1 . The sidewalks, entrances, passages, courts, vestibules, stairways, corridors and public
parts of the building shall not be obstructed or encumbered by Lessee or used by Lessee for any
purpose other than ingress and egress to and from the premises.
2. No awnings, air conditioning units or other projections shall be attached to the outside
wall or windowsills of the building or otherwise project from the building, without the prior written
consent of Lessor.
3. No sign or lettering shall be affixed by Lessee on any part of the outside of the premises,
or on any part of the inside of the premises, without the prior written consent of Lessor. However,
Lessee shall have the right to place its name on any door leading into the premises, the size, color
and style thereof to be subject to Lessor's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonable
withheld.
4. The windows in the premises shall not be covered or obstructed by Lessee, nor shall any
bottles, parcels or other articles by placed on the windowsills or in the halls or in any other common
areas of the building.
S. Lessee shall not make, or permit to be made, any unseemly, or disturbing noises or
interfere with other tenants or those having business with them.
6. No additional locks or bolts of any kinds shall be placed upon any of the doors by Lessee,
and Lessee shall, upon the termination of this tenance, deliver to Lessor all keys to any space
within the building, either furnished to, or otherwise procured by, Lessee, and in the event of the
loss of any keys. Lessee shall pay to Lessor the cost thereof.
7. Lessor reserves the right to prescribe the weight and position of all safes and other heavy
equipment so as to distribute properly the weight therefore and to prevent any unsafe condition
from arising. Business machines and other equipment shall be sufficient in the Lessor's
reasonable judgement to absorb and prevent unreasonable vibration, noise and annoyance.
8. Lessor shall not be responsible to Lessee for the nonobservance or violation of any of
these Rules and Regulations by any other Lessee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee and Agent have caused this lease to be
signed by persons fully authorized thereto.
(Seal)
By:
Lessor
Title
te; UU>
/)
By: {~Jrtlt;;, 1~
,
;Lessee
d;;;et1m;/j
Title
By:
Lessee
Title
5
.'
Amendment to Lease dated December 7, 1993
1) Modifications of enclosed floor plan is approved. Lessee is
allowed to carpet the premises with owner approval of color
and style. Lessee is allowed to paint interior at their
discretion. Lessee agrees to paint the building back to its
original color when lease is terminated.
2) The owner understands the intended use as a teen center
including, but not limited, to recreation such as ping-pong and
dances, school studies, and counseling.
3) Lessee agrees to pay first and last month's rent by January
15th, 1994.
Lessor
Title
-Lu-~~3~---- Lessee
/?.I.- .
f.4LJ/U.!M~___________ Tit I e
----------------------
-------------------------------Lessee
-------------------------------Title
___.___.... a"_
t, r?Yl1 ~~
!...f d f i 0'
....-
f\'i \ K::'
;....-! 'CR/j"Q'f
14~ r i'2.t'
tr-~i~- ',I. I' \ I ~. ,"r;t':;~~' '1" '~'~~:-'=~--l~'~-~':'-' .
,1 I I \ I,! ,l, I .:
, ' .
i I l~- .... "ll~---' . -. ., . ,
r.:~~I~i~[~F! . L.t"'r-"'~::" I \'~ . 'l"'l'i~. i,l., ,:.'.: .~".,
10<;;'; , J \ ~~.:":'~t?"- ~ G.4o......I"!"~\f~
e 1 \o~i ::L 1101' i~'
. . ~: " I. 1
_~=-,.. ~',.",.t.."Z..==t'.
-j ~:_~ : \
'it7'/O"
------- ----~
0i~:.
\U>
j
\-\01)' /~Y ~
~..j,. ..}.,f,.
~=.._.--
I -'--J \~O G,'O
!IO~ .'\.
'. . ......
~~~
(?j..... r~) - ~E)
r~)
1\ [/~ ,1~?J~r=
\ '. ,.- -(1....---..
10 14.,,( I ".
\ /_. _ /l
I
!'i)
\
~~....,,;:,'::::":'~:b,;...1
(~\
i 'G:
I
I
I 'O':1./S/Y' :~)
I \4 tl;< \~t1
. I
I \\~
I I
I
I
I
\
. ~..
:..\Z. ':'IC1"-' ~
?7:/"L,o'.. GfD
Ie; IJ C; !-ll>I.oL.
~~l ,.::::c;;.l-L
(f,
(0
./ l~
." -"--.1 / '
: 10Z"
,'f~D::~~ ~cc=
D'
j
(A)
,
/
~'O~~~~~~
.l.. .
. I '
\J I p~ P?,/ 1--:4.:.
y C\I-l-t:;:y.:.',
t:: IN' l2. e D T~I<.IJ
1>-'::> ~~\.J1~eiO
..\~..",.,.:..:. .
I\w.f' I'
t ,: '. L-i:,,: .:'I:"~;"
_ _' . .~n-,-rl.'
-II _ _ '~;fj'~.:' ,~
f'V. ~t>\.-. MY\. ~s;"~:}s;;,'i,,:<
; . -. .: ~:,,<,:;';~r.~;!IJ~
.rt, ' .1 ~;t.... ,.:y.. -~~ ... '_
\ ~ . .I'_I'd:!'
l'-~ ~~. 'r'"'
~ ' -
,; {' \ ","
~ / L,
~}
r?~.; '~Ic:.I"~'t
~:r,"Tt.'1'-\
l~" T . :_~~,~- r~-~~\
,\ 1 ....,. [/"f.\ W /"-.('.1l-
. \ )
. -t - t,
n-\,'\.';...l"',,' U'-l L . ! "J
l-~l' I u~
\fil~I~ ~"lj ~-' _---~I
:i 1\ t- 1 ': \ \; 'I ~
~l ~ I I I
~. rt Hl-:I"
~r., . 1- ::' i'; -; I
t. 11.1 .- ---I
I. \ \ u __ ~1-. .J ~--' . --J
't'lJ
. . -1'
r' r\\\J/ L~
-I t!
1
1
1\
Off'l? r;- AR~,A.
ll@
(
-'
r----- ~....--
. ., ..-.....,........... ~.--,.....~
t ..'. . ~- . - '. . ..- .
-.-1-
w -....w-, (\J~w
. 1-- /~, ;- ~ I
f,' .' '. ,.----,.. ,r.' f
. - I /.' I
J-- ~_.' ,-----. ~....
C;C-.AI.-S
t::
"
;\
~-
I:;
I ~
,3,,~fJ ..' ' .
, ,:'1"). . fl.~8t?
, :. .... 'i?- N LtTM ~~
I LP" ~ ,.:.\lq ,e..
I~", '
~/,/ U.I_Q] ,
s -r () f'-.r.c\ ;;;;:
1 ~.~ l. ,tl'
I
-t-: . ':-J-:
'tW\~M~""r.
~
I. .
"\
,.
,
,
. "
"
';..tt" _
L i"
,-~., .r...
'II, i.'., i
\ ","'.
. '-\~ ",.' .
'\I!i' '-
t~~:;{
'4-f~ I
..';";_, ,Ii~'.:,::'_: ~i,:,., ., l'
. . hil:"~>k.~,.t ,;,Ii"',.,.,'" '.\
,)~,..,,,l:f,.S!i:1l ~".IIP;""_"';" - f.~
i:i _
I
I:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SBOS1MBdns :'0 C
E"~'"~'""
" ilIlIlai/;;:, '
!~ ... ,- ---
~~ ID & n ID @ ~
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed legislative amendments on railroad
construction and maintenance of fences,
wagonways, etc.
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for Board
support of proposed legislation to amend
railroad obligations for wagonways, fences,
cattleguards, etc. across private land.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: x
INFORMATION V l-;Y
c: )'// // /.) /,"""" I
;//' ./ (//.'./" .<,.~'
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S) :
Messrs. Tucker, White
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Charles Frankfurt of Keswick has requested the support of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors for legislation that is being sponsored in the 1994 legislative session by
Delegate Earl Dickenson. The legislation proposes revisions to existing law dating back to
1919 that stipulates the responsibilities of railroads for the construction and maintainance
of fences, wagonways, cattleguards, etc. across private farmland. An additional section of
the code is also proposed to cover the injury/death of any livestock caused by the railroad.
This legislation is being supported by the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors and the Farm Bureau.
DISCUSSION:
In summary the major revisions in the code are the following:
o redefinition of a vehiclular crossing over the rail lines, from a "suitable wagonway"
to a wagonway that is constructed to minimum Vdot standards for highways at railroad
grade crossings;
o requires maintenance of the wagonways by the railroad companies, in addtion to
their construction;
o revises the fines for non-compliance from $5 to $100 and the fees for service by the
commissioners from $2 to $50 per day;
o redefines types of fencing material and stipulates a minimum height requirement;
o provides jurisdiction to the circuit court of the county to grant equitable relief to
compel the erection of any fence or cattleguard;
o revises failure to comply fee from $5 to $100 per day and authorizes the reimbursement
of attorney's fees, if needed
o the newly added section stipulates that if any livestock are injured or killed, the
railroad has the responsibility to report such injury within 72 hours. Failure to do
so constitutes a larceny offense.
RECOMMENDATION:
Although we do not know the financial impact of these proposed changes on the railroads and
the extent of their oppposition to this legislation, staff recommends that this proposed
legislation be incorporated into the County's legislative program. Staff will monitored and
support this request along with other already approved legislation before the 1994 General
Assembly.
RAILS.EXE
94.005
.
.
.
- 'r;,,,-,'-o;:..'JU..-'"
COMMONWEALTH Of" VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
V. E RL DICKINSON
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
T 4, BOX 222'5
RO....OS ANO INTERNAL NAVIGATION (CHAIRMAN,
MINERAL. VIRGINIA 231"
P"IVILEGES AND EL.ECTIONS
AP""O""IAT10N9
FIFTY SIXTH DISTRICT
August 31, 1993
Dr. Alan B. Wambold ~
Legislative Services
910 Capitol Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Alan:
I'm forwarding you a copy of suggested code changes. This
legislation is requested by my constituents; farmers that join
the CSX Railroad in Goochland and Fluvanna counties. I would
like for you to review their suggested changes and get it in bill
form. If you have any questions, kindly call me or Mr. Paul V.
eyer whose telephone numbers are enclosed.
with kind personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
---E ~
~
V. Earl Dickinson
:nd
Enclosu:r-e
J
cc: Mr. Paul V. Beyer
I
A ·
Stanford Hall
.
January 5, 1994.
By Hand
Mr. David Bowerman
Chairman Board of Supervisors Albemarle County
Albemarle County Building
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Dear Dave,
Further to our telephone conversation, please find enclosed
the following copies:
.;
1) Latest draft of the new legislation as prepared by
Dr. Alan B. Wambold - Legislative Services, Richmond.
2) Letter from Dr. Wambold accompanying above draft,
received December 8, 1993.
3) Letter from Del. V. Earl Dickinson to Dr. Wambold,
dated August 31, 1993.
Please note that Del. Dickinson is sponsoring this
legislation.
.
We would
back this
to 1919 and
conditions.
like the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to
much needed legislation. The existing laws date back
are totally inappropriate to present day life and
j!')';'~;':IWH>':i\''''.>,~;, !:">\>~.:.,b(~,:',;o f.",?\
Furthermore, I can reconfirm to you that the Fluvanna Board of
Supervisors and the State Farm Bureau are both backing this new
legislation. Del. Peter Way discussed this matter with a group
of landowners, including the undersigned, during the summer of
1993 and was instrumental in directing our efforts.
I understand that you plan to bring this matter up at the next
Board meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 12, 1994. Please
feel free to phone me any time, if you think that I can be of
help in this matter.
Thanking you,
cc: Mr. Charles Martin
. . I
SIncerely yours,
)\ \
". ~\ '
! ~ ILriJ:'
, l N~ i
Chartes Fra ' furt
\,
\
\
"\
.
j
I
Stanford Hall
.
January 5, 1994.
By Hand
Mr. David Bowerman
Chairman Board of Supervisors Albemarle County
Albemarle County Building
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Dear Dave,
Further to our telephone conversation, please find enclosed
the following copies:
~
1) Latest draft of the new legislation as prepared by
Dr. Alan B. Wambold - Legislative Services, Richmond.
2) Letter from Dr. Wambold accompanying above draft,
received December 8, 1993.
3) Letter from Del. V. Earl Dickinson to Dr. Wambold,
dated August 31, 1993.
Please note that Del. Dickinson is sponsoring this
legislation.
.
We would
back this
to 1919 and
conditions.
like the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to
much needed legislation. The existing laws date back
are totally inappropriate to present day life and
":><?{~.:~,>~~ ~>':>0~;'~,'<>\ ;.\>~~~ '.(\;:') ~~ :,",
Furthermore, I can reconfirm to you that the Fluvanna Board of
Supervisors and the State Farm Bureau are both backing this new
legislation. Del. Peter Way discussed this matter with a group
of landowners, including the undersigned, during the summer of
1993 and was instrumental in directing our efforts.
I understand that you plan to bring this matter up at the next
Board meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 12, 1994. Please
feel free to phone me any time, if you think that I can he of
help in this matter.
Thanking you,
cc: Mr. Charles Martin
\
\
Sincerely yours,
) IJJ
Charies lFra~rt
\
\ \
.
.
.
I
.
Charles Frankfurt
Stanford Hall
Route 1 Box 854
.
(804) 977-5722
Keswick, Virginia 22947
.;
,
!
~
, . '. .. '. ",.;', ,~, ~~: '.:' ".::<:.~:> (J.~ :>':."~:; ~ >I.~~ ~~;.::;::: ~ ::.,' :',,:? '.; '::>1, ~~ <~>.-
~
~
~'
!
I.
ill
~"
'"
~
~
~
~
-.
,.,.
>:\l
fI;'
;'~
~
~.;l
~
fJ.
".~
1i1
~
J";~
~
~
~
E~~
~:
~
~
..
1':
€
I
~
."
c.
".""';
"
.
;.,.:~
~.;>~-
~
:.';
;:1
..
~
~
~
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
E. M. ILLER. JR.
DIRE OR
GENERAL ASSEMBLY BUILDING
910 CAPITOL STREET. 2ND FLOOR
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
Mr. Frederic S. Reed, President t.e,/ &
Sabot Hill Farm, Inc.
290 River Road West
P. O. Box 310 Manakin-Sabot, VA 23103-0310,
(804) 766-3591
FAX (804) 371-{)169
/1.~' q1iR
Dear Mr. Reed:
Enclosed please find several copies of a revised draft of Del. Earl Dickinson's
legislation on construction of fences, wagonways, etc., by railroads. I would very
much appreciate your passing copies along to to other persons interested in this
proj ect.
You will notice that the amount of the corrections impact still is missing from the
last line of the last page. We expect to have a number from Planning and Budget
within the next two days. In fact, I would not be surprised if the number turns out
to be "zero." In this case, we can leave the whole corrections impact element out of
the bill in its final form.
At Del. Dickinson's request, I am also supplying copies of this draft to Mr. Bruce
Wingo (Virginia Railway Association) and Mr. Robert Shinn (CSX Railroad) for
their comments.
Sincerely yours,
- 7
,-d#~M/
Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D.
Research Associate
~b-~ \\, ~h~
~I ~.u:> ~~-
~ ~~~ 10
1l6. O(.I""-~ M<-
~(;f:;.~~ ~ ~ ~kJ~
.---
)
~
Enclosures
.
.
.
.~ ....,. -~,.......c
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS,
ROADS AND INTERNAL NAVIGATION (CHAIR~ANI
"'UV1LEGES AND ELECTIONS
FIFTY SIXTH DISTRICT
APPROPRIATIONS
August 31, 1993
Dr. Alan B. Wambold ~
Legislative Services
910 Capitol Street
ichmond, VA 23219
ear Alan:
I'm forwarding you a copy of suggested code changes. This
legislation is requested by my constituents; farmers that join
he CSX Railroad in Goochland and Fluvanna counties. I would
like for you to review their suggested changes and get it in bill
form. If you have any questions, kindly call me or Mr. Paul V.
eyer whose telephone numbers are enclosed.
With kind personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
'~f" ~
V. Earl Dickinson
:nd
nclosure
Paul V. Beyer ~
.
~
12
13
.
...
t)l-:V;
l
LOO 02208
12/01/93
Wambold
SENATE BILL NO.
HOUSE BILL NO.
1 A BI L to amend and reenact 99 56-16, 56-429, 56-433, 56-436, 56-437, and 56-438 of the
2 Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 56-
3 439.1, relating to railroad companies' obligations to erect and maintain fences and
4 cattle guards and construct and maintain wagonways; notification of and compensation
5
.
for injury to or death of livestock; fees; penalties.
~
6
7
8
9
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. T at 99 56-16, 56-429, 56-433, 56-436, 56-437, and 56-438 of the Code of Virginia are
ed and reenacted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section
red 56-439.1 as follows:
9 56-16. Wagonways to be constructed across roads, railroads, canals, and other
works; enforcement; immunity from certain civil damages.
For the purpose of this section. "wagonway" means a vehicular crossing adequate to
ermi
15
14 includin but not limited to the trans ortation of a ricultural and forestal roducts to market.
and vehicles used for a ricultural or forestal u oses
shall be constructed as to rade materials and a roaches
17
16 accor in to minimum standards of the Vir
licable to
18 Every public service corporation, whose road, railroad. canal, or works passes through
19 ds of any person in this Commonwealth, shall provide and maintain proper and suitable
20 wago ways across such road, railroad. canal, or other works, from one part of such land to
21 the ot er, and shall keep such ways wagonways in good repair. Such ways wagonways shall
22 structed and maintained on the request of the landowner, in writing, made to any
master, agent, or employee of such company, having charge and supervision of the
road. ailroad, canal, or other works at that point, and shall designate the points at which the
1
.
LD0102208
12/01/93
Wambold
. wagonways are desired; and if.:-lf there Be is no section master, agent, or employee of such
2 company, having charge or supervision of the road. railroad, canal, or other works at such
3 point, then the wagonways shall be constructed and maintained on the request of the
4 landowner, in writing, made to the company, or any officer or director thereof. If the company
5 fe.H fails or rcfuse refuses for ten days after such request to construct and maintain
6 wagonways of a convenient and proper character at the places designated, then the owner,
7 having given ten daY3' notice in writing.. a3 afore3aid, may apply to th,e circuit court of the
8 county or thc corporation court of the city wherein such land is located for the appointment of
9 three disinterested persons whose lands do not abut on such road. railroad, canal, or other
10 works, who shall constitute a board of commissioners whose duty it shall be to go upon the
11 land and determine whether the requested wagonways asl(cd for should be constructed and
12 maintained. The decision of such board shall be in writing;- and, if favorable to the landowner,
13 tt shall set forth the points at which the wagon ways should be constructed and maintained,
giving also a description of what should be done by the company to make and maintain a
suitable and convenient way wagonway. The decision of the board of commissioners shall be
16 returned to, and filed in, the clerk's office of such court, and when called up at the next or any
17 succeeding term of such court, it shall be confinned, unless good cause Be is shown against it
18 by the company. Either party shall have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the
19 judgment of the court. If the company shall fail fails, within a reasonable time te-ee fixed by the
20 court at the time of the confirmation of a report ft:lvorable to the landowner, to make and
21 maintain the wagonways therein referred to, of a suitablc and proper character, it shall pay the
22 landowner fivc dollars $100 for each and every day of such failure, which may be recovered
23 on motion by the landowner against the company, in the circuit court of the county or city
24 wherein such land is located having jurisdiction to try the same. The commissioners shall each
25 receive for their services the sum of,twe..flfty dollars per day, to be taxed as a part of the costs
26 of the proceeding. Any wagonway provided pursuant to this section which has remained in
2 continuous use for a period of twenty years shall be subiect to a prescriptive easement in
2
.
LOO 02208
12/01193
Wambold
favor of the landowner or landowners whose lands are connected b
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
rovided in ress and
The transfer of ownership of the land on either side of the road. railroad, or canal to
er owner or owners shall not relieve the public service company of its responsibility for
The provisions of this section shall also apply. mutatis mutandis. to construction and
main enance of wagonways if requested by the owner of property locate;d on one side of the
road railroad or canal if in the absence of a wa
In the absence of gross negligence or willful misconduct. no public service company
to or death of an
12
13
.
15
16 railro
17
18
was constructed and maintained as rovided in
rovisions of this section.
9 56-429. Company to erect lawful fences along roadbed; cattle guards, etc.
8tefy Upon the written request of any owner of land adioining any railroad. every
d company shall cause fences to be erected along its line and on both sidc3 of its
between its
of such landowner. Such fences shall be mado of timbcr or, woven
fences at least forty-eight inches tall and the company shall keep the same such
19 Wlr,
20 in proper repair. The owners of adjoining lands may connect their fences with such
21 at such places as they may deem proper. In erecting such fences the company shall, at
22 ini of those portions of the roadbed which it is required to fence, and on each side of
23 lic and private crossings, construct across its roadbed and keep in good repair cattle
24 reasonably sufficient to turn all kinds of stock, with which its fences shall be
25 conne ted. Such cattle guards at p~ivate crossings may, with the consent of the owners of
26 such rossings, be dispensed with, but in such case, in lieu of cattle guards, the company
2. shall e ect and I(ccp in good order sufficient gates and maintain them in good order.
3
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t,
27
II
...
LD0102208
Wambold
12/01/93
Any such company may erect gates or bars in addition to the cattle guards required by
this section, if, in the judgment of the company, the hazard to trains at such crossings requires
gates or bars as an additional safeguard to life and property on the trains.
No court of this Commomvcalth shall havc jurisdiction by writ of mandamus or
othervvise to The circuit court of the county or city wherein any such fence or cattle guard. or
any portion thereof. is to be erected or built pursuant to this section shall have iurisdiction
through its power to grant equitable relief to compel the erection of any sych fence, or building
of any such cattle guards, except that through lands or lots actually oncloGod mandamus may
lie to rcquire such company to erect and maintain such fencc:) and cattlc guards.
S 56-433. Cattle guards; remedy of aggrieved landowner; penalty.
Every railroad company, whose road passes through any enclosed lands in this
Commonwealth, shall construct and keep in good order cattle guards reasonably sufficient to
prevent the passage of stock of every kind over such land, at any point where a fence may be
necessary or proper, whether it Be is a division fence between contiguous farms or between
different parcels or tracts belonging to the same person, or a fence along a public highway.
Such cattle guards shall be constructed on the request of the landowner, in writing, made to
any section master or employee of the company having charge or supervision of the road at
that point. If the company I'Cfu3e or fail refuses or fails, for ten days after such request, to
construct or maintain the cattle guards at the place designated, the owner, having given ten
days' notice in writing to such section master or employee, may apply to the circuit court of the
county or city in which any such point is located for the appointment of three disinterested
freeholders, whose duty it shall be to go on the land and determine whether the proposed
cattle guard shall be constructed. Their decision shall be in writing, and shall be forthwith
returned to and filed in the office of the clerk of such court. If such decision Be is that the cattle
guard ought to be constructed, the ,company shall, within thirty days thereafter, construct the
same. Upon its failure so to do, it shall pay to the landowner fivc dollars~ for every day of
such failure and reimburse 'him for any attorney's fees or other legal fees be incurred in
4
. ~
L00102208
.1 appraisers under ~ 56-436, and the cost attending the assessment, the owner shall have the
2 right to institute suit on the original cause of action, If, upon the trial, he recovers a verdict for
3 an amount equal to, or gr..ater than, the amount assessed in his favor by the board of
4 appraisers, it shall Be the auly althe court Ie shall render jUdgment in his favor for the amount
5 of such verdict, lIA<I the costs of suit lIA<I , including attomey's fees, the cost of such
6 appraisement, and km "")f CCAtulfl fifty percent damages in addition thereto, If the owner shaJl;
7 in ouch e".e, reeeve, recovers less than the amount so assessed, jUdgment shall be rendered
12/01193
Wambold
8 in his favor for the amount of the verdictllA<l, the costs of suit ,including attomey's fees. and
9 appraisement; but if the company has offered to pay the award; and the owner has refused to
10 accept the same, and he "'ceve, recovers a verdict for an amount less than such assessment,
11 jUdgment shall be rendered in his favor for the amount of his recovery, but the cost of the
I 2 appraisement and action shall be taxed against him.
13 ~ 56-438. Fee of appraisers and clerk.
· Appraisers appointed pursuant to the provisions of S 56-436 shall receive for their
5 services each the sum of onc aall", fifty dollars, and the clerk in whose office their report is
i filed for his services, two dollars and fifty cents.
56-439.1. Notice to OWner of in'u or death of certain livestock'
Whenever an horses cattle or other stock are in'ured or killed b the cars or
r'
on a railroad the section master or em 10 ee of the railroad havin
char 03 of the road at the lace where the in'u or'death Occurred shall within seven -two
hours, notitv the owner of the animal or animals of the in'u or death, Failure to do so shall
constitute larceny of the animal and be punishable as such.
2, That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment in
state Correctional facilities, Pursuant to S 30-19,1:4, the estimated amount of the necessary
appropriation is
#
6
, .
.
\
ALfBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
P.O. Bbx 1009 401 MciNTIRE RD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-5810
N~:~ .... . __-,.
1 f Ii @ ~ a :In ~ ~. ~
:1 ,cj~._S:Ls.."."~"~jLl~,.1 .;
/: .1.... r
!' , '
..~.'
January 4, 1993 L~....., .-1
'.~c."..\Hf) OF SUPERV,iSORS
/- .,'/' -,.,Yj/
c:/4/,'//) ?/- N-)
/:// -,/ / /~- ~-
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Albemarle County
Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For
The Fiscal Year Ended June 30. 1993.
We will be happy to answer any questions which you may
have.
Very truly yours,
.0U/o~' ~
J Y ~rent
Executive Director
JWB/lbt
,..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
CREATION OF NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. On an annual basis the list of active boards and commissions will be purged of all
dies not required by Federal, State, County or other regulations, which have not met at least
o ce during the prior twelve-month period.
2. Whenever possible and appropriate, the functions and activities of boards and
c mmissions will be combined rather than encouraging the creation of new bodies.
3. All newly created county-wide boards and commissions which will have the power
t impact the health, safety and welfare of all the residents of the County, will be comprised of
r presentatives from each of the magisterial districts. These representatives will be appointed by
t e members of the Board of Supervisors following the same appointment procedure in Section
for other magisterial appointments.
4. All newly created boards and commissions which include members selected on an
a -large basis will orient the terms of appointment of these representatives around an April
1 ovember 1 appointment advertising schedule, with all appointments being made, if possible,
. thin ninety days of the aforementioned dates.
5. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is intended to serve for a
Ii ited time period, may be comprised of magisterial or at-large members at the discretion of the
oard of Supervisors. The appointment process shall follow that adopted in Section B for other
agisterial and/or at-large positions.
6. Any newly created board or commission which is comprised of members selected
a -large and, for reasons of emergency or expediency, cannot comply with the Aprill/November
1 appointment advertising schedule, will be considered a special committee or task force.
embers of this body will be selected by the Board of Supervisors according to the appointment
p ocedure in Section B for other at-large appointments.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon magisterial district
b undaries will be made by the members of the Board of Supervisors. All magisterial positions
ill be advertised. At the discretion of the supervisor of that district, selected applicants may be
i terviewed for the position.
2. All appointments to boards and commissions will be advertised en masse twice
y arly on April 1 and November 1, depending upon the appointment's date of expiration.
3. On April 1, on November 1, and fifteen days after the aforementioned dates, a
n tice will be published in the local newspapers which will outline the boards and commissions
h ving appointment positions available. Interested citizens will be provided upon request with
a brief description of the duties and functions of each board, length of term of the appointment,
f equency of meetings, and qualifications necessary to fill the position. An explanation of the
a pointment process for both magisterial and at-large appointments will also be sent to all
a plicants.
4. All interested parties will have thirty days from the date of the first notice to fill
o t and return to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a detailed application with the
u derstanding that such an application may be released to the public if so requested.
5. Once the deadline for taking applications is past, the Clerk will distribute the
a plications received to the members of the Board of Supervisors for their review. For
agisterial appointments, the Clerk will forward the applications to the supervisor of that district.
fter a two-week deliberation period, the Board, or the supervisor in the case of magisterial
a plications, will notify the Clerk to set up interviews with
s lected applicants.
6. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board of Supervisors may select
a plicants to interview for the vacant positions. F or magisterial appointments, the decision to
i terview selected candidates will be determined by the supervisor of that district.
7. The members of the Board of Supervisors will begin the interview process with
a plicants for appointments with the earliest effective dates.
8. Selected applicants will be interviewed within forty-five days of the close of the
a plication period and all appointments will be made no later than sixty days after the application
d adline.
9. F or purposes of economy as well as to insure the consistent operation of the boards
a d commissions, if a vacancy occurs in the middle of a one-year appointment or if less than one
y ar remains in the term after the next scheduled appointment advertising date (Aprill/November
1 , then the Board of Supervisors will select the replacement to the board or commission without
:tl her advertisement.
10. If a vacancy occurs in a two-, three-, four- or five-year appointment and more than
o e year remains in the term of appointment after the next scheduled advertisement period, then
t e vacated position will be advertised and filled during the next advertising period.
I
11. If a member of a board or commission does not participate in at least fifty percent
011' the board or commission meetings, then, the chairman of the body may request the Board of
Slupervisors to terminate the appointment and refill it during the next scheduled advertising
p~riod.
12. Where possible, terms of appointments on boards and commISSIOns will be
a~vertised based on the following time schedule:
April1: (terms expiring July 1 through December 31)
Airport Commission
Architectural Review Board
BOCA Code Board of Appeals*
Emergency Medical Services Council
Equalization Board
Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals*
Section 8 Housing Advisory Committee
Housing Improvements Corporation
JAUNT Board
Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JAB A) (one expiration)
Jordan Development Corporation
Land Use Classification Appeals Board
Planning Commission, at-large
Public Recreational Facilities Authority
Regional Disability Services Board
Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens' Advisory Committee
Social Services Board
*On December 12, 1984, the Board of Supervisors voted to allow the membership
of the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals to be identical, while the boards themselves shall remain separate entities.
November 1: (terms expiring January 1 through June 30)
Advisory Council on Aging
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Children & Youth Commission (CACY)
Community College Board of Directors
Community Services Board
Industrial Development Authority
Jail Board
Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) (three expirations)
Regional Library Board
School Board, at-large
I
C ADOPTION
This policy shall be reviewed and readopted by the Board of Supervisors in January of
o [-election years, at the beginning of the term for new members.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of
a policy amended and readopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
"\ irginia, at a regular meeting held on January 5, 1994.
~tLl~
Clerk, Board of County supe%:
(Adopted 10-14-92; Amended and/or Readopted 1-1-94.)
I
The following list of boards and committees have either no expiration date or
appointments are not made through regular advertising process:
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee
Agricultural/Forestry Industry Committee
Airport Authority
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
James River Alcohol Safety Action Program
Audit Committee
Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by Judge of Circuit Court)
Building Committee
Building Code Review Committee
Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center
Annual Oversight Committee for Children and Youth Commission
Community Action Agency Monticello Area (MACAA)
Community Corrections Resource Board
Community Housing Resource Board
Court Services
Crozet Crossing Citizen Advisory Committee
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee
Electoral Board
Fiscal Impact Committee
Gypsy Moth Committee
Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee
Health Systems Agency (SUBAREA Council)
Housing Advisory Panel
Housing Opportunity Plan
Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home Commission
Long Range Salary/Benefits Task Force
Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee
Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee
Milton Airport Advisory Committee
Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board
Piedmont Job Training Policy Board
Planning & Coordination Council (P ACC)
Planning & Coordination Council Technical Committee
Planning Commission (advertised following election)
Planning District Commission
Planning District Commission Regional Comprehensive Plan,
Advisory Committee
Rivanna Scenic River Advisory Board
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSW A)
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA)
Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board
Route 29 North Corridor Development Study Policy Committee
Route 29 North Corridor Development Study Technical Advisory Committee
School Board (advertised following election)
Shenandoah National Park Advisory Committee
Shenandoah National Park Related Land Studies
Solid Waste Task Force
Study to Preserve & Assess the Regional Environment (TJSP ARE)
V ACo Committees
Review Board Final Design
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 1994
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: --1L-
SUBJECT
Public H
guidelin
design
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:/_ -7_~;;4!
, < r /
~/ ~/ / )-C/,-7l/
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Ms. Joseph
BACKGRO
The Arc
approve
guideli
Overlay
D:
itectural Review Board (ARB) prepared a set of Interim Design Guidelines that were
by the Board of Supervisors in April of 1991. The ARB has been using this set of
es to review site plans illustrating proposed development in the Entrance Corridor
District.
DISCUSS
When th ARB began worksessions discussing the final design guidelines, they reviewed the
enablin legislation (Section 15.1-503.2 Code of Virqinia). The enabling legislation
specifi d that the sites must be reviewed in their relation to historic structures within the
area. f the guidelines were to be corridor specific, then plans of each corridor must be
complet d. This would include an exhaustive review of the existing conditions and a detailed
design llustrating a plan for each corridor. This was seen as a time consuming and costly
endeavo. The ARB also examined the process that has occurred to date and determined that
the int rim guidelines were working well. The more general guidelines allow the designer
more fl xibility in the building and site design. Therefore, the concept of corridor
specifi guidelines were rejected in favor of more general guidelines.
The int
to make
of the
The gui
and not
rim guidelines were then reorganized and rewritten. The information was rearranged
the document clearer to understand and easier to use. To further clarify the intent
ocument it was decided that it should contain pictures of buildings within the area.
elines explain that the buildings illustrated within are to be used for inspiration,
for replication within the area.
ment has been reviewed by various groups that may use the guidelines in the course
profession. The draft copy of the guidelines was sent to the following groups in
1993:
Society of Landscape Architects, The American Congress on Survey and
pping, American Institute of Architects, Blue Ridge Home Builders, Chamber of
mmerce, Citizens for Albemarle, League of Women Voters, American Society of
viI Engineers, and the North Charlottesville Business Council.
ents received from these groups were incorporated into the guidelines and a public
was held on October 22, 1993. A worksession was held with the Board on December 1,
h no changes requested as a result.
ATION:
commends approval of the Final Design Guidelines following the public hearing.
94.002
cc: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1" . " " ,~\ ~~
I 'Jj~'",~' (P) R n w ~ I 1
,I ".t ,.'"11 ..~ ..l!!L l!i.. =--1 \ r.' i.'
'\ 1 J IJ
.~. , ~ 1993 lL~
: n' I l
j l -
Review Board Final Design
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
,--.,~, 1----" .{ 4
'_,,. . 1".1 . -.
'_./ 1_- .... I ...." I,_~, ,
ACTION: --1L-
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Pre sent a
design guidelines.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Huff, Ms. Joseph
BACKGRO
The Arc
approve
guideli
Overlay
itectural Review Board (ARB) prepared a set of Interim Design Guidelines that were
by the Board of Supervisors in April of 1991. The ARB has been using this set of
es to review site plans illustrating proposed development in the Entrance Corridor
District.
DISCUSS ON:
When th ARB began worksessions discussing the final design guidelines, they reviewed the
enablin legislation (Section 15.1-503.2 Code of Virqinia). The enabling legislation
specifi d that the sites must be reviewed in their relation to historic structures within the
area. f the guidelines were to be corridor specific, then plans of each corridor must be
complet d. This would include an exhaustive review of the existing conditions and a detailed
design 'llustrating a plan for each corridor. This was seen as a time consuming and costly
endeavo. The ARB also examined the process that has occurred to date and determined that
the int rim guidelines were working well. The more general guidelines allow the designer
more fl xibility in the building and site design. Therefore, the concept of corridor
specifi guidelines were rejected in favor of more general guidelines.
The int
to make
of the
The gui
and not
rim guidelines were then reorganized and rewritten. The information was rearranged
the document clearer to understand and easier to use. To further clarify the intent
ocument it was decided that it should contain pictures of buildings within the area.
elines explain that the buildings illustrated within are to be used for inspiration,
for replication within the area.
ment has been reviewed by various groups that may use the guidelines in the course
profession. The draft copy of the guidelines was sent to the following groups in
1993:
Society of Landscape Architects, The American Congress on Survey and
pping, American Institute of Architects, Blue Ridge Home Builders, Chamber of
C mmerce, Citizens for Albemarle, League of Women Voters, American Society of
C'vil Engineers, and the North Charlottesville Business Council.
The co ents received from these groups were incorporated into the guidelines and a public
meeting was held on October 22, 1993. During this meeting the state enabling legislation was
questio ed. The issue of the interpretation of the enabling legislation was presented to the
George t. John, the County Attorney. His response confirming the current process is
attache .
hearing and approval of the Final Design Guidelines.
93.190
I
Architectural Review Board
Design Guidelines
Presentation
December 1, 1993
Slides
A.
B.
C.
Overlay Districts
Character of the Area
Character of the Roads
1. Maintain views
2. Transition from rural to urban
3. Gateway
Development
1. Commercial activities
2. Tourism
3. Compatible with historic structures
a. Connections
b. Repetition
c. Materials
d. Architectural features
4. Contemporary Architecture
Interim Guidelines
1. Signs
2. Landscaping
3. Scale
4. Use - outdoor sales and display
5. Fences - continuity
6. Screening - compatible with structure
7. Buildings approved with the Interim Guidelines
a. Toys R Us
b. Moser Rehabilitation Therapy Center
c. Shell Station - Freebridge
d. Amoco Station - Rt. 29N
e. McDonald's
D.
E.
J[. History
A. Interim Guidelines in use since April 1991
B. Decision to remain general
C. Rewritten and Reorganized
D. Public Input
E. Response to Public Input
L
<
r ..
II
>>
A WORD ABOUT THESE GUIDELINES AND THE REVIEW PROCESS
These Guidelines are intended to assist you in developing new projects, or in renovating old
ones, to design sites and structures which are harmonious with the architectural traditions and
history for which Albemarle is so well known. It is the intent of the members _ of the
Architectural Review B,oard to allow you broad latitude in developing your project, and to make
the architectural review process as simple and efficient as possible, consistent with the interests
of the citizens of Albemarle County and the many persons from around the world who are
visitors here.
To this end, we encourage you to read these Guidelines, and then to meet with us and our staff
as soon as you have selected a site and have identified your building objectives. We meet
frequently and we want to be involved in the design process early in order to save you time and
money in the design of your project.
We encourage Preliminary Conferences as the very first step in the County development review
process. In order to make it easier for you to participate in a Preliminary Conference we
request only a minimum of information and investment, as a prerequisite. III most cases a
simple sketch or photograph of proposed structures, and the locatioll of the proposed project,
is all that will be needed for a PreliminGlY Conference.
Working in this fashion with project designers over the past several years we have reviewed and
approved a number of important projects which are a source of pride to the community, and to
the owners. We look forward to working with you as you develop what we hope will be a long
term, successful investment in this community, and a positive contribution to the character of
this important historical area.
Tim Lindstrom
Chairman, Architectural Review Board
...
1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF
2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
3
4
5
6
7 ection 15.1-503.2 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to regulate the design of
8 evelopment along streets, roads, and highways providing access to significant historic structures
9 d to cities and towns to insure that such development is compatible with the architecture of
10 t e historically significant landmarks, buildings, and structures to which these routes lead.
11 hese "entrance corridors" are to be designated by the locality. The review of development
1 2 roposals within such corridors is to be undertaken by locally designated Architectural Review
1 3 ards.
