HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-09
1P,1 If A ,~
nlfCw:r;' '.1.
, ".,: 'P.II.
Room .,
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
CaB \tQ~. I
Pledpi'" A,"~," "
..,,,. m .~~~. ," (' ,"
other.... Not I f r~ 4 o. ,~ A8enda fDa the PUBLIC.
Consent, Aifmda (~"Xi.~t). ,
SP-92-"T,~li81~r~.'~.~~-t.p~'i-BpT-w~-arr-tewfter~T
"""~;~L4 fin ,,".~h'r'aft-~~~:""'Hr-ef-~l'l'rex-9aee-.eats
e~~6a~11les-~-~l!7ff8fertr~'1l3W -l!I~.-ef-MHten-Rd-tRt--i29~
al.re.,-8~7~lh'~~-~lljJ;. -&-~-Rd7tRt--i29fRt--ia2'~ T--Seet-tl!-
~~h--t~m-tiet'~Ilft-lie-~-a-41,.igftaMa-p;rewt-ft -areaT~
, 'MPUpnt, ~t, i.nfi~~te deferJ'lll. ) ,
SP-9'2-6i. '..:rlot~'L C'll ,', ,~~rt (appijcant) ,H~nry Chiles &: Virginia
ChP~,:,:iai.tJJ. (p~~), J Pu.bUc, JIeeriIIg,Wl a request to replace existing
comm..u~Uon ~ o. ~.~OiacB zon~ RA" Property located on
C.tle a~ MofD.~. ;,T1I97 ~P16. SlPIluel Miller Dist. (Property
does not lie witIJW. . de~Wd grQ~ area..)
SP-91-$l. , \First QQlf1,.l.e+f LM1d Tryst. ~ ,BfIIIPing on request to
~~*ll~ O\Rct..~P.". . stqrage ()f autos on 7.08 ac zoned HC &:
EC.Pl'q~y on; ~l,itl. of Seminole Traile (Rt 29) approx 0.2 mi S of
~r. (ofRt 29ieA ,CaIn"SbFOok ,Dr. TM4fi, Pla111, ll1A&111B. Charlottes-
ville QMt. .' (Prepem lies within designated growth area.)
C~>>~mP.,e "P'Vice8 A~t for Atr-RisltChildren and Families.
Resolution Supporting increase in Stipend for School Board Chairperson.
Approval of Minutes: January 22, 1992.
Other MatterS