14
15 n October 3, 1990 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted section 30.6 of the
1 6 lbemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This section is titled "Entrance Corridor Overlay
17 istrict" and implements the authority described above. It specifically designates a number of
18 " ntrance corridors", establishes standards for the review of development proposed within the
19 c rridors and creates a five member Architectural Review Board (ARB). The Board of
20 upervisors also appointed members to the ARB and charged them with the responsibility for
21 oposing and administering a set of Guidelines for development within the designated corridors.
22
23
24 rpose
25
26 he goal of the regulation of the design of development within the designated entrance corridors
27 i to insure that new development within the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the
28 ea. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines, that proposed
29 velopment within the designated entrance corridors reflect elements of design characteristic
30 the significant historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the Charlottesville and
31 lbemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development within these corridors.
32
33
34
1
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
<,
UMMARY OF PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
at projects must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board?
I a proposed development project has the following characteristics it must be reviewed by the
lbemarle County Architectural Review Board:
he project is to be located upon a parcel which is within an
"entrance corridor", and
I) The project requires County approval of a site plan or approval of an amendment
to an approved site plan before development can begin (generally, only
commercial, industrial, or multi-family development projects are required to have
a site plan and therefore require ARB approval), or
2) The project requires a special permit from the Albemarle Board of Supervisors
because it involves outdoor storage or display within an entrance corridor street,
or
3) The project requires a special permit, rezoning, or comprehensive plan
amendment and the Albemarle Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission
have requested advice from the ARB before acting upon the proposal.
n entrance corridor includes all parcels which adjoin or are located within 500 feet of the right
f way of a County road or highway designated in section 30.6.2b. of the Albemarle County
oning Ordinance as an "entrance corridor street." Appendix A contains a list of the current
signations.
the case of reviews under item I above, the ARB must issue a certificate of appropriateness
i order for the site plan to receive final approval and the project to commence. In the case of
r views under items 2 and 3 above, the ARB must make a non-bonding recommendation to the
lanning Commission or Board of Supervisors.
2
1 at is required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review
2 oard?
3
4
5
6
7 he developer must submit an application for a certificate of appropriateness to the staff of the
8 RB which is located within the Albemarle County Zoning Department. The ARB meets twice
9 month on the first and third Mondays. In order to be considered at a scheduled meeting the
1 0 plication and supporting documentation should be submitted to the staff at least two weeks
11 rior to such meeting. Appendix B lists the items which must be submitted with the application.
1 2 n application form and further information about the review process can be obtained from the
1 3 RB staff.
14
15
16
1 7 is recommended, but not required, that prior to filing an application the developer first
1 8 quest a preliminary conference with the ARB. Neither the developer nor the ARB is bound
1 9 y the results of a preliminary conference, however the ARB will provide the developer with
20 written list of any suggestions discussed during a preliminary conference. Experience has
2 1 s own that incorporating these suggestions into a final application will save the developer time
22 d expense. Information required for a preliminary conference is minimal and is listed in
23 ppendix B as well. Preliminary conferences with the ARB should be arranged through the
24 RB staff.
25
26
27
28 tate law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve only those proposals which
29 ,., iflect designs which are compatible with the historically significant architecture of the County
30 Albemarle and City of Charlottesville. It is not intended that proposed designs mirror
31 e isting historic structures in the area. Replication of such structures is neither required nor
32 sired. However, developers proposing "trademark" designs can expect that significant
33 odification will be required by the ARB before approval will be granted.
34
35 he guidelines which follow are intended to provide assistance to the developer in designing
36 p ojects which will meet the design requirements of the ARB. In addition, Appendix C contains
37 p ctures of historically significant structures in the area; drawings which highlight some of the
38 i portant features of these structures; and photographs of modem buildings, both in the area
39 d elsewhere, which are considered compatible with these historic structures.
40
41
42
I. If
Final Design GUIdelines
J e 9, 1993
T
3
I,
1
2
3
4 at is required for a review other than one required for approval of a cerlificate of
5 l]Jropriateness?
6
7 eview of development requiring a special permit because outdoor display is proposed within
8 Entrance Corridor shall require provision of the information required for a "preliminary
9 nference", or, in the discretion of the ARB staff such additional information, any which would
1 0 e required for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Any other reviews requested
11 y the Board of Supervisors shall be accompanied by such information as shall be deemed
1 2 propriate by the ARB or ARB staff, including the information which would be required for
13 t e issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
14
15
16 appeal is available from decisions of the Architectural Review Board?
17
18 rovisions of a certificate of appropriateness, or the denial of a certificate of appropriateness
1 9 ay be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by making a written demand for such appeal to the
20 lerk of the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the decision with respect to
21 hich the appeal is sought.
22
23 ecommendations of the ARB with respect to special permits, rezonings, comprehensive plan
24 endments, and preliminary conferences preceding application for a certificate of
25 propriateness, are not appealable because they are advisory only.
26
27 ecisions regarding the application or intent of section 30.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning
28 rdinance establishing the Entrance Corridor Overlay District may be appealed to the
29 lbemarle County Zoning Adminstrator.
30
4
~
1
2 ESIGN GUIDELINES -- GENERAL
3
4 isitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience
5 ese sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and vegetation. , Hot 8:3 free standiHg struct\:lres
6 . In order to ref1eet accomolish the integration of buildings,
7 d, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the Guidelines require attention to four
8 rimary factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the area; com.patibility with the
9 aracter of the Entrance Corridor; site development and layout; and landscaping.
10
11
12
13 ew structures and substantial additions to existing structures sfttill should respect the
14 t aditions of the architecture of historicallv significant buildings in the Charlottesville and
15 Thcsc traditioRs a:r'C evidcHt in the importB:flt historic buildings in thc area
16 . Photographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as
... with si
historic sites:
17 awings of architectural features, which provide important examples of this tradition are
18
19
20 he examples contained in Appendix C should be used as a guide for building design: fl6Hls
21 the standard of compatibility with the area's traditioR8:l 18th eeRtury historic
1
,
1 structures is not intended to impose a rigid design solution for new
2 evelopment. Replication of the design of the important historic sites in the area is neither
3 i tended nor desired. The Guideline's standard of compatibility can be met through building
4 s ale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as
5 ell as traditional. The Guidelines allow individuality in design to accommodate varying
6 stes as well as special functional requirements.
7
with the character 0 the Entrance Corridor:
8
9
10 I is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a pattern of compatible
11 chitectural characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and
12 c herence. Building designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby structures within
13 t e Entrance Corridor. Where a designated corridor is substantially developed, the
14 uidelines require striking a careful balance between harmonizing new development with the
15 e isting character of the corridor and achieving compatibility with the significant historic
16 s tes in the area.
17
2
1
2
3
4 ite development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute
5 t the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent
6 ractical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees
7 ong streets and pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements;
8 i suring that any grading will blend into the surrounding topography thereby creating a
Site development and lavout.'
9 c ntinuous landscape; preserving, to the extent oractical, existing sil!nificant river and stream
10 alleys which may be located on the site and integrating these features into the design of the
11 s rrounding development; and limiting the building mass and height to a scale that does not
12 erpower the natural setting of the site, or the Entrance Corridor.
13
14
15
16 he requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are intended to reflect the
in:
17 I dscaping characteristic of many of the area's significant historic sites which is
18 c aracterized by large shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should -a:lse promote visual order
19 ithin the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of
20 t e Corridor.
21
3
.
.
1 ontinuity within the Corridor should be obtained by planting different types of plant
2 aterials that share similar characteristics. Such common elements allow for more flexibility
3 the design of structures because common landscape features will help to harmonize the
4 pearance of development as seen from the street upon which the Corridor is centered.
5
6
Final Design Guidelines
tober 28, 1993
FT
4
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ESIGN GUIDELINES -- SPECIFICS
his section provides specific recommendations intended to achieve the goals described in the
eneral design statement above.
... wilhsi
historic sites:
Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding context of buildings.
The overall design of buildings should provide have human scale. Scale should be
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
)
)
)
)
integral to the building and the site design.
Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale,
and materials to create a cohesive whole.
Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from building design ~ should be relieved
using building design details or vegetation, or both.
Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices should be used to unify
groups of buildings within a development.
Trademark buildings and related features ~ should be modified to meet the
requirements of the Guidelines.
structures and U1 ment
Accessory structures and equipment sflaH should be integrated into the overall plan of
development and shall, to the extent possible, be compatible with the building designs
used on the site.
6
.
1 ) The following sftftH should be screened to pr-ofiibit eliminate visibility from the
2 Entrance Corridor street:
3
4 a) Loading Areas,
5
6 b) Service Areas,
7
8 c) Refuse Areas,
9
10 d) Storage Areas,
11
12 e) Mechanical Equipment,
13
14 t) Above-ground Utilities, and
15
16 g) Chain Link Fence, Barbed Wire, Razor Wire, and similar security fencing and
17 devices.
18
19 3 Screening devices sftftH should be compatible with the design of the buildings and
20 surrounding natural vegetation and may consist of:
21
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'.
)
a)
Walls,
b)
Plantings, and
c)
Fencing.
Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be designed to fit into the natural
topography to avoid the need for screening.
Light fflttSt should be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties
or streets.
Light sftaH should be shielded, recessed or flush-mounted to eliminate glare; and
The light fflttSt should achieve an incandescent effect.
8
..
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5
)
Signs located within the Entrance Corridor must conform to the size, height, and
setback requirements as outlined in Section 14.15 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
)
Material used in both sign and support structures should reflect the building being
served by the sign;
)
Lighting should be shielded and not create a glare;
The structure of monument signs should not overpower the message portion of the
sign;
Sign colors should be harmonious with the building which they serve;
Entrancc Corridor;
iRterna:J.ly illlimiRated sigRs;
Final Design Guidelines
ctober 28, 1993
Ff
9
~
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
"
"
are permitted withiH ftH EHtrance Corridor;
9
Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets -sflaH should include the
following:
a)
Large shade trees -sflaH should be planted parallel to the Entrance Corridor
street. Such trees -sflaH should be at least 3 1/2 " caliper (measured 6" above
the ground) and sftftH should be of a plant species common to the area. Such
trees sftftH should be located at least every 35 feet on center.
b)
Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area -sflaH should be
interspersed among the trees required by the preceding paragraph.
Final Design Guidelines
tober 28, 1993
FT
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 3
21
c) In situations where appropriate, a three or four-board fence or low stone wall.
typical of the area -shaH should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor
street., or if '.VBITantcd by existing conditions, low stone walls may be
reqtlired. This reqtlireffient ffiay be '<<ai'/ed in existing ftetlvil)' de'/eloped
eOffimereial B:re8:3.
d) A ten (10) foot wide area An area of sufficient width to accommodate the
forel?oinl? olantinl?s and fencinl? should be reserved parallel to the Entrance
Corridor street, and exclusive of road right-of-way and utility easements., shall
shotlld be reserved for the foregoing plantings 8:Ild fencing.
Landscaping along interior roads:
Trees -shaH should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such trees shftll should be
at least 2 1/2" caliper (measured 6" above the ground) and -shaH should be of a plant
species common to the area. Such trees -shaH should be located at least every 40 feet
on center.
Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
11
"
1
2
3
4
5
6 4)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
Trees 5ftaH should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian ways. Such trees 5ftaH
should be at least 2 1/2" caliper (measured 6" above the ground) and 5ftaH should be
of a plant species common to the area. Such trees 5ftaH should be located at least
every 25 feet on center.
Landscaping of parking areas:
a) Trees 5ftaH should align the perimeter of parking areas, located forty (40) feet
on center. Trees sflaH should be planted in the interior of parking areas at the
rate of 1 tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and -sflaH should be evenly
distributed throughout the interior of the parking area.
b) Trees required by the preceding paragraph sflaH should measure 2 1/2" caliper
(measured 6" above the ground); sflaH should be evenly spaced; and sflaH
should be of a species common to the area. Such trees -sflaH should be planted
in planters or medians sufficiently large to maintain the health of the tree and
shall be protected by curbing.
c) Shrubs -sflaH should be provided as necessary to minimize the SCfOOfl. parking
area's imDact fronting on Entrance Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure
24 " in height.
AU Final Design Guidelines
C ctober 28, 1993
IJiRAFT
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
)
Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
a)
Trees or other vegetation shaH should be planted along the front of long
buildings as necessary to soften the appearance of exterior walls. The spacing,
size, and type of such trees or vegetation shftH should be determined by the
length, height, and blankness of such walls.
b)
Shrubs shftH should be used to integrate the site, buildings and other
structures,; other stmctl:lfcs may includc including dumpsters, accessory
buildings and structures; "drive thru" windows; service areas; and signs.
Shrubs should measure at least 24" in height.
Plant species:
Plant species required shftH should be as approved by the Staff based upon Generic
Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and Native Plants for Virginia
Landscapes List.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6 ite development and layout:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Development pattern
The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance Corridor street and
to other development within the Corridor should be as follows:
1)
An gfltl or!.!anized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike oaths. and pedestrian
walks should guide the layout of the site;
2)
Buildings should front In !.!eneral. buildin!.!s frontin!.! the Entrance Corridor
street should be oarallel to the street. or if morc than onc building is proposed,
buildings Buildim!: l.!rouoinl.!s should be arranged to form onc or mor-c Building
groupings 'J/hich. front to oarallel the Entrance Corridor street;
3)
Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian and vehicular
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
1
circulation systems;
2
3
4)
Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity within
4
the Entrance Corridor;
5
6
5)
If significant natural features exist on the site (thcsc shall iAcll:lde includin1!:
7
creek valleys, steep slopes, significant trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent
8
Dractical then the such natural features should be reflected in the site layout. If
9
the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
10
apply, then improvements required by that section shaH should be located so as
11
to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from
12
Entrance Corridor streets;
13
14
6)
The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas
15
on and around the site.
Site Grading
1)
The site grading shaH should respect the existing topographic characteristics of
the site and blend with adjacent properties;
AiRB Final Design Guidelines
October 28, 1993
nlRAYf
15
I
1 2) Site grading shaH should not change the basic relationship of the site to
2 surrounding conditions;
3
4 3) Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable;
5
6 4) Cut and fill slopes shaH should be rounded (minimum ten (10) foot radius) to
7 meet adjacent conditions;
8
9 5) No grading, trenching, or tunneling shaH should occur within the drip line of
10 any trees or other existing features designated for preservation in the final
11 Certificate of Appropriateness;
12
13 6) Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness
14 shaH should be clearly delineated and orotected on the site prior to any grading
15 activity on the site. This designation orotection shaH should remain in olace
16 until completion of the development of the site;
17
18 7) Preservation areas shaH should be protected from storage or movement of heavy
19 equipment within this area;
20
21 8) Natural drainage patterns ( or to the extent reauired. new draina!!e oatterns)
AJrn Final Design Guidelines
Olctober 28, 1993
DRAFT
16
should be incorporated into the finished site to the extent possible.
APPENDIX C
The following list contains properties that serve as examples for architecture and site
design proposed within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The list contains
historic buildings as well as more recently constructed buildings. The buildings are
located within Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Albemarle County Court House
Amoco Convenience Store (intersection of Route 29N and Airport Road)
Ashlawn
Barracks Road Shopping Center (Barracks Road and Emmet Street intersection)
Castle Hill
Crestar Building (High Street)
Forest Lakes Commercial Area (intersection of Route 29N and Airport Road)
A/RB Final Design Guidelines
Oictober 28, 1993
D~Ff
17
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Legal Research Building (Rt. 250W)
McDonald's (intersection of Route 20 and Route 250E)
Memorial Gvm (Universitv of Vin?:inia CtlFRD\:IS I!rounds)
Monticello Hotel (500 Court Sauare)
Monticello
Moser Radiation Therapy Center B\:Iilding (Rt. 250W Lincaf f..ccelcrtltor building)
Queen Charlotte (located Oft High Street)
Rotunda and the Lawn (University of Virginia CtlFRp\:lS I!round~)
Shell Convenience Store Building (Route 250E)
The buildings as noted above are either historicallv sil!nificant or serve as examples of
architecture tHat eKeFRplify tHe spirit of ,,\lbeFRarle CO\:lftty, tlftd provide FRodcls f-or
iflspiratiofl. ifl. the cHoice comoatible with historically sil!nificant buildinl!s in the
18
~
I
1
Charlottesville and Albemarle area and serve as examoles of shapes, structures,
2
materials, colors,---attd-textures, withiH the bliilcliHg ftfla its iHtegratiofl. withiH the site.
3
site develooment. and the intel!ration of site and structure which are encoural!ed by
4
these l!uidelines.
5
6
It should be recol!nized. however. that reolication of these examoles will not
7
necessarily result in the issuance of a Certificate of Aoorooriateness by the
8
Architectural Review Board because each buildinl! site and its context is uniaue. ~
9
structures will also be llidE!ed viewed iH FelatioH to their aDDfOoriatcHcss OR the site.
AJrn Final Design Guidelines
O~tober 28, 1993
DluFf
19
1.
20
21
I
1
APPENDIX B
2
Preliminary Conference
3
The Preliminary Conference should be the first steo in the site olan aooroval orocess.
4
To save time and money this review is encoura2:ed orior to site olan submittal. The
5
ARB reauests a minimum of information and investment for this initial review.
6
7
Submittals required for the preliminary conference.'
8
9
a)
Sketch or photograph of proposed buildings,
10
11
b)
Albemarle County Tax Map and Parcel number, and
12
13
c)
Any other material which the applicant believes will make the preliminary
14
conference more productive., inc1l1diflg a sketCH of tHe proposed site layout,
15
dcscriptiofl of ex.isting topography and vegetation, ctc. Thc more informatiofl
16
provided at the prc1iminlH)' cOflfereflcc by the applicB.flt thc more bcncficial thc
17
cOflfereflce ifl elimiflatiflg delays and expcflse in obtaifl.ing approyal of a
18
Certifieatc of ,A..ppropriatcness.
19
Certificate of Appropriateness
A Certificate of Aoorooriateness is reauired orior to final site olan aooroval.
AjRB Final Design Guidelines
Clctober 28, 1993
ujRAFT
20
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
1
Submittals required for approval of Certificate of Appropriateness:
2
3
a)
4
5
a)
6
7
b)
8
9
10
11
12
c)
d)
b)
Preliminary site plan including small groups of trees of any size, indicated by
common name, approximate caliper and location;
Boundary lincs of property, viith '/icifl:tty--tflfil};
Sitc Analysis sketch or dra'.ving including thc following:
*
Existing natural and man made fcaturcs;
*
Existing topography at a maximum of fivc foot contour interval;
*
'.Vooded B:-fcas indicated by general type and location of cxisting and
proposed tree linc;
*
Nat1:lral [catmcs, such as promincnt ridge lines, rock outcroppings or
water featurcs.
Sehematie layo1:lt of proposal showing location of all buildings, accessory
structures, pedestrian '.'lays, intcrior roads, utilitics, and landscaping.
Currcnt photos of the sitc environs.
Elevations of front, sidcs, and raIT of all buildings. facades visible from the
ARB Final Design Guidelines
O~tober 28, 1993
DJuFf
21
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Entrance Corridor.
c)
Three-dimensional sketch of all buildings visible from the Entrance Corridor.
d)
Cross section if necessary of the site from the Entrance Corridor illustrating:
*
Existing topography
*
Proposed topography, vegetation. and building
e)
Samples of building materials proposed;
t)
Photometric lighting plan and lighting details.
i)
Photographs of tfie site and environs;
g)
Description of how the proposal complies with the Guidelines;
Submittals required for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a sign:
a)
Scale drawing illustrating size and shape.
AlRB Final Design Guidelines
Clctober 28, 1993
DJuFT
22
1
1
b)
Explanation of the proposed sign, including the following information:
2
3
*
Materials
4
*
Colors
5
*
Kifttl Method of lighting Drooosed fixtufC
6
*
Lettering, style and size
7
*
Method of support for sign.
8
9
c)
Justification for any requested deviation from the Guidelines.
10
d)
Photographs of thc site and cnvimfls, showiflg proposed location of signagc.
A!RB Final Design Guidelines
C ctober 28, 1993
IJ/RAFT
23
.
eCE\'lED If
NO'I 10 \993
n\ <'" rr.UN
"U3E:MA~\.<:'..' '-~EN1"
ZONING U~..;-"'" II
.,-
GEORGE . ST.JOHN
COUNTY TTORNEY
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138
November 5, 1993
JAMES M. BOWLING, N
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
. Marcia Joseph
sign Planner
ning Department
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: Historical Preservation Zoning District
(Our File #ACPZ 92-1035)
ar Marcia:
This is in response to your communication in
quest my response to the comments of Mr. Don
oposed ARB guidelines of October 19, 1993.
which you
Wagner on
Mr. Wagner's comments appear, to the best of my recollection,
be very similar to the comments made by him in October, 1990,
en the original guidelines were being considered.
In order to refresh your memory and that of the ARB members,
am enclosing copies of two previous letters to you, along with
copy of an Attorney General's Opinion dated September 16,
91. I believe this Attorney General's Opinion should be our
neral guide in determining the authority and function of the
B.
with respect to Mr. Wagner's comments, if they are taken as
s ggestions, by him, in an effort to persuade the ARB to go
a ong with these suggestions, then of course the ARB is free to
g've them whatever weight it accords.
However, if Mr. Wagner intends (which he appears to do) to
ply that the law requires adherence to his suggestions, and
at the present structure of our ordinance and the adopted and
oposed guidelines, are unlawful as exceeding the power of the
B under the enabling legislation, then I must respectfully
d'sagree with.Mr. Wagner. I base my opinion on a plain reading
o the Enabling Act (Virginia Code Section 15.1-503.2) and also
,.
.,
,r
Joseph
October 5, 1993
Page 2
a reading of several treatises which deal with enabling
in other states, which are similar to our act, and which
ave been interpreted by the courts of those states. I believe
sent you some of this material, when the ARB was being formed
nd the original guidelines considered.
I specifically believe that the provisions in section
30.6.4.1 and following sections, of our ordinance, which specify
he elements which the ARB is to consider, is a legitimate
xercise of the legislative power of our governing body under
he Act. That being so, the ARB is clearly not acting beyond
i s assigned function under our ordinance. In other words,
less our ordinance itself is illegal, then the ARB is
nctioning . properly -so. long as it. does. -not. concern itself
p rely with matters of safety, or overreach into the functions
of other agencies such as the Planning Commission and BZA, or
d ny by right uses. I believe this will become apparent if you
c refully read the enclosed Attorney General's opinion again.
You will note that the last paragraph of that opinion points
o t that site plan review is not assigned by statute to any
p rticular agency, leaving that up to the local government.
S . te plan review has been primarily assigned to the Planning
C mmission under Chapter 32 of our ordinance, but the fact that
c rtain elements of what is normally considered site plan
r view, are specifically assigned to the ARB under Ordinance
S ction 30.6.4.1 and following sections, clearly in my mind
e tabish the power of the ARB to deal with these elements.
In sum, what this enabling act is concerned with, is the
terior appearance of structures along an entrance corridor,
d whether such appearance is architecturally compatible with
e motif of the historic "landmarks, buildings and structures"
thin the district. I do not think you can separate the
ternal appearance of the structure, from the setting in which
is located, and this is adequate justification for ARB review
landscaping, building orientation, and so forth, even though
ese elements are normally considered part of "site plan
view" .
If the ARB wants me to do so, I will be glad to attend a
eting and go over Mr. Wagner's comments one-by-one.
Sincerely yours,
;-1 A_ JA ~~
Ge~st. John
County Attorney
.-~
RECEIVED
NOV 10 1993
ALBEMAH~~ COUNTY
ZONlNG DEPARTMENT
G stJ/tlh
E closures
..
.
r
~
,f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138
JAM~S . BOWLING. IV
DEPUTY OUNTY ATTORNEY
February 25, 1992
GEORGE R. ST.JOHN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
'''0.:
. . Timothy Lindstrom, Esquire"
hairman, Architectural Review Board
/0 Ms. Marcia Joseph
epartment of Zoning
lbemarle County
01 McIntire Road
harlottesvillej Virginia 22902-4596
Re: Scope of ARB Review of Safety Features
(Our File #ACPZ 90-931)
Tim:
Ms. Joseph informed me that the ARB has requested a written
pinion from me, on the question of whether it is properly within
he authority of the ARB to mandate what it sees. as necessary
afety features in developments under its review.
I can find no authority on this, so all I can do is read the
nabling act, Code Section 15.1-503.2. Any member of your Board
an read this s~atute as well as I, and I believe each member was
iven a copy.
For what my opinion is worth, my reading of this statute
imits the authority of the ARB to determining whether buildings
--:.... nd structures are "architecturally compatible with the historic
andmarks, buildings, or structures" within the historic district
r entrance corridor. Clearly, in my mind, this does not include
he mandating of features on the basis of safety.
In my judgment that is the job of the Building Official and
he Planning Commission and the Developer along with the
eveloper's Risk Management carrier, if any.
No doubt there are situations where some feature in a
evelopment is not even addressed in the.Building Code, and the
RB sees a crying need for some safety device or feature. This
ay be a legitimate need and sound logic, but the ARB does not
ave jurisdiction to mandate everything it may see as a good idea
r a public need.
.
.
.
"
,1'
. Timothy Lindstrom, Esquire
Page 2
February 25, 1992
I understand the question arose in the context of a
iniaturegolf course, and some members of your Board felt they
should require handrails on the \ bridges and a,fence.around the
roject, based not on any aesthetic consideration but on the
Board meEbers' concern purely for safety. I believe this is
b.yond tbe legitimate authority of your Board.
In swmnary, 'I do not bel ieve the ARB has authori ty to deal
matters of safety, except where an aes~hetic decision also
'nvolves safety; for example, I do not believe you should mandate
landscape feature if that feature, as mandated by you, would
esult in danger. A classic example would be a tree, which might
e aesthetically desirable but which would interfere with sight
istance at an intersection.
\~,
Sincerely yours,
f~
George R. St. J
County Attorney
G StJ /tlln
-..
.......
.'--
-\
~EC~'VED
t\)OV 10 \993
ALBEMA~."
ZONING .
~
~Lc
.
,
r
"
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
. 416 Park Street
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138 .
July 9, 1992
JAMES M. BOWUNG. IV
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
".
"
s. Marcia Joseph
esign Planner
oning Department
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Ms. Joseph:
I am sending to you the documents which were in the Board of
upervisors package at their meeting on July 8, 1992, in
onnection with the special permit 92-38, Charlottesville
quatics.
This package contains a letter from you which indicates that
he Architectural Review Board intends to impose a condi tion
pon issuance of its certificate of Appropriateness, that "any
uture ordinance revisions that allow additional signage on this
ite shall be waived".
It is my opinion that the Architectural Review Board does not
ave authority to condition its approval, upon the waiver of
uture by-right uses which the Board of Supervisors may grant in
he Zoning Ordinance. I believe this follows a previous
ttorney General's opinion which I furnished you and the ARB.
I did not mention this issue when the Supervisors were in the
rocess of approving the special use permit, as I believe you
ad already verbally questioned me about this, and I assume you
~ ither will, or already have,discussed it with the ARB.
If the ARB has already issued its Certificate, wi th this
ondition included, I do not believe it would be necessary to
eopen the matter, but they should be aware that in my opinion
his condition is unenforceable if challenged in the future.
nclosure
Sincerely yours,- ~
G~!n
County Attorney RECEIVED
NOV 1 0 1993
~~
68
1991 REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
T
law is expressed in plain and unambiguous terms, whether those terms are general or lim- 1
ited, the legislature should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and
consequently no room is left for construction." Town of South Hill v. Allen, 177 Va. 154,
165, " S.E.'. 710, "4 (1941l. It i, '0 ",'p". p,'odpl, 0' """Io'y COO'''"'''OO Ihot , I
statute stating the manner in which something may be done or the entity that may do it
also evInces the legislative intent that it not be done otherwise. Grigg v. Commonwealth,
224 Va. 356, 297 S.E.2d 799 (1982); Christiansburg v. Montgomery COWlty, 216 Va. 654,
222 S.E.2d 513 (1976); 1990 AH'y Gen. Ann. Rep. 132, 133.
',.
Based on the above, it is my opinion that the plain language of ~ 15.1-486.4 now
prohibits a locality from allowing a site-built home to be located on a one-acre lot in an
agricultural zoning district or district having a si m ilar classification, while requiring a
multisection manufactured home, in excess of nineteen feet in width and placed on a
permanent foundation, to be sited on a five-acre lot.
ISection 15.1-486.4 was first enacted by the General Assembly in 1990. Ch. 840, 1990
Va. Acts 1440 (Reg. Sess.) (adding ~ 15.1-486.3, which was renumbered 15.1-486.4 by Vir-
ginia Code Commission to reflect sequential numbering of Code sections). A 1991
amendment- added language- defining agricultural-- zoning districts in ~ 15.1-486.4(A).
Ch. 198, 1991 Va. Acts 267 (Reg. Sess.).
COUNTIES. CITIES AND TOWNS: PLANNING, SUBDlVlSION OF LAND AND ZONING.
Rezoning function reserved to local governing body; architectural review board may not
deny certificate of compatibility on proposed use of building or structure when use per-
mitted by right under zoning ordinance. Applicant who meets statutory standard for
granting of variance based on demonstration of hardship entitled to exercise variance as
matter of right; architectural review board not empowered to override variance properly
granted by board of zoning appeals. Architectural review board without jurisdiction to
overrule or modify site plan previously approved by entity designated in local ordinance
to perform that function, unless local ordinance provides otherwise.
September 16, 1991
Mr. George R. S1. John
County Attorney for Albemarle County
You ask several questions about the scope of authority of an architectural review
board created by a locality pursuant to S 15.1-503.2 of the Code of Virginia. Specifically,
you ask whether such a board may deny approval to a proposed building or structure sub-
mitted for its review on the grounds that its proposed use is not "compatible" with the
district under the architectural review board's control when the use is one permitted as a
matter of right in that district under the locality's zoning ordinance. You also ask
whether the architectural review board has the authority to deny a property owner apply-
ing for approval of a project the right to use a variance from applicable setback require-
ments that has been granted to him by the local board of zoning appeals. Your third ques-
tion is whether the architectural review board may require an applicant to relocate his
proposed building on its site or otherwise alter a site plan previously approved by the
local planning commission.
I. Applicable Statute
Section 15.1-503.2 provides, in part:
:, l~-:7', -:,~ ~~ t\ ~ u. ~ n
r. ,'-' ~1 ~
NOV 1 0
.~ f.:.
i:
\0
2
.. .
..
.1 "
..ERAL
1991 REPORT OF THE ATI'ORNEY GENERAL
69
rJ'
neral or Iim-'
"ave plainly e pressed, and
'1 Hill v. Allen 177 Va. 154,
tatutory const uction that a
Jr the entity t at may do it
;e. Grigg v. C mmonwealth,
)mery COlUlty 216 Va. 654,
A. I. The governing body of any county or municipality may adopt an ordi-
nance setting forth the historic landmarks within the county or municipality
as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission, and any other build-
ings or structures within the county or municipality having an important his-
toric, architectural or cultural interest, and any historic areas within the
county or municipality as defined by S 15.1-430 (b), amending the existing
zoning ordinance and delineating one or more historic districts, adjacent to
such landmarks, buildings and structures, or encompassing such historic
areas, or encompassing parcels of land contiguous to arterial streets or
highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1, including S 33.1-41.1 of that
title) found by the governing body to be significant routes of tourist access
to the county or municipality or to designated historic landmarks, buildings,
structures or districts therein or in a contiguous county or municipality. Such
amendment of the zoning ordinance and the establishment of such district or
districts shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (S 15.1-486
et seq.) of this chapter [Chapter 11 of Title 15.1]. The governing body may
provide for an architectural review board to administer such ordinance. Such
ordinance may include a provision that no building or structure, including
signs, shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or restored within any such
historic district unless the same is approved by the architectural review
, . board or, on appeal,. by the governing body. of- such county or municipality as
being architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings or
structures therein.
! ~
nguage of S 1 .1-486.4 now
ated on a one acre lot in an
sification, whi e requiring a
.t in widtj1 an placed on a
mbly in 1990. Ch. 840, 1990
numbered 15. -486.4 by Vir-
of Code sect ons). A 1991
iistricts in S 15.1-486.4(A).
ZONING.
2. Subject to the provisions of subdivision 3 hereof the governing body may
provide in such ordinance that no historic landmark, building or structure
within any such historic district shall be razed, demolished or moved until
the razing, demolition or moving thereof is approved by the architectural
review board, or, on appeal, by the governing body after consultation with
such architectural review board.
ctural review ard may not
f or structure when use per-
~eets statuto standard for
i tied to exerci variance as
. 0 override vance properly
>oard without urisdiction to
lesignated in 1 al ordinance
"rwise.
3. The governing body shall provide by ordinance for appeals to the circuit
court for such county or municipality from any final decision of the govern-
ing body pursuant to subdivisions 1 and 2 hereof and shall specify therein the
parties entitled to appeal such decisions, which such parties shall have the
right to appeal to the circuit court for review by filing a petition at law, set-
ting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the governing body, provided
such petition is filed within thirty days after the final decision is rendered by
the governing body. The filing of the said petition shall stay the decision of
the governing body pending the outcome of the appeal to the court, except
that the filing of such petition shall not stay the decision of the governing
body if such decision denies the right to raze or demolish a historic land-
mark, building or structure. The court may reverse or modify the decision of
the governing body, in whole or in part, if it finds upon review that the deci-
sion of the governing body is contrary to law or that its decision is arbitrary
and constitutes an abuse of discretion, or it may affirm the decision of the
governing body.
v of an archit ctural review
-ode of Virgini . Specifically,
;ed building or structure sub-
is not "compa ible" with the
the use is one ermitted as a
ng ordinance. You also ask
jeny a propert owner apply-
n applicable s tback require-
ing appeals. Y ur third ques-
an applicant 0 relocate his
previously a proved by the
II. Architectural Review Board May Not Base Denial on Proposed Use
of Building or Structure if Use Allowed by Right Under Zoning Ordinance
When statutes on the same subject are construed, each section must be considered
in conjunction with every other section to produce a harmonious result. Common-
wealth v. Jones, 194 Va. 727, 74 S.E.2d 817 (1953); 1987-1988 Att'y Gen. Ann. Rep. 271,
273. Statutes that relate to the same subject" 'are not to be considered as isolated frag-
ments of law, but as a whole, or as parts of a great connected, homogenous system, or a
T
70
1991 REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
,
f.!
single and complete statutory arrangement.' " Prillaman v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 401,
405,100 S.E.2d 4, 7 (1957) (citation omitted); 1990 All'y Gen. Ann. Rep. 220,223 n.4.
Chapter II of Title 15.1, SS 15.1-427 through 15.1-503.2, presents such a "con-
nected system" for local government planning, subdivision of land and zoning. Various
statutes within Chapter 11 detail the creation, powers and responsibilities of the several
bodies and officers charged with 1arrying out the local lan~ use regulation process,
incl~ding the local governing bOfY, the planning commission, the zoning administra-
tor, the board of zoning appeals and the architectural review board.
Section 15.1-503.2 contains the only reference to architectural review boards found
in the Code. Under that section, such boards have only two specifically designated func-
tions: (1) to review and certify that a proposed building or structure, including signs, is
"architecturally compatible" with the historic landmarks, buildings or structures in the
district subject to the architectural review board's control; and (2) to review and approve
or disapprove the razing, demolition or moving of a historic landmark or building or
structure within a historic district.
Prior Opinions of this Office generally conclude that when a function in the overall
land use regulation pro:!ess.is'assigned by statute. to one body, it may. not be performed or
overridden by another body. See, e.g., Att'y Gen. Ann. Rep.: 1981-1982 at 114 (governing
body not authorized to exempt projects of public utility commission from planning com-
mission review); 1977-1978 at 285 (governing body may not insert additional steps not
contemplated by statute in zoning approval process); 1976-1977 at 332, 333 (board of
zoning appeals, and not planning commission, must rule on special exceptions); 1971-1972
at 485 (planning commission not empowered to issue variances).
The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that both the establishment of a property's
original zoning classification and its rezoning to another use classification are legislative
functions that must be reserved to the governing body. Laird v. City of Danville, 225 Va.
256, 302 S.E.2d 21 (1983). In holding invalid a section of the Danville city charter that
delegated authority for rezonings to the planning commission, the Court found it to be
"an ttverriding requirement of zoning law in Virginia" that "only the governing body of a
10cali'sY may zone or rezone property and then only by ordinance." Ed. at 262, 302 S.E.2d
at 24.
By basing its denial of a certificate of compatibility for a proposed building or
structure on the use of that building or structure, when the use is one permitted in the
zoning district in question, an architectural review board effectively would be assigning
the property to a new use classification--a form of rezoning. The decision in Laird makes
it clear that this is a function reserved to the local governing body. In my opinion, there-
fore, an architectural review board may not base its denial of a certificate of compati-
bility on the proposed use of the building or structure if that use is permitted by right in
the zoning district in which the building or structure is proposed to be located.
III. Architectural Review Board Not Empowered to Override
Variance Properly Granted by Board of Zoning Appeals
Boards of zoning appeals may grant variances only when the statutory requirements
for demonstration of a hardship have been met. Hendricks v. Board of Zoning Appeals,
222 Va. 57, 278 S.E.2d 814 (1981). When the statutory requirements for the granting of a
variance based on hardship have been demonstrated by the applicant, the board of zoning
appeals is obligated to grant the variance. Tidewater Utilities v. Norfolk, 208 Va. 705,
712, 160 S.E.2d 799, 804 (1968). Failure to grant a variance under such circumstances is
an abuse of discretion. Azalea Corp. v. City of Richmond, 201 Va. 636, 112 S.E.2d 862
(1960).
"'-.
".
.......
r-
I
j
. . oJ
.
RAL
monwealth, 199 Va. 401,
n. Rep. 220, 23 n.4.
~, presents s ch a "con-
land and zoni g. Various
;nsibilities of the several
use regulati n process,
~ the zoning dministra-
loard.
cural review bards found
~ifically desi ated func-
Icture, includi g signs, is
lings or struc ures in the
(2) to review nd approve
landmark or building or
a function in the overall
may not be p rformed or
H-1982 at 11 (governing
<sion from pIa ning com-
sert addition 1 steps not
77 at 332, 33 (board of
;;1 exceptions) 1971-1972
blishment of property's
ssification are legislative
City of Danvi Ie, 225 Va.
'anville city carter that
the Court fou d it to be
the governin body of a
e." [d. at 262, 302 S.E.2d
r a proposed uilding or
~ is one permitted in the
tively would b assigning
'2 decision in L ird makes
,dy. In my opi ion, there-
1 certificate f compati-
e is permitted by right in
to be located.
) Override
{. Appeals
e statutory re uirements
loard of Zonin Appea13,
'nts for the gr nting of a
cant, the boar of zoning
v. Norfolk, 2 8 Va. 705,
:er such circu stances is
! Va. 636'-'112 .E.2d 862
1991 REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
These cases, in my OpiniOn, dictate the conclusion that an applicant who has met
the statutory standard to receive a variance is entitled to exercise that variance as a
matter of right. It is further my opinion, therefore, that an architectural review board
may not condition its approval of a certificate of compatibility for a building or struc-
ture under its jurisdiction on the applicant's foregoing his right to exercise such a
variance.
IV. Architectural Review Board Without Jurisdiction
over Site Plan Unless Local Ordinance Provides Otherwise
Your third question differs from the first two because Chapter 11 of Thtle 15.1 does
not specifically assign site plan review and approval to any particular body. In practice,
local zoning ordinances variously assign site plan review functions to the locality's plan-
ning staff or zoning administrator, to the planning commission or to the local governing
body itself.
Because no such statutory assignment of site plan review exists in th~ state en-
abling legiSlation, it is my opinion that a local governing body could define the' architec-
tural review board's evaluation of architectural compatibility to include a review of a
proposed building. oI':structure's location on its site plan. In the absence of such a specific
assignment of site plan evaluation to the architectural review board in the local zoning
ordinance, however, that board would lack authority to overrule or modify a site plan
previously approved by the entity designated in the local ordinance to perform that
function.
ISee, e.g., S 15.1-465 (governing body to adopt subdivision ordinance); S 15.1-486 (gov-
er~ng body may adopt zoning ordinance).
See, e.g., SS 15.1-470 to 15.1-472 (planning commission to prepare and recommend
subdivision ordinance and amendments thereto to governing body); S 15.1-491(g) (planning
corymiss.ion to make recommendations on amendments to zoning ordinance).
SectIOn 15.1-491.3 (zoning administrator vested with enforcement authority on behalf
of ~ocal governing body).
See, e.g., S 15.1-494 (creation of board of zoning appeals); SS 15.1-495 to 15.1-496.1
(board of zoning appeals to hear appeals of decisions of zoning administrator and applica-
tio~ for. variances). .
Section 15.1-495(e) makes It clear that the board of zoning appeals may not use its
au~orit~ over variances or special exceptions to rezone property.
SectIOn 15.1-491(h) allows a zoning ordinance to include provisions "[flor the submis-
sion and approval of a plan of development prior to the issuance of building permits to
assure compliance with regulations contained in such zoning ordinance." This "plan of
development" is commonly referred to as a "site plan."
COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS: PLANNING, SUBDIVISION OF LAND AND ZONING _
POWERS OF CITIES AND TOWNS - PUBLIC UTILITIES; FRANCHISES; ETC. _
GENERAL.
CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA: LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS - VENUR.
COURTS OF RECORD: CLERKS, CLERKS' OFFICES AND RECORDS.
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE MATTERS; CEMETERIES: CEMETERIES.
'li93
71
W93
WORD ABOUT THESE GUIDELINES AND THE REVIEW PROCESS
hese Guidelines are intended to assist you in developing new projects, or in renovating old
o es, to design sites and structures which are harmonious with the architectural traditions and
. story for which Albemarle is so well known. It is the intent of the members of the
rchitectural Review Board to allow you broad latitude in developing your project, and to make
t e architectural review process as simple and efficient as possible, consistent with the interests
o the citizens of Albemarle County and the many persons from around the world who are
v'sitors here.
o this end, we encourage you to read these Guidelines, and then to meet with us and our staff
a soon as you have selected a site and have identified your building objectives. We meet
f equently and we want to be involved in the design process early in order to save you time and
oney in the design of your project.
e encourage Preliminary Conferences as the very first step in the County development review
p ocess. In order to make it easier for you to participate in a Preliminary Conference we
r quest only a minimum of information and investment, as a prerequisite. In most cases a
s mple sketch or photograph of proposed structures, and the location of the proposed project,
i all that will be needed for a Preliminary Conference.
orking in this fashion with project designers over the past several years we have reviewed and
a proved a number of important projects which are a source of pride to the community, and to
t e owners. We look forward to working with you as you develop what we hope will be a long
t rm, successful investment in this community, and a positive contribution to the character of
t is important historical area.
im Lindstrom
hairman, Architectural Review Board
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
ection 15.1-503.2 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to regulate the design of
velopment along streets, roads, and highways providing access to significant historic structures
a d to cities and towns to insure that such development is compatible with the architecture of
t e historically significant landmarks, buildings, and structures to which these routes lead.
hese "entrance corridors" are to be designated by the locality. The review of development
p oposals within such corridors is to be undertaken by locally designated Architectural Review
oards.
n October 3, 1990 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted section 30.6 of the
lbemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This section is titled "Entrance Corridor Overlay
istrict" and implements the authority described above. It specifically designates a number of
" ntrance corridors", establishes standards for the review of development proposed within the
c rridors and creates a five member Architectural Review Board (ARB). The Board of
S pervisors also appointed members to the ARB and charged them with the responsibility for
p oposing and administering a set of Guidelines for development within the designated corridors.
he goal of the regulation of the design of development within the designated entrance corridors
i to insure that new development within the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the
a ea. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines, that proposed
d velopment within the designated entrance corridors reflect elements of design characteristic
o the significant historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the Charlottesville and
lbemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development within these corridors.
A B Final Design Gut e Illes
2
UMMARY OF PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
I a proposed development project has the following characteristics it must be reviewed by the
lbemarle County Architectural Review Board:
hat projects must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board?
he project is to be located upon a parcel which is within an "entrance corridor", and
1) The project requires County approval of a site plan or approval of an amendment
to an approved site plan before development can begin (generally, only
commercial, industrial, or multi-family development projects are required to have
a site plan and therefore require ARB approval), or
2) The project requires a special permit from the Albemarle Board of Supervisors
because it involves outdoor storage or display within an entrance corridor street,
or
3) The project requires a special permit, rezoning, or comprehensive plan
amendment and the Albemarle Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission
have requested advice from the ARB before acting upon the proposal.
n entrance corridor includes all parcels which adjoin or are located within 500 feet of the right
o way of a County road or highway designated in section 30.6.2b. of the Albemarle County
ning Ordinance as an "entrance corridor street." Appendix A contains a list of the current
d signations.
I the case of reviews under item 1 above, the ARB must issue a certificate of appropriateness
i order for the site plan to receive final approval and the project to commence. In the case of
r views under items 2 and 3 above, the ARB must make a non-bonding recommendation to the
anning Commission or Board of Supervisors.
hat is required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review
oard?
e developer must submit an application for a certificate of appropriateness to the staff of the
RB which is located within the Albemarle County Zoning Department. The ARB meets twice
a month on the first and third Mondays. In order to be considered at a scheduled meeting the
3
a plication and supporting documentation should be submitted to the staff at least two weeks
ior to such meeting. Appendix B lists the items which must be submitted with the application.
n application form and further information about the review process can be obtained from the
RB staff.
L is recommended, but not required, that prior to filing an application the developer first
r quest a preliminary conference with the ARB. Neither the developer nor the ARB is bound
b the results of a preliminary conference, however the ARB will provide the developer with
a written list of any suggestions discussed during a preliminary conference. Experience has
s own that incorporating these suggestions into a final application will save the developer time
a d expense. Information required for a preliminary conference is minimal and is listed in
ppendix B as well. Preliminary conferences with the ARB should be arranged through the
RB staff.
S ate law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve only those proposals which
~ fleet designs which are compatible with the historically significant architecture of the County
o Albemarle and City of Charlottesville. It is not intended that proposed designs mirror
e isting historic structures in the area. Replication of such structures is neither required nor
d sired. However, developers proposing "trademark" designs can expect that significant
odification will be required by the ARB before approval will be granted.
he guidelines which follow are intended to provide assistance to the developer in designing
p ojects which will meet the design requirements of the ARB. In addition, Appendix C contains
p ctures of historically significant structures in the area; drawings which highlight some of the
i portant features of these structures; and photographs of modem buildings, both in the area
a d elsewhere, which are considered compatible with these historic structures.
hat is required for a review other than one required for approval of a certificate of
a 'Propriateness?
eview of development requiring a special permit because outdoor display is proposed within
a Entrance Corridor shall require provision of the information required for a "preliminary
c nference", or, in the discretion of the ARB staff such additional information, any which would
b required for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Any other reviews requested
b the Board of Supervisors shall be accompanied by such information as shall be deemed
a propriate by the ARB or ARB staff, including the information which would be required for
t e issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
4
hat appeal is available from decisions of the Architectural Review Board?
ecommendations of the ARB with respect to special permits, rezonings, comprehensive plan
endments, and preliminary conferences preceding application for a certificate of
a propriateness, are not appealable because they are advisory only.
rovisions of a certificate of appropriateness, or the denial of a certificate of appropriateness
ay be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by making a written demand for such appeal to the
lerk of the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the decision with respect to
hich the appeal is sought.
ecisions regarding the application or intent of section 30.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning
rdinance establishing the Entrance Corridor Overlay District may be appealed to the
Ibemarle County Zoning Adminstrator.
5
ESIGN GUIDELINES -- GENERAL
isitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience
t ese sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the
i tegration of buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the Guidelines
r quire attention to four primary factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the
a ea; the character of the Entrance Corridor; site development and layout; and landscaping.
. .. with si i ant historic sites:
ew structures and substantial additions to existing structures should respect the traditions of
t e architecture of historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area.
hotographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings of architectural features,
hich provide important examples of this tradition are contained in Appendix C.
he examples contained in Appendix C should be used as a guide for building design: the
s ndard of compatibility with the area's historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid
d sign solution for new development. Replication of the design of the important historic
s tes in the area is neither intended nor desired. The Guideline's standard of compatibility
c n be met through building scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in
a chitecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines allow individuality
i design to accommodate varying tastes as well as special functional requirements.
I is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a pattern of compatible
a chitectural characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and
c herence. Building designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby structures within
t e Entrance Corridor. Where a designated corridor is substantially developed, the
uidelines require striking a careful balance between harmonizing new development with the
e isting character of the corridor and achieving compatibility with the significant historic
s'tes in the area.
Final Design Guidelines
6
Site development and lavout:
ite development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute
t the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent
actical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees
a ong streets and pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements;
i suring that any grading will blend into the surrounding topography thereby creating a
c ntinuous landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing significant river and stream
v lleys which may be located on the site and integrating these features into the design of the
s rrounding development; and limiting the building mass and height to a scale that does not
o erpower the natural setting of the site, or the Entrance Corridor.
c in.
he requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are intended to reflect the
1 ndscaping characteristic of many of the area's significant historic sites which is
c aracterized by large shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order
ithin the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of
t e Corridor.
ontinuity within the Corridor should be obtained by planting different types of plant
aterials that share similar characteristics. Such common elements allow for more flexibility
i the design of structures because common landscape features will help to harmonize the
a pearance of development as seen from the street upon which the Corridor is centered.
Final Design Guidelines
7
ESIGN GUIDELINES -- SPECIFICS
his section provides specific recommendations intended to achieve the goals described in the
neral design statement above.
. .. with si . ant historic sites:
Building forms and features, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors and
textures should be compatible with the forms and features of the significant historic
buildings in the area, exemplified by (but not limited to) the buildings described in
Appendix C. The standard of compatibility can be met through scale, materials, and
forms which may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as
traditional. The replication of important historic sites in Albemarle County is not the
objective of these guidelines.
Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding context of buildings.
The overall design of buildings should have human scale. Scale should be integral to
the building and the site design.
Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale,
and materials to create a cohesive whole.
Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from building design should be relieved
using building design details or vegetation, or both.
6 Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices should be used to unify
groups of buildings within a development.
7 Trademark buildings and related features should be modified to meet the requirements
of the Guidelines.
structures and e ui ment
1 Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into the overall plan of
development and shall, to the extent possible, be compatible with the building designs
used on the site.
Final Design Guidelines
8
r
2~ The following should be screened to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor
street:
a) Loading Areas,
b) Service Areas,
c) Refuse Areas,
d) Storage Areas,
e) Mechanical Equipment,
f) Above-ground Utilities, and
g) Chain Link Fence, Barbed Wire, Razor Wire, and similar security fencing and
devices.
3~ Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the buildings and
surrounding natural vegetation and may consist of:
a) Walls,
b) Plantings, and
c) Fencing.
4~ Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be designed to fit into the natural
topography to avoid the need for screening.
T. iQhtinl!
1 Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties or
streets.
2 Light should be shielded, recessed or flush-mounted to eliminate glare; and
3 The light should achieve an incandescent effect.
AluJ Final Design Guidelines
9
Signs located within the Entrance Corridor must conform to the size, height, and
setback requirements as outlined in Section 14.15 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
Material used in both sign and support structures should reflect the building being
served by the sign;
Lighting should be shielded and not create a glare;
The structure of monument signs should not overpower the message portion of the
sign; and
Sign colors should be harmonious with the building which they serve;
Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets should include the
following:
a) Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the Entrance Corridor street.
Such trees should be at least 3 1/2 " caliper (measured 6" above the ground)
and should be of a plant species common to the area. Such trees should be
located at least every 35 feet on center.
b) Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area should be
interspersed among the trees required by the preceding paragraph.
c) In situations where appropriate, a three or four-board fence or low stone wall,
typical of the area should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor street.
d) An area of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing plantings and
fencing should be reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and
exclusive of road right-of-way and utility easements.
2 Landscaping along interior roads:
Trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such trees should be at least 2
1/2" caliper (measured 6" above the ground) and should be of a plant species common
to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 40 feet on center.
Final Design Guidelines
10
I
3~ Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
Trees should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should be
at least 2 1/2" caliper (measured 6" above the ground) and should be of a plant
species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 25 feet on
center.
41) Landscaping of parking areas:
a) Trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located forty (40) feet on
center. Trees should be planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of 1
tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and should be evenly distributed
throughout the interior of the parking area.
b) Trees required by the preceding paragraph should measure 2 1/2" caliper
(measured 6" above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and should be of a
species common to the area. Such trees should be planted in planters or
medians sufficiently large to maintain the health of the tree and shall be
protected by curbing.
c) Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the parking area's impact
on Entrance Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 " in height.
5 Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
a) Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the front of long buildings
as necessary to soften the appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and
type of such trees or vegetation should be determined by the length, height,
and blankness of such walls.
b) Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings and other structures;
dumpsters, accessory buildings and structures; "drive thru" windows; service
areas; and signs. Shrubs should measure at least 24" in height.
6 Plant species:
Plant species required should be as approved by the Staff based upon Generic
Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes
List .
ARB Final Design Guidelines
11
I
I
.5 ite development and layout:
Development pattern
The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance Corridor street and to
other development within the Corridor should be as follows:
1) An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and pedestrian walks
should guide the layout of the site;
2) In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street should be parallel to
the street. Building groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance
Corridor street;
3) Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian and vehicular
circulation systems;
4) Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity within
the Entrance Corridor;
5) If significant natural features exist on the site (including creek valleys, steep
slopes, significant trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical then such
natural features should be reflected in the site layout. If the provisions of
Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance apply, then
improvements required by that section should be located so as to maximize the
use of existing features in screening such improvements from Entrance Corridor
streets;
6) The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas
on and around the site.
Site Grading
1) The site grading should respect the existing topographic characteristics of the
site and blend with adjacent properties;
2) Site grading should not change the basic relationship of the site to surrounding
conditions;
3) Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable;
AluJ Final Design Guidelines
12
I
I
4) Cut and fill slopes should be rounded (minimum ten (10) foot radius) to meet
adjacent conditions;
5) No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the drip line of any
trees or other existing features designated for preservation in the final
Certificate of Appropriateness;
6) Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness
should be clearly delineated and protected on the site prior to any grading
activity on the site. This protection should remain in place until completion of
the development of the site;
7) Preservation areas should be protected from storage or movement of heavy
equipment within this area;
8) Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new drainage patterns)
should be incorporated into the finished site to the extent possible.
APPENDIX C
The following list contains properties that serve as examples for architecture and site
design proposed within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The list contains
historic buildings as well as more recently constructed buildings. The buildings are
located within Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Albemarle County Court House
Amoco Convenience Store (intersection of Route 29N and Airport Road)
Ashlawn
Barracks Road Shopping Center (Barracks Road and Emmet Street intersection)
Crestar Building (High Street)
Forest Lakes Commercial Area (intersection of Route 29N and Airport Road)
Legal Research Building (Rt. 250W)
McDonald's (intersection of Route 20 and Route 250E)
Memorial Gym (University of Virginia)
AjRB Final Design Guidelines
13
I
Monticello Hotel (500 Court Square)
Monticello
Moser Radiation Therapy Center (Rt. 250W)
Queen Charlotte (High Street)
Rotunda and the Lawn (University of Virginia grounds)
Shell Convenience Store Building (Route 250E)
The buildings as noted above are either historically significant or serve as examples of
architecture compatible with historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and
Albemarle area and serve as examples of shapes, structures, materials, colors, textures,
site development, and the integration of site and structure which are encouraged by
these guidelines.
It should be recognized, however, that replication of these examples will not
necessarily result in the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Architectural Review Board because each building site and its context is unique.
APPENDIX B
Preliminary Conference
The Preliminary Conference should be the first step in the site plan approval process.
To save time and money this review is encouraged prior to site plan submittal. The
ARB requests a minimum of information and investment for this initial review.
Submittals required for the preliminary conference:
a) Sketch or photograph of proposed buildings,
b) Albemarle County Tax Map and Parcel number, and
c) Any other material which the applicant believes will make the preliminary
conference more productive.
A~ Final Design Guidelines
14
I
Certificate of Appropriateness
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
Submittals required for approval of Certificate of Appropriateness:
a) Preliminary site plan including small groups of trees of any size, indicated by
common name, approximate caliper and location;
b) Elevations of all facades visible from the Entrance Corridor.
c) Three-dimensional sketch of all buildings visible from the Entrance Corridor.
d) Cross section if necessary of the site from the Entrance Corridor illustrating:
*
*
Existing topography
Proposed topography, vegetation, and building
e) Samples of building materials proposed;
f) Photometric lighting plan and lighting details.
g) Description of how the proposal complies with the Guidelines;
Submittals required for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a sign:
a) Scale drawing illustrating size and shape.
b) Explanation of the proposed sign, including the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
Materials
Colors
Method of lighting proposed
Lettering, style and size
Method of support for sign.
c) Justification for any requested deviation from the Guidelines.
A)lB Final Design Guidelines
15
I
z
<......
~ .~
~~
~ r5
~ .....
< u
u&
Vl Vl
Q"tj
Z Q)
:s~
~ ~
~ U
Z~
~
d
f!S
Q.l
100
E--
Q.l
'g
.c
r:I:J
Q.l
100
=
~
~
Z
i=:
~
o
U
i=: c<l
~ S ~
;3~s~
c::~~N
Cd 'Q) Q.l Q.l
.~ > rs rs
~ [3 i=: ~
S8:E0.
<~U~
Q.l
~
Z
ca
u
.~
.....
o
i::l:l
~~
~:ao~
B~~t::
[3~~~
S ..l:l 0. c<l
o '" '" >
..... ;::l ;::l 0
~ S S ~
E=:55~
~
Z
i=:
~
o
U
~ ~@
g. Q.lS~
~~~]]
>.~~uu
c<l ~ Q.l Q.l
~'Oa~~
~~~~~
e
o
;S
~
::c ~
..l:l e Q.l
~ ~ '0 .~ 0 ..... .0
Cil~ g bh;S'Q) e
].0'0 ~eJj ~~ ~ .2 Q.l
e~.EOo.....::C~t: f5' Q.l ~
i>> ~ ::c --0 Q E:l ~ i=: t/} .S ::c l;l Q.l
t::..... Q.l0ll c<l0 c<lQ.l --01-< p..
Q.lc::~~i=:~U~.a~""'~OO --o~
~ Cd U c::.;::::: 0. t/} i=: '" i=: 2:: U 0 U I-< I-<
(,.) <U 'C ~ <U r.I.l r.f.)'- 'S <U ~ 'C ~ ~ C t9 ~
]!~~~~~~~~5~~~~~a
f!S
Q.l
100
E--
Q.l
'Q
=
.c
r:I:J
.~ S c<l S ~
~ e ~ ;::l [3
Q.l ~ ;::::c<l>';:; ~~
al Cd '" ca ~ f5' c<l .~ c<l 0 ~ S
~ '" :s ..... OIl OIl i=: ..... ~ c:: .0 Cil '" c<l ;::l
U ] "0 5 c<l ~ .~ .a .g 0. rs.~ ~ i=: .~ ~ :a
.~ ] ~ ] ] U ~ 0. S .~ :~ .~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
-5 '" Cd t+:: ;g ;g ;g S Q.l ~ ..... --0 i=: > ca ~
~;::l;gu"'OIlOllOllc<l~>~[3~",UI-<
i=: .s.~ ;::l ~ ~ ~ 'r;; ~ ;g ~ '0 ..s ;::l '" '1;;
]~~~~EEE~]ca~~]ee~
<UUUUUUU::C~~OOp..p..~t/}
~
:s
Q.l
~
Q.l ----Q.l
~ .~ ~ Q.l
c<l & Q.l ~
I-< '" ~ E-o
~ Q.l..... Q.l
~ caO ~
S~-5J5~~ ~ ~li:
Q.l~<o~~E-o~s
.o~Q.l~a""'o.~
~ Cd .<;::: gp i=: ~;:::: ~ -g
~.fr~C3~~~iiS3
S
S S
~ 'S
..... 8.. c<l
~ .~.~ ~
rs S g ~] S .g
:s! s;:l 2::P [3.E ~Q.l
o ca ..-4 ca ~ _
.S e..l:l ..l:l u ..... >.
~.oi:l"-,,,,i:l-a"-'
i5.e~.E.EO:as
::s ::s tI) ,_ ,_
~t);)~~:E~~
<<<<<aa~
~
Z
ca
u
.~
.....
o
~
Q.l
I-<
~
~~ ~ ~~
~..l:l~O OO~
u a Q.l ~ :>..l:lCd
.;::::: 0 Q.l ..... 0 ;;>.~ 0
<U ..... .~ gf ..9-
S ~ ~ :E .S ~ gp 13
<t/}~t/}p..~~~
Q.l
Q.l
I-<
E-o
c<l i=:
--0 Q.l
~ -g i=:
~ ._ (l,)
p......:l-g
C1) 4-1 0-
'" ~....:l
Q.l..... I-<
~ ~ ~
~.~ :=
.........:It/}
~ c<l
'" t+:: I-<
::s 'u ~ ~ ~ ~
.~ c<l 0. .~ Ts S ....
.9 ~ ~ -!:= .- .~.~ VJ
~ .-0 ~ a ~ @C1.) r.I.l .~ b .....0 I-< _
en ,........,""'O.~ 5-4 tI) ::s '.....
.0 ;::l I-< i=: 'p ~ 'u ..... c<l .0 ;::l 'Q) ,.., !:::
.....o.....c<lOc<l~u;::l.oS.......,..............
.- <'il .0 .a ~ ~ 0 ~ ca ._ 0. i5.. 8 e
.ou~i=:>''''''-'
o 0--0 Q.l "-';::l;::l
~ El .- -g ~ ~ ~
i=: S g..;::::: "-' ~ ~
,- ~._ 0.-4 >-.. _ _
~~....:l....:lZp..p..
c<l
U c<l
'S c::
o fj c<l
~'c ~
........ Q.l "E
r.I.l r.I.l r.I.l tI) r.I.l r.f.l tI) ~o ~ 0
S S S S S S S Cil u
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -a.~ .~
;::l ;::l ;::l ;::l ;::l ;::l ;::l 0 ~ ~
ClCICICICICICIt/}E-oE-o
z
<.....
....:l .~
o......:l
~ iG
0.. ._
< ~
U 0.._,
lZl lZl '"
Cl'"Cld)
Zd)~
<]0..
~ ~
;! 0
~ C,)
Z~
~
d
~
Z
=
~
o
U
~
....
~ .~
II) 0
~ >--e.;.d
".... II) <: u
- '" la 0
~ .~ ~ u a
".... ~ c..'\: ~
_ ::...:s 11).....
......... s
.~ E ~ ~ <: .s
~ ~ ...= 'c ~ (3
;::l ~ .~ c.. ~ ~
<:~..:::::>ou
II)
~
z
ca
u
.~
....
o
CQ
..:s
.....
00
'2
'" ..:s
..:s :;j la
en ~ <<i 'S 'S
..:s;::l'iil:sl~:.::
..... .0 u c....... 0
.e!l g i<l ;g 8 ~
=",.ouou
cI'J r.I.J CI) rn ~ ~
s s ~ ~ .S' gp
P:;P:;E-<E-<t:~
II)
~
z
=
~
o
U
-1S
~
.o;J
~ II)
o II)
= .....
tnE-<~
~~::I:
II) II)
la la -g
1a' 1a'-
............CQ
~
z
ca
u
.~
....
o
CQ
S
.2
.~ :a
'"
.~ ~.~
o~c..
1a'~S
.........:s ;::l
~ 00 E
......S ;::l
;;.., ~:9
ci'5tn>
'0
o
o
~
j>.~ ..0
t::~ a 0
~ la '" '" 0 ::I:
~ .~ ..:s S .3 ::I: ~
.~ ~ ~';;l 2'~ "E..o ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ <: ~ g ~ .g '0 35 's
~~la=o~..:s;::l::I: ~
.0 c..o .....'O:.gCQ ~ c~......
<: ~ ~ s ~ II) ;;.., ~ ~ 1U .~ 1U
.;.d"''Os=gf~~c.:l.o:::::i::
= ..9 II) 0 11)..... 0 ~ c...;.d 11).....
P:;C)~uti3~~o~.sz~
en
~
lZl
.....
II)
..<::
u
;::l
o ..... ~
C) ~ .~ ~
~ ~ 0.) 't ~
~ ..... .g II) .....
~ 'O;::l u
'Ola..<::S"~
~bh:;lI)oo
..:s .\: '" ..:s
'~'..-l 0..> ~.~
OJ'i)..ooJ-
.o.o1U~~
<:<:CQCQO
'"
.~
1St)
..:s .....
ca ~ ..:s ..:s
r.I) > ~ ~
;::l ..:s .... ,~
s:.aE5
;;..,.... 0 .....
= ;;.., u u
o ~ ~ ~
&l&~~
.....
d)
~
.....
lZl
..0
'0
::I:
s
e
;::l
.0
.;;
"ia
..!:l
.....
II)
..<::
'iil
j
..:s
:5
.~ ~ a ;;.., ~ ti '0 II)
Q) :.::: 0:::::= >.2; ~...= ~
.oO::I:OII)~:.::~~
..:s = '0 ::I: ci5 ;;.., 0 .S- ~
~.~ ~ ..... II) '" ;;.., E-< c..
C5 ~ c.e ~ :.::: en - ~ .-
-;::l;::l0~..901l)-5
C)~CQ~Zc)::I:~tn
tf.l
.c
=
a...
-=
rJ)
e
....
e
QJ
QJ
a...
CJ
rJ)
'"
'" .2
5 ">,
aJo-a
.... I'< 0
tn.e1U
~ 'u ti
11).2"<::
;:3 S ~
11)2"<::
~~~
~ 6h s
0.) ._ tI)
:::::~o
I
c..
:e
tn
.....
.~ :.a
..:s ~.~ ~
~ ~ ::t
~"'CQ
:a ~ =..:s
la ..:s ~ 'C
..... '" E E
:>So~
..... 00 u ~
~ ..:s ~ ~
.,D~ 0.)_11)
<:~:::::-
'"
;::l
'"
..:s
..... .....
..... II)
II) U
~ e
~] s
:~ ;g ~ e
'OS~.5
s:~~>
II) ..:s
o '2
.s 0
~ 8 ~
'p ;::l:::E
.~ j
~ 00 "ia
> =..!:l
1U '0. 1U
c..o"<::
'2 e 'iil
~oj
o
o
1:~ .3
..!:l CQ '0 .~
t:: "<::..:s
;;..,;;..,~ >
:::E] c..-
> ..... II)
~..:s':05
~~~j
'"
5 s
aJ 2
.... 0
tn~
~:a
;::l
=
s
S
'S
~
......
'"
II)
'GJ
....
.~
>
cI'J .~ ~:g
.3 .0 .g ~
0..> ~ 'Q) ~ [i 'c: ~
.~ 'iil ca ~ S ~ g
> U II) 'C 0 ..:s .....
'" 11).0 II)'O~_~
2 .8 .~ U ..:s ..:s
II) ....0 = ~ = '2 '"
c.. U o.::::a ..... ;::l
'2 ;::l ~ ~ la ,g ~
~j:::E:::Ez~~
~~
.....
~~
_Z
00=
~ ~
II) II)
- -
- -
~ .~
~.....~~;;..,]O
'0 ..:s ~ ~::::: U =
8'0 c..c..0 ~
~8GG~!:::E
~~='OuoE
'0 5:: la 'C ~]
~8~">'e~~
~ojj<:~c55
S
.2
~
c..
o
:sl
>.
of:
..:s
~~
'2 la
5::">, ..:s~
_~..!:l .~ S
CI:S en s::= .-
U ..:s '" ..... 'jib -g
'g ~ .~ ~ .;:; ~
c.:loc..;;.., >00
~~i)>g~",..:s
<U r.I.l c'tS 8 :=::
"''''..:s~c..1I)0
221=!.....0c..=
'0 '0 ~ c.. ~ ..... 00
II) 11)"<:: ;::l II) = ..:s
uuuu:::::~:::E
tf.l
QJ
QJ
a...
-
-..:s
U
~
6
e
.s!
QJ
QJ
a...
CJ
rJ)
z
<.....
....:l .;!;l
~....:l
~ ~
~.....
< ~
~~(f)
0"00
Z 0 ~
<'8~
~ ~
~ 0
~ <)
z~
~
d
~
Z
!:l
~
o
U
e e
o 0
oS oS
~ ~ en
~ ~ .~
"'0 ~ U'.) tIJ .~
la 2 .~.~ en ~
>. ~ .~ Q) .~ >
j .3 ~ .~ .~ s
> > tij ;::l
~ ~~ c<:l > e
la la ~ .~ ~.E
oo<~~>
en
.0 en
- (\)
] ~ ..~.~
(\) 0 ._ en
lZl !:l .0 ~ .~
.- ~ > en
..... ~ 8 .3 !:l .~ en .~
0
0 00- (\) ~
.t:l Z Co) = 5-4.~ o.g >
lZl c<:l c<:l -g ~ .~ S
<il oSoS(\)>
u lala"Oc<:l>e
.~ u 0 (\) en
c<:l~"Oel;::l;::l
- .... .... ~.- 1;'i.o
0 (f;(f; ~E-<>
~
I
CI)
~
~
<
u
CI)
Q
Z
:s
<
......
z
......
d
~
......
:>
~
o
~
CI)
~
z
:s
~
~
:>
......
~
<
Z
Q)
~
Z
S::.!.d
o~ !a ....
,D ;:j
;;PS::
O..c:= .~
UtI)lJ..
~
z
<<l8:
u '"
'~ ~
'0 ~
a:lU
~
~
Q)
"8 ~
o Q)
-&"8
o 0
XX
lii lii
.~ .~
..... .....
e e
<<
,::!
"0
s::
OJ)
~~~
~ 0 0
~~~
~~~~!a
o~~>.-a
,D ....... ~ 0
~sQ)-B1J..
..............0 ;:j ..... Q) 0..
u'SQ):':::
~8;::J~~
Q)
~ ~~
s ~ 00 ~
'in ~ -e ~ .~ 1l ~ 0 ..Id ~
s:: g u 8 d ..Id ~ ~ s:: ..Id .~ 0
o~ j ~ ~ lii S C ~ s 0 'S,. c 0 ~ ~
x ~ ,~OJ) 0.. Q) ~ ~ .... s:: 0
..Id..... 0......... Q) ~..c:= OJ)..Id ..... Q)....
'E u ~:::: ~ ~ .~ ca Ei .S .S B ~ ~ 1;;
&~b5~~~~~~E550~~O~
~
~ ~ ,::! ;:j
liilii ~ ~ ~
~ ':::l ':::l ~ .... ~
lii :E '6b 0 ~ ~ [i !;.
'E 0 ..... "5l e;; ~ ~ : ~
.- !a .;; 6:l ~.:::: u Q) ......
e!luo",~>",g,D~~
0> rn ~ ~ ~
~ S !;. 'a ....... ~ ~ -e ~
g'F. ~.- .~ -e lii 'S ~
en ca.9 ~ ~ ~ !S .~ ~
OUO~UUIJ..~O
0..
0..
'"
.::!
.......
o
s::
;;p
~
~
.....
~
:~
B
s::
o
.....
-e
s::
Q)
-e
.9
.....
;:i
-e S
o S ..8
o 0 S ....
Q)~-e-5o~S
~o.E~-5X..8
ZO-ex~s::~ ;>-.
OJ)Q) ~o;;> c:
s:: ,s::_ ~ ~ X bjp~ '" Q)
o.....So..>.s::.....e:-2
s Q) Q) '" s:: :E s:: '1;; .~
s~....~~"'Q)"'>
o.9~oo~~~b
U~~UO;;>dtl)tI)
"E ;>-.
~ 5
'" S c-2
u ......!.d
~ ;>-. Q) 0
~s]~SOO
Q)~~V5U..c=Q)-e
~ El .- ~ U ..c:= Q) s::
t) ;:j ~ g ,S ..c:= U ~ ~
gf '" e;; .;:: "0 u S -e S
.c ~ 0 CO ~ ~ .E:-::= 0
~lJ..d>Ua:lIJ..~U
o
Q)-e
2'0
E- 0
.!.d ~
u ~ ~
~~o..
.......a:l~
a:l .~
-5 s[i-e
Q)",~]~
Q) '" 'oJ ._
-5~~~~lii
.....~o..o
i:E ,~ u>. tI) U
.......... ~'I::
Q)Q)-euQ)
.~ S <<l ..::! S
~<a:ll:Q<
~
OJ
lo.
E-
.~
~ ~ ~
]~~~8:
\,J Z t) ~'"' tI'J
.~ <<l G:: ~ ~
-e .~ ~ '" ~
:;a lii S 'g ~
S '0 0 Q) .....
tl)a:lUUU
i~
o Q)
~..Id
;:j u
o 0
tI)~
~
~
,~
~ '"
Q) g
-e .-
S ~ .S
;:j O::l OJ)
~ u.=
;B ..... > ~
<<l .~ '" .g
",ofl,g _
~ c:s ~ 'u
<l:: O::l lii Q)
~Q)o-e
'" S .- ~
~<O~
'"
;:j
o
;:j
-e
Tl
Q)
-e
~
!a
~
S
S ~
.::! ,g 2
......-4.g ~ C'\S ~
@ ~ u c ~
~ -e .~ .~ ~ S S
6iJ lii -e ,?; '1:: 2 2 0..
'E ..... S >. ~ -e ,D 0..
~ ~~ : ca 5 2 :
"3 So 0 ~ ,::! ~ ~ ;>-.
t) ~ ~ >--:-= t;< (,) ca
a:l~E-ZE-O<u
~
~
.....
~
on
cJ"
~.S 0..
.......c:= 0..
~o..",
uO'"
~ '" ;:j
~~~
en
~
~
U
en
Q
Z
:s
<:
-
z
-
d
~N
- Il)
>-bll
~a
o
~
en
E-t
Z
<:
~
p..
~
>-
-
E-t
<:
Z
~ ~
z'8~
1::i0~~
o ~ ~ la
S~~~
So..... I::i
o t: ~ .-
U<~z
00
.::!
~
"3
~o..~g.
C<l ~ I::i 00
ZS:g~
~ S ~ u
.~ ;::l ~ Sl
~a~>'
~>~s:
~
'E
>>......
S ~
~ 1il
~....:l
I::i
;>-. S .-
t: t1) 5
~..c: I::i
.0 ..... ;::l
~ ;::l 0
.......55~
00
e
..c:
en
I::i
~
~
.....
.....
~
>
~
~ .~
~ :.0_
('j '0
.El8~
..:s ~ ~
bJ),~ 'S
~ ~"<'l
~~~
.~ la -tl ~
~>>'O"E og
F;:::: 6bu >>~~ ~S"';:l
C<l 0 ~ :::: I::i I::i I::i ~ 1:1
Z ::t: ~ "E 0 .- i:i: i:i: ::t: ~
S ~ s~o~~~~'5 ~ ~
S .- ~ I-< 0 I::i '0 ...... ~ .-
S ~ oS 2 ~ g.'6lJ:o 1:: ~ '0
o S 5 ~ .~ ~ .= Q ~ ~ la
U<en~....:l>->.....lenUU
~ ~
E-<z
~"<'l
~ .~
..... ~
~ .....
> 0
~a::l
~
..... ~
o ~ ~
S.- ~
-0 .S '2
~ bJ) ,_ ~
~.~ ~'c
bJ) > ._ 0
~ ~ 00 > .~ 0..
('j:':::2r.fJ~P-t
O..O~130Cl)
Ol::i 0....... > 00
~ bJ) ,_ ~ ~ ::!
~ ~ I::i ;::l ~ ....
=::E~O=O:
00 ~
'c;j ~
I::i .-
~ I::i
-0 .-
~......
~ ~
u u
~ ~
bJ) bJ)
;::l ;::l
00 00
E-<E-<
~
I::i
'2
.~ ~
~ r.fJ ~
S ~-tl
~ ..... ;::l
o ..... ..... ~ 00
......&fro~
~~~~S
~UU>-::t:
~ .~ 'Q) ~ 'Q)
I::i I::i 0..._ 0..
'6lJ'6lJ S '0 S
.= .= 2 la 2
>>E-<UE-<
~I
.~
~ r.fJ
~ ~ 00
c< = ~
~ I::i 'c; .=
.~ 'g. ~ ~ ~
'6lJ ~ .~ ~ S'
,= ~ ~ S ~
.00_> '00 ~ ~ :
-> ';::l
'ia ~ 'c;j 1:1 ~
S ..c:1a ~ ~ 'S
~ C<l Q) Q
U~Ud.....l
..c:
00
;::l
.0
o
1il
~
a::l
~
u ~
'C 1-4
~oS
S~
<u
~..dQ)
,_ 00 ~
e? .E :@
~ ~ u
~.~ .~
&: ~~
u
.....
~
00
I::i B 13
~ ~.....
~ ...~
bJ) 00.....
~ ~~ So
S S ~ .8 1:: :5 I::i'
;::l~-e~o:-;::o
en .0 < ;>- ~ ~ .-
......0) b()CJ:I t)
~ ~ gp.S.E 00 ~
t-l.......- (:l... 0 ~ ::l
~~:a~""'o~
~~~ucI5;>~
00
.....
~
>
o
U
-0
S
8
d
00
~ I::i
u ~
.~ fr
S .....
o ~
la~
C1)fl
;::l .....
~~
00
I::i
~
"S
00 13
~ 8 ~
0..0.. ~
~ .~ S ~
~ ..... ;::l 0
~ ] .~ ~ ~
~':;Q,)"'O~CI)
'a 1il f;::-;:: 5 ~
~d::t:~~Cl
-0 Sc S
g~8~~ ~
'8 ~ "<'l .- ~.o .0
o ~ N ~.E ~ .-
;>-'~Cl<~a::l u S~
I:: 0 bJ)~ ~~:iJ ~ ~
.e Cl '~ .g :8 .E ..... ~ ~
~ >>..... .- 0 ..c: ~ ~ -a
:s! ~ "E ~ la .~ gp 0 ~
~d~ClU::t:end..,:;
~ 00
~ 'c;j
~ ..... '2 I::i
'2 .~ 0 I::i '6lJ.g ~
o - .~.- 1-4 ('j Os ~
g...2 So.;; ~ ~
';"2 ..:s E.~ ~ ~ .~
p..~:-;::.oQ);::l""'~
C<l,~bJ)~F;UCl)CI)
U ..... ..... ~ C<l ;::l ;::l ;::l
:.:::oS]-oF;.oSS
"<'l ~ -o.S C<l F; 0 0
UU~....:l::t:J5uu
00
ci..g
~'c
I::i 0 0..
o~o..
..... 00 00
-0 ;::l S
~ oS ;::l
'8 ~ '2
-0 U .-
~~~
~U>
JI
00
;::l
o
.g
'u
~
Cl
0..
0..
00
S
S
;::l
.0
;>
! '
-I.. f.....J,:
,')
f\ ,{ ,
'I .-
"", t...,~
Final Design Guidelines
History is something that is important to all of us as we relate to
the aspect of being human. It helps form a connection to our past
and helps us understand our present and plan for the future.
History can also be used as a marketing tool. We marvel at the
fact that we walk the same areas that Thomas Jefferson and George
Custer walked. It makes Albemarle special to us and provides
special attraction to the visitors and future members of our
community.
he sense of place unique to Albemarle is a difficult concept to
convey. Perhaps a short slide presentation will remind us of the
iverse visual treasures we enjoy within the boundaries of-
lbemarle County.
rotecting the regional character of the area is not a concept that
is unique to Albemarle. It is one that is shared throughout the
ountry. Communities are realizing that the quality of life is
ften determined by the visual attributes surrounding its
inhabitants. Corridor management was a topic of a panel discussion
t the annual meeting of landscape architects held in Chicago in
ctober. I was asked to participate to illustrate the legislation
hat was occurring on the local level. The major concept emerging
rom the discussions was the concept of allowing the localities to
etermine the future'of the design within their municipalities, to
elp preserve the regional appearance and not become a homogeneous
merica dictated by the designs offered as trademarks. Corridors
re the first impression we make to visitors to our community. The
irginia Department of Transportation is also aware of the
'mportance of the appearance of the highways. They have instituted
brand new program called Gateways. This involves a cooperative
ffort by the department to work with the public to allow plantings
nd maintenance of the VDOT right of way by private citizens.
ecent history indicates that Albemarle County is concerned about
he visual aspect of these important corridors. The Entrance
orridor Overlay District section 30.6 of the zoning ordinance, was
pproved by the Board of Supervisors in October 1990. The
mendment was made to the ordinance to allow the community to have
orne input to determine the visual impact of any new development
roposed along some of the major tourist routes into the
IbemarlejCharlottesville area.
his action created a five member Architectural Review Board. The
urrent members of the ARB include Tim Lindstrom serving as
hairman, Frank Kessler serving as vice chairman, Diane Miller, and
udy Beverly. The members of the ARB represent the business
ommunity, the design community, and the portion of the community
oncerned about conservation. The ARB once established, created a
1
document to aid the developers in determining the course of
aesthetic development in Albemarle County. Input was requested and
received from the business and design community to complete the
document and the contents of the document were adopted by the Board
of Supervisors in April of 1991. The approved interim design
guidelines is currently being used and has served to direct
applicants, staff and the ARB in the site plan approval process.
Work began on the Final Design Guidelines in the spring of 1992.
Following the normal course of work of this nature it began with a
series of worksessions held by the ARB. The corridors were
examined, and the state enabling legislation was examined. The
enabling legislation, section 15.1-503.2 of the State Code allows
the ARB to determine if the development proposed is
"architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings
or structures therein."
Our initial goal was to create a set of guidelines that were
corridor specific. As we examined this concept we became less sure
that this concept would work well in Albemarle County. If one
analyzes each of the Entrance Corridors and its relation to the
historic structures within Albemarle it becomes apparent that it
would be difficult to determine the destination point for each
corridor. Many of the Entrance Corridors can lead to the same
historic structures. This makes it difficult to use any single
historic structure to determine the designs that should be
reflected within the individual corridor.
The historic buildings located within Albemarle County are similar
in design. They share the same influences and have drawn from the
same architectural pallet. Therefore, it was determined that if
the existing architecture within an Entrance Corridor is used to
establish corridor specific design guidelines, this would depart
from the purpose of the Architectural Review Board as stated within
the enabling legislation.
This analysis led to the determination that the existing Interim
Guidelines, although they were very general in nature, had been
working fairly well. The general nature of the guidelines allows
the developer a wide berth in creating a building comparable with
existing structures in Albemarle County. The intent of the
document was to promote creativity and provide an avenue to some
diversity that would be harmonious with the existing structures and
still provide a continuity within the community. The effort to
provide for the common good and allow the expression of
individuality was of utmost importance. The decision was made to
keep the guidelines general. This led to the reorganization of the
guidelines to make them easier to read, and therefore easier to
use.
The draft of the
agencies in June
final design guidelines was sent to various
of 1993. The organizations receiving the
2
ocuments are as follows:
merican Society of Landscape Architects
lue Ridge Home Builders
eague of Women Voters
orth Charlottesville Business Council
merican Congress on Survey and Mapping
hamber of Commerce
erican Society of civil Engineers
merican Institute of Architects
itizens for Albemarle
on Wagner - Great Eastern Management
presentation was made to the Chamber of Commerce in July of 1993.
omrnents concerning the document from these agencies were requested-
o be received by the end of August. Some agencies requested an
xtension for further comments or meetings. The ARB extended the
ime allowed for comments to continue to the first week of October.
nalysis of the comments were made at another worksession and the
omments from the organizations were consolidated and incorporated
'nto the final guidelines. This revised copy of the guidelines was
hen sent to the various agencies along with an invitation to
ttend a public meeting on October 22, 1993 to comment on the
ocument.
he questions raised at the public meeting include the following:
-Whether or not the enabling legislation allowed for many aspects
onitored in the guidelines such as site development and layout,
andscaping, accessory structures, lighting, signs, grading, and
evelopment patterns.
-Whether or not the ARB would be reviewing all building permits.
n the packet you received in the December presentation, Mr.
t.John addresses the enabling legislation and declares that the
terns reviewed by the ARB are consistent and abide by the
estrictions within the state code.
he Final Design Guidelines contain the following:
-An opening statement outlining the intent of the guidelines,
-The background and purpose of architectural review in Albemarle
ounty.
-Questions and Answers concerning the architectural review, and
-The document itself, including an appendix offering suggested
egetation and an appendix offering photos of contemporary and
istoric buildings located in Albemarle County.
3
This document is like any other created by man as a piece of
legislative action. It may require amendments as the community
redef ines its needs. For our current needs the document is
working; the procedure is working. The applicants are informed of
the process, and care is taken to hasten the review process to
eliminate confusion to provide assistance to the applicant with the
communities best interests in mind.
4
! '
I
,/ ~i
/
J/ \,("
Lea ue of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
413 East Market Street, Room 203. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (804) 972.1795
nuary 12, 1994
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
om: League of Women Voters of Charlottesville/Albemarle
Architectural Review Board Final Design Guidelines
(10/28/93)
The League of Women Voters strongly endorses the proposed
g idelines, because we believe they will help eliminate the visual
blight that can result from new development along the County's
e trance corridors.
Inappropriate design of development along major roadways
ading into cities has destroyed the identity of many communities,
i eluding our own 29 North corridor. After President Clinton's
visi t here last winter, the Washington Post wondered how it
h ppened that so many "countless environmental indignities now
assault the traveller in a single quarter mile" along a principal
e trance to Mr. Jefferson's city.
It appears to us that the proposed guidelines provide
flexibility for developers and should help reduce the controversy
s metimes associated with plan and site review.
The document emphasizes that "replication " of the design of
istoric sites is "neither intended or desired." We definitely
endorse the requirement that trademark designs be modified and cite
t e Toys R Us building on 29 North as an example of such
odification. Other areas have long required that major chains
respond to the character of the area in which they are sited.
We believe that the adoption of these guidelines will
encourage appropriate development along our entrance corridors so
hat environmental and architectural indignities no longer will
assault the traveller to Mr. Jefferson's city!
We urge your support for these guidelines.
"...a non:par isan orBanizatwn tfeaicatea to tlU promotwn of info~a ana active particy,atwn of citizens in Bovernment. "
'~ecf:L Ol-ll-.C(Y. 'ELs
:JNq
Presentation to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
January 12, 1994
Draft of ARB Final Design Guidelines [June 9,1993]
Tank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the current
A hitectural Review Board (ARB) Guidelines. It is my intent to offer concrete, practical suggestions aimed
a improving the review process and promoting better communication among all parties to development
w hin Albemarle County.
S ecifically, my recommendations are as follows:
1 Aopoint a study committee/task force to meet with the ARB to discuss the Guidelines and the
witten and oral comments received during the review period. Although staff analysis of the written record
is valuable and perhaps quicker, face to face interaction is a dynamic and thought-provoking process
w ich can generate on-going cooperation and healthy working partnerships. Members of the study
c mmittee would represent business organizations active in the areas to which the Guidelines apply. A
9 day delay resulting from the additional work of the study committee would be warranted in light of the
i pact of the Guidelines on the community as a whole.
Revise the Guidelines to incorporate a periodic review process: at least an annual interval is
The original study committee/task force members under this scenario could become an
isory body to meet informally at designated intervals with the ARB. An informal meeting arrangement
w uld allow all parties a chance to candidly exchange perspectives and make minor adjustments to
i plementation of the Guidelines, without committing to the unwieldy, time-consuming task of a formal
r iew. I strongly support the goal of quality development and believe that the community both benefits
fr m and deserves a higher standard. It is the mechanics of that higher standard where disagreement
g nerally originates. Flexibility is vital.
o he" I ent om
T 0 much development occurred before the adoption of the ARB Guidelines to achieve the desired
e ect now. The above-described areas should be redesignated to meet a somewhat lower standard, with
"e trance corridor" designation reserved for the still-undeveloped portion outside that boundary where
th desired results are feasible. Allowing denser, more diverse development within these current
b siness districts helps to avoid the leap-frogging or sprawl resulting from the search for inexpensive,
q ickly-developed sites, and maximizes the return on investment of capitol improvements and will help
pr serve other parts of the county.
4. Incentives nearlv alwavs work better than penalties when it comes to investment issues. As an
a mative to penalizing a developer for deviation or non-compliance with ARB Guidelines, allow more
lat ude for divergence from the standards if the project interprets tradition in a unique manner or
in ovates in a practical way. Examples might be energy efficient structures (greater use of natural light,
a ive or passive solar, half-berm design), site design that maximizes use of existing utilities or access
sy tems, or some other concept altogether. The developer would be responsible for pro-actively
pr senting to the ARB a case for the deviation from the Guidelines. Rather than reducing all future
d elopment to a duplication of the status quo, reward creativity. I am sure we all appreciate Thomas
Je erson's innovations and creativity.
A ain, I strongly endorse the goal of quality development and the benefits it has brought and will continue
to ring to our community. I also believe in building flexibility into the ARB Guidelines, and reexamining
th review process at regular intervals.
Th nk you for considering these comments.
Carter Myers
Colonial Auto Center &
Autolease Car Rental
~~ 0\-1"2--'14 ~
Final Design Guidelines
History is something that is important to all of us as we relate to
the aspect of being human. It helps form a connection to our past
and helps us understand our present and plan for the future.
History can also be used as a marketing tool. We marvel at the
fact that we walk the same areas that Thomas Jefferson and George
Custer walked. It makes Albemarle special to us and provides
special attraction to the visitors and future members of our
community.
The sense of place unique to Albemarle is a difficult concept to
convey. Perhaps a short slide presentation will remind us of the
diverse visual treasures we enjoy within the boundaries of'
lbemarle County.
. Protecting the regional character of the area is not a concept that
is unique to Albemarle. It is one that is shared throughout the
country. Communities are realizing that the quality of life is
ften determined by the visual attributes surrounding its
inhabitants. Corridor management was a topic of a panel discussion
t the annual meeting of landscape architects held in Chicago in
ctober. I was asked to participate to illustrate the legislation
hat was occurring on the local level. The major concept emerging
rom the discussions was the concept of allowing the localities to
etermine the future'of the design within their municipalities, to
elp preserve the regional appearance and not become a homogeneous
merica dictated by the designs offered as trademarks. Corridors
re the first impression we make to visitors to our community. The
irginia Department of Transportation is also aware of the
.mportance of the appearance of the highways. They have instituted
brand new program called Gateways. This involves a cooperative
ffort by the department to work with the public to allow plantings
nd maintenance of the VDOT right of way by private citizens.
ecent history indicates that Albemarle County is concerned about
he visual aspect of these important corridors. The Entrance
orridor Overlay District section 30.6 of the zoning ordinance, was
pproved by the Board of Supervisors in October 1990. The
mendment was made to the ordinance to allow the community to have
orne input to determine the visual impact of any new development
roposed along some of the major tourist routes into the
lbemarlejCharlottesville area.
his action created a five member Architectural Review Board. The
urrent members of the ARB include Tim Lindstrom serving as
hairman, Frank Kessler serving as vice chairman, Diane Miller, and
udy Beverly. The members of the ARB represent the business
ommunity, the design community, and the portion of the community
oncerned about conservation. The ARB once established, created a
1
document to aid the developers in determining the course of
aesthetic development in Albemarle County. Input was requested and
received from the business and design community to complete the
document and the contents of the document were adopted by the Board
of supervisors in April of 1991. The approved interim design
guidelines is currently being used and has served to direct
applicants, staff and the ARB in the site plan approval process.
Work began on the Final Design Guidelines in the spring of 1992.
Following the normal course of work of this nature it began with a
series of worksessions held by the ARB. The corridors were
examined, and the state enabling legislation was examined. The
enabling legislation, section 15.1-503.2 of the state Code allows
the ARB to determine if the development proposed is
"architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings
or structures therein."
Our initial goal was to create a set of guidelines that were
corridor specific. As we examined this concept we became less sure
that this concept would work well in Albemarle County. If one
analyzes each of the Entrance Corridors and its relation to the
historic structures within Albemarle it becomes apparent that it
would be diff icul t to determine the destination point for each
corridor. Many of the Entrance Corridors can lead to the same
historic structures. This makes it difficult to use any single
historic structure to determine the designs that should be
reflected within the individual corridor.
The historic buildings located within Albemarle County are similar
in design. They share the same influences and have drawn from the
same architectural pallet. Therefore, it was determined that if
the existing architecture within an Entrance Corridor is used to
establish corridor specific design guidelines, this would depart
from the purpose of the Architectural Review Board as stated within
the enabling legislation.
This analysis led to the determination that the existing Interim
Guidelines, although they were very general in nature, had been
working fairly well. The general nature of the guidelines allows
the developer a wide berth in creating a building comparable with
existing structures in Albemarle County. The intent of the
document was to promote creativity and provide an avenue to some
diversity that would be harmonious with the existing structures and
still provide a continuity within the community. The effort to
provide for the common good and allow the expression of
individuality was of utmost importance. The decision was made to
keep the guidelines general. This led to the reorganization of the
guidelines to make them easier to read, and therefore easier to
use.
The draft of
agencies in
the
June
final design guidelines was sent to various
of 1993. The organizations receiving the
2
documents are as follows:
American Society of Landscape Architects
Blue Ridge Home Builders
League of Women Voters
North Charlottesville Business Council
American Congress on Survey and Mapping
Chamber of Commerce
American Society of civil Engineers
American Institute of Architects
citizens for Albemarle
Don Wagner - Great Eastern Management
A presentation was made to the Chamber of Commerce in July of 1993.
Comments concerning the document from these agencies were requested'
to be received by the end of August. Some agencies requested an
extension for further comments or meetings. The ARB extended the
time allowed for comments to continue to the first week of October.
nalysis of the comments were made at another worksession and the
comments from the organizations were consolidated and incorporated
into the final guidelines. This revised copy of the guidelines was
hen sent to the various agencies along with an invitation to
ttend a public meeting on October 22, 1993 to comment on the
ocument.
he questions raised at the public meeting include the following:
-Whether or not the enabling legislation allowed for many aspects
onitored in the guidelines such as site development and layout,
andscaping, accessory structures, lighting, signs, grading, and
evelopment patterns.
-Whether or not the ARB would be reviewing all building permits.
n the packet you received in the December presentation, Mr.
t.John addresses the enabling legislation and declares that the
"terns reviewed by the ARB are consistent and abide by the
estrictions within the state code.
he Final Design Guidelines contain the following:
-An opening statement outlining the intent of the guidelines,
-The background and purpose of architectural review in Albemarle
ounty.
-Questions and Answers concerning the architectural review, and
-The document itself, including an appendix offering suggested
egetation and an appendix offering photos of contemporary and
istoric buildings located in Albemarle County.
3
This document is like any other created by man as a piece of
legislative action. It may require amendments as the community
redef ines its needs. For our current needs the document is
working; the procedure is working. The applicants are informed of
the process, and care is taken to hasten the review process to
eliminate confusion to provide assistance to the applicant with the
communities best interests in mind.
4
"
/-. ,7- 7 Y'
'''/./,:/IJ /'";
{/ ,r. /,/./- . ,,7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
~.,._.....,..,.,..~,.,~-----""-=-....~"-";.*~
D cember 22, 1993
R'chard C. & Carole W. Greene
P. O. Box 221
C ozet, VA 22932
SP-93-31 Richard & Carole Greene and Ringwood Company
Mr. & Mrs. Greene:
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
cember 21, 1993, by a vote of 4-3, recommended approval of the
ove-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
at this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only, and.
landings and takeoffs shall be limited to aircraft operated
by applicant;
2. The airstrip shall be located not less than 500 feet
horizontally nor 1,000 feet longitudinally to any existing
dwelling on adjacent property;
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted;
4. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation;
5. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours
only, except in emergencies;
6. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of
an emergency nature, shall be performed in an enclosed
building;
7. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be
provided with a reasonably dust free surface;
.
-
.
.,
R chard & Carole Greene
P~ge 2
D~cember 22, 1993
8 Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be
permitted on-site in conjunction with the airstrip;
9 Fuel storage shall be limited to 10 gallons.
1D. Aircraft usage is limited to Cessna 172 or similar single-
engine, fixed-wing aircraft not to exceed 2,500 1bs gross
weight;
1. Not more than five (5) takeoffs of landings per week.
P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
w II review this petition and receive public comment at their
meeting on January 12, 1994. Any new or additional information
r~garding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
hearing date.
IF you should have any questions or comments regarding the above
npted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
S ncerely,
/7 / I/. /l /A
V/(t~p~-'ij ~_.
W'lliam D. Fritz
S~nior Planner
WbF/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Fred Payne
Ringwood Company
e
e
.
I
'\'
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
DECEMBER 7, 1993
JANUARY 12, 1994
SP-93-31 RICHARD AND CAROL GREENE AND RINGWOOD COMPANY
petition: Petition to issue a special use permit for a private
airstrip [10.2.2(19)] on 134 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 40, Parcel 39 is located on the
west side of Rt. 680 approximately ~ mile south of the Rt.
810/Rt. 680 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District.
This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area
I) .
Character of the Area: The property is mostly open with several
dwellings and farm buildings. The area of the proposed airstrip
is open and relatively flat. The minimum distance to a dwelling
on adjacent property is 500 feet. The minimum distance to an
on-site structure is 125 feet. (This structure will be used as a
hangar). This site and adjacent properties are mainly open
pasture. Some wooded areas and dwellings are in the area.
Aoolicant'8 Prooosal: The applicant proposes to create a 1,600
. foot x 50 foot turf runway for one, single-engine plane. The
airstrip would be for personal use only. The plane would be
stored indoors. Anticipated usage is five takeoffs or landings
per week. ~o lighting .is proposed. .
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 and 5.1.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval.
Plannina and zoning Historv: Two plats were administratively
approved in 1987. These plats were not recorded and the approval
has expired.
Historv of.SDeciai Use Permits for HeliDorts/Airoorts: Staff has
identi'fied 11 requests for heliport/airport (6 helipad/5
airport). Of these requests 9 were approved, 1 was withdrawn
(later approved) and 1 request accompanied a zoning text
amendment which failed. Four requests SP-77-52 (approved)
Albemarle Bank and Trust, SP-92-59 (withdrawn) and SP-93-09
(approved) Keswick,and SP-93-18 (zoning text amendment failed)
Worrell Land & Cattle Company were for commercial use,. all other
requests were for individual use. One request SP-85-61
(approved) Kenneth Lape was to be used on a regular schedule as
it was used by the applicant to commute to work (the applicant
was a commercial pilot). The closest request to that currently
under review is approximately 2.25 miles to the southwest. This
was a request by Emil Kutilek (SP-91-28 approved). Review by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of SP-91-28 centered
Page 1 of 7
e
.
.
I
I
on proximity of residential units, particu~arly the developed
. portion of Crozet, the Crozet Elementary School and power lines.
The current request shares few characters noted as negative
features during review of SP-91-28.
The current request is similar to past requests for private
heliports/airports in that they were for individual use on a
sporadic unscheduled basis.
ComDrebensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan makes no specific
comments regarding private airports, but does recognize the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The general intent of the
Comprehensive Plan is to discourage development in the Rural
Areas which is not directly related to a bona fide agricultural
or forestal use. Staff opinion is that this request will have a
neutral impact on the Rural Areas.
STAPP COMMENT:
Staff will address each aspect of Sections 31.2.4.1 and 5.1.1.
.
The Board of sucervisors herebv reserves unto itself the
riaht .to issue all special usecermits, cermitted hereunder.
Scecial use cermits for uses as crovided in this ordinance
mav be issued ucon a findina bv the Bo~rd of Sucervisors
that such use will not be of substantial'detriment to
adiacEmtcrocertv. .
Staf.f has received objections to this request (Attachment
C). The nearest residence to the airstrip (other than the
applicant's) is 500 feet distant. The nearest dwelling
longitudinally (the direction ,of takeoff and approach) is
slightly over 1,000 feet. The distances involved are
consistent with those listed in Section 5.1.1. Based on the
anticipated volume of use, distance to dwellings and
character of the aircraft (light plane), the proposed
airport should not result in a substantial detriment to the
adjacent property.
· that the character of, the district will not be chanaed
thereby.
Minimal changes to the site will occur. The structure
proposed to house the plane exists and the area of the
airstrip is open. Some trees will be removed and fences
will be "relocated to provide clear approach and takeoff
zones. Based on the existing features of the site, minimal
change in the character of the distric~ is anticipated.
Page 2 of 7
.
e
.
.
,
.
and that such use will be in harmonv with the Duroose and
intent of this ordinance.
The proposed use does not provide support for either
agriculture or forestry which are the intended primary uses
of the RA.district. However, the use will not prohibit
agricultural use on this or adjacent property. Staff
opinion is that this request does not conflict with the
purpose and intent of the ordinance.
· with the uses Dermitted bv right in the district.
This use will not restrict by-right uses on this or adjacent
property.
. with additional reaulations Drovided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance. and 'with the Dublic health. safetv and general
welfare.
Matters regarding safety will be addressed by the Federal
and Aviation Administration and Virginia Department of
Aviation which have expertise and jurisdiction. Staff notes
that this and other airstrips may provide for landing areas
for Pegasus in the event of emergencies.
Staff will address each provision of" section 5.1.1. (The
applicant has also submitted information addressing 5.1.1 and
.provid~ng general support information; Attachment. D.)
5.1~1 AIRPORTS; HELIPORTS; HELISTOPS
a. In review of a sDecial use Dermit Detition for an airoort or
heliDort. the board of sUDervisors shall be mindful of the
substantial Dublic investment in the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airoort. and shall onlv aDDrove such Detition UDon
a findina that:
.L..
Eauivalent o~ better service is not available at the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airoort:
It is obvious that the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport cannot provide the convenience offered by an
on-site airfield. Private "T" hangars are limited at
the airport. Large hangars housing a number of
aircraft are available at the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport. It is the applicant's desire to have a
private hangar combined with the convenience of an
on-site airstrip that appears to have led to this
request. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport offers
repair and refueling centers, emergency service~, and
navigational aids which will not be available on-site.
Page 3 of 7
e
.
.
...,
II
..
."
~ ODeration of the DroDosed airoort or heliDort will in
no fashion interfere or comDete with the Dhvsical
oDerations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle AiroQrt...
Due to the distance to the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport and lack of commercial activities on-site, this
request should not interfere or compete with the
physical op~rations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport.
b.
No aDplication shall be considered unless it is accomDanied
by five (5) cODies of a Dlan drawn to scale. showina the
DroDosed location of the airoort. bounda~ lines:
dimensions: names of owners of abutting 9roDerties: DrODosed
lay-out of runways. landina striDs or areas. taxi striDs.
aDrons. roads~. Darking areas.hanaars. buildinas and other
structures and facilities: the location and heiaht of all
buildinas. structures. trees and overhead wires fallina
within the airport aDDroach zones and less than five hundred
(500) feet horizontallY and one thousand (1.000) feet
lonaitudinallv from the DroDosed runway: other Dertinent
data. such as tODoaraDhv and aradina Dlan. drainaae. water
and seweraae. etc. CODies of the Dlan shall .be
forwarded to the Federal'Aviation Administration and the
Virainia DeDartment of Aviation for comment and .
recommendation on the followina:
.L..' The .area shall be sufficient. to meet requirements. of
the Federal Aviation Administration and Virginia
DeDartment of Aviation for the class of airoort
proposed:
~ There area no existina fliaht obstructions such as
towers. chimneys or other tall structures. or natural
obstructions outside the DrODosed airoort which fall
within the airoort imaainary surfaces or instrument
aDDroach zones to any of the proDosed runways or
landinas striDsof theairoort:
~ There is sufficient distance between the end of each
usable landina striD and the airoort boundary to
satisfY the reauirements above. In cases where air
riahts or easements have been acauired from the owners
of abuttina DroDerties in which the aDDroach zones may
fall. satisfactory evidence thereof shall be submitted
with the aDDlication.
The required information has been submitted. staff
will rely on FAA and the Virginia Department of
Page 4 of 7
e
.
.
...
Aviation approval to insure the physical needs for
operation are met. Neither the FAA nor the Virginia
Department of Aviation will grant approval until local
approval has been granted.
c. In addition to the foreaoing. the following reauirements
shall be met:
~ No runway or helioort area shall be located nearer than
five hundred (500) feet horizontal Iv or one thousand
(1.000) feet lonaitudinallY to any residential
structure on any adioinina orooerty. No hanaar or
aircraft storaae shall be located nearer than five
hundred (500) feet to any residential structure or an
adioinina orooerty. Within any aaricultural or
residential district. commercial activities and orivate
clubs located on the oremises with a ~rivate airoort.
fliaht strio. or helioad.are eXDresslY orohibited.
2.
The nearest dwelling horizontally (parallel) to the
airstrip is slightly over 500 feet distant. The
nearest dwelling longitudinally (the direction of
takeoff and approach) is slightly over 1,000 feet. No
commercial activities or clubs are proposed.
AnY roof too surface. or touchdown oadwhich will be utilized
as an elevated heliport shall be desianed and erected in a .
manner.sufficient.to 'withstand the anticioated additional
stress:
Does not apply.
3. All maintenance. reoair and mechanical work. exceot that of
an emeraency nature. shall.be oerformed in enclosed
buildinas:
Agreed to by the applicant, and listed as a condition of
approval.
4. All facilities shall be located and desianed so that
ooeration thereof will not seriouslY affect adiacent
residential area. DarticularlY with resoect to noise levels:
The applicant has submitted information, contained in
Attachment D which addresses this item. staff can provide
no additional comments.
5. Exceot for elevated buildinas. no area used by aircraft
under its own Dower shall be located within a distance of
five hundred (500) feet of any residential structure on any
Page 5 of 7
e
.
.
.
I
,
adioinina propertv. Elevated helistops shall be located in
accordance with the bulk reaulations of the zonina district
in which located:
No residential structure on any adjoining property is
located within 500 feet.
6. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be
provided with a reasonably dust free surface.
Dust free surfaces (turf) are proposed both for compliance
with this provision and protection of the aircraft.
SummarY
staff has identified the following factors favorable to this
request:
1. Use does not require significant changes in the physical
character of the site;
2. The request satisfies the physical criteria listed in
Section 5. 1. 1 ;
The activity does not restrict by-right uses on adjacent
property.
. St'aff has identified the .following factor unfavorable to this
request: .
3.
1. Use is for personal use only and is not directly related to
or supportive of agricultural/forestal activities.
Staff historically has listed the lack of "T" hangar space as a
factor favorable to private airstrips. However, the choice of
"T" hangars over other hangar types is a matter of preference and
convenience; other hangar types are available at the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. It is obvious that an on-site
airstrip provides superior convenience which is not available at
any municipal airport.
Staff opinion is that this request complies with the provisions
of sections 5.1.1 and 31.2.4.1 and, therefore, staff recommends
approval subject to conditions:
RBCOMHBNDBD CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only;
2.
The airstrip shall be located not less than 500 feet
horizontally nor 1,000 feet longitUdinally to any existing
dwelling on adjacent property;
Page 6 of 7
e
.
.
,
II
3.
No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted;
4. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation~
5. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours
only, except in emergencies;
6. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of
an emergency nature, shall be performed in an enclosed
building;
7. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be
provided with a reasonably dust free surface;
. 8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be
permitted on-site in conjunction with the airstrip;
9. Fuel storage shall be limited to 10 gallons.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax. Map
C ~Letters From Public
D - Applicant~.Inf9rmation
Page 7 of 7
~
~,
~
~'?"
~0
*-'
v
o
~.
ll:
F
rn
en
::;: ~
.. g ~
'" U; ~
..
- '" r;;
.... 0 ~
!" :"
.... '" S
0 ....
.. w ;:;
~ ~ ~
;:: ~ c:
/'\
C~) 10
(1 ./
"
1::;
;,(1
,I
"--
! \ i~
/ j ~
/ (i
~) ~
(~~ / ~
.f~~ (~
8 );/Ll ".
~ I "',
~ /1 .
. ;:;
t: :j w
2 l!; 3
...,
~
~
I..;
~
J..
i ~
, ~ ~
, ...
~ i ::: f
~
~
N
- ..
'" '" '"
o ~ CD
II _ (n CD
... - en en
~
o
'" N
.. N ~
... w ::
.. \!:
<J
.
....
'"
~
~
~
'<
.
('
\JI
,;
o
u
,
~,/,$, .,
.f~k..... .
v \J
,.. .........
t
~,~
"
I ATTACHMENT AI
l:
\~
e
/
/
.,
.,
,,~~ j';';;
i.-.,~~\
I ~1~79
/ ~ -'-:s,.;o Blowns
~.....' ('nwe
,I ~ro
':./7 \.9.
\~
. ..
FLAT
MTN.
. If;; Lie.. K MUUN l,~.:~ .
~~J~;' ~'40~""'.
r.V - > -;:;-/ '
@] (
GIBSON MOUNTAIN
\<;.
,
r
\
~
',\
~
Rod_
(---
"'"
===-
~
r-
z
::)
o
(,)
/
:./'
I
/
W
....J
c:::
<t
~
w
CD
....J
<(
[0
....
z
w
:r:
:I:
() ~
~
<c
>-
..... ~
z \~ / J
::) t-
O ~~ t._~----- ()
-
(,) ID a::
N ~. . --- t-
en
W \ ~/ . . -
Cl
....JID N '"
!- --- N "- ....J
a::: N "- .---- N "'
~ on ....J
<( \ <t
~ ~ :r:
W ---- ID W
CD t-
-1 \ :r:
<( ~
\ /
\1~"-"
- ..p.-:,-, .
. V?
) .~.
~ .--J;----
, /r-~~~,
/ v--' 0>
~~
~~-----~~ +
( ~-. \~
,., )
\.'" - \ \
~ ~ "---- '\ /
---- '\
"" . I ..
""- / ...' '::
... ..
~ "
----- - __.i '"
0>
,.,
v
z
o
-
t-
O
W
(/)
t-
Y
a:
t-
en
Cl
..J
......J
10<(
J:
w
t-
J:
~
...
u
!
i ~
. :!
i
! :e
- ..J
..
!5
! ~
. Ii
..
'"
! ~
JII
z
~
. ~
'+
+
: +
.u
~
Z
o
I-
o
W
(f)
The
For
stall
Company,
I ATTACHMENT CI
I 11 (; .
e Foristall Company, Inc.
inancial Public Relations Counsel
New York Los Angeles
Alpemarle Planning Commission
Board of supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
130 Water Street
. November 22, 1993 New York. NY 10005
Telephone 212 797 4646
RECEtVE&
NOV 2 9 1993
Planning Dept.
RE: Special Use Permit
Construction of permanent air strip
Dear Sirs:
I am the owner of 12.997 acres (parcel C, no. D4000-00-00-38B,
District 6, tax map 40) in the county of Albemarle, virginia,
adjacent to the Ringwood Farms, Mr. Richard Greene, who is
requ~sting a special use permit to construct a personal air strip
on his property.
I am unable to attend your public hearing and have asked Mr.
Richard P. Cogan to speak in my behalf.
As you know the entire area is beautiful farm acreage at the
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, with many fine. old estate
homes dotting the countryside.
An air strip, serving landing and take of~s of any kind of
aircraft, in my opinion, detracts from this setting and not the
least of this detraction is the value of the land. My property
taxes have increased over the years (15 years) I've owned the land
to its present valuation of $113,500. I certainly believe all the
land values in the area would depreciate.
It is hard for me to understand why an air strip is needed in
this beautiful area, when just a short distance away is the
Charlottesville, Virginia airport with complete facilities for
plane storage as well as the necessary air traffic control to
secure complete safety.
I hope you will consider all these facts when evaluating the
proposal to build an air field on the Ringwood Farms acreage in
Albemarle County.
as F. Curt'
78 Twilight Ro d
Bay Head, NJ 08742
e
.
.
The
For
stall
Company,
I ATTACHMENT C I
Jill:.
Th Foristall Company, Inc.
Fi ancial Public Relations Counsel
New York Los ,tl.ngeles .
130 Water Street
. November 22, 1993 New York, NY 10005
Telephone 212 7974646
REcetVE&
AI~emarle Planning Commission
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
NOV 2 9 1993
Planning Dept.
RE: Special Use Permit
Construction of permanent air strip
Dear Sirs:
I am the owner of 12.997 acres (parcel C, no. '04000-00-00-38B,
District 6, tax map 40) in the county of Albemarle, Virginia,
adjacent to the Ringwood Farms, Mr. Richard Greene, who is
requ~sting a special use permit to construct a personal air strip
on his property.
I am unable to attend your public hearing and have asked Mr.
Richard P. Cogan to speak in my behalf.
As youkno~ the entire, area is beautiful farm acreage at the
foothills of th€ Blue Ridge Mountains, with many fine. old estate
.homes dotting the countryside.
An air strip, serving landing and take offs of any kind of
aircraft, in my opinion, detracts from this setting and not the
least of this detraction is the value of the land. My property
taxes have increased over the years (15 years) I've owned the land
to its present valuation of $113,500. I certainly believe all the
land values in the area would depreciate.
It is hard for me to understand why an air strip is needed in
this beautiful area, when just a short distance away is the
Charlottesville, Virginia airport with complete facilities for
plane storage as well as the necessary air traff ic control to
secure complete safety.
I hope you will consider all these facts when evaluating the
proposal to build an air field on the Ringwood Farms acreage in
Albemarle County.
I
.
· . t '
e I ATTACHMENT C II Page 21
November 22, 1993
Mr. William D. ~ritz
Senior Planner
Albemarle cty. Planning Dept.
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I recently learned,
neighbor Mr. Greene for a
airstrip just to the west
to object to this for the
second hand, of an appl ication by
special use permit to construct an
and south .of our property. I wish
following reasons.
our
e
Aircraft of whatever size and weight taking off and landing
just a few hundred feet from our home would constitute, at best,
an imposition on our peace and tranquility, and, at worst, a danger
to our persons and property.
Anyone who 1 i ves in this' irrunediate area knows that the.
prevai I ing" winds are wes t to east, and 'that they are frequent I y
sudden and fierce. On a number of occasions, we've had steel
chairs blown from the front porch, shingles ripped off
the roof, and our satellite dish bent backwards and broken.
There are power I ines and tall oaks, to say nothing of
Whitehall Rd., that must be cleared on takeoff or landing just a
few hundred feet to the north of the proposed airstrip. Whether
wind, mishap, or miscalculation, our home and family are being put
in a danger zone by a plan that has nothing more than convenience
to justify it. .
Furthermore, at substantial expense for land, construction and
taxes, we located out here in Whitehall precisely to be free from
just the sort of noise and distraction that Mr. Greene's pI ans
would impose upon us.
.
Nor is there anything in the Greene proposal to indicate that
the environmental impact of regular aircraft takeoffs and landings
had been considered. I understand that Mr. Greene hasn't spent
much time here, but he must be aware that flocks of geese make
their home on his and surrounding lands, and they are both a joy to
those of us who live here, and an irreplaceable asset to Western
Albemarl e County. Horses are al so raised, stabl ed and grazed in
direct proximity to the proposed airfield, as are cattle.
. "
e
e
.
. .
I ATTACHMENT C II Page 3
Fina 11 y, there's an ai rport jus t twenty minutes E rom here.
That's close enough for us, and for just about everyon€ else in the
county. It should be close enough for Mr. Greene.
Sincerely,
Rick and Mary Lou Weiss
(7.dc'
"")
'~"'- L'v""-<
e
I ATTACHMENT cl(page41
Richard P: Cogan
Bayham Farm
Route 2, Box 319
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(804) 823.2123
November 23. 1993
Mr. Bi 11 Fritz
Albemarle County Department
Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RECEIVED
HOV 2 3 1993
Planning Dept.
RE: Richard & Carol Greene
Special Use Permit
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I am writting to you to express my opposition to a special
use permit for a private airstrip at Mr. Green's farm on
Route 810. I object to this activi~y fOf the fOllowing
reasons.
.
There would be a safety haiard. Unpredictable crosswinds
come off of Bucks"Elbow Mountain. The airstrip Proposed is
in a North~South alignment, which"means that the majority of'
take-offs and landings would be in a. cross wind. One 6f the
two approaches is across Route 810 and would be in too close
a proximity to traffic, including school buses on that
road. The runway is too short and does not provide any
tolerance for unusual winds, hot humid days, heavy payload,
or other unusual circumstances.
There would be an adverse environmental impact. Livestock
especially horses, will be frightened. Wild animals and
waterfowl would eventually move out of the area. We live in
the country to enjoy the peace and tranquility. We live in'a
restrictive zoning area in order to be protected from
commercial type activities. We don't need low flying
aircraft Obliterating our air space.
This use will devalue adjacent and neighboring properties.
Not many people would be interested in purChasing a home or
property where they would have to put up with low flYing
aircraft. Thus the property would have to sell for less than
full value in order to compete in the m~rket. This has been
confirmed to me by several real estate brokers and
appraisers.
.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has adequate facilities
for Mr. Green's use. Hangar space is available. Certain
time factors that Mr. Greene has referred to are grossly
exaggerated. The airport would certainly be a lot safer, and
there is no reason why Mr. Greene should not use it, except
for his own convenience.
I ATTACHMENT C 11 Page 51
e
This special use does not comply with certain sections of the
Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Pl~n. Mr. Green's farm
is not large enough to screen his activity from the many
adjacent smaller parcels owned by others. Certainly thi~ use
would adversely change the character of the area.
Mr. and Mrs. Green are att~mpting to avoid the slight
inconvenience of keepi~g their airplane at the airport, at
the great inconvenience of the many people in this area. In
addition, there would be no sure way you could regulate the
frequency or magnitude of the use of such a private airstrip.
.
.
e
.
.
I
I ATTACHMENT C II Page 61
Rt. 2, Box 208
Crozet, Virginia 22932
November 23, 1993
Mr. William Fritz
Dept. of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Fritz,
I am writing to you to express my concern about a petition the
Albemarle County Planning Commission is getting ready to review.
This petition comes from Richard and Carol Greene and would allow
a private airstrip to be built on their property. My concern
extends in many directions. First, I am concerned about a
reduction in my property value. I have. consulted several real
estate agents, in addition to a real estate appraiser, and was told
that there was no doubt that my property would be reduced in value
by an airstrip on the property adjoining my own property. I also
have safety concerns. According to t:he map with the. proposed
flight patterns, airplanes would be going over my property and
subdivision with each movement of the airplane. I have lived on
this property for fifteen years and I am very much aware of the
strong wind gusts and cross winds that ~weep down from Buc~ Elbow
Mountain even on pleasant summer days. It also seems to llle that
placing an airstrip in our comm~nity will not be in keeping witn
the quiet, pastoral nature of'the neighborhood.
I believe that Mr. Green should be given a tour of our
beautiful Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. It's remodeling and
expansion has made it a beautiful asset to our community. The
airport, also, is within an easy commute of the crozet/White Hall
area. I have also been assured by the airport staff that hanger
space is available for private aircraft and that his aircraft is
welcome at that facility. I also, question how Mr. Greene plans to
fuel his' vehicle. I understand that a permanent storage area for
airplane fuel is not allowed in this area. Doe~ he plan to refuel
with each flight at the airport? If this is so he would do just as
well using an already existing facility. I certainly hope he does
not plan to skirt this issue of the fuel by keeping a tank truck on
the property filled with airplane fuel.
Thank you for taking the time to near my concern. I hope that
the Albemarle County Planning' Commission will turn down Mr.
Greene's request "for a private airstrip and "allow this community of
homes and subdivisions to develop naturally while it maintains a
peaceful atmo~phere.
Sincerely, ~
(~~.~erson ~
I ATTACHMENT D I
e
Dick & Carol Greene
Ringwood Farm
P.O. Box 221
Crozet, VA 22932
Mr. William Fritz, Geographer
Albemarle County Planning Commission
County Office Building
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SUP - Private Air Strip
Dear Mr. Fritz,
It was a pleasure to meet with you at Ringwood Farm.
last Friday. Apparently both the County notification
and our letter has created a lot of local discussion.
e
This weekend, we had several calls from property owners
in the area. Of the ones who actually came to see the
site and review the application, all stated their
approval. Of course, there is a "rumor mill" beginning
that has a full~fledgedairport b~ing planned inst~ad of
the private, S-movement per week turf strip that i~ in
the a~p1ication.~
.' . I'
Caroll and I will be in New Jersey 'with our parents for
, ..
the Thanksgiving weekend; but will be back at the farm
the following Tuesday. Should you need any additional
data or information from us, please call and leave a
message on the answering machine and we will call you
back when we get it.
";" .
We wish you a bountiful Thanksgiving.
Very truly yours,
/)~$~
Richard C. Greene
RECEIVED
HOV 2 3 \993
Planning Dept.
..
-'
.J.
,
]
]
]
I
I
I
e
.
RINGWOOD FARM
I ATTACHMENT D I~age 2]
(FOl'IMrly 1tbinut Lawn Fama)
Dick and Carol Greene
P. O. Box 221 (VSH 810)
Crout, VA 22932
804-823-6295
Please Reply to:
RINGWOOD COMPANY
127 Pleasant Ave.
U Saddle River, NJ 07458
NJ Telephone Numbers:
FARM/COMPANY OFFICE
TEL: 201-327-1224
FAX; 201-327-1225
October 4, 1993
oard of County Supervisors
lbemarle County Offices
01 McIntyre Road
harlottesville1 VA 22901
Application for Special Use Permit
Private Air Strip
Ringwood Farm, Rt. 810
CrozetlWhitehall, VA
lease accept this application for a Special Use Permit to mark out and use a private air strip
n our farm, pursuant to "Sec. 5.1.1 - Airports". .
. . .
he applicants, Richard and Carol Greene/Ringwood Company Farm, have owned. the now
1 O-acre "Ringwood farm ". for over three years. With business interests in rural northern
ew Jersey, we find commuting by commercial airlines to be exceedingly time-consuming and
e pensive, taking almost as much time as driving the 425-mile trip.
f extreme concern is our responsibility to two elderly parents, 86 and 94 years of age, for
eir care and comfort. Both reside in northern New Jersey. One is totally deaf and being
c ed for in a nursing home, the other at his home with 24-hour private nursing ~are. Whe-
n ver a crisis occurs, and such events are becoming more frequent, we need to get to their
si es as quickly as possible for both their reassurance and to make on-the-spot medical deci-
si ns in their behalf. Under cutrent conditions, it takes, at times, up to 10 hours to drive the
I terstates or to fly commercially. With a private air strip at Ringwood Farm, we could make
th trip -- door to door -- in less than three hours. .
B th of us obtained our private pilot licenses over 20 years ago and have gained much experi-
en e operating in and out of grass strips. Mrs. Greene's father lives on his farm in Mahwah,
N , and has had a licensed air strip on it since 1940. Conditions and obstructions on the Sun
~ eyFarm (NJ) private strip are less attractive than those of the air strip proposed in this
ap lication, with never so much as an "incident" at this farm strip in 54 years of continuous
orations.
N .ther of the applicants have ever had an aircraft accident, an "incident", or "write-up". No
. 0 ned aircraft has ever been grounded, taken out of service, or damaged due to owner/pilot
ne lect, mis-use, or other owner/pilot controllable event besides normal maintenance and
ins ections.
NGWOOD COMPANY. Established 1740... over 250 years of continuous operations; Page 1
,
]
1-
..
]
]
1
.
]
1
..
. 1
.
]
]
J
I
I
.
I
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 31
***** ***** *****
ORDINANCE See 5~ 1.1 REQUIREMENTS
Below, we have addressed each of the criteria set forth in Sec. 5.1.1. "Italicized phrases are
quotes from Sec. 5.1.1":
a-I Equivalent or better service is not available at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airpon;
a-I-a Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport is a splendid physical facility catering to larger private
aircraft, business aircraft and scheduled commercial air traffic.
General aviation, light single-engine aircraft in particular, is not encouraged to use the limited
General Aviation facilities of C/ A Airport, and amenities for such aircraft are not adequate for
our needs.
The applicant has visited C/ A Airport on several occasions to investigate the conditions and to
inquire as to the availaple facilities. On each of these occasions, the applicant has been told by
officials, employees, pilots and flight instructors that there is at least a seven-to-ten-year wait
for a T-Hangar (private, enclosed rental hangars built in rows like garages). The applicant has
always had its aircraft hangared - for protection from the elements, tampering, theft, cleanli-
ness and convenience.
The applicant's experience with "common hangars" (multi-aircraft hangars) has not been good,
both personally and through first-hand obseIVation of other aircraft. Damage is a constant
potential when aircraft are moved around, under and behind others in the close confines of
such a hangar. Ever since"ye sustained minor wing.:.tip damage in a multi-aircraft hangar at
Tetetboro Airport (NJ) some 20 year,s ago, we have used a private T-hangar to protect and
house our aircraft. The eXtra waiting time for storing and removal in a multi-plane hangar is
also a factor, sometimes requiring up to two hours for ground crews to move the aircraft in the
way of removing our aircraft.
Outside storage, commonly known as a "tie-down", is acceptable for an over-night transient
stop, but is not a popular method of longer term storage between flights. CI A Airport has
many available tie-down spaces, but all of its T-hangars are full on long-term, renewal leases
-- obviously, other aircraft owners feel as we do about enclosed, private storage. Insurance
rates vary widely among inside private hangared aircraft, multi-aircraft hangared aircraft, and
private, locked T-hangared aircraft.
I
The applicant's present and historical needs for basing the aircraft in a T-hangar can not
be met at CI A Airport for over seven to ten years.
a-I-b. CIA Airport is over 40 minutes driving time from the applicant's farm under the best
of conditions. On many occasions, due to traffic on Rt. 29N, it has taken up to one hour.
This amounts to between 1.5 hours and 2.0 hours for a. round trip for someone to meet the
applicant at CIA Airport and transport applicant back to the farm. Timewise, the applicant
would be better to utilize Waynesboro or Shenandoah Airports, should this application. be
denied. Road traffic conditions going over the mountain, combined with the equal miles,
would mean a far shorter trip, timewise, in either direction.
Ground transportation time to and from C/ A Airport is excessive for the needs of the
applicants, when compared with an on-site air strip.
i'
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 years of continuous operations; Page 2
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 41
e
I
....:
2. Operation of the proposed airport or heliport will In no fashion interfere or compete with
t e physical operations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
-2-a. The physical location of the propOsed private ai.r strip will not be within the CIA Air-
rt perimeter or any of its published approaches. Ringwood Farm air strip flight operations
ill not generate any air traffic conflicts with approaching, departing or transiting en-route
.rcraft into, out of, or around CIA Airport.
low is a photocopy reproduction of the Sectional Air Chart showing CIA Airport (CHO) and
e proposed air strip location.
1
1
.
e
-
I
-
......
I
I
......
.
l
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 years of cont,nuous operations; Page 3
l
,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
,
.
]
]
]
]
]
]
.
)
I
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 5/
e granting of a Special Use Permit for this private air strip would in no. way create any
ompetition with C/ A Airport as no com'mercial operations will be performed. Annual in spec-
. on and periodic service of the aircraft will be at a licensed airframe and power plant facility
f an Authorized Cessna Aircraft Dealership, which does not exist at C/ A Airport. Most
. ely, we will continue to have our service and inspections performed at Orange County (NY)
irport where the aircraft's entire service history is known.
ere is, however, potential business from the applicant at C/ A Airport if this Special Use
ermit is approved in that fuel purchases and minor, non-periodic service/repair may be per-
ormed at the fixed-base operator and/or general aviation repair depot at C/ A Airport if the
lane is based at Ringwood Farm. If it is forced to be based in either Waynesboro or Shenan-
oah Valley, all potential fuel, service and non-periodic service will be at one of those facili-
'es.
. This presentation is provided in five (5) spiral bound copies, and each includes the follow-
. g (quote from Sec. 5.1.1):
> ...plan of the proposed air strip, drawn to scale on a recent survey of the property
howing the proposed location of the airport, boundary lines, dimensions, names of owners
wting properties; proposed lay-out of the runways, landing strips, or areas, taxi strips,
'.prons, roads, parking areas, hangars, buildings and other structures and facilities; the loca-
'on and height of all buildings, structures, trees and overhead wires falling within the airport
'Pproach zones and less than five hundred (500') feet horizontally and one thousand (1,000)
et longitudinally from the proposed runway,. other pertinent data, such as topography and
rading plan, drainage, water and sewerage, etc. .
> . Plan of the proposed air strip superimposed on the Albemarle. County Th.x Map
> List of adjacent property owners from the A1be!llarle Th.x Rolls.
> . ~lan of the proposed air strip superimposed on an aerial photograph obtained
om the VA-DOE
I
> Aerial photo showing about 2/3rds of Ringwood Farm with the proposed air
.p overlaid.
Plan of the proposed air strip superimposed on a USC&GS Topographic map of
> Plan shown on an enlarged and clarified section of the USC&G Survey.
> Photographs of proposed air strip from various points along the center line.
1 Application has been simultaneously made to the FAA and VDOA. Copies of both appli-
tions are attached.
b 2 Of the many possible flight obstructions listed in b-2 of Sec. 5.1.1, none exist at Ring-
ood Farm except approximately eight trees on the applicant's property, located on the
i aginary extensions of the proposed air strip centerline (~ee survey plat, attached). These
ill, of course, be removed before any flight operations are made, if this application is ap-
p oved.
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 years of continuous operations; Page 4
-"
,
J
].
J
J
J
-J
.
J"
J
J
1
1
l
1
.
1
l
II
"\ ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 61
b-3 There is sufficient distance between the end of the usable landing strip and the airport
boundary to satisfy the requirements....
b..3-a The proposed air strip on Ringwood Farm will provide a distance of 500+ feet to the
northerly property boundary and 700+ feet to the southerly property boundary from the end of
the proposed air strip. .
c-l-a There are no existing residential structures nearer than 500' horizontally or 1000' longi-
tudinally on any adjacent property from the proposed air strip centerline.
c-l-b The proposed hangar space is an existing masonry stable that is not less than 500' from
any existing structure, residential or otherwise on th~ applicant's or adjacent properties.
Actually, it is about 950' to the closest structure, the main house on Ringwood Farm.
c-l-c No commercial or flying club activities will be conducted.
c-2 Not Applicable
c-3 All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of an emergency nature, shall
be performed in enclosed buildings.
Agreed to by the applicant.
c-4 All facilities shall be located and designed so that operation thereof will not seriously
affect adjacent residential areas, particularly with respect to noise levels.
Approaches and departures are proposed over woodland, pastures, and hay fields.
No excessive noise levels will exist. to effect residences in any direction. Standard noise
abatement procedures, consistent with safety under given conditions, will be used. These
procedures include, but are not limited to, using the best angle of climb to 1000' AGL (above
ground level), then the best rate of climb to cruise altitude, using no take-off flaps.
To provide additional support for this statement, the applicant offers the following:
> The type plane presently owned by the applicants is a Cessna Model 172, whose noise
level has been determined by FAA tests to have a 61 dBa sound pressure level during a full
power takeoff, as measured underneath and behind the departing aircraft. Other single-engined
light aircraft fall into a similar and narrow range of noise level.
> Sound levels to the sides are much less than 61 dBa, depending on the distance, wind,
and surface conditions. The prevailing winds over the proposed strip are from the NNW, as
observed for three years by watching the flag on the neighbor's property. Because of this,
sound normally would be carried by the prevailirig wind and the propeller backwash down the
air strip and dissipated in the-woodland south of the strip, said woodland being owned by the
applicant. Additionally, since there is no hard pavement and all surface areas have grass, hay
or woods, sound is rapidly absorbed "and not "bounced" as at an airport with paved runways
and taxiways.
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 years of continuous operations; Page 5
J
~
-oJ
'J
J
J
J
-]
~
J
J
J
J
J
J
.
J
l
-
II
I ATTACHMENT 01 1 Page 71
> . FAA comparisons of air craft takeoff noise to other well known noise is as follows:
Diesel truck passing in front
of a home with grass
(Ihis is 31 dBa louder (l/3rd)
than the Cessna 172, and the
Cessna levels will be for a
shoner duration)
92 dBa
Typical room air conditioner
(6 dBa below the Cessna 172)
55 dBa
Home lawn mower
(37 dBa louder than the Cessna 172)
98 dBa
Home vacuum cleaner
(8 dBa louder than the Cessna 172)
69 dBa
In these Federal Aviation Administration tests, 327 common types of aircraft were examined
and studied to determine their noise. levels under various conditions and the average-level re-
sults are listed in an FAA-Dar Advisory Circular. Only 26 were quieter than the Cessna
172's 61 dBa, 300 were louder.
Please refer to' the exhibit labeled "Thble III" and the AOPA dBa comparisons, located in the
last. section of the Addendum. . .
If additional noise, level information. is desired, the applicant can provide much FAA and
AOPA -information pertaining to aircraft and airports~
Landing noise is minimal to none, as the power is cut or drastically reduced shortly after lining
up for the final approach. Generally, the engine is idling or "wind-milling".
c-5 ...00 area used by aircraft under its own power shall be located within a distance offive
hundred (500) feet of any residential structure on any adjoining property.
c-5-a No area of aircraft under power (or otherwise) will be within 500'. of any residence,
adjacent or otherwise.
c-6. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be provided with a reasonably dust
free surface.
c-6-a All aircraft use areas (runway, taxiways, ramps) will be of maintained turf or other
surface to provide a reasonably dust-free environment -- an important element to safe aircraft
mechanical and flight operations, as well as to eliminate annoyance to adjacent properties, and
the aircraft's occupants. 0
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 years of continuous operations; Page 6
~
i
-
,
J
J
J
J
J
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
.
]
]
I ATTACHMENT 0 , I Page 81
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION &
PROPOSED CONDITIONS and RESTRICTIONS OF USE
In addition to the above required by Sec. 5.1.1, the following is offered as additional clarifica-
tion and proposed conditions of the proposed private strip operation approval:
1) Anticipated aircraft movements now and in the future will be about five per week - 3
take-offs and 2 landings OR 2 takeoffs and 3 landings). Actually, one or two movements per
week would be more common.
2) Initial practice take-off and landing movements of about ten will be conducted during the
first week of operation. An FAA Certified Flight Instructor/Examiner will be on board for
these familiarization movements. "
3) All flight operations will be performed after official sunrise and before official sunset.
4) No aviation fuel in excess of 10 US gallons will be stored on site, and this only to provide
the required reserve to reach a fueling facility, such as C/ A Airport, with the FAA required
minimum 45-minute reserve.
5) Any FAA or CFI/E required annual certification flights will be in addition to those con-
templated as "normal or average". This procedure sometimes occurs during re-certification of
pilots and the air strip.
6) Only FAA permitted "owner/pilot maintenance or emergency repairs" are anticipated to be
performed in the hangar.
7) The air strip will not be readily distinguishable as such by 6ff~site ground observation. A
series of runway centerline dots will be installed by using lime-filled 0'-6" deep, 1'-0" diamet-
er holes as a navigation aid. .
The strip will not be noted. on general-public maps, but may appear on some aircraft naviga-
tional charts at the discretion of the FAA, VA-DOA, or other agencies. The air strip will be
noted on any published charts as "Restricted".
8) The proposed air strip will be for the express use of owner-authorized aircraft. No
commercial use or flying club operations will be permitted.
9) Less than the County Ordinance entry-level of 10,000 SF of area will be re-graded or
timbered for the air strip. In fact, the proposed location of the air strip is and has been pasture
land with the air strip laid out along a natural ridge line -- a "natural" landing strip site.
There is presently a banked galloping track oval crossing the proposed strip at one point. This
is the only area of any required re-grading, needed to remove the bank/ditch and return it to its
natural level condition. The area involved amounts to about 75' x 50' (3750 st). Any holes or
other roughness in the air strip path will be filled and tamped with topsoil, seeded and blended
with the surrounding terrain.
10) Present paddock fencing will be moved to provide a 150' wide air strip area with a 50'
wide mowed air strip. .
11) The proposed air strip will have a 1600' + usable length with additional overrun length in
oth directions down the imaginary center line extension.
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 years of continuous operations; Page 7
e
I
I
]
)
]
]
.
J
]
]
1
]
]
J
.
J
1
I ATTACHMENT 0 11 Page 91
-
Additional Operational Data:
) The Cessna 172 Owner's Manual shows a required take-off roll of 865', about 1/2 the
1 ngth of the proposed air strip, leaving a considerable margin of safety.
) The Cessna 172 Owner's Manual shows a needed "Total Distance Over 50-Foot Obstacle" .
t be 1525', less than the total length of the proposed air strip -- an ideal situation, as the
.rcraft has reached obstruction clearance altitude before leaving the air strip footprint.
photocopy of the performance chart is to be found in the addendum.
***** ***** *****
e entire Board of Supervisors and their designated professionals are invited to call to arrange
t visit Ringwood Farm to view the proposed air strip site. You may come singly or as a
roup as often as is necessary.
hould there be any further information required, please contact us at the above phone
umbers or our legal counsel, Fred Payne, Esq., at 977-4507. .
ttachments -- as noted above
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 ye'ars of continuous operations; Page 8
. -....
j
--, ...,
~I
_-,J
~
~ I
IG.
--, ~
j
~
. ,
I
2. COUNTY
Albemarle
6. LATITUDE 17. LONGITUDE
38 0,06 '140 "'78 0140 '100 "
4. DISTANCE AND DIRECT10
TO NEAREST CITY OR TOW
Miles Direction
3. STATE
VA
8. ELEVATION
700'
3.5
2250
If Change of Status or Alteration. Describe Change.
Type Ownership
o Public
:G Private
D. landing Area Data
1.
Construction Oates
To Begin/Began Est Comp.letion
Upon all 60 days
approval from sta
existing (If any) Proposed
Rwy 1f1 Rwy 1f2 Rwy If3 Rwy Rwy RW)
New Application
~ . Magnetic Bearing of Runway(s) or
~.>I. Sealane(s)
:!:G
a ~ Length of Runway(s) or Sealane(~) in Feet
"'01
10.5~li: . .
. I ,: 0 Width of Runway(s) or Sealane(s) In Feet
m~ eo
Q,
~ Type of Runway Surface
(Concrete, Asphalt. Turf, Etc.)
Ref. AS Above
Direction Distance
from from
Landing Landing
AnlIl AnlIl
Ch~rlottesville -
Albemarle AjP
(CHO)
0750
....... 15-20E 15-20E
3. Are IFR Operations Anticipated
Xi No 0 Yes Within
H. Application for Airport Licensing
:C Has Been Made 0 Not Required fi County
o Will Be Made ,a State 0 Municipal Authority
. II! I. CERITIFICATION: I hereby certify that all of the above statements mad~ by me are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
~. Name. t tie. (and address If dIfferent than above) of person filing this notice- Slgnaturel~ln ~/ J? ~
~~~ N~
Ri~hard C. Greene ~ ~ L:_
. 1 I Ri flgwood Farmj Compan Date of Signature Telephone No. (Precede with area COde)
~ y Oct 03, 1993 804-823-6295 ~
E. Oblltructlons
Type
Direction Distance
.' ....eogm from from
A_ Landing Landing
~"'lI AnlIl AnlIl
A...
1 2-1 ~ ' n 550'
40' 5 650'
Wilres
tr~es
No'se Considerations
Direction
from
Landing
AnlIl
Distance
from
Landing
AnlIl
Identification
'. n pne known
M FOI'1~ 7480-1 1+-a31 SUPERSEOES PREVIOUS EOITION
~35
~~
.
1600'
50'
tuz:f
2. Dimensions of Landing and Takeoff Area
In Feet
~ Dimensions. of Touchdown Area in Feet
.9-
al
J: Magnetic Direction of Ingress/Egress
Routes
Type of Surface
(Turf, rooftop, etc.)
3. Description 'of Lighting (If any)
All none
F. OperatlonaJ Data
1. Estimated or Actual Number Based Aircraft
~ -111-
......... _"11'1_
SMt*ne - "!")
MulHngone
5in9..eno-
Direction of Prevailing Win
NNW
-111-
-11'1-
"f")
AnliCiPlIl*l5 v...
_.
~.5V..
-
HIIlpart
U.- J5lIIIIa
IolGW .
. o..~_
nnj:>'
,..,.,0
G.-
2. Average Number Monthly Landings
-111-
-11'1-
OF')
-111-
-11'1-
on
~5V..
Hoiw:e
""_5'1'...
-
..
T_
~
UIlnIqIt
~
Years
Type Navaid:
/
- .
e
HO I SE: I.EVE:l. IlANCES
--
I ATTACHMENT 0 I J Page 111
NOISE LEVEL COMMON /,\'OOOR
d8tA) SOUNOLEVELS
CONCORDE LANDING AT 370ft
707 ANDING AT 370ft
707 AKEOFF AT 1000 ft
GAS AWN MOWER AT 3ft
DIES L TRUCK AT 5011
NOIS URBAN DAYTIME
747. AKEOFF AT 1000 ft
"COM ERCIAL AREA
CESSNA. 172--...,--
e
URBAN DAYTIME
URBAN NIGHTIME "_
SUBURBAN NIGHTIME.
QUI RURAL NIGHTIME
.
.
110
ROCK BAND
'.
100
INSIDE SUBWAY TRAIN (New York)
90
FOOD BLENDER AT 3ft
eo GARBAGE OI~?OSAL AT 3 f1
SHOUTING AT 3ft
70 VACUUM CLEANER AT 10ft
NORMAL SPEECH AT 3ft
60
LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE
50 DISHWASHER NEXT ROOM'
40 'SMALL THEATRE ,LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM
( Background)
LIBRARY
" 30
BEDROOM AT NIGHT
CONCERT HALL. (Background)
20
BROADCAST & RECORDING STUDIO
10
THRESHOLD OF HEARING
o
i
.'-- ---:--- --..... - ~~:- -~"""'.."" ................ ~ ......--.:
e
"rABLE III
Noise Levels Tvoicallv ~countered
1n an Orban ~vironment
nc; leaves
D a quiet dv~lling at midnight
hispers at 5 f~t
clot.loting department of large atore
air condi t.ioner
utional .-peech
old department of large-atore
Busy estaurant
'l'ypin ~l (9 t:ypevr iters in u..)
Vacu cleaner in private residence (atlD feet)
lU.~i alaa clock (at 2 fHt)
Loudl reproduced orc:hestral music in large rOClll
Print "S. press plant (medium size aut.cm.atic)
Bea city traffic
. Bea cUesel-propelled vehicle (about 25. feet a..y)
Air rinCer
CUt ff -aaw
Bome lawn ~er
'l'urb e condense;
lSD ic foOt air compressor
Bang D9 of steel plate
Air UDer
Jet irliner (SOD feet overh..4)
'e
.
.
- . ", - -~,. ... ...~ - --"-.'--
I ATTACHMENT 0 'I Page 121
L
ASmax
20
32
34
53
5S
60
62
65
65
"
10
12
86
92
'2
'5
'7
"
"
100
104
107 ..
US
Cessna 172
i
"
"
"
..,..
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 13 ,
P AN OF THE PROPOSED AIR
S RIP APPLIED TO A USC&G
T POGRAPHIC MAP, Crozet
a adrangle, Revised 1987.
II
\~\
, ~,~
, ...
\\~~
-- '\\,,~j[
\, le;
, './! o~~<___ ~""
]
~
] o~
Pc
C];~: _,
.....~ (J
. L,"''''''~'''''>''''
/ '"
D/ "h
~.
';:P'i--
'I .;:-0;
J:,<-
CJ
II.
.'/-
~L
. -..;>/'-,-
,II
_\~II
~~~~-:'%-='-:=:\\
"
,I
"
II
" ,
" .
I'
.......::.
]) ;'
,--/
\'
J ,
.~;/
:/
- ./'
/'
-.
,
'"
" '
IV
I,.
_ --t
/--
"
- ~.'o
~,~
JI/.\
. (j' /,
":" 0 - C )
-I, /
. ~ ./\. '"iX)"
.\
/\\\'
-,
-.\
..o~,., ,
..
/~: !
" I
7 /'~
~'.
I ATTACHMENT Ol/Page 141
CROZET QUADRANGLE
VIRGINIA-ALBEMARLE CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
107 108 7S0r
II
. I II '
"
"
II
J I~",
(:..., ! '\
\~\ ~'f- hH J40riah .
~~_,l/:;"C~<......
.}:2:.';~ J~f
.y'O\, . ;.:a'--l\)r:-. '~'
\ ---; ,1~
"
'. _.J\\
---..~
1
I I 'I
- .. r -==~t~:~..,
\. \./
\\,'SW', d_
''1~,'>'~ ~,/
, ,~
,\ ,
\
.', -..
\ '/ ~
. </1 J
.. I.J
\/i
, ;:
~\
') \./( '\0
\ ~ ,v? I r'
') \ ,~jl ",";,~~.\..'
, , '\" , 0,'7'/ oJI
~ - ') ~.' \:
"\.-'-- _-:;' ______, ''', ~' ,_ / \ / l\" )
.- 'b;.~. . ,
.../' ,--7.,:;;
~.
"</
/'
7
,y
.0
, \
<0;~~ '~'1i, 0 ~~)7~\
~~ \ ".;.(
., \ . boo/I "'~\/7
-...' '-'. , ~~/
~/ \ \ --St~;Y "- "-
'---.... II I ~
r~' __\"''' \j '--,
. \(-'0 ,,-~!) " ).q~
~,.?-<~" )~e, ',..$>
5-~- . I \ .....1/ ___ ..a..
~:-";"'f. I _~;;j'::.-==;:::..--:- ~ Q-
-~- . 'jl".:=.- __) ~
_-;:....;'O~..:~:.-;:..-;;.-;;.::.-. .- ._-~-- ~ - 1("10.-;;(
~-;:;:..-::;.~-
C
~/
/ '(
Jj if,
~~~,~'
J I
~ {
\..:j
i /
-) .
.CJ.
~
';:
o
-----'~\
\'-1
\'
c:!:-V. -) I')'
<'-'
. /
to Special Use Permit, 5.1.1, Ringwood Farm, Page 6A
]
]
]
]
]
] ~
.
]
] ADDENDUM to Special Use Permit, 5.1.1, Ringwood Farm, Page 7A
J
,
]
]
]
]
)
I
I
,.
.1
I
I
I
I
I.
.
I
rTTACHMENT 0 II Page 161
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPOSED AIR ST IP
e map below is keyed to the photographs on the following pages. Each photo is numbered
t correspond to the location/direction shown on the map.
II ~ .~.::;:.~ ~..... s,. ~
H-' ,,'-- ;':',,:, ,::;:.. ,~~
.'W ~l". -_ ......
/~ '~s.~-.. .~.._ .... .
"'''I ' t .rl'A9....~. ~l,~..:..::O'
. -#,. .&t) '.' -T" '''' <C"!:
if; .~~~,.'-:::>~,
. .:" ......... 'll AI' ',".
, .:,' . .~. € "'. " ". r.
o. , ..~
. .:' ........
..:' l~ooo4" . "..,
/@..;...."1-r.cn.r - .
'/;Y I TlI' '" ,u"wm
.~~ f i 00";'1 /..-$
I.: I. 0" ,{ .,
.:~ , I ~ ~ .
,..' ?J_.\~ -.11
.1- 0'::'. ': *"'f' ~ ~ .....
/..: I . : :J 4:Wn,,, R
J .t' ~ I leornrr,,, -".
.":" , . ~.,.........,~
.~. !' : . ('\ '"'
.~.' .. ,. _..~ D'
.~;. 00' I) 1 ~
.:;:' .- l~r.9.\C:
':'/.!1/Ji:. . ~ '~~~ l
,-:. t~~&..~ : - - .... ~.~ ,-
:. , "',.... -- \',
{} .:' .... ~ \ '..;-..... 1~./'1i
.. loT';;'."')' ~ ; -..~ '_
/: . "
.':' -
.!' . .
. t ~.~-,
?~. . ~I' ',! . !5'~'
. -.....
::. 10!"! <7::
./ Ii j. /i.~.!
..;. l' V..
_..~ ,.; I . ·
......~.:. '- -- . .Jt -~ Jo. I
'"=- /. '../.:':~I"'- / I .Jc I 0'", l I:
'...I<tJ ,/~~::.:,~. +1: ~-r~~ II
(j 1':1/ tq_ ~/":':" __ i I '-"t.,...I ..
~~^- 0 .....- ~..:.. ..1/1I6' ,
----..-.... ..,' ~.' ...... 'l.' HI""" . "..,-
~., --- _I r;,.:". =:-.:". " ~.." .._
( .... , <'1' . ..... lC ..,
;> --~- ' u.. ":~:.. r--:')
~... ,... .~~. ~
/ 1..:0-- ;:.. "=:.1 C>
/ ~.;./ c- a!nn.s ( ,
/ '.~' ~~. J ;'---"':Q f1!' ~,
i.~/ :';". ,(.~.;'... ..,.) .~ Ar~:""ua1 J.r..r
'~,':' ~\:' - :j S;~ / .
". // -\~.>. . ./J ...,:: ~ ~
::.'.' ./.. ':,;:..t:-:-. ~j~ '" ~
.,.,..~ ;I' .: t: ..
.. .;. ~~~"~ ~
..r..... ,,- ~rj ~'9 .0-
~ ....
T_ /"'IA.I' +O-PA"'C~l.n./ . (]
... '-.-
I~j . '2 A<:',US q!O ,.....c7' _ zu-
!! . LI ",/:'-~ Z r47'01rtff __
_:, C', . __
.. :-. 0$ 17"-' _JI
~~= :.:~:: -, $~ ~
-c;...:~\_,D~/~
-.j../ !l
IV
!
4O-UI
--
t>>.. ~..,
"3 A'"
,.
~
;
f~
~
..'
I
, ..
.. .... ;
'!.~
II
.f
z
~
",1
..
. ..
. ..
1:
~~
'\8
~ ..
..
..
- <
.~
~..
U
'--
4~'1S"
A DENDUM to Special Use Permit, 5.1.1, Ringwood Farm, Page SA
I'
,-
I
I
J
I
]
]
]
,
I
)
I
]
]
]
.
J
J
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 171:
!
e following photos show a sequence of views beginning at the southerly end of the
p oposed air strip along the centerline.
hoto #1. Looking northerly along the center line of the proposed air strip. The red line
a ded to the photo indicates the approximate centerline.
:;,..,
'-,~t
--
' -- ;~~:_,-.--'"
';~~C;;~;~~;~~~~S;3~~~~~
'~,,- ',~-, ~', "''''<~'~ '~"--"" ,,,' , '~-.,
.. ""'''.i<'.'. ,~, "'-<_',<'. . __ ,_ ~>", ""'., ;"_'" '. "'__" """''-'' ','
"";;,~'--'~ """", -....= ..-, :..~, ':...- ,,' '''.' ~ " ",
::?~"':--~~~~;":.;.,"~-, ,."';::,' ''':'- e'~'>, , '."...Z:;c.?-,: C""
.. .,~4\", '~"'" ,",,' .~' ~"'\. ,_ '~~~?->"
!!iit:':~~~;!~:---:<~::::i::;;ii~~?~/~~jmr?:;
hoto #2. LOoking northerly from the centerline of the proposed air strip at about the mid-
int (800'). Red runway approximate centerline added for clarification.
DDENDUM to special Use Permit, 5.1.1, Ringwood Farm, Page 9A
e
I
1
]
.
1
]
]
]
]
]
]
.
J
1
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 181
Ph to #3.. Looking obliquely northerly (at an angle to the centerline shown in red) to show the
n est off-site residence beyond the creek bed hollow and the trees.
hoto #4. Looking northerly from the proposed runway end showing the low power' lines in
t e depressed section of Rt. 810 some 525' + north of the runway. end. The dotted red line is
e imagimiry extension of the runway; the actual runway would end 25' + behind the camera
ation.
ADDENDUM to special Use Permit, 5.1.1, Ringwood Farm, Page lOA
I ATTACHMENT 0 IlPage 19j
e e following photos are a ~eries taken to show the southerly run of the proposed air strip
Ph to #5. Looking southerly with the proposed center line shown in red. The tree on the
rig t would be removed.
e
. . .
: Ph to #6. Looking southerly from the ~pproximate mip-point of-the proposed air strip (800').
T red line shows the. proposed centerline. .
.
A DENDUM to Special Use Permit, 5.1.1, Ringwood Farm, Page 11A
J .
,
.'
.
I ATTACHMENT ollpage 201
P oto #7. Looking southerly from the end of the proposed air strip. The trees in the fore-
g ound will be removed. The forest in the rear will remain and is about 700' distant. The.
d tted red line is the approximate imaginary extension line of the center of the proposed air
st .p.
following shows the relationship of the proposed'runway to the hangar building.
Ph to #8 Looking westerly from the approximate mid-point/centerline of the proposed runway
to e existing masonry/frame stable which will become the hangar by the installation of a
wi er door in the end wan under the trusses. The building is set below the elevation of the
pr posed runway, creating a lower silhouette and obstruction height.
. . s . ~
AD ENDUM to Special Use Permit, 5.1.1, Ringwood
12A
e
-
.
I
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 21/
November 22, 1993
Mr. William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
Albemarle Cty. Planning Dept.
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Va. 22~02
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I recently learned,
neighbor Mr. Greene for a
airstrip just to the west
to object to this for the
second hand, of an application by
special use permit to construct an
and south of our property. I wish
following reasons.
our
Aircraft of whatever size and weight taking off and landing
just a few hundred feet from our home would donstitute, at best,
an imposition on our peace and tranquility, and, at worst, a danger
to our persons and property.
Anyone _ who lives in this immediate- area knows that the
prevailing winds are west to- east, -and that they are fr~quently
sudden and fierce. On a number of occasions, we've had steel
chairs blown from the front porch, shingles ripped off
the roof, and our satellite dish bent backwards and broken.
There are power I ines and tall oaks, to say nothing of
Whitehall Rd., that must be cleared on takeoff or landing justa
few hundred feet to the north of the proposed airstrip. Whether
wind, mishap, or miscalculation, our home and family are being put
in a danger zone by a plan that has nothing more than convenience
to justify it.
Furthermore, at substantial expense for land, construction and
taxes, we located out here in Whitehall precisely to be free from
just the sort of noise and distraction that Mr. Greene's pI ans
would impose upon us.
Nor is there anything in the Greene proposal to indicate that
the environmental impact of regular aircraft takeoffs and landings
had been considered. I understand that Mr. Greene hasn't spent
much time here, but he must be aware that flocks of geese make
their home on his and surrounding lands, and they are both a joy to
those of us who live here, and an irreplaceable asset to Western
Albemarle County. Horses are also raised, stabled and grazed in
direct proximity to the proposed airfield,. as are cattle.
I ATTACHMENT 0 I I Page 2~ I
e
Finally, there's an airport just twenty minutes from here.
That's close enough for us, and for just about everyone else in the
county. It should be close enough for Mr. Greene.
Rick and Mary Lou Weiss
. (7-t:Ilc
Sincerely,
"")
-
.
II I
.rID~
llJ
.
c
...
z
w
J:
J:
~
~
!(
.
.. .,
.; .&J
CIl
w
6
z
z
o
~
o
:J
a.
a.
c(
E
e 'i
-
~~
Iii Iii
C ,!:
o 't:l
.~ ~
o '0
.s: c:
.2
o
~ 0
c: 0
:s PI
'i '2
01
..
., C>
~ :.i ..;
< ... ~
., 0
C E
;: 3 !
.. .,
't:l .;
.! 0
~ c:
.. 0
-g .!::!
5 0
.&J .s:
>'t:l
't: .,
., 't:l
.s: c:
~ ~
c: .,
.. ..
.s: .s:
.. ..
c:
o ~
o ~
; .&J
a::
..
.,
N Co
'<( f"~
. c:s
'" .
C;~: jk
1, I:l
~ !:)
Q: C:l ~
"':'l I:l
.... "t
~ ~
.. c:
-s .g
i) 0
.s:
..
., .,
~.;-g
.,
G ~ .~
~ .& ;
Q. ..
.. 0 ~
oS r- Ii
... .s:
., ::J 1::
.>l 0 0
.. .&J c:
E .. ..
.; ~ -s
~ .~ ~...
., .,
c ~ ...
., ., +
~~o
.. .. 0
~ .s: III
c: 1:: ]
2 g ..
'g B
.>l .>l
c: 0
.. ..
..Q .&J
c: 't:l
., .,
., 't:l
.&J ..
= 0.
.s: .,
.>l .&J
o
..
~ .~
.~ :
Q. .,
o .s:
'&7
co ..
.'s i:l
.!! ~
)( 0
G .~
.. 't:l
t= 01
~]
.= 0
.. III
~ 0
.,
"ii g
E :!
'2 (I)
'E 'i5
lD co cd
-S g ~
a;
E
..
o
oS
..
.,
.;
-
o
.,
't:l
'in
.s:
o
..
01
~ .g
c: ..
2 ~
co ::
Iii ~
~ ~
- ..
~ ~
'5 .;
.~ ~
.. :.c
.; ~
-v......
(.,~
10 ~
Oi t:i . \I
q 10 I:l ~ '\.
~. I'l i ~ ~ "'-'"
c::.1:l ~.&~ .....,
~ i: .Ii g Q,.
.... t'l ~ & ~
~ ~ ~-la~
~ ~ '"
11-
~ li ~ . i 1
. :-~ 015 15 ..
~i15.- .g
l ::11 ~ ! ]
u.... 015 . ~
!'giilli: ~~
o 00 ~. .. ~
. "m " .. 4 ~
~ 1m oi . ~ .!:' 1 ...
U foi] g ~ 1,,- 1
it~1EJ"'lig
~ ...2.... .. ..
a:r~'- !~t
t ~j~ =1 -: ] 1 .
!ljsi! ji~!
1!~~1; 'loa
o-~".! xl!
:':~lt- e.! o:n
:~.lii~~~::~
oiIE~.l ~151i
~ :'Ji-.. ~ ~i ~-!!
_ =.'2.J/O. ....~o
1-~..!l;D....o1:l~"'C:
~::ii"'!.iot~1
u o..CDu;~:g 0 -
iL-_2!e.Mla"5!~
f:~1iJi-3?~ ..~=
ffi -illi.! tl"f.: ~
u ,..
.,
.. .. ~
~ ' ~
f\j ~;:~ i~I5.> ~.....~
.. "'~<I. #I> ~r.\
rt : t ':l -:. . ,'" & ~ ~ .o~: -'<>.., "'0 Vo
~ Q ,;,~. . !<l to. ~ ~lC1 ..~ .",,~
w &l S'l, --.a- b ~ k I ~ ~ ""-000'
I 1 .lfl ~ , .~ -::q: \ E ~N ~ . ~ A
'I it." oS' ~ ~ 41: "V" '~
" I ~~.!p I ~ -rGet{.. "'!I.o c; . a 11)' 00..5>....
. " ~ '" '" ~ So vl' ~ CQ c ~ ~ it ,...., tl~ "i . ... .&'o ~
I t. "'-l"':: - VI ~ ~,ll: "~ll8:S '" t:i: '" ~. ,
8 . t-~. " ,. 'D '" ~ \ .@';>....... t'4 ~ .l,... " I~' !:l <::1
; ! ~<'~.',:. ~ ~ ~.... t: ',~ .1IlI'W ~O'''"' "..
~l{ ~ / : !"2 ~ ":'~'.. cf~ '" -\- -1"............... ''11 " :~
,~ J " ./J..~ ........... . "'::..~ ---_~-_.. . / *'...... ,~' S
1.... 13 ~~. ....>1,.. --.-.J(. ~ 'r'- ....< ,t: l.u ~
,~I, ~~. . .::.,~'.:s. E' --f~h-L ,(10<;)/ os ,'"" ~ C!I:i:
' " ~ .... D~ - . . . - ._-. -. __ )(, . ')r..-'\ll'_", ,0;- ~
J...., /... ,. 11 ~,OE.s.... ". ~. ,.. "_. v ~I f'I t- 0 I.U
li) , .,..... ....... ~ '" ...", . - -0/... 11I,-- IJ r!.
/ / I!!!-::: "+-':,...~fi.."" II-- -----.0' ",- . fJ ID ~~. ~
" I~I' . +: .::", X---,l(;, -~ ~~ .f ---":-.~_n,.___==--_,-. ... '.. ::.....\,..:::.:-.:__-_._.:..". ....
I j"~ ' . ..... "":--. .,.' y*' .,. ;._--:;..._ ,,;.-' 'J-;..).. ":'!'''''''' -II.... "i.,.~ .&'..
,. ~ + ':" 'i Ik "IT' . :( -~ ,::', QIl . tl '4 +,OSL.~ 0... ?;i:;=:..l<'~'-'
( ,~.::,:: . ~ 'tJi.~~ '. I ~ /'!r\ ~ - , i
1 '::~:. .-. ~.>( i :. ~-'j :';:: '3 'Q' ."
... , cD ,- .:}o - ) . ~
. .... u.t' ~ ~ - ... cc '
',..""", ~;Y1 r;~ ~ ~
~ ',>..:,:.....t..~ W b ..:-i(:~i~i~. (:;' ~ .!:\ q. r'l
'~:. I' ::;. )F~1' \:', ;;;rc.. ')i.../ ~ rn
t;) . :'::. ~ ~ ::: \ "I I~:\ .:,.'.~.:. .,' <
tit ,. \.rJ .~,',,':' <.
,..:..:...~~.\(~' :i)" ~ '~:"':' ", ~
,:,.. II'. I , ,>.. ,.
\, """ ":. ~
.;;'...' 'OJ i ,.... .,..... "'.L
..... ..... tlt.
".:.'.;', J · "'....:..... ~
'. ':"':;J<~! II ~~ "".>. }
} ~ f",/~ u ~o.~ ":'. J '\
p~~ I<"~ 0> \ \.' \
"li~ 1 ~l. -0' \ '; ....'..~4 '\
~ '''fl-'''~ ~
" \
'\ !' \
'-
\'1
"':
N
",.J
....
.. ---.._a_
o
iii
-..:
a:
..:
1Il1ll
o~
.,
",,2
15<l
15 .
.. ii:
.
. &
~ ..
u"-
. . 'g' f.-init>
in 0 iD f.- ... .., 0 .it> ~ le :l. ~ ":
OO..llICDcqcn.... ."'CO
. . 'II'i~Ncn-'. cn"'ocnOIO
biii:lVlonIlVllll~ llIon"'ll'lN
N
I"I"I"&..II"I"I"I"I"&..II"I"~I'"
1"~~8 kll~2~~ ~~~~Pla
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N.. . . ..0\ N'" G)NO\ff)O)CD
2l:e~~~llIll1"'''''''CDCDlIl''''''
'zzzzZZZZZZZlIllllllllll
1-'
III
oJ
a:
~
UI
o
"-
.. ....,
'0 ..
~ -5
., E
a .g
.s:
.. III
.. ,....
~ !l
o
o 't:l
't:l .,
't:l >
.. 0
Q. E
., .,
.. .&J
(; Ii
.c Oi c
o Q. ~
.5 '::: !
.; ~ ;
~ 'is u
Q.
.. 'C
M .; iii
III t
OilSQlOil
"l s 0() :!
, '" <I. <I.
I:l DI
"t ~ 0::. ,.,
i:~<oQi
~l!l:g
.s ~ en
>.2.J
.c "'0 .:
-g i ~
:g ~ Lf
.. ..
; -g .~
I) :J 0
.&J .& :E
..
.. .. :>
.s: 0 ;>
c: ... >
.g PI .&J
ca ~ eog
E Ol ~
(; a ~
:s .g Q.
.g. -6 > ci
; ... ~ ~
... ; :t 0
:.( .!:! .. ~
1i.c:1ll
~ i,.g g
.0
...
...
ID
Z
o
~
u
w
C/)
I
o
Q.
..
:0
E
'x
e
Q. c:
Q. 'iij
.. E
., ~
! ~
... ,
..
CI c:
.~ .g
.. ..
'x 0
w .2
>
..
~
'x
..
..
..
.!!
OJ
't:l
c:
::J
o
.&J
.,
~
>
1::
.,
Q.
o
0':
CIl
....l
o
a:I
:E
>
CIl
o
I-
~
't:l c:
c: 0
CD ';
Q. 0
'i: ..2
... 't:l
.. .,
~ ..
:;( g,
-
,
NI,.,
~
:I:
U
t-
of
::I
t-
l:J
"-
N~
-I....
~
i;i
8
51
&..I
oJ
c(
U
III
.~
III
o
~
..
E 't:l
'x ~
e 0
Q. E
Q. ..
.. ...
.,
.. .&J
., 0
~ ..
.. ,
..
co c:
.a .g
.. 1II
'x g
w_
c
:s
.~
..
.,
:;
o .g.
2 ..
.. ..
.. ~
'ij
gao
.~ (:)
'x 0
W III
~~
~)oI
~'j:o-,
~
n..
LJ
-0
..
..
o
Q.
o
Q.
'"
"
~ ~ Ci
:J C
..
,!: c:
c .g
~ 'in
o 0
.s: Q.
.. 't:l
.. ~
.. ..
o 0
c: 0
Lf !
;;;
('~ >
C '"
o '5. ~
c ~ 0
'E g, ~
"U
'0 ell ~
en ~~ ~
OJ "::;:
~ (}J ~
.4: ~ .0
{
(s
\~;.
1#Id ZSZ 'Ii SSg ti10 6S~ 'Ii ~s ti10
:.- . ~H 'Ii 1H9011 g - I; IV.
~ l.zoL:m . i1..;Z.9~.U N
~ ~
~ f cl.
i!.(~
! "-
~~
10
~
-'.
-..
c::
III
C.
CIl
:2
~
c::
o
c::
::
o
.r:
CIl
.!!!
Cl
c::
.~
.2
"0
...
Gl
.r:
I-
a: c 'C >-......... ... ,. Ol Ol
~ 0 0 C O~OGl 'Co CC
.... ~ 0 Gl~5I1lC~ ~g ~~
1Il ~ ~ gGlo2EO.o~ ~~
... .2 Ol ... !i: >- c..: Cl-
'jij C a.>.!!!!?OIll iii'C l!!~
'C ii: 0 'C': a. Ol .... C
'C >- Gl !i: Ol.... Gl t; III C 0 III .... Gl
GlGllll .... >COlll- III O~
~ > g, 0 0,- .... 0 111 Ol~ 1: > +-,'"
a. 5 0 ~ ~ CII a. C 01= C '0
o...lIla.... CII lIl.o~=e~~1 ~1Il ~
a. .... Gl CI) Gl a. 1Il'- III ~ C X III
._c_ ...IIlGl ;:~o 0 GlGl
Gl~~ III IIlGl_.oa..'CN 'C~
~U'" lIl....OS~CI)OCIIC~ clll
... l!! ,~ >. 'C 5 O.!t! III ...:0 Q. l!! III 0 III "'0
I:.. Gl._ III .-"'0 III ~ C ~ C Gl
'Olllc llI...lIllll-CC...Gl....o o~
~ "'0 C C Gl C ;: III III ~ U._ - .- c
c5 g~GlEE;:oa.~...g~g ~1lI
.!!!Gl2 o;:_lIlo~~cJlIlgm g~
a.iii III t::.o 0 "0 C ~ III t; 0 "0 - > - c
u ~ 1Il 0 C c= Gl
III 0 CII Gl OlIllE"'1Il -Ill III
o ~ Gl ~ E lIllll SE l!!
^...^ 1Il^"'^^ 1Il^"O Ol-01^3''O^ a.
C III .. Cc C >~
> Gl E Gl III .- ~ ,- ... Gl ~
> .~ C - t;.~:g CII'O ~
III ..... ;: Gl-~- OlC "'g
~ '0 ~ 0 s1I1;:j E.2 'Ob
r--I
'-''',
---1
I
~
"-
c::.
~i ~
I:l <I.
~ 1 ~
.t l!l
,J
lI\
.l.81.60.
.".
~.
P'cYo'
.......
...... \
!
/
\
I
I
/
..
..?
-
in
~
~
-'
.....- -------
~
Cd
Oil
01
...,
C
\14
~
~
~
I
Iii
~
..,.
01>,
cD
9-
"" 't
"~\, ~
i '~'}, ~.,.
i "t '0<> '"
~ "l .,. '"
I "7-
1 ~
lC ~
c::.
"t
i!
-1...
-""
~
.~6t"o.s "'b ~
oft...(~"a
S;Z-6/Z' 80 ..(1 N
,
--,
"
+J
.rl
a
l-I
Q)
Po.
Q)
(/)
::>
<
r-i
Q)
trl
I'd
Po.
...
a
l-I
I'd
~
't1
o
o
~
t::
.rl
~
rl
I'd
.rl
U
Q)
0-
CJ)
o
+J
~
o
z
~
o
c
<
....
r-i
r-i
It'l
~
t:i
ti
~
...
':t
(j
1\1>:-
;J
11:.
r
"'..1
. c...
lL '
b
III
~
~
\
~
Q
!'l
~
~
'"
-""
>:s-
"1t>;
~
iii
:t
~
~
~
~
"
!---_.\
,I
1~
,
RINGWOOD FARM
Dick and Carol Greene
P. O. Box 221 (VSH 810)
Crozet, VA 22932
804-823-6295
December 17, 1993
Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Ringwood Farm SUP-93-31
Dear Mr. Fritz:
In reviewing my file for the upcoming Planning Hearing on Tuesday, I noticed that a letter from Mr.
and Mrs. Bruce Patterson regarding the air strip application was sent directly to me, and that no copy
was indicated as having been sent to you. I am enclosing the original for your files. You will note that
the Patterson's own and occupy the nearest residence directly to the south of the proposed air strip.
Also enclosed are copies of the FAA Reports following their extensive on-site and area inspection and
evaluation. In summary, their reports state:
A) NRA On-Site Checklist:
No obstructions
Landing strip dimensions satisfactory
Noise problems -- none, satisfactory
Class of air ship approved -- SEL (single-engine, land)
Conflicts with other operators in area -- none, satisfactory
B) Part 157 Inspection Report
"No objection"
Condition -- proposed trees be removed
Condition -- VA-DOA approval requested
C) Part 157 Inspection Report (Watson)
"No objection"
Power lines are not near RfW location
Trees will be removed
No telephone wires
As can be seen, there are no objections, no safety hazards, no noise problems, no obstructions other
than the trees already proposed (by us) to be removed in the original application.
Please enter these in the file for consideration by the necessary professionals and commission members.
Ver~ourb~'?
/ A'C L- ~-/
~ ~_.::;~Lk,r~
Richard C. Greene -
CC: Fred Payne, Esq.
Enclosures -- as noted
RINGWOOD COMPANY, Established 1740... over 250 years of continuous operations; Page 1
I
Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Patterson
Rt. 2, Box 201
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Greene
Ringwood Farm
P.O. Box 221
Crozet, VA 22932
RECElvec:r
UtL; 2 0 1993
RE: Ringwood Farm Air Strip
County Application
Pianninq D::~.t~~'
~ ~..J t..i L:::
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Greene,
We appreciated receiving your letter about your intention
to get County approval to use your farm for an air strip.
After looking over your complete application and walking
the actual area you intend to use as the air strip, we
have no objections to your putting in the private strip.
Your plan appears to be safe, the plane quiet, and the
air strip entirely on your own property. The plan seems
to be a reasonable use of a small area of your private land.
We support the approval of your application to the County,
the state and the FAA. If we can be of any help in this
approval, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
-. / ,/
/~:<~ -...' (; // '/:.
v---",:. / . j/-;(< 0--': <.. ~
Bruce Patterson
Box 201, VSH 680
(;)
. ". !r I ,}~.:.
f-><.LC< ,.: I.:,,; ~,.
J~ \... ~-.
>-
:; !'"
I
- RIC, FSD,O
. . "'-.
,,/ .
..
ID:8042224843
NOV 29'93
NRA ON-SITF. CHECKLIST
i
I c.,
I
'.
..
. . ..... ..
.... .
:~.. .
. .
1. Verify info' on 71180-1 Scc.^ :..~; r. & G
2. Based on apparent obstructlqr~, c~n d
3afe operation be conducted?',:: If not,
give direction nnd height of lbe'
critical ubstruction(s).
3. Bascd on landing area dimensions and
aligmcnt (runw~y length, width, con-
dltion, grodient and cleara~ce3) can.
a sarc operation be conducted?
q. Are there potential noise problema?
Specify. Is provision made:ror safety
of persons and property on the' ground?
5. What is the large~t class of aircraft
recommended for opc~ation?
'S~l-
6. Are there po ten tinl con f1 iets wi th
other operations 1n the area?
REMARKS:
10:45 No.002 P.02
/J lli .rz fJ - AI(,I
SAT.
~
~
~.
~
,
~,
~~
UNSAT.
(See Remarks)
CHECK:
OBJECTION () . NO 08JECTION ~)' '.
NO ODJECTION WITH CONDITIONS ( )
SIGNATURE". ~~.~
~ DATE: //,,2- Z-- }'3
ROUTING SYHOOt: .~~2/
. ,
;.
Subject: ~art 157
Case No
93-~A- ~D-N~ '
Date: If) I:<'~ /.i3
..'
From: Airports Div\sion, AEA-610
TION:
~~
(via AEA-220)
AAS-330
STATE
Army Rep.
Navy Rep.
Air Force
Other
1/11-
1v'IT-
NE
NE.
Rep NE
(~
cYd'
~,
Please review the proposed f~cility described on the attached
7480-1 and sketch and provide comments to your Oivisional OPI ~
in accordance with your responsibilites per Order 7400.2C. t:
Division OPI's should send compiled Divisional comments
to AEA-53.0 by /1/0>-0(93.
\ o'<iP
\\ ?J
AEA-610 review of the 7480-1 information indicates:
~
- Form is complete and correct. ~
Lat/Long is correct.~'NAD27 ~NAD83
Circularization of this proposal, if
compromise the sponsor's plans for
The obsyruction standards of Part 77
may ~ should not___ be exceeded.
Based on reported or known noise sensitive land uses, noise
may vi should not~ be a potential problem.
Safety of persons and property on the ground may ~ should
not. be a consideration.
required, will will not V'"
land acquisti~. --
for the proposed facility
-L r/tU-r
I-vk
. / ~ a:i:t- i
REPLY COl.[MENTS: ( )NO OBJECTION ( )OBJEC ION; SEE COMMENTS~ ~EL~ v~ -I.L/l
,,9\) NO ,OBJECTION WITH CONDITIONS; SEE CO~ENT BELOW ~d (
,It...h If1ft.'L''T'/f'-:Jr ul../% ('VnA/r.//-r;..",/ ~Hr .7.fp.....r ,&~/r-> ~~AJrlV"C"/ AS
'~,t1;/t:;!n,,~::,~fl1). ~i'A.~."~ b.., 7A~ V;A7"'O/ .2Y,'rA'~Nr
Nt1tc ~ aN JI.k ~/x~ dK'C/f. //sr ~ C-LJ1/7/~-t.L/ 7
By ~./ k/(h?./d':-<---" flS'.r #[/1- 22 0 Date
/ Name/Title (print & sign)
/.{/<',/r:DO.
~/ ('/~~
///:z-y;&
REPLY DIRECTLY TO YOUR DIVISIONAL OPI-->AEA-220, 420, 530, 610
~
.
,
Case No 93-AEA- ~D-NRA
Date: It) /;(tJ /.J.3
Subject: Part 157
From: Airports Div~sion, AEA-610
DISTRIBUTION:
AEA-220 ~ 0
FSDO LJ e.-
AEA-420 .
AEA-530 1. J L].-
ADO W r/
AAS-330
STATE
Army Rep.
Navy Rep.
Air Force
Other
// f}-
NE
NE.
Rep NE
(via AEA-220)
Please review the proposed f~cility described on the attached
7480-1 and sketch and provide comments to your Divisional OPI
in accordance with your responsibilites per Order 7400.2C.
Division OPI's should send compiled Divisional comments
to AEA-53.0 by /1/a-o/93.
AEA-610 review of the 7480-1 information indicates:
- Form is complete and correct. ~
Lat/Long is correct.~NAD27 ~NAD83
Circularization of this proposal, if
compromise the sponsor's plans for
The obs~ruction standards of Part 77
may ~ should not___ be exceeded.
Based on reported or known noise sensitive land uses, noise
may ~ should not~ be a potential problem.
Safety of persons and property on the ground may ~ should
not. be a consideration.
required,will will not v
land acquisti~. --
for the proposed facility
V"
REPLY DIRECTLY TO YOUR DIVISIONAL OPI-->AEA-220, 420, 530, 610
.
RECEIVED
DEe 0 t 1993
Planning Depl.
ovember 30, 1993
Route 2 Box 186
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
From the legals in the Daily Progress I understand Richard
and Carol Greene and Ringwood Company petition to issue a special
use permit for a privlate air strip on 134 acres. This land
adjoins my property-I value the quiet, peaceful resident ru~~l
area it is now.
The air strip would not only constitute noise polution but
would devalue the property in this section of the county.
I, therefore,seek your support in opposing this permit.
Sincerely,
{;....~,.c: ,., ~
Ernestine Patterson
. ..
I
RECEIVED
DEe 0 3 1993
Planning Dept.
30U ., November 1993
Mr.". D. Fr i t ~';
Dept. of Planning Albemarle County
401 McIntire
Challottesville, VA 22902
Deal Mr. Fritz,
I ar writing to protest the petition for Special Use Permit for a
pri'ate air strip at Ringwood Farm (RF). Although my property is
not adjoining RF it lies a few hundred yards down the road on Rte
810 and I would be adversely affected by flights in and out of
RF. purchased my property here specifically to avoid the noise of
air I>orts and airplanes; this area is not on the flight path to
anY1~here. My concerns however, go beyond this point and they are
suml~arized below.
inconsistent
with
County
(1) Airstrip in Whitehall/Crozet
Plan(CP).
This is tl quiet rural farming community. It is the intention
of the CP to protect this identity and to preserve that life-
style (including hunting), environment and wildlife associated
with this community. A working airstrip in its midst is not
compatible with this Plan.
(2) Potential for excessive use.
Because of the County's inability to monitor these Permits or
impose rigid limits, the stated "maximum average" of five
flights a week has no meaning. The RF Company is
obviously a very successful company ("250 years of
continuous operations") with, it seems, extensive activities. It
would, in effect, h a v e aPe r m i t t 0
operate n privat:e "corporat.e" airport__
(3) Precedence not a valid argument to justify another airstrip.
I have heard it argued that because the County has previously
granted a similar Permit in the area, then the present request
could hardly be r~fused. This, of course, is a spurious
argument that I am sure the Board will reject. The County
could,on such a basis, become littered with airstrips.
(4) An airstrip is one more hazard.
Despite the applicant's apparent good record the additional
risks of fi re and personal accidents in the communi ty far
outweigh any benefits there may be.
AR(UMENT IN FAVOR OF USING CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE AIRPORT.
The facts governing the use of CIA Airport, as stat,ed in
pplicant's letter to neighbors which is presumably in the record,
ay not be as stated,
(1) I have talked to Corporate Jets and there is hangar space
available at the Airport.
(2) I have talked with Air Traffic Control at the Airport and
there is apparently very little delay for Visual Flight
Rule flights -"a matter of minutes". Furthermore, RF can
be no more than a 25 minute drive to the Airport. I have
to conclude that the applicant's claim that using his own
airstrip would reduce his journey time by 6 hours is an
unworthy exaggeration. .
(3) I understand the desire for speed and convenience in a
hectic world to save a few minutes, but Whitehall/Crozet
is not a hectic world. It is, as yet, a beautiful and
peaceful communi ty untroubled by the noise and pollution
of aircraft and most of us would like to keep it that
way.
(4) I assume the Permi t would not allow the storage of
aviation fuel on the property because of the obvious fire
hazard. The applicant would therefore have to go to the
Airport for fuelling in any case, so why not leave it
there in the first place?
It is my conclusion that the CIA Airport offers the applicant every
facility required for a speedy departure and that this application
should not be granted.
Route 2
Box 207
Crozet, VA 229322
I
....,
~;.:
'~:;. - . '
RINGWOOD FARM
~..... Z-1'etwY
Dick m1 Carol Greene
P. 0. 801. 211 (VSH '10)
Crouc, VA. 22932
~5
"'u.e Reply 10;
RINGWOOD COMPANY
127 Pleasant Ave.
U Saddle River, NJ 07458
NJ Taleltllolle Humbert:
FARM/COMPANY OFFICE
TEL: 201-327-1224
FAX: 201.327-1225
Oc:tober1.7,1993 ~
D~ ~
In'aJ~w wee~, some of our neighboring property owners will be receiving notice from the County that
we have-mace application for a Special Use Permit to use a poniOD of our farm for a private air strip.
Perhaps a bit of ba~lcground and more detail on our plans would be of interC3t to you.
Both of us have been licensed private pilou for over 20 years. We own our own plane, a single-eD&ine
Cessna 172 weighing 2300 pounds, &Toss -less than most passenger cars. Neither of us has ever bad
an aircraft accident. an "incident" or a "write-up". All of our tlyiDa at die fann would be in "daylight
VFR conditions" (VlslU2l Flight Rules, that is, we would not fly relying on hip-tech instruments in
adverse weather conditions or in darkness).
Both Carol and I have a parent of advanced age (85 and 94), both of whom are under constant medical
care in northern New Jersey. Carol's Dad lives on bis farm and has 24-hour medical care in his home,
and my mother also requires full-time care. Incidentally, Carol's father has had a grass air strip on his
farm since about 1940; again, with never an accident or incident. Using his air strip, we have become
very proficient on grass air strips.
Over the past few years, we have been called to dloit sides for medical emergencies on many occasions;
and. we oversee their daily medical care and manage dleir business affairs. Being in Vitainia, 425
miles away from them, puts at least a 9-hour time lapse in getting to them. Having our plane on the
farm would put us under three hours from the farm strip in New Jersey.
"Why not use Charlollesville/Albemarle Airport?" you might ask. Well, as nice as the facility is for
comm~rcial nights. they just do not cater to light aircraft. They do not have available bangar space for
our planll, and lhllre is a 7-10 year waiting list. Outside storage of a plane accelerates deterioration -
our plane has always been hangared, Additionally, it would take well over an hour and one-half, under
ideal conditions, to be in the air from CIA Airport after driving there and going through the ground and
take-off procedures. We would be keeping the plane inside an existing structure at Ringwood Fann.
Our application asles for very limited use - a maximum average of five movements a week. (A
"movement. is either a take-<Jff or a landing. Our anticipated normal use would average fewer
movements. There is no noise on landing, and minimal engine noise on taltlHlff - less noise than a
lawn mower, and for only about 45 seconds. No flying clubs or commercial use would be allowed -
this would be strictly a private air strip.
There is a natural ridge line which would be utilized for the landina strip. requiring only some interior
paddock fence moving and the re-fiIling of two short, shallow ditches put in for die abandoned gallop-
ing track. The strip would be mowed grass and would Dot be visible from the roads. Ringwood Farm
will remain visually as it is now with the strip totally on the interior.
. RINGWOOD COMPANY. Established 1740... over 250 yea~s of continuous operations; Page 1
/'
elow IS reproduced a portion of the drawing of the proposed strip taken fro"1 the application. Th,
landing "pattern" is shown in highlighter -- no homes would be overflown and most of the landin~
pattern is over our own land.
Rest assured, we do not wish to change the character or quality of the neighborhood environment in
either appearance or comfort. We love the area as it is. You mayor may not know that m' )urchase
of the Woodson tract to the south of Ringwood Farm was purely a "defensive" move to prev~nt devel-
opment of the area.
Carol and T invite you to call and come over to look at the area, to discuss any portion v ; apppr.,-
tion, and to listen to your comments and opinions. The full application is available at OUl .Iome .
the County oftices.
Should you have and procedural Qr legal questions, you may call our attorney, Fred Payne (977-4507).
Very truly yours,
J>~^; { ..!7V;i C ~._-
Richard C. Greene
~.
3EMARLE COUNTY
UTE HALL DISTRICT
SECTION 4(
....-
- -
-'-" ~~.---.....".
WHITE "'ALL [
:-~~~------------~---------------------------------~----------------------------
WYNDEFIELDS
Robert and Sandra Hodge
Rt 2 Box 211
Charlottesville V A 22901
RECEIVED
uu; 0 7 1993
Planning Dept.
December 5, 1993
illiam D. Fritz, Senior Planner
ounty of Albemarle
ept. of Planning & Community Development
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville V A 22902-4596
: SP-93- 31 Richard and Carol Greene and Ringwood Company
s adjacent landowners, we are writing to inform you that Richard and Carol Greene have
resented their proposed plans for a grass airstrip to us, both in person and by
orrespondence.
e have reviewed the application and given the conditions and restrictions set forth, we have
o objection to the proposed special use permit being granted.
ik
,/_' ~:, ,'7 ,.
V--. ........~
/ t
Sandra Hodge, Ph.D
Phone/Fax 804-823-4001
I
SMALLWOOD FARM
Mr. & Mrs. Bernard S. Jones
Rt. 2, Box 205
Crozet, VA 22932
RECEIVED
UtI.; 0 7 1993
December 3, 1993
Pianning Dept.
Mr. William Frit7.
Albemarle Planning DeparLment
401 kIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
RE: Ringwood Farm SP-93-31
Dear Mr. Frit7.:
We have reviewed the entire formal application for the air strip
permit and physically' walked the site. We find no reason to
reject such a request on so large a parcel of land. It appears
that all safety, noise and other considerations have been
carefully considered and satisfied beyond the requirements,
protecting residents both adjacent and in the surrounding area.
Some objections have been raised by others that the one plane
will frightell the stock on nearby farms. We don't agree, as the
numerous diesel log trucks on Rt. 810 loudly speed by horses and
cattle gra7.ing at roadside fences, and the stock are unconcerned.
We, Smallwood Farm, rotate stock (cows and valuable horses) on
and off both Ringwood Farm and Dr. Hodge's farm, which is
immeJiately adjacent to Ringwood Farm. As for any distubance
from the proposed air strip, we have no concern for our stock
whic\l will be safely fenced in the paddocks and pastures im~edi-
ately adjacent to the proposed runway.
In short, we support ap~roval of the application.
Very truly yours,
SMALLWOOD FARM
~
\ '-, \.. ~...-,
-r
P-r-7~~~~ ~
.....
PetE and Phyllis Jones
1
I)i~ A-A-L.-(.
/)..v. . ~~, . 1\ \'Y11'T3
'P~ c.l-~~~.. b.. _' ~
Ccr---:~ 1.\ ~~~ . ~
yo\ VJ..L~~ ~~ ~I, ~c.to-Q ~ ?~
C'vM VA ')-)-'7 0 ~* c... ~
~"'- ~. --r~ I
it ~~ ~C~q;;-~ ~ ~"- -&..d-
0- ~.{ ~.~ ~~S~ 6.. ~~4
U4-.. f~-1 to, ULcrw- ~~ t(' ~J ~~-
1~~ a--. k~ ~ ~ '1-, "'-- ~
~ (; .,~ ~ ~~ T~ I (f'\.-. )...;1-~\ 0
~ vJ ~~ 1/+ . .
, .' ~ ~:t:~ ~ Y\d-~cL~C~j
~ ~-WJ6-1 ~t"II~~; ~ ~
~~~~ f('\~~\U..~~~S~d
1~dWp1-t'f~~~~ f'e-
r~<Q~~~ ~ cf) oJLR.. J\~~
~ . ~ . 2L- D~
~d-o ~1~-ti::"~~
~~~~ cfI,.-r:A-.CR~~(
~~~ A- ~ c^ -t- r:JJ6. u.:-J:A.~_ ;;;S- A". ~
~1:lN~ . ~.. w~t~~
(1~-A- --,~ ~~d\
(~J'\J2';- ~ t: d- A- ide O'M .~ ~
~~ ~~ S;~.~ i>.~,^-~-A~
~a, k~~~~!!o-
~"'~ ~~.f'",~ ~~a ''\
~~
&L~~
l-h(~~#~
'0...,\,~<<\ \)_ ~<",\~
~ ~\~~~...Q..
~~ ~\~~'~,\-_Q..o~~~~ ~~~
~~ ~ ~- ~~~ '
~~~~~
~-c.\.S~~ ~~ &
RECEIVED Q ~ 3~ I \10..-
9. 9.." ~ 'd-
ut\,; 0 7 1993
O '\)-ec.~,<<\~~, ~(\C\~3
Planning apt.
~ "",<,&,'n~ l:"~(~~'\'<'''\ ~... C>,~\,=-~~ ~1/-'\3-3\ ~
~~'('~ ~~~ ~~o\ G-,,~Q... ~(\(' ~ ~~,~o...~ \.~'("\~~ ~~~,'\'
0'<"'\ ~~,~ ~~~~~-
fi::(\,",- ~~~~, ~\-.-\~ .,"!. ~~~ ~~~, \c:. ~'l\.c:~~ ~c.~oS~
~ ~oo.~ (~~.~\d) ~C>~ ~ G.~e~~ ~~~~ ~~
~~e~~dJ.., ~~~~ ~,~ ~ G-~~ ~"~~~~'\-
~ s~ ~~ (~~OCi:"\ ~~'\ ~~'"' ~~o.o",;).~ ~~ ~~~ ~'" ~\,-
~~,~ ,~~~ ~~~ ~~.Q.- ~~ ~~ \\~~ ~~~ ~~ ~\~
5...~ ~~'Q.. ~~, ~c.....~~ ~~~~ ~~ o...~ 'o..."'~\~~ ~{~ C\'(""
~"Q. ~ ~QE2.~ ~o..~~~ ~\!..~ ~o; ~~~ ~6,-<;~ a..~ ~~
~'-1~"< 1~~c,..'-1\\" 'c:o.~Q~ ~C)..c....~~-~~~~"S. ~~ ~~ ~
~-<c."<"'i2 ~~'<:~ ~, ~a~" ~~'S ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~',~~ ~ -
c..~~,~\,\ ~,s ~~~ ~D~ <;~€~ ~ ~~ 0.... ~r~~~~
~\~~o..~~ ~~ ~ Q.~)~~~ \o..~~~~~~~ - ~
'\ <::::::''-lo.~~ ~~~\,-"
- ----
.---/ .~~so.~ ~~,o.~~-~~~s
c.<. . \<-~~~~~ ~~~\ ~~
I
Emil J. Kutilek
P. O. Box 5525
Charlottesville,
Virginia, 22905
Cottonwood Farm
Rt. 2, Box 558
c:oz~t~ DeCEIVED
Vlrglnl.a !~
Utl,; 0 7 \993
December 4, 1993
Planning Oapt.
William Fritz, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Dept.
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Fritz:
After reading the Letter to the Editor of the Crozet Bulletin, written
by Dick Greene of Ringwood Farm, Rt. 810, Crozet, I had a phone conver-
sation with Mr. Greene and then personally reviewed his application to
the Planning Commission for a private air strip on his farm.
I am the owner of Cottonwood Farm on which a private air strip was ap-
proved by the Supervisors a few years ago. That application was SP-91-28.
I have looked at the application and some of the letters of objection,
which the County sent to Dick Greene. I would like to add my comments:
1) I feel that the Ringwood Farm air strip proposal is well-planned,
safe, obstruction-free, and poses no noise or nuisance to neighbors.
I consider myself qualified to make such an observation after over 35
years as an Airline Transport Rated Pilot with about 22,000 flying
hours in aircraft types from a Piper Cub to a Boeing 767.
2) The FAA has apparently seen no conflict or hazard, nor do I, in any
operations between my strip and the proposed Ringwood Farm strip.
Proper runway alignment, distance and normal traffic patterns will
maintain more than minimal separation.
3) With a turf strip, noise will be minimal on-site, and far less off-site.
If the County saw no noise or safety problem with building Albemarle
High School almost under the previously existing southerly approach to
Charlottesville Airport where commercial jet liners are at about 700'
above ground, there should be no nuisance, noise, or safety problem
with a light plane of about 2000# gross.
4) In my many years of flying, I have seen many airports with livestock
serenely grazing a hundred feet or so from the take-off point of jet
aircraft that have 4-5 times the dBa level of Dick Greene's Cessna.
I strongly endorse approval of this private-use, turf air strip application.
Very truly yours,
~~\r.
CC: Dick Greene
.~.,
J~ i.:L,6,~
I
,
SUN VALLEY FARM
Sweet Corn, Pumpkins, & Antique Equines
800 Ramapo Valley Road
Mahwah, NJ, 07430
F. L. WEHRAN, Prop.
Farm: 201-327-1148
December 12, 1993
SKIP KENT, Mgr
OffiCf1~e7EIVED
Ute 1 6 1993
Planning Dept.
Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Ringwood Farm Airstrip Application
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I'm writing to you as a "retired eagle" -- one who flew for
many years and loves aviation. I first flew in 1917 in the
Canadian Forces, then in the U. S. Fleet Marines after our in-
volvement in World War I. I retired from flying at the age of 84
as a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter pilot, and many fixed wing rat-
ings.
My daughter and son-in-law, Carol and Dick Greene, have
applied to the County for permission to use a designated piece of
land on their farm north of Crozet, VA, for a private landing
strip. There seems to be the normal hysteria of uninformed
neighbors worrying about safety, noise, nuisance and property
values. I have had a private air strip on my farm in New Jersey
for 44 years. There has never been a mis-hap, near miss, or any
other problem.
No neighbor has ever complained about, noise of light air-
craft at my strip, but there was some comment about the helicop-
ter when I first bought one, so the departure route was changed
and everyone was satisfied. without pavement or dust, there is
certainly a reduced noise and no nuisance from a light, fixed
wing, aircraft.
I owned and developed Teterboro Air Terminal (TAT) in New
Jersey from 1941 until the Port of NY-NJ bought it from me in
1949. Even in those War years of excessively heavy traffic,
inexperienced pilots, hundreds of flight movements each day, and
some pretty foul weather, there was never a serious injury or
fatality at TAT.
Property value is something about which I can offer some
very up-to-date information for you to consider. The Township of
Mahwah, NJ, was a rural farming and estate area until our Zoning
was broken by a law suit alleging economic discrimination, and we
I
are now inundated with condominium and housing projects. My and
only one other farm remain.
Because of the open space and beauty of a well-maintained
estate horse farm, land next to mine has been and is being devel-
oped for high-priced homes. We now have several homes over two
million dollars under my air strip approach and departure routes.
They desired to build there because of the stability of the view
-- at least for the rest of my lifetime. The air traffic on my
strip is low-use, and no one seems to mind; in fact most wave as
the plane passes over. Values of lots surrounding my farm and
air strip continue to climb. The facts do not show any decline,
only an increase as land overlooking or abutting estate farms
becomes more scarce.
From 44 years experience, I see no hazard to safety, com-
fort, or economic stability in allowing a private, limited-use
air strip on a farm the size and shape of Ringwood Farm.
ve. ry ~r~lY~rours, (
1'vcl 1 tL\t~v"',- ~ ~
Fred L. Wehran, Sr.
FLW/bms
....._._,'-~,-
"] I'i (ji) R !'7 "7 ...,,--;,:~'
1 ! r_,,~rt"~_ ~.l.b~,J~,,_id~_:!. [.~ f~,
", "~"""I i::
· -DA'IET
DECEMBER 21, 1993 L__~ J I
2,~):!iD OF SUPERVISORS
The Albemarle County Pla~ng Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, December 21, 1993, in Room 7 of the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Torn Jenkins; Mr. Torn Blue; Mr. Bill Nitchrnann; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were:
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the December 15,
1993 Board of Supervisors meeting.
SP-93-31 Richard & Carol Greene and Rinawood Company - Petition
to issue a special use permit for a private airstrip [10.2.2(19)]
on 134 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax
Map 40, Parcel 39 is located on the west side of Rt. 680
intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site
is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area I).
Mr. Fritz distributed materials which were received by staff
after the preparation of the staff report.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Referring to the materials distributed by Mr. Fritz, Mr. Johnson
made the following comment: "I do not feel that I can give this
appropriate attention or evaluation, that which it deserves. If
some people wrote these and they intended it be read, I did not
have an opportunity to read them. My decision will be based on
the staff report and the evidence and testimony that appears
tonight. If there are any (persons) here who wrote these
letters, and they want to present them verbally, then I will be
able to consider them. But I cannot assure them that I have time
to give them appropriate consideration based on this short
notice.
r. Nitchrnann asked how far the site was from the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport ("as the crow flies"). The
applicant reported that it was 10.5 miles. In response to Mr.
itchrnann's concerns, Mr. Fritz reported that this proposal had
een reviewed by both State and Federal regulatory agencies and
"no conflicts, physical or commercial, in terms of increased air
traffic have been identified...." Regarding future similar
requests, Mr. Fritz explained: "The only comment was that each
D'nl 1'<\ F. .T.
.; k' ;;~, ,) :; '}~, '
. , . h. \:~. fs..~....,
. ". Ioi 'Ii.. I .ll.
r
~
J
.
request must be reviewed on its own merit." He added that at
some future time a "saturation point" may be reached, but that
point has not yet been reached, nor has a saturation pOint been
identified. (Such a point would be determined at the State
level. )
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne, his attorney.
(The applicant, Mr. Richard Greene, was also present and answered
questions from time to time.) Mr. Payne's comments included the
following:
--The airstrip will be for the private use of the applicant
and his wife, by a "very light, fixed-wing, single-engine
airplane" only.
--Noise generated by the airplane is similar to an
automobile.
--Airstrips are permitted only in the RA district.
--The application was designed to address all the issues of
Section 5.1.1 of the Ordinance, which is significant because the
County's criteria are substantially more rigorous than the FAA's.
--The FAA's review took substantially less time than usual
because of the high quality of the application. The application
required no additions or corrections.
--"T-hangars" are almost impossible to obtain.
--The majority of the letters received are in support of the
application.
--The conditions of approval are acceptable to the
applicant.
--The applicant "gets" only what is described in the
application.
--The State approving agency routinely follows the FAA, thus
the applicant anticipates that the State approval will be
forthcoming.
Mr. Johnson questioned where in the application use was limited
to a "Cessna 172."
Ms. Andersen questioned where the decibel charts were referenced.
Mr. Greene was of the impression the charts were referenced
through the FAA Circular Advisory in the application. (Mr.
Keeler noted they were also referenced on page 9 which also cites
a Cessna 172.)
Ms. Huckle asked what type of communication takes place between
airstrips which are located very close together. Mr. Greene
explained that the runways are not "pointed at each other" and
the FAA had reviewed the positions of the runways and "found no
problem with them." (Mr. Payne pointed out that neither this
airstrip nor the one that is in close proximity will be available
for use during periods of low visibility. He pointed out that
the conditions of approval exclude nighttime operation.)
There was a brief discussion about the possible existence of a
cemetery near the proposed runway. Mr. Greene explained that it
~as his understanding at the time he purchased the property that
fI\"'"T, f{, f. ~T..
,J \,. ;...., ......
lo',," l:~'. .
Iii ~I:i. .....
h
!J
j
the cemetery (dating back to slave times) had been plowed under
by the former owner. No evidence of a cemetery had been found by
his surveyor. It was noted that no grading is proposed in the
area where the alleged cemetery may have been located.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following members of the public expressed opposition to the
proposed airstrip: Mr. Richard Cogan and Mr. Rick Weiss
(property owner most directly effected - home 500 feet from
proposed airstrip). Reasons for opposition were as follows:
--The airstrip will change the character of the district.
--By-right uses of adjacent properties will be adversely
effected and property will be devalued.
--Wildlife and farm animals will be effected.
--"Interference in our air space." (Cogan)
--Noise concerns.
--FAA approvals are not always reliable.
--Crosswinds in the area make flying a light aircraft
dangerous.
--Public hangar space is available at the Charlottesville-
Albemarle airport.
--The airstrip is surrounded by
in danger because of this airstrip.
result in the aircraft crashing into
--The request is purely for the
applicant.
homes which will be placed
(A loss of power could
Mr. Weiss' home.)
convenience of the
Mr. Cogan suggested that if approval is granted, a condition
should be added restricting the number of takeoffs or
landings/week to 5 (as indicated in the application).
Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
asked that the views of neighboring property owners be given
consideration. She also asked that consideration be given to the
safety factor involved in the increasing number of airplanes in
the area.
Mr. Lynn Hartmann spoke in favor of the request. He questioned
how "one small plane on private property" could possibly hurt
anyone.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Andersen asked staff to described what procedure should be
followed to get the State to identify the aircraft "saturation
point" for the area. Mr. Fritz stated it was his understanding
that no such figure is available at the moment. Mr. Cilimberg
added that, if the Commission and Board desire, staff will write
to the local authorities and the Virginia Department of Aviation
and asked if "such a thing can be reviewed."
I
~
.
[~'~ ~\ r",,("
;;: '" :,\.,i~:}t::<,~,,_ ~?r"
',., --~rl~' L <:~. l:'......~ 11
The Commission supported Ms. Andersen's suggestion. However, Mr.
Blue questioned whether it was relevant to this particular
request since the FAA, the experts in this case, have already
determined there to be no safety concerns. Mr. Blue stated he
did not feel qualified to judge air safety issues and thus must
rely on the FAA.
Mr. Blue expressed a lack of understanding about some members of
the public's perception that the airstrip would change the
character of the area. He stated: "If they just don't want it
because they just don't want it there, I'm not sure that that is
changing character--it may be a perceived change to them--but it
may not be." He agreed, that Mr. Weiss, because of his location
near the runway, had a legitimate concern.
Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Blue that the Commission was not in a
position to evaluate safety "one way or another." He asked,
however, that two additional conditions be added--one limiting
the number of takeoffs and landings and another restricting the
type of aircraft to a Cessna 172. He noted that the application
presently refers only to an aircraft "presently owned."
Mr. Grimm pointed out that it would be difficult for the Zoning
Administrator to enforce the number of takeoffs and landings.
Mr. Johnson agreed, but pointed out that it would give
neighboring property owners an "opportunity to count" and the
Zoning Administrator could then respond to a complaint.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff had any idea of the number of
favorable letters which have been received in comparison to the
number of unfavorable letters.
Mr. Fritz responded that adjacent property owners directly to the
west and east (Weiss and Curtain) have written letters of
opposition. Mr. Fritz scanned the letters quickly and reported
later: "Several stated that they were not adjacent; two stated
that they were adjacent and both of them were for the
application...." Later in the meeting, Mr. Payne presented a
map showing those properties surrounding the property which have
expressed support, either written or verbal, for the application.
Referring to the belief that the character of the area will be
change, Mr. Nitchmann stated he felt the character of the area
"is that is in the minds of those people that live in that area
and no so much those that may live 50 miles away." He felt his
perspective on the character of the area would be different than
that of Mr. Weiss.
Both Mr. Nitchmann and Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the
crosswinds in the area.
~r. Grimm asked if condition No. 1--Special use permit is issued
~o the applicant only--would allow only the applicant to land and
~akeoff at the airstrip. Mr. Fritz responded negatively. He
,
[...."'>...'
" . ~.-
',~~<;<'
.~:"J
~
~
/
''0
explained that the wording for the condition had been arrived at
because "the application states an intent, a characteristic of
usage and by limiting it to a particular applicant where there
was no substantial investment in the physical improvement on the
property, you could take what the applicant was saying and have
some comfort in the anticipate usage that would occur." He added
later that the condition would not prohibit someone other than
the applicant from landing at the airstrip.
Mr. Blue noted that if pilots were using the airstrip who might
not be familiar with the area then Mr. Weiss might have a
legitimate concern. However, the applicant is an experienced
pilot who is familiar with the wind conditions in the area, and
he will not be likely to endanger his life by flying in unsafe
conditions.
In response to Mr. Grimm's questions about his intent, Mr. Greene
explained that the application restricts usage to a fixed-wing,
single-engine, light aircraft and though he presently owns a
Cessna 172, there may be a time in the future when he will want
to own a different light aircraft. He confirmed that it was
possible that a guest might at some time land at the airstrip.
In response to Ms. Andersen's request, Mr. Greene explained his
refueling procedure. He stated there was never any intention to
refuel at the farm. He stated it would make no sense to leave
his farm and then stop at the Charlottesville-Albemarle airport
to refuel.
Mr. Grimm noted that this is a rural area and the owner of the
property could change the usage to an agricultural use (such as a
chicken farm) which neighbors might feel would change the
character of the district. He felt "changing the character of
the district" was difficult to define." He did not think flying
a small aircraft on and off of this property would change the
character of the district. He stressed that the FAA had detected
no safety hazards. He concluded that he supported staff's
analysis of the request.
Mr. Jenkins noted that he was a member of this neighborhood. He
felt that though Mr. Weiss's concerns were understandable, "it is
the applicant's land and a permitted use under the Ordinance and,
though we can't legislate it here in this deliberation, it
behooves Mr. Greene to be neighborly. ... It puts me in a
difficult position but I think I would have to vote for it."
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that
all adjacent property owners were notified.
r. Jenkins stated he had contacted the Whitehall Ruritans Club
nd offered them the opportunity to express their concerns
irectly to him. He had received no comments.
r. Nitchmann commented: "I wasn't pushing the fact that we were
;
Do
~\
lo
FT
going to change the character of the land because, as you know, I
am a proponent of well-planned economic growth which means that
we are going to have to change some of the character of the land
some place along the line, but I just wanted to make sure that we
gave this thorough discussion and based on Mr. Jenkins' comments
and based on the fact that the other landowners have not written
or verbally shown any concern about this, I guess I would vote
for it based upon what I've heard."
Ms. Andersen expressed the hope that the Commission and staff
would pursue an identification of the "saturation point" through
the proper channels.
Mr. Nitchmann recalled that he had expressed this same concern
with a recent similar application for a helipad. He felt there
had to be some saturation point because "we just can't have 50 of
them surrounding the airport. However, for the time being, he
felt the Commission must rely on the FAA determination that there
is no safety issue involved. He supported Ms. Andersen's
comments.
Ms. Huckle stated her main concern was the fact that another
airstrip exists just 2 miles away "without any control either."
She expressed a concern about lack of radio communication with
the Charlottesville tower. She also felt the character of the
district would be changed.
Mr. Johnson commented: "This is a special use permit and while I
totally support individual rights, I try to evaluate them as to
how they may effect neighbors. Having viewed the site, Mr. Weiss
has my complete sympathy. If I was sitting in his residence, I
would strenuously object, perhaps stronger than he, and right
across on the other side of the runway is Mr. Curtain, who is not
there yet but also objected. So without any restrictions as to
utilization and because of the direct influence to Mr. Weiss, as
I visualize it, I cannot support this request."
Mr. Blue was of the understanding that it was the consensus of
the Commission to make changes to the conditions of approval
which would address Mr. Johnson's concerns.
Mr. Nitchmann envisioned three additional conditions: One
limiting the size of the aircraft to that which the applicant
currently owns; second, limiting usage of the airstrip to flights
piloted by Mr. and Mrs. Greene only; and third, a limitation on
the number of takeoffs and landings.
r. St. John felt such conditions were enforceable. He explained
applicant did not have to agree to the conditions, but if he
not, he would not be able to go forward with the use.
taff offered the following changes to the suggested conditions
f approval:
--Add at the end of No.1: ...and landings and takeoffs
I
, .
~nA!1""'T'
~ ); ~}"? }~Z...:\ ~~ .:
tf..;",J/ jiI t1. & "...~ \.~
'1
shall be limited to airplanes operated by the applicant. (Mr.
Fritz confirmed that "applicant" included both Mr. and Mrs.
Greene. )
--Add No. 10: Aircraft usage is limited to a Cessna 172 or
similar single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft not to exceed 2,500
lbs. gross weight. (NOTE: A maximum weight was added because
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance defines light
aircraft as that up to "25,000 lbs." Mr. Greene noted that the
FAA's definition is 12,500 lbs.)
--Add No. 11: No more than 5 takeoffs or landings per week.
Mr. Weiss again attempted to address the Commission but was
informed that the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Johnson agreed those conditions should be added, but stated
he still would not support the request because of his perception
of the effect on Mr. Weiss.
Mr. Blue agreed that the effect on Mr. Weiss was substantial. He
added, however: "Changing the character of the district is one
thing, if it changes the character of the district and if we can
prove that or can agree to that, then perhaps we shouldn't do it.
But the objection of one property owner, valid as it may be, in
my opinion, if it is not a safety issue, is probably not
sufficient to override the private property rights of the
applicant."
Mr. Payne attempted to offer additional information but was
informed that the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-93-31
for Richard & Carol Greene and Ringwood Company be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only and
landings and takeoffs shall be limited to airplanes operated by
the applicant.
2. The airstrip shall e located not less than 500 feet
horizontally nor 1,000 feet longitudinally to any existing
dwelling on adjacent property.
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted.
4. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation
~dministration and the Virginia Department of Aviation.
5. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours
only, except in emergencies.
6. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of
~n emergency nature, shall be performed in an enclosed building.
... 'I .
~.
~;~'i~~~
s
7. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be
provided with a reasonably dust free surface.
8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be
permitted on-site in conjunction with the airstrip.
9. Fuel storage shall be limited to 10 gallons.
10. Aircraft usage is limited to a Cessna 172 or similar single-
engine, fixed-wing aircraft not to exceed 2,500 lbs. gross
weight.
11. Not more than 5 takeoffs or landings per week.
Discussion:
Ms. Andersen wondered "why we are holding FAA so holy when we
regularly don't hold VDOT quite so holy."
Mr. Grimm pointed out that ";equirements" of \bOT are followed,
though "recommendations" oflt>OT allow some leeway.
Mr. Blue was of the impression that "generally, we follow (DOT)
recommendations."
Ms. Huckle questioned whether FAA was "as reliable as people like
to think."
The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Andersen,
Blue, Grimm and Jenkins voting in favor and Commissioners Huckle,
Johnson and Nitchmann voting against.
-----------------------------------------
SP-93-32 Ray A. Graham. III - Petition to issue a special use
permit to allow a 4,000 square foot gift shop, 3,000 square foot
outdoor market, 4,000 square foot antique shop, and a 3,000
square foot animal hospital/commercial kennel served by a total
of 84 parking spaces (a maximum of five dwellings and greenhouses
and an orchard are also proposed). Property, described as Tax
Map 79, parcel 10, (part of) consists of 20 acres and is located
in the northwest corner of the Rt. 250/Rt. 22 intersection and is
bordered on the north of 1-64. The property is zoned RA, Rural
Areas and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor overlay District. This
site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Area II).
r. Fritz distributed copies of two letters received after the
reparation of the staff report.
r. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"...staff is concerned about the scale of the proposal in the
ural Areas and the inconsistency of this request with the Rural
reas. Although taken individually, the uses seem to have some
recedent for approval based on past review of like proposals,
~ ,'. ~
n,"'",',
'.:- ",'"'
'\ ,
&.~~~~-'
~.~,7
j
there is no precedent staff can find for approval of such a
cluster of uses approaching a Village/Neighborhood scale in the
Rural Areas. ...Therefore staff cannot recommend approval of
this request."
C1
J.
tJ
1
I(i _
L~n
"Le i. f~ II.(:::} (~ ~,
~,i ~<~'- c -c c e ~~ I' 2 ;-
.1
l'EE:
U~Llt .,S-S cell ~_,~t.
5,11 U -~'..
1)
1['
1 ,~
'1
I) .L
i 'ole
c; 1. () 11
C f ;~ }'J C~'
L~ 1. t L I'
c,. (::- ill
J r~
un ",j
+.
v
,i tll
l;
l 'r.
ll'
'1.1
~ \J
rtt in
eFL
Ll
.'~' ; ~
L:::'
(:::
v'.l .--
..l
i ~i 1'J[:;<
J .
+
(~
.L
iJ
.'. r' "t"
. ,\--',
c
1
:: l .L'
('\ t,rt
t c.~
-'_ L~ ~.J:_~
1-
~
t:~'
e lJ C Ii
.1-
u .
r7
,.
r':.~t' ". "":'-T'~"'~'-'-'~~""""""" .,.....-...,...... .,..~~-;. ~
... ;'t --'J !;i, ,'5'.,;!', , f:'1.
: T~;'" ,-i,:; j', i ,[
~.~ .~. ': I; r ......::}.:, ,_~:i LJ I
c; ~~:_>:'-..
"
CJ
1 t"
,,.
s
c
1.... _:i,r'CCX1.
_L'
i :.C'~_ C.r t
1.
,crlril:~
7::-
i,
_L ("I
1. y~-t
L~ '..I
c _ 1
]
i../__
.-----1 ~.UL-.
;^"
.l.,
.; -1.-.
...l. tJ
1 ."~I
...L,L.I
"
u
T
_ t LI.L'i: J
i r
.~.~ r i I,:
I,
'.)':,':' u
a ,/2. ~:e~iCL-?:';"?-J
. .ll-
K O:>",V
\~ljQ~
<'/
~/
,,-:,
.~
\
\ ;
) .
./ /
/./ ~>(') ~ //
./ .. ,~0: \6~ //
/' ,:,,(''' 0' //
/ \1.-' lrr<' //
/ 'l-~~ /
t ,"" ,/
/
.\.........
~eCa.. Ol-/2 ,q4f 5C5 3NCt
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
Meeting of 12 January 1994
Statement of
Dr. G. Carleton Ray
White Hall
Ladies and gentlemen, I regret that I am not able to present a statement in person
d e to a previous commitment in Washington, D.C. However, I am grateful that my
c lleague and wife is able to make this statement for both of us.
We are both ecologists at the Department of Environmental Sciences, University
o Virginia. We have lived in the White Hall area for more than a decade. During that
sort time, we have observed the increasing erosion of our environment due to a variety
o factors, and are concerned that the proposed action to build a private airport will
. evitably make a contribution to this decline.
We will not belabor issues already taken up by others, although we strongly
a ree that the proposed airport:
e will detract from the rural setting and tranquillity of the area;
e will contribute to noise pollution;
e may significantly affect adjacent property values and taxes;
e constitutes a potential hazard to both people and wildlife; and
e is a trivial pursuit.
On the last point, the report by Mr. Fritz to your Commission makes explicit that
's proposal should be approved only if "equivalent or better service is not available at
t Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport." Is it not perfectly apparent that the C-A Airport
w uld perfectly suit the Greene's emergency and business needs, and that their request
fo up to 5 take-offs and landings per week is principally for unnecessary convenience
a d recreational purposes?
Rather than dwell on these issues, we will emphasize the effects of aircraft on
w ldlife, which is the area of our expertise. We would like to bring to your attention that
w ldlife has decreased greatly during the past several decades in this country, mainly
d e to development of rural areas, and that this County is no exception. Some birds are
d wn more than 30% from the 19405, some of them, among our most attractive song
bi ds -- thrushes, warblers, vireos, and the like. Admittedly, some other birds, mostly
w at we ecologists call "weedy" species, may have increased, but the total biological
di ersity is unquestionably down.
We do not claim that this airport, if built, will have this great an effect, but we
assert with certainty that it will contribute to the "death of a thousand cuts" that is
ing experienced in rapidly developing rural areas, such as that around White Hall.
..
e have flown, separately or together, in small planes, jet aircraft and helicopters on
ildlife and ecological surveys in Australia, Antarctica, Alaska, Africa, North America,
a d elsewhere. We have noted the reactions of wildlife and are aware of many
r strictions placed on aircraft in the vicinity of wildlife areas. There is little question that
a rcraft create perhaps as great a disturbance to wildlife as any other human activity,
ith the exception of downright habitat destruction or gross pollution. In fact, in many
p otected areas, world-wide, strict ceilings for aircraft are established and no airports
a e permitted. Additionally, there can be considerable risk for both wildlife and pilots
ho may run the risk of collision. This can be particularly risky near waterfowl flocks,
s ch as geese. As for domestic animals, the initial disturbance effects are no less
a parent, although they may accommodate given time.
Again turning to the report of Mr. Fritz, we note that "The Comprehensive Plan
akes no specific comments regarding private airports..." We sympathize with the
Bard in attempting to make decisions regarding specific cases such as this one.
A proval contributes to what has been called the "tyranny of small decisions" none
a parently significant alone, but taken together possibly disastrous. The development
ay be subtle, but the effects are cumulative and long-lasting.
The Comprehensive Plan, if truly "comprehensive" is an attempt to avoid this
si ation. Would it not be wise, in view of the many effects of aircraft and airports on
o r environment, to take this entire issue up as a part of the Plan's revision? We request
t at a decision be delayed until such time that the issue of aircraft and landing strips
c n be treated county-wide.
If there is more information we can provide, we would be happy to do so.
Thank you for your attention.
'.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~'c- ..
~ijOI\^"~'~;'
\~-"
,-\
'1 ;\
AGENDA T TLE:
Service greement - Sheriff's Deputies for
the Town of scottsville
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 1994
INFORMATION: / -7:57
-../-J,<' //./, .1'[/
,/. . / '
ACTION: --1L-
SUBJECT
Request
County t
with She
Scottsvi
Compensa
deputies
ROPOSAL RE UEST:
rom the Town of scottsville for the
enter into a tri-party agreement
iff Hawkins and the Town of
Ie to receive funds from the State
ion Board to fund two full-time
to be supervised by Sheriff Hawkins.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGRO
During
the Tow
Town of
of the
"tri-pa
the pur
shall b
contrac
town's
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
Huff
he boundary adjustment proceedings recently completed with the Town of Scottsville,
agreed to provide full-time police protection within the corporate limits for the
cottsville. This agreement, drafted by the Town, points out that Section 15.1-131. 3
ode of Virginia provides that a governing body of a County also may enter into a
tite contract with the governing body of any town and the sheriff for such county for
ose of having the sheriff furnish law enforcement services in the town. The contract
structured as a service contract and may have such other terms and conditions as the
and parties deemed advisable." The sheriff, under such contract, also becomes the
hief of police.
DISCUSS ON:
It is t e Town's hope that entering into this agreement will secure funding for the two
deputie requested from the State Compensation Board. This funding obviously would be a
tremend us benefit to the Town of Scottsville and the arrangement has been agreed to by
Sheriff Hawkins. This agreement would spell out that Sheriff Hawkins would have two deputies
assigne full-time to law enforcement function in the Town of Scottsville, they would be
Albemar e County deputies and would function under the control of Sheriff Hawkins. No
commitm nt from the Compensation Board to provide this funding has been received at this
time.
RECOMME ATION:
Staff r commends that the agreement be amended prior to the Chairman's signing such that the
agreeme t would be very clear that the County's commitment to this agreement is contingent
upon th State and the Town covering any and all costs associated with this function. It
should e clear that if the Compensation Board does not fund these positions, the County
assumes no responsibility in providing funding for this agreement. Staff further recommends
that a separate agreement be developed between the Police Department and the Sheriff's
Departm nt as to mutual assistance, which agency would be considered primary for handling
calls f r service and criminal investigations, and how federal and state crime reporting
require ents will be met for this area so that duplication of crime statistics is not an
issue. Lastly, staff recommends that a provision be added to this agreement that would
stipula e that the Town of Scottsville would be required to pay their prorata share of the
Emergen y Operations Center Police Dispatch costs for dispatch services provided by that
entity. These costs would be assessed after a full year of data for calls for service is
establi hed.
94.001
II F'I~:
~_1'...-'1 "-------I ~
T H II
1 1 - "1 .. L.J ii' i to .-1-. F_
t.1 ~ ~ '-. ~ .
E :-. .:--1 _
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ___ day of
December, 1993, among the Town of scottsville, Virginia,
(hereinafter "Town"), the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
Sheriff's Office, (hereinafter "Sheriff's Office"), and the
Courty of Albemarle, Virginia, Board of Supervisors, (hereinafter
"Bocrd"),
~..
WIT N E SSE T H :
WHEREAS the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle,
Vir:;Jinia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to
Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of scottsville and the
County of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of
virginia, (1950), as amended, on september 27, 1993; and,
WHEREAS the Town has agreed with the Board to provide full-
tine police protection in the Town when the said Boundary
Ad ustment becomes effective on or at midnight of December 31,
19 n; and,
WHEREAS the Code of virginia (1950), as amended, provides
un1er Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 that the Town, the
Sheriff's Office, and the Board may enter into a three-party
agreement to provide police protection to the Town; and,
WHEREAS ~he Town now desires to ~nter into a reciprocal
a~reement for law-enforcement services with the Sheriff's Office
ard the Board pursuant to Section 15.1-131.3,
NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff's Office, and the Board
hereby agree as follows:
1. The Town shall have two (2) full-time deputies.
2. The said deputies shall be deputies of the Sheriff's
Office and wear Sheriff's Office uniforms.
~ 141-69.1
(:()DE OF \'[f{(;J:-.JI'\
< ]41-7:1
criminal matter In the circuit courts. Such fees and mileage allowances
accruing in connection with any such criminal matter shall be collected by the
clerk of the cIrcuit court in which the prosecution is had. Such fees as are
collected by the clerk of the circuit court shall be paid by him into the treasury
of ~he county or city for which the sheriff, on account of whose services such
fees are collected, is elected or appointed. All fees collected by or for every
sherifTand deputy shall be paid into the treasurv of the county or city for which
he is elected or appointed, on or before the tenth day of the month next
succeeding that in which the same are collecterl The treasurer of each county
and city shall credit one third of such amounts to the general fund of hi:.; county
or city and credit two-U1i~-ds thereof to the account of the Commonwealth to be
remitted to the State Treasurer along with other funds due to the Common-
wealth. (Code 1950, ~ 14-82; 1964, c. ,386; 1971. Ex, Sess, c. 155; 1975, c. 59l.1
* 14.1-69.1: Rept~aled by Acts 1983, c. 382.
* 14.1-70. Number of deputies. - Except as provided In * 15,1-48 of the
Code ~fVirginia. the respective number offull-time deputies appointed by the
sheriff of a county or city shall be fixed by the Compensation Board after
receiving such recommendation of the board of supervisors of the county or the
council of the city. as the case may be, as the board of supervisors or city
council may desire to make. Such recommendation, if any, shall be made to the
Compensation Board on or before April 1 of each year. In any county without
a police force, upon the request of the board of supervisors of such county, the
number of such law-enforcement deputies sha]] be fixed at not less than. one
such deputy for each 2.000 population in such county excluding the population
served by state educational institution police departments if the sheriff's
department does not provide the majority of the law-enforcement activities to
such population according to uniform crime reports compiled by the Depart-
ment of State Police. The CompensRtion ROClrn shall also consider any
a reement the sheriff ma have ursuant to * 15.1-131.3 and an obli ation
e rt1a ave ursuant to t IS section to rovide law enforcement for towns in
fixing tl-,e number 0 eputies. The governing body of any county or city may
emplit>' a greater number of law-enforcement deputies than fixed by the
Compensation Board, provided that the county or city shall pay the total
compensation and all employer costs for such additional deputies. (Code 1950,
~ 14-8,3; 1964, c. 386; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 155; 1973, c, 180; 1979, cc. 236, 660;
1980, c. 146; 1983, c 382; 1989, c. 293,)
Applied In Brewster \' Shockley. 5;';4 F
Supp. ,365 IWD Va 198:3i
** 14.1-71, 14.1-72: Repealed by Acts 1983, c. 382.
* 14.1-73. S<Jlaries of sheriffs. - The annual salaries of the sheriffs of the
counties and cities of the Commonwealth shall be as prescribed in the general
appropriatior, act, except as otherwise provided in * 14.1-74. (Code 1950,
~ * 14-86; 1952,c. 331; 1954,c.683; 1956,c.609; 1958,c. 349; 1960,c. 505; 1962,
cc. 292, 439, 510, 572; 1964, c. 386; 1966, cc. 364, 704; 1970, c. 678; 1971, Ex.
Sess., c. 155; 1972, c. 617; 1973, c, 519; 1974, c. 271; 1976, c. 595; 19'18, c:. 588;
1980, cc. 587, 588; 1981, c. 383; 1983, c. 600.)
Applied ;n Brewster v Shocldey. 5.54 F.
Supp :365 (WD Va. 198.3)
430
. . ..
~ 15.1-1:31.3
CODE OF VIRGINIA
* 15.1-131.3
institution lawfully may go or be sent upon the grounds or into buildings
which are specified in the request of such educational institution to maint~in
peace and order, or to assist in the maintenance of peace and order, durmg
periods of public assembly thereon or therein.
In such cases such policemen shall have the same powers to arrest as they
lawfully have within the territorial limits of the county or town in which they
are employed and shall have all of the immunities from liability and
exemptions from laws, ordinances and regulations and shall have all of the
pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation and other benefits enjoyed
by them while performing their duties within the territorial limits of the
county or town in which they are employed,
Any person arrested by a policeman performing the duties authorized by
this section for an offense committed on or in the property of a state-owned
educational institution where such policeman is performing such duties may
be tried in the court or courts of the contiguous county or town employing such
policeman. (1970, c. 524.)
* 15.1-131.3. Agreements for consolidation of police departments or
for cooperation in furnishing police services. - The governing body of
any county, city or town may, in its discretion, enter into a reciprocal
agreement with any other county, city, town, any agency of the federal
government exercising police powers, or with any combination of the
foregoing, for such periods and under such conditions as the contracting
parties deem advisable, for cooperation in the furnishing of police services.
Such governing bodies also may enter into an agreement for the cooperation
in the furnishing of police services with the Department of State Police. The
governing body of any county, city and town also may, in its discretion, enter
into a reciprocal agreement with any other county, city or town, or
combination thereof, for the consolidation of police departments or divisions or
departments thereof. Subject to the conditions of the agreement, all police-
men, officers, agents and other employees of such consolidated or cooperating
police departments shall have the same powers, rights, benefits, privileges
and immunities in every jurisdiction subscribing to such agreement, includ-
ing the authority to ma~ arrests in every such jurisdiction subscribing to the
agreement, except that no policeman or police officer of any county, city or
town of the Commonwealth shall have authority to enforce federal laws
unless specifically empowered to do so by statute, and that no federal law-
enforcement officer shall have authority to enforce the laws of the Common-
wealth unless specifically empowered to do so by statute.
The overnin bod of a count also ma enter into a tri artite contract
with the overnin bo 0 an' town, one or more, m suc coun y an e
sheriff for suc county or t e purpose 0 avmg the shentt turmsh aw-
enforcement services in the town. The contract shall be structured as a service
contract and ma have such other terms and conditions as the contracting
Rarties eem a visa e. e s en an any epu y s en servmg as a own
law-enforcement ofl1cer shall have authority to enforce such town's ordi-
nances. Likewise, subject to the conditions of the contract, the sheriff and such
deputy sheriffs while serving as a town's law-enforcement officers shall have
the same powers, rights, benefits, privileges and immunities as those of
regular town po!j.cemen, The sheriff under any such-contract shall be the
town's chief of police. (1970, c. 271; 1978, c. 9; 1984, c. 622; 1989, c. 294.)
t
The number of this section was assigned
by the Virginia Code CommissicJD, the number
in the 1970 act having been 15.1-131.2.
The 1989 amendment added the second
paragraph
108
* 15.1-131.4
* 15.1-131.4.
by federal offi.
county governed
Title 15.1 may eJ
a department or
enforcement offic
to members of tJ
county and the
county, and on tl
In the event su
* 15.1-131 shall
* 15.1-131.5. (
cities or towns
chief law-enforce
upon the chief L
chief law-enforct
adjoining countil
officers, without
deputies or office
as are conferred
(1974, c. 633; H
The number of tJ
by the Virginia Code
having assigned no
S 15.1-131.6. 1
officers; repayn
Compensation )
gated, arrested 0
arising out of an\
charges are brou'~
found not guilt)
appointed may rc
incurred by him
ment to be paid
When a govern
in such sheriffs
provided for in th
the Chairman of
governing body, t
jurisdiction two-tl
1980, c, 106; 198
* 15.1-131.6:1.
police force. - f\
not establish one;
of a police force b
the General Asse
county which waf
police force but h
operation approve
A and B below.
A. The governiJ
asking that a ref~
. .
y..,.~ ,
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 3/ 4t day of
J~nuary, 1994, by and between the Town of scottsville, Virginia,
(pereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle,
V'rginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle,
V'rginia, (hereafter "County"),
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS the circuit Court of the County of Albemarle,
V rginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to
R~locate Boundary Line Between the Town of scottsville and the
C bunty of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031. 1, Code of
V~rginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and,
WHEREAS the Town has agreed with the County to provide full-
t me police protection in the Town when the said Boundary
AI~justment becomes effective on or at midnight of December 31,
1~93; and,
WHEREAS the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides
under Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 that the Town, the Sheriff,
a ~d the County may enter into a tripartite agreement for the
p~rpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforcement services in
t~e Town; and,
WHEREAS the Town now desires to enter into such an agreement
f(~r law enforcement services with the Sheriff and the County
pl~rsuant to Section 15.1-131.3,
NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby
a<ree as follows:
1
. ..' I 'I ~.. 1
1~ The Sheriff shall provide two (2) full time deputies for the
purpose of providing law enforcement services in the Town. A
reduced number of deputies may be provided upon the consent or
request of the Town.
2 The said deputies shall be deputies of the Sheriff's Office
and wear Sheriff's Office uniforms.
3 The deputies shall be specifically assigned to the Town and
may, in the discretion of the Sheriff, assist deputies outside
the Town when called upon to do so.
4 The deputies shall be selected by the Sheriff with the full
advice and consent of the Town.
5 Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the
County. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely by the
State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by
the State including, but not limited to, vehicles, police
equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability
insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall
be paid by the Town.
6 The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff serving as a Town law
enforcement officer shall have authority to enforce the
ordinances of the Town.
7 The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff, while serving as law
enforcement officers of the Town, shall have the same powers,
rights, benefits, privileges and immunities as those of
regular Town police officers.
8 Under this Agreement, the Sheriff shall be the Chief of Police
of the Town.
2
f .. t "'P I
9. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the
parties at any time, or by any party for good cause after
providing six months written notice to the other parties of
the intent to terminate the Agreement on a date certain.
10. The Town shall pay its pro-rata share of dispatch costs of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle County Emergency Operations Center
based on the same formula used for other law enforcement
agencies that are dispatched by the Center. These costs shall
be assessed after a full year of data for calls for service is
collected.
1~. The Town and the County shall enter into a reciprocal
agreement for mutual assistance between the Sheriff and the
County's Police Department prior to any services being
provided to the Town under this Agreement. This reciprocal
agreement shall determine which agency shall have primary
responsibility for responding to calls for service, for
handling criminal investigations, and for any other matters.
In addition, the reciprocal agreement shall determine the
procedure for Federal and State crime reporting requirements
so that there will be no duplicate reporting of crime
statistics.
1 ~ . Notwithstanding paragraph 9, above, upon any final
determination by the County that the amount of State aid
received by the County for its ,Police Department pursuant to
Chapter 1, Article 10 of Title 14.1 (Sections 14.1-84 through
14.1-84.7) of the Code of Virginia, also known as "599" funds,
is diminished or reduced as a result of this Agreement, the
County may void this Agreement at any such time so as to
restore that funding for that fiscal year or any subsequent
fiscal year.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to
bE duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall
c<nstitute an original.
3
\,--
TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA
By A~'R~n~~or
Approved as to Form:
~
Town Attorney
COUNTY OF ALBEMA~ VIRGINIA
By (JJan-u 7. ~
Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Approved as to Form:
-?~~. #...- '.
~ C ty Attorney
SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By d~ w, I~V)
Terry W. Hawkins, Sheriff
R H,IIjdbm
9 .008
4
.
SERVICE AGREEMENT
.
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ___ day of
Dec~mber, 1993, among the Town of Scottsville, Virginia,
(hereinafter "Town"), the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
Sheriff's Office, (hereinafter "Sheriff's Office"), and the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, Board of supervisors, (hereinafter
"Bcard" ) ,
WIT N E SSE T H :
WHEREAS the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to
Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the
Cot:nty of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of
Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and,
WHEREAS the Town has agreed with the Board to provide full-
tirre police protection in the Town when the said Boundary
Adjustment becomes effective on or at midnight of December 31,
19S3; and,
WHEREAS the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides
uncer Sections 14.1-70 and l5.1-131.3 that the Town, the
ShEriff's Office, and the Board may enter into a three-party
agreement to provide pOlice protection to the Town; and,
WHEREAS the Town now desires to enter into a reciprocal
agreement for law-enforcement services with the Sheriff's Office
and the Board pursuant to Section 15.1-131.3,
NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff's Office, and the Board
hereby agree as follows:
1. The Town shall have two (2) full-time deputies.
2. The said deputies shall be deputies of the Sheriff's
Office and wear Sheriff's Office uniforms.
,..
~" "'.
3. The deputies shall be specifically assigned to the Town
an< may, in the discretion of the Sheriff's Office, assist
deluties outside the Town when called upon to do so.
4. The deputies shall be selected by the Sheriff's Office
wi h the full advice and consent of the Town.
J. The salaries of the deputies shall be compensated by the
Cor~onwealth of Virginia, Board of Compensation.
Any incidental
berefits such as medical coverage, FICA, retirement, uniforms and
thE like shall be paid for by the Town.
6. The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff serving as a Town
lav-enforcement officer shall have authority to enforce the
ore inances of the Town.
7. The Sheriff and his deputy sheriffs, while serving as
la~-enforcement officers of the Town, shall have the same powers,
ri~hts, benefits, privileges and immunities as those of regular
To....n police officers.
8. Under this Agreement, the Sheriff shall be the Chief of
Police of the Town.
9. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect
until such time as the Town, the Sheriff's Office and the Board
mut~ally agree in writing to rescind this Agreement.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
a..~_~ ~ (SEAL)
Raymon A._~ k, UL
Town of Scottsville, Virginia
j~ 0C ~;.. (SEAL)
Terry . Hawkins, Sheriff
County of Albemarle, Virginia
(SEAL)
David P. Bowerman, Chairman
Board of Supervisors,
County of Albemarle, Virginia
.-'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC fSbJU
January 13, 1994
E: Board Actions of January 12, 1994
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 12, 1994, the Board took the
fo lowing action:
Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign Teen Center Lease Agreement.
AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached Teen Center Lease Agreement.
Agenda Item No.9. Appropriation: Transfer to Textbook Fund - $15,000. (Form
# 30048).
APPROVED the attached Appropriation.
E C/jng
A taclunents
cc: Robert Tucker
Roxanne White
Robert Paskel
Brian Reid
.-'
ALBEMARLE COUN1Y PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
January 4, 1994
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Robert W. Paskel, Division superintendent~~~
Request for Appropriation
At its meeting on December 13, 1993 the School Board approved the
ansfer of $90,000.00 from the Summer School and Instructional Support
counts to the Textbook Fund. The additional need is the result of a
5,000.00 shortfall in anticipated appropriation fund balance in the Textbook
nd and an unexpectedly high expenditure for replacement textbooks purchased
anticipation of growth. This transfer is necessary to pay for textbooks
ready purchased, to purchase the remainder of the Math adoption, and to
tablish a textbook contingency fund in the amount of $3,000.00.
It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation
o dinance to transfer these funds as follows:
1-3310-60205-111400 Salaries-Other Management $4,200.00
1-3310-60205-112100 Salaries-Teacher $2,000.00
1-3310-60205-600100 Office Supplies $500.00
1-3310-60205-601300 Ed/Rec. Supplies - $11,600.00
1-3310-60205-601700 Copy Supplies $8,500.00
1-3310-60254-111400 Salaries-other Management $3,000.00
1-3310-60254-112100 Salaries-Teacher - $30,000.00
1-3310-60254-114100 Salaries-Teacher Aide $5,000.00
, 1-3310-60254-600100 Office Supplies $200.00
1-3310-60254-601300 Ed/Rec. Supplies $8,000.00
1-3310-60254-601700 Copy Supplies $2,000.00
2-3310-51000-512001 Transfers-Summer School - $75,000.00
1-2114-93010-930008 Transfers-Textbook Fund + $90,000.00
1-2103-93010-930007 Transfers-Summer School - $75,000.00
1-2111-61311-601300 Ed/Rec. Supplies - $15,000.00
1-3400-63070-601200 BoOks/Subscriptions + $90,000.00
2-3400-51000-512001 Transfers-Textbook Fund + $90,000.00
R P / smm
x Melvin Breeden
Ed Koonce
Ella Carey
OOYI1TY OF J\L~li.M}::"RL;
r .~.r ': '<-'j
",_ i;<",..4tJ..O..rr..,.{,"" .'~ ~
1-",1
JAN 6 19~4 }:I
i,:~ .~
~ r1tr"'()~
~
\
t*~t'(.J'n~"t C'lncjta
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
, ,
I "
L...-...-.-. -,",.- "....1
CV\RD OF SL PEftV:SC
AGENDA T
Appropri
AGENDA DATE:
January 12, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: ----1L-
INFORMATION:/-j-:,/4/
::/ ..;;:!;~..~> /
SUBJECT
Transfer
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
:
Huff, Breeden, Reid
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGRO
At its eeting on December 13, 1993, the School Board approved and requested that $90,000 in
additio al funds be transferred to the Textbook Fund due to an unexpectedly high expenditure
for rep acement textbooks purchased in anticipation of growth. Also, carryover funds from
FY 92/9 were $15,000 less than projected.
DISCUSS ON:
Funding for this request will be accomplished by reducing the budgeted transfer to the Summer
School und by $75,000 and reducing Education/Recreation supplies in the School Fund by
$15,000 Expenditures within the Summer School Fund are also being reduced to offset the
$75,000 reduction in revenues.
RECOMME ATION:
Staff r commends approval of this request as detailed on attached form #930048.
94.006
/~r ;'~ i'__
if
./
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
// ,/
,...'.-
./
/ ~)
,,J L,"
MEMORANDUM
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey 6;J~
January 7, 1994
Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
rchitectural Review Board: One vacancy. Harry Porter resigned on
14, 1993. The term for this appointment will expire
14, 1996.
hildren and Youth Commission: One vacancy. Mrs. Audrianne L.
elborn is currently serving with her term ending June 30, 1994.
s. Welborn does not desire reappointment. The term for this
ppointment will expire June 30, 1997.
Board: One magisterial vacancy (White Hall). Ms.
(White Hall) is currently serving with her term ending
ecember 31, 1993. Ms. Starke does not desire reappointment. The
term for this appointment will expire December 31, 1994.
I dustrial Develo ment Authorit : One magisterial vacancy (Rivanna
District). Mr. William J. Kehoe (Rivanna) is currently serving
ith his term ending January 19, 1994. Mr. Kehoe said he would
like to be reappointed, if no one else is interested. The term for
t is appointment will expire January 19, 1998.
Commission: Two magisterial vacancies (Charlottesville
a d Samuel Miller) and One at-large vacancy. Ms. Ellen I. Andersen
(Samuel Miller), Mr. Phil T. Grimm (Charlottesville) and Mr. Walter
F. Johnson (At-large) are currently serving with terms ending
D cember 31, 1993. The terms for these appointments will expire
D cember 31, 1997.
ional Disabilit Services Board: One vacancy. Mr. David C.
binson was serving on this Board, but has moved out of the
c untry. The term for this appointment will expire July I, 1995.
David p, Bo mlan
CharlottP: illl'
Scntls\'i e
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(04) 296-5843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S, Martin
Rivilnna
Charlotte Y umphns
JiKk .Jou.1I
Walter F. Perkins
White Hdll
Forrest R, Ma shall, .Jr
Sally H, Thomas
Sam\wJ Miller
January 20, 1994
s, Katherine L. Imhoff
oute 2, Box 439
eswick, VA 22947
ear Ms. Imhoff:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
tl e Planning Commission (At-large representative), with term to expire December 31,1995.
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.
S incerel y,
\~UcL~-1 ~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
FP/jng
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V . Wayne Cilimberg
(i)
Printed on recycled popel
David P Bo 'lTniln
Ch.:Jrlottes> ill~
51'011':'\'1:1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y umphns
,/del-: .lOllt rt
Walter F, Perkms
White Hall
Forrest R, Mil shall Jr
Sally H, Thomas
Sdtnud Miller
January 14, 1994
r. A. Bruce Dotson
2 82 Whippoorwill Road
C arlottesville, VA 22901
ear Mr. Dotson:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
t e Planning Commission (Samuel Miller District representative), with term to expire
ecember 31, 1997.
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,
lJ~rj~~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
FP/jng
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg
(i)
Printed on recycled paper
David p, So rman
Charlottes illp
Scottsvlil
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
,Jdck ,lOUt It
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Fnrrest R. Ma shall. Jr
Sally H, Thomas
Samuel Miller
January 14, 1994
s, Monica G. Vaughan
1 44 Cool Spring Road
harlottesville, V A 22901
ear Ms, Vaughan:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
t e Planning Commission (Charlottesville District representative), with term to expire
ecember 31, 1997.
On behalf of the Board, 1 would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
a preciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Wa1t~ ~ ~-L
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
FP/jng
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg
*
Printed on recycled paper
DaVId p, Bo rman
ChMlottf'svi Ie
SC()ltSVlli(,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S, Martin
R ivannd
Charlotte y, H mphns
J,xk ,lOW'!
Walter F, Perkins
While Hall
Fnrresl R. Mar hall, Jr
Sally H, Thomas
Sdmuel Miller
January 14, 1994
M . Ken Clarry
R ute 4, Box 242
C arlottesville, VA 22901
D ar Mr. Clarry:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
th Industrial Development Authority (Rivanna District representative), with term to expire
Ja uary 19, 1998.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
reciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
(~
. !Hi ') I _/ ~.. '
WQVU~A-J7r~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
W P/jng
cc The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman
Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, Circuit Court
*
Prmted on reeve/cd pappr
/-
/
,.; ,,/
",,"-r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMORANDUM
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC '!e
January 7, 1994
Reading List for January 12, 1994
March 13 (A) , 1992 - Mr. Bowerman
M rch 18(A), 1992 - All - Mr. Martin
E C:mms
,.'/-',.;/
- ,./ ..A:~'
-/
// / -1
.,;'''' r ,~ ._'
.
(~;-"\
\ \ 'j"''''
\.-~./ l.l
u
David P. Bo )rmo!1
Chi'lTlofh.>s ill.,
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. umphTls
,Jack ,Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R, Mar hall, Jr
Sco!fsvtll
Sally H, Thomas
Samuel Miller
January 20, 1994
s. Katherine L. Imhoff
R ute 2, Box 439
swick, V A 22947
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
tl e Planning Commission (At-large representative), with term to expire December 31, 1995.
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,
!'~UcL~-1 ~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg
*
Printed on recycled paper
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jou tt
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles $, Martin
R ivanna
Walter F, 'perkins
:v)>it.~ Hall
~ H, Thomas
.../ Samuel Miller
,..'"
January 14, 1994
{"-",,,,,
/"
/"~/
/
./,/
/
//
//
/'"
'"
/'
/'
/
./
",/
//
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held 9ri January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
t e Planning Commission (At-large representati,ye), with term to expire December 31, 19't"7.
s. Katherine L. Imhoff
oute 2, Box 439
eswick, VA 22947
ear Ms. Imhoff:
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,
WoJLi-.~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
FP/jng
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V . Wayne Cilimberg
*
Printed on recycled paper
~, ,~
t:-\ f,j
v/RG\"'\~
Office of Board ofCounry Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville), VA 22902-4596
(804) L96-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITfEE
(please type or print)
ission / Committee ,"?\~'C'\(,,\,t'\~ Lc.r-nm\ "&~'oY'\.
Applicant's arne ~ry.,",\,,<t", -:S:\~\\.cW \ Home Phone 9."1- , - 58 \0
Home Addre s ~ou-\<t ~, ~f'}'X.. -<\ ~" ~<l..~w\c.k. V\\"":s",; ~ .:lJ..~'<\'
Magisterial istrict in which your home residence is located ~'''''6'C'\~
Employer ~. ~..\\"'<t Phone (~\ ~ ':\-\ - -<\-"\~l
Business Ad ress ~",,""'\"',!,>\f'}\'\ CV\ ~~u\.;),~\cV"\ (~"t'~~"" ~"'~\ ~(7'lc:r\o~W\'t V'\,-\- J ~\<:::'\....W"\o\'\ct
Date ofEmp oyment .2./DlI -\0 ~G:~\\\- Occupation / Title <Z'L<tc\. ;\-. "\./0 ci~ rac\o c-
Years Resid nt in Albemarle County .1 + 'j Cl~t' S Previous Residence W ~~'r~"~) ~ ~ ~\\ ~ e,\')'t'\\""
Spouse's N --:)"h\,\ ~ . "\oore Number of Children T'\o'\,o ~
Education ( egrees and Graduation Dates) t'I\.;J~\r~ 'V'\ '"'1>\aY'\V'\''''~ ~..CW'\ U"'~
.\ ~ .., \ ~ :'-l a h_
, I . .,
r:OUNTY OF ,A,LBEMARlE
~F'1 r;:::; rr:w p n r\ II i?- f. :::1'
11 ,I v--..--_.c_-.,., ..LJ..J"" I ! j
!~ 1,
I Pi Dre 8 j(;9~ )! I!
'I t1'-n------rr-rr-r- I, i
LJ L~ I~ L~ I U L~'"J U
BOARD OF SUPFRV1SOqS
.aV'\clt
A
~\","'~\V1'\.. A~(:\~\~ .~,
" ~\ . .;),
- \.',
The informat on provided on this application will be released to the public upon request,
t::~i::~
Return to : Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
n~"",~Il'~ {r. \ ~9 '3
,
Date
I \ . '
Route 2, Box 439
Keswick, Virginia 22947
r:OUNTv OF ALElD,M\Rt E
rr:,l ;':::::1 r--:J n" Gl
1 ~ I \ ;>\....,~.;" --,-" p,L''-_,. ~ ; !'
I ! i ~'
J ;~- (\ i-'j .q ':. j
Ii \.,
_ 1; ~,
II' I "-~'''C .
U LJ l"::::1 l~~ l.~':~; U L;
BOARD OF SUPE ,NI;':\O'""?5
December 7, 1993
Members of the Board of Supervisors:
Please accept this letter, attached resume, fact sheet and
orm as my application for the Albemarle County Planning
ommission's at-large position. I am very interested in serving on
e planning commission because planning is my vocation, and
ecause of my personal commitment to Albemarle County.
My husband and I made a conscious choice to return to
lbemarle County about a year and half ago. I had lived for almost
n years (1976 to 1986) in the area; first as a student at the
iversity and then working for Albemarle County's Department of
anning and Community Development. In 1986, I married and moved
ay. However, my husband and I regretted having to leave the area
r work and visited often. In August of 1992, we sold our house in
rthern Virginia and returned to Albemarle. We are in the process
buying a house on Route 231, north of Cismont.
I have been a professional planner in Virginia for over
irteen years. Currently I am the executive director for a state
gislative study commission; the Commission on Population Growth
d Development. This commission, composed of ten legislators and
enty-three citizens appointed by the Governor, has several
ndates. One of its tasks has been to examine and make
commendations concerning a state wide planning process. I've
closed a Fact Sheet about the Commission's current activities and
uld be pleased to answer any questions 'that you might have about
s work.
In many ways, the Growth Commission functions as a "planning
mmission" to the General Assembly and executive branch. It is a
oup that examines growth and development issues and forwards
commendations to the policy making body. I have asked and there
no conflict of interest between my working as staff for the
owth Commission and serving at the local level as a planning
mmission member. In fact, working for the Growth Commission has
ven me a real opportunity to learn about planning, development,
vironmental and fiscal concerns and solutions around the
mmonwealth.
. .
~oard of Supervisors
December 7, 1993
I>age 2
If I can be of service to you and the community, I would be
lpleased to be appointed to the Albemarle Planning Commission.
Thank you for your consideration.
Si;Z; J2q?
Katherine L. Imhoff
. .
COMMISSION ON POPULATION
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
FACTSIlEET
December 1993
istory of the Commission
The Virginia General Assembly created the state Commission on Population Growth and
D velopment in 1989. The Commission has 33 members, 23 citizen members appointed by the
G vernor and ten members of the legislature. Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. serves as
C airman, and Senator Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr. as Vice Chairman.
The Commission, largely a citizen volunteer effort, is committed to an open,
c llaborative public process. Initially, the Commission held 11 public meetings around the state
to learn what citizens, local governments and interest groups considered to be the important
p blems and opportunities facing the Commonwealth. The Commission's work, particularly
th development of recommendations, has been shaped by these comments and by an ongoing
p blic dialogue.
The Commission was created to examine the state's population growth and its effect on
th economic, environmental and financial development of the Commonwealth. Virginia
e perienced unprecedented growth and change in the past two decades. In ten years, our
pulation grew by 16%, to 6.2 million, and is expected to increase another 2 million by the
y 2020.
'rection and Focus
This growth took place largely along the corridor from Northern Virginia, through
Ri hmond, to the Tidewater area. Many other Virginia communities, including central cities
an rural areas, did not experience such expansion. The Commission was charged with looking
at the challenges facing both communities that grow quickly and those that may not grow at all.
In response, the Commission developed 12 key planning goals needed to promote
ec nomic growth and natural resource protection, in the context of sound fiscal policies. (See
S te Planning Goals on page 4). The Commission believes that sound strategic planning is
es ential to accomplish these goals. As President Harry Truman once said, "You have to plan
if ou want to get anywhere. "
. .
KATHERINE L. IMHOFF, AICP
oute 2, Box 439
eswick, Virginia 22947
804/371-4949 (w)
804/977-5810 (h)
ROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
MMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
· Executive Director, Commission on Population Growth & Development (2/91 _
Present)
D rector for thirty-three member legislative study commission established by the General
A sembly to develop a statewide planning process for the Commonwealth. Manage a small
s ff, a 60 member Technical Advisory Committee and coordinate with an Advisory Council
c mposed of the Governor's cabinet. Main focus is developing strategic planning legislation for
th 1994 session as well as other legislative initiatives. Provide technical assistance with regard
to planning and growth strategies to localities and citizen groups. Publish a newsletter, produce
p blic education materials and coordinate public participation meetings. Also serve as Project
D rector for a comprehensive data project mandated by the legislature to establish a plan and
b get for a state geographic information systems (GIS) network in coordination with state
ag ncies, local governments, regional entities and the state university system.
T WN OF LEESBURG, VIRGINIA
· Director of Planning, Zoning & Development (12/88 - 2/91)
M aged staff of fourteen for rapidly growing town of 16,000. Responsible for department
bu get of over $780,000. Implemented Town Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision and Land
D elopment Regulations as well as prepared complex reports for special exceptions and
pr ffered rezonings. Completed major revisions to zoning ordinance, not previously updated
sin e 1955, and updated several major transportation studies. Held a variety of citizen and
de elopment community workshops on planning issues including environmental and preservation
iss es. Negotiated over $10 million in off-site proffers and cash contributions which resulted
in pproval of rezonings, planned developments and several mixed use centers. Developed
inn vative historic corridor overlay district and expanded Old and Historic district. Worked
clo ely with council, planning commission, board of architectural review and zoning appeals on
w ldy basis.
MONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA
· Director of Planning Services (1986 - 1989)
Pro ided for public interest, non-profit organization, planning assistance to state and local
gov rnments including: writing ordinances and comprehensive plans, preparing environmental
im ct assessments and innovative historic and natural resources preservation techniques.
M aged several small grants. Worked with environmental education groups. Obtained state
see ic designations for rivers, roads, and historic areas. Coordinated conservation easements
and formation of agricultural and forestal districts. Managed state coalition for in stream flow
legi lation and served on State Instream Flow board. Served as registered lobbyist to state
.. .. . .
, "
LBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Chief of Community Development (1984 - 1986)
anaged community development and housing divisions including seven full-time and six part-
ti e staff. Managed variety of transportation grants and staff budget, totaling over $400,000.
P ojects included: comprehensive plan, automated growth management system, capital
i provements program, and budget review for all County funding requests. Prepared and
o tained two housing grants: Community Development Block Grant award of $500,000 for low-
i orne housing rehabilitation and $1.5 million HUD award for rental rehabilitation. Managed
w de variety of transportation grants and projects including pedestrian obstacle study and
tr sportation systems management analysis. Responsible for weekly public presentations to
pI ning commission and board.
therine L. Imhoff, AICP
age 2
I gislature. Contributing author to monthly newsletter and variety of publications. Numerous
p blic presentations to citizen groups and local boards.
· Senior Planner (1983 - 1984)
P oduced statistical and community studies including: development activity reports,
d ographics, market and neighborhood analyses. Implemented rural transportation study and
I ational study for a bypass. Managed comprehensive computerized geographic information
sy tern. Budget analysis for all county funding requests. Presentations to planning commission.
· Planner (1980 - 1983)
R viewed subdivision plats and site plans for presentation at public meetings. Aided in revision
an enforcement of land-use regulations. Authored citizen guides to planning, brochures,
de elopment checklists and sidewalk and bikeway plan.
TON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, RESTON, VIRGINIA
Planning Consultant (Summer 1980)
ated open space resource plan and wrote design booklet.
.
.
0 HER:
.
.
.
M.S., Planning, University of Virginia, 1986.
B.A., Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia, 1980.
Board Member, Preservation Alliance of Virginia (1990-1993).
Rural Planning Caucus of Virginia - Past Chairman (1988-1989).
Received Virginia Wildlife Federation Award in 1989.
- ,-
,,,
.--/
DaVId P. Bo m1(H)
Charloth'S\,/l11'
S,""I!<;\ll:I'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Hl mphm
,JilCK .JOlwt
Walter F, Perkms
White Hall
Forrest R. Mar: ,,,II. ,j,
Sally H. Thomas
Sdmuel Miller
January 14, 1994
M , A. Bruce Dotson
2 82 Whippoorwill Road
C arlottesville, VA 22901
D ar Mr. Dotson:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
th Planning Commission (Samuel Miller District representative), with term to expire
D cember 31, 1997.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
reciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
LJ cJt rj ~_~
Walter F, Perkins
Chairman
W'P/jng
cc The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg
*
Printed on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
:..l. O'iAL8;;:'t;
J · ~ "7.p
o . IT-7 .." r
C) .J 1.J M
~, :~
z;'" '...,. , 1',)
vIRG1~\~
Office of Board ofCounry Supervisors
40 I McIntire Road
Charlottesville),. VA 22902-4596
(804) L96-5843
APPLICA nON TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITIEE
(please type or print)
Board / Co : ission / Committee Pl anni ng Commi ss i on
Applicant's A. Bruce Dotson
Home Addre IS 2282 Whippoorwill Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901
I
Magisterial ,strict in which your home residence is located Samue 1 Mi 11 er
Employer 'Uni ersit of Vir inia Phone 804":924-1970
,
BusinessAd ress 164 Ruqby Road, Peyton House, Charlottesville, VA 22903
DateofEmp<j)yment 1978 Occupation/Title Associate Professor
Years Resid :t in Albemarle County 15 Previous Residence Fremont, Cali forni a
Spouse'sN e Diana Number of Children 3
Education ( ~grees and Graduation Dates) BA Corne 11 Uni vers ity 1966
: PhD (Urban and Environmental Planning) Cornell University 1970
i l
~""~"""-"'~-""",,---...-,~
OF SUPERVISORS;
-l
Home Phone
804-979-7074
Church of Our Savior
Greencroft Cl ub
rIn r (See attached)
Albemarle Co., Fiscal Impact Committee
* Formerl " Chair, Albemarle Co. Land Use Regulation Streamlinin Committee
* For pas 12 years, have served as mediator to overnments, citizens and businesses in
Virgini involving land
balanced
be useful
consensus or com romise
pas iti ons.
,
The informat 0n provided on this application w'
I
12/3/93
,
I
,
Return to: : Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
: Albemarle County
: 401 McIntire Road
: Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
I
,
,
Date
Fiscal Impact Committee
As a member of the Fiscal Impact Committee - along with Board Members
rrest Marshall and Charlotte Humphris - I supported a go slow approach to
ring a contractor until the County had learned more about what we would be
b ying. I supported having several guest speakers early in the process so that the
ommittee could learn some of the limitations of fiscal impact models before
g ing ahead. Once this was done, I spoke in favor of proceeding and explained
t at such a model would have great value in the annual and capital budget
p ocess as well as in dealing with land use planning issues. As a Planning
ommission member, I would look to use this fiscal impact tool in evaluating
fferent comprehensive plan alternatives.
Land Use Regulation Stre9mlining Committee
As chair of this Committee, I sought - along with members Don Wagner,
J hn Greene, Peggy Van Yahres, and Treva Cromwell - to assess the time it takes
t obtain development approvals in Albemarle County compared to other counties.
e Committee agreed to ten recommendations for improvements, many of which
h ve been implemented in the eight years since the Committee completed its
ork. I am a firm believer in good administration - the various parties (e.g., the
d veloper, the staff, the public, local officials) having a clear understanding of
t eir respective role, having rules that are clear and can be read the same way
c nsistently, and tracking activity so that decisions stay on schedule. With good
a inistration, it takes less time and leaves more energy for the important
d cisions of the day. As a Planning Commission, I would apply this ethic and do
y part to contribute to orderly decision making.
. -
'.,
'"
INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL NEGOTIATION
Campbell Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22903
Telephone /804-924-1970
Fax /804-924-0231
r-'~
'.ro] ~.... --.,..,-
'1 (it) .
.1 n l!fJ
! lJ r:-12..1t
'J ..... T
1 ',"~ ! 1
. t;
i i
December 3, 1993
...~"._-'-~'- J ,
:) OF SU oERVISQl"lr- i
.,-'_'-->C"'"--_"._____ r;~
E la W. Carey
C erk, Board of Supervisor
bemarle County
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
ar Ms. Carey:
Enclosed is my application for the County Planning Commission. I would
li e to be considered both in the Samuel Miller District and for the At-Large seat.
P ease distribute my application accordingly.
.'j
A D/bhj
E closure
The Institute is affiliated with The Department of Urban and Environmental Planning in the School of Architecture
.J
~
,.I' ....
,j
ui,-_~U H
David P. Bow rm~Hl
Chdrl()!If'~\': lit-'
Scotlsl/lll.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 2965843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlntte y, H mrhrlS
J(H.:k ,Iou\' I
Walter F Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R, Mar. hall. ,Ir
Sally H Thomas
Samuel Miller
January 14, 1994
s, Monica G. Vaughan
1 44 Cool Spring Road
C arlottesville, V A 22901
ar Ms. Vaughan:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
th Planning Commission (Charlottesville District representative), with term to expire
D cember 31, 1997.
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,
wcU:t-~ ~ ~-L
Walter F, Perkins
Chairman
FP/jng
cc The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Cilimberg
*
Printed on recycled [JClper
."
-
County of Albemarle
of A L[]!c,
,,-1. , _ /1,
~ .' (/f,iJ" -;0
iJ -, iJll, c-
u' J'1--;. 'irJ
~~.~ ~~-)t
v1li'cn.\\1'-
(mIce of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Ch:lrl ottesvi lie). VA 22902-4596
(804) L96-5843
APPLlCA TION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE
(please type or print)
,
j
II ,.,. 1
,~OARD OF SUPERVISORS
Applicant's N
Home Address
Magisterial Di rict in which your home residence is located
E 1 eM & M/Mars
mp oy r
Business Addr ss
Board / Comm ssion / Committee ~omm~s~~?E
Monica G. Vaughan
1644 Cool Spring Road, Charlottesville,
VA
Home Phone
22901
804-973-2024
Charlottesville
800 High Street, Hackettstown, NJ
Phone
07840-9987
Date ofEmplo ent 6-14-93
Years Resident in Albemarle County 13
S 'Nan e Frank T. Vaughan, Jr.
pause s 1
Education (Deg ees and Graduation Dates)
Occupation / Title
Territory Sales Representative
Previous Residence Smi thfie ld , VA
Num ber of Children 2
BA Speech Communication, May 1980
and lor Social Groups
ffice and I or Other Activities or Interests
Homeowners Association, President Homeowners Association, Assistant
The
few
development this county experiences over the next
determine for future the character of Our community. My
interest process which assist in insuri~ those decisions made will
---P~s~t~ve ~mpac our commun~ty at present and future.
The infonnation rovided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
'1t1~ ~
Signature
I /3/ 'if
I J
Date
Return to : CI rk, Board of County Supervisors
AI emarle County
40 McIntire Road
C arlottesvillc, VA 22902-4596
~ ,-
,
'\ ~
u
DaVld P Bo mliHl
illl. ,Jr
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 9724060
Charles S, Martin
Rivilnna
Walter F, Perkins
White Hdll
S,."I!..,\'I!:I'
Sally H, Thomas
Si:lmue] Miller
January 14, 1994
M , A. Bruce Dotson
2 82 Whippoorwill Road
C arlottesville, VA 22901
D ar Mr. Dotson:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
th Planning Commission (Samuel Miller District representative), with term to expire
D cember 31, 1997.
On behalf of the Board, 1 would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
reciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
lJ cJt c-j ~_~
Walter F, Perkins
Chairman
W P/jng
cc The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
V. Wayne Ci1imberg
*
Printed on recycled poper
~ :~
~:'" f-D
VIRG1~\~
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville.... VA 22902-4596
(804) L96-5843
APPLICA nON TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMIITEE
(please type or print)
,
Board/Co 'ission/Committee Planning Commission
Applicant's A. Bruce Dotson
Home Addre s 2282 Whi ppoorwi 11 Road, Charlottesvi 11 e, VA 22901
I
Magisterial ~strict in which your home residence is located Samue 1 Mi 11 er
Employer :Universit of Vir inia Phone 804":924-1970
BusinessAd ress 164 Ruqby Road, Peyton House, Charlottesville, VA 22903
I
DateofEmp~yment 1978 Occupation/Title Associate Professor
,
YearsResid ,tinAlbemarleCounty 15 Previous Residence Fremont, California
Spouse's N e Diana Number of Children 3
Education( egreesandGraduationDates) BA Cornell University 1966
I PhD (Urban and Environmental Planning) Cornell University 1970
i< I!;)
lJ
t....~..=""-~...._..._~_'-.4
Of SUPERVISORS ~
...... I
Home Phone
804-979-7074
, Church of Our Savior
I Greencroft Cl ub
rIn r (See attached)
Member, Albemarle Co., Fiscal Impact Committee
, Chair, Albemarle Co. Land Use Regulation Streamlinin Committee
12 years, have served as mediator to overnments, citizens and businesses in
involving land use
Knowled Ie and experience local overnment lannin in Vir inia and elsewhere; balanced
perspec 'ive; goal would be a "stron er" Albemarle Count; mediation skills would be useful
in deal':n with citizens, fellow Commissioners and in develo in consensus or com romise
pos iti ons.
12/3/93
The informat on provided on this application w'
Date
Return to: : Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
'Albemarle County
: 401 McIntire Road
: Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
~
Fiscal bnpact eotnJDittee
As a 111e111ber of Ihe Fiscal ltnpact CoJl)11littee - along wilh Board Me111~rs
Forrest Marshall and Charlotte flulJlP\lris - 1 supported a go ~~ :i!:':,ta be
hi~; a ~o~:ac;::d":vi~ ~~:: ;:.~:::e;::o':f::~e process so that the
~~ttee ~~d learn so"'" of the funitations of fiscal Unpa~ 1110dels befo:"
going ahead. Once this ....as done, 1 spoke in fa'Vor of proceeding .and expl81ned
that such a 1110del would ha'Ve great 'Value in the annual and capital budg?t
process as well as in dealing with land use vlanning. issues. As.a PlanJUU.g
CoJl)11lission 111e111ber, 1 ....ould look to use this fiscal unpact toolln e'Valuatlng
different C0111prehensi'Ve plan alternati'Ves.
Land Use Regulation Sl;re8J"lil1i11ll CoJn1IIit;l.ee
As chair of this CoJl)11littee, 1 sought - along with 111eDlbers Don Wagner,
John Greene, Peggy Van yabres, and Tre'Va Cro111....ell - to assess the ti1IlC it takes
to obtain de'Velop111ent appro'Vals in Alhe111arle County C0111pared to other ",unties.
The Conunittee agreed to ten recoannendations for Unpro'Ve111ents, tnanY of which
ha'Ve been i111pleDlented in the eight years since the Conunittee co111pleted its
work. 1 alll a firm belie'Ver in good adtninistration - the 'Various parties (e.g., Ihe
de'Veloper, the staff, the puhlic, local officials) having a clear understanding of
their respecti'Ve role, ha'ling rules that are clear and can be read the sallle way
consistently, and tracking activity SO that decisions stay on schedule. With good
administration, it takes less tiIne and lea'Ves 1110re energy for the i111portant
decisiollB of Ihe day. As a Planning Conunission, 1 ....ould apply this ethic and do
111Y part to contribute to orderly decision tnaldng.
. -
,
.. ..
INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AL NEGOTIATION
Campbell Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22903
Telephone / 804-924-1970
Fax / 804-924-0231
[Ira)' '- R r.;)-fi-;-:;;;"";:,'
: n _1~ ChJ !~ II \!/ !,o
;~... f ~'''''''''"-'':;'h._:;:-:~,""_,,....:.:__.-'-.,,_,~1__..,
! :111
} i'
December 3, 1993
L:~".:~~._~__ -.J j
"j SUPERVISOR..... ~
"'.~"---",,,,,,,,,"- '- ~~
E la W. Carey
C erk, Board of Supervisor
bemarle County
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Enclosed is my application for the County Planning Commission. I would
li e to be considered both in the Samuel Miller District and for the At-Large seat.
P ease distribute my application accordingly.
D/bhj
E closure
The Institute is affiliated with The Department of Urban and Environmental Planning in the School of Architecture
[)aVld P Bowe nan
Ch<Hlolh:'S\/I11 .
Chdrlotte y, Hu nphfls
,Lxh JUlwl!
Forrest R. Mars all, JI
~( o!t.,vdh
--,
, ; 1
.' '7
/
,
l
:J
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
Walter F, Perkins
While f-1(}1I
Sally H, Thomas
Sdrnuer Miller
January 14, 1994
M . Ken Clarry
Ro te 4, Box 242
C rlottesville, V A 22901
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 12, 1994, you were appointed to
th Industrial Development Authority (Rivanna District representative), with term to expire
Ja uary 19, 1998.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
reciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
LUQDlu-rjP~~
Walter F, Perkins
Chairman
W P/jng
cc: The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman
Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, Circuit Court
*
Printed on recycled poper
~ }~
~~ FJ
vJRGl~\'?-:
Office of Board of Counry Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville", VA 22902-4596
(804) .L96-5843
APPLICA nON TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMIITEE
(please type or print)
Board / Co ission / Committee J..N()/.tS "'~/tt-L I>GVe'{_of~ At.tT}fC(l.rry
Applicant's keN (!.LA~P.Y Home Phone
Home Addre s I?r. s.-: $0" .21/'2- C/f1'i{?l..OrrG,r VItA..... l VA. 2-2-fD/
Magisterial istrict in which your home residence is located ~ I VftNNA-
Employer Y P..6/N/1f (D"'~l.4T/j(/G ~/Z.I>ttr Phone
Business Ad ress r. D' 84)< 77'i(P / /1'0 1&>1 PL./4-CL ~ L.f, I rl 1/2.1'1
Date of Empl yment g 1'11- Occupation / Title f Res / 06'AJ(
Years Reside t in Albemarle County J 7 Previous Residence C fHtl!. Lo,-r€S;VluG (5''1 (l..S)
Spouse's N S'ALLY Number of Children 3
Education (D grees and Graduation Dates) B. S. /U'C.o tA.N7II()G - tiN/ v/3.R.srry 0':: VIRGINIII
f\ r"""
..,....H;,i
'17J-392./
q73-3777
CW,H1L'1 VA.7.-UjOb
f!.IfuLGH (,IIID6N.J'J SoN~ '-*'60 /Wt$lW/L LAo~1t
MS8l. of 4>MH4/l.C1. .:.sUHE.)
sato.L.
Dt4"7",o", u.IM.
'S OC41f7~ oN
-:r. IHWG. It SIIJCE.fI!.G- Ift/Teie-6.fr IN SetLI!IN~ fh..~I1A-/l..LIf: CtT14.N7Y ~y 6~/AI"(; AAI
7Jf1 s AlA "1fO~ r . T IIfwL fl.tA.c, U/- E-~ Ptitl../ J!AI C€... '" TNI&. IS ~ /",e~s
He '''' "TltlS se/J..vlcE.
the public upon request.
/~/9/9"$
Date
Return to : Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
"
KENNETH C. CLARRY
Post Office Box 7786
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
Office (804) 973-3777
Home (804) 973-3921
ACH EVEMENTS: Area Coordinator - George Allen For Governor
*Recruited largest delegation relative to population in Virginia
*Directed volunteer staff in Charlottesville office
*Coordinated local fund raising, event planning, database utilization
WORK
.E XPERIENCE
S~ptember 1992
to present
January 1984
tc October 1993
I ecember 1982
t January 1984
I ecember 1980
to I ecember 1982
Founded Virginia Consulting Group, Inc.
*Assist entrepreneurs in the creation, purchase, and sale of businesses
*Work with managers to identify, evaluate, and remedy problems
Founded The New Deli restaurant and Regency Catering
*Designed and implemented marketing, customer service, and quality control programs
*Developed training and policy manuals
*Hired, trained, and supervised staff of 25
*Negotiated hundreds of contracts each year
*Built catering client list exceeding 900 customers
*Sold as ongoing business
Founded The Pet Shoppe, Inc.
*Developed and implemented operating systems
*Managed profitable retail pet supply store
*Sold as ongoing business
Built Sandalwood Aviary
*Designed 1,200 square foot facility
*Built, wired, plumbed building
*Bred cockatiels and sold to retail pet trade
Co-Founded Community Planning Coalition
*Recruited 250 businesses and individuals
* Acted as media liaison
*Made presentations to neighborhood associations, businesses and political leaders
*Successfully lobbied for changes to the state highway plan for Rt. 29 north of Charlottesville
Virginia Consulting Group, Inc.
The New Deli restaurant and Regency Catering
University of Virginia, Accountant
*Developed procedure manual for payroll distribution throughout the University
Plumbing Contractor
Stock and option trader - successfully made over 100 separate trades
Renovated farm house and managed working farm
~
?
KENNETH C. CLARRY
August 1979
to December 1980
June 1976
o August 1979
r ovember 1974
to June 1976
~ eptember 1973
to ~ eptember 1974
September 1971
to September 1973
COMPUTER
C U>> ABILITIFS
CER1IFICATIONS *
*
*
Purchased, renovated, and sold 250 acre farm estate containing three homes
*Repaired or replaced plumbing and wiring
*Painted homes and repaired fencing and barns
The Pet Shoppe, Inc.
Sandalwood Aviary
A & P Tea Company
*Checker
*Manager Trainee
*Merchandiser
*Traveled extensively throughout Eastern United States as part of a national team to
implement computerized General Ledger and Accounts Payable systems
Robert M. Musselman, C.P.A. - Staff Accountant
*Worked part-time while attending the University of Virginia
University of Virginia Food Service - Student Manager, Catering Division
*Developed first draft of training and policy manuals
*Supervised 20 part-time employees
Q&A
*Programmed political database
Lotus Symphony
*Programmed accounting, payroll, inventory, purchasing, and custom database applications
Aldus Pagemaker
*Published menus, brochures, advertisements, custom business forms
ROSCOE, SAS, WORDSTAR, FAS, DOS
*Completed courses at the University of Virginia
Virginia Class A Plumbing Contractor
Private and Instrument Rated Pilot
Virginia Real Estate Salesperson - Inactive
~DUCATION University of Virginia, B. S. Accounting, 1975
Albemarle County Police Department, Tactical Crime Analysis, 1989
ACTIVITIFS *
AND *
AIWILIATIONS *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Vice-Chairman - North Charlottesville Business Council
Business Development & Retention Comm. - Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce
Charlottesville Rotary Club
Guest Lecturer - Piedmont Virginia Community College, "Starting Your Own Business"
National Federation of Independent Business
American Management Association
Past Vice-President - Community Planning Coalition
Institute of Management Consultants
International Business Brokers Association
The Institute of Business Appraisers
Charlottesville-Albemarle Board of Realtors
Albemarle County Republican Committee
Deacon - First Presbyterian Church
Widow's Sons' #60 Masonic Lodge
Piedmont Shrine Club
School Improvement Planning Team - Stony Point Elementary School
University of Virginia Alumni Association
Virginia Student Aid Foundation
Virginia Cattleman's Association
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association
Charlottesville Elk's Lodge No. 389 2
I
Kenneth C. Clarry
P.o. BOX 7786
CHARL01TESVILLE, VA 22906
o (804) 973-3m
H (804) 973-3921
December 8, 1993
Mr. Charles S. Martin
Supervisor, Rivanna District
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Charles,
I am very interested in serving on the Albemarle
County Industrial Development Authority. Enclosed is my
application, resume, and a brochure from my company. I
would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter
with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
K~
Ken Clarry
tl~1.:l
~/' Z " z
~ .. z
~ ~ s ~
~ 0 0..
:s rJ'.J ~
~ ~ ~ ~ z
~ ~ U e
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
&~~
I:::
.9
....
Cl:l r---
S .... ~~
I-< U
..s Cl:l
.... I-l~
I::: I::: ~ I
- 0
- U -~
Cl:l Ur---
I::: II) 0'\
0 rn =
.- Cl:l .-..
.... ~
.- II) "l:t
'0 -
~ 0.. =
QO
'-"
I-<
0
~
......
=
Q)
e
......
CI.l
Q)
~
"C =
~ ~ ~
CO =
~~
~
CO
rJ'J.
~
I
'"d
.....
1-1
~
on
C
.....
on
C
Cl3
..s:::
U
..Q
'"d
.....
0..
Cl3
~
~
C
-
..s:::
en
.-
.....1-1
en ~
~ 0
on .....
c~
0.....
1-1;':::::
c/5~
~ en
~B
.-
>,.....
.....~
Co..
Os
o
U
.
u
Z
..
~...
;;;J
o
~
~
~
z
~
~
;;;J
en
Z
o
u
-<
Z
~
~
e=
;;>
~ 8
~]
ca.....~
o Cl3 on
r~..s::: C
v~ 0
1-1 ~ 8
~~<
01/}
~
Fl<
>-
.....1-
.....z
~w
-0
0-
en
CW
Q)a:
~o..
=
Q
. ....
.....
~
.....
,-
::s
~
=
Q
U
-
~
......
.....
.,...
=
)0004
<U
<U
.1-1
~
~ ~
~ N
N --<:>N
o-OlQ)~O
~C( c=,......c
~~'6~xo
,o-3Q)~-=
~~COUQ)>
o-:sl:c.QUQ)
~asoo..'-=
:sl:""'Uu;:t:;;
asQ)~o.O(f)
""'EOQ)t;~
0'0..00
I 00..-;::
-<:> 0
- .c
- U
~
=
10-4
c:
::s
Q
~
OJ)
=
......
.....
-
::s
~
=
Q
U
~
......
=
......
OJ)
I-l
......
;;;>
....
I-<
o \0
0.. 0
.~ ~
~\ON
II) 00 Cl:l
........ l'-- -1"""'1
I-< r--- I:::
Cl:l ._
~><Ol)
1:<01-<
]~>
'":l II) ~
<}. .~ ~
~~~
:-;:::o~
>....11)
rnrn....
11)0....
::::0...9
o I-<
_ Cl:l
I-< ..c:
~ U
U
r---
r---
r---
M
I
M
r---
0\
"........
-.:t
o
00
'--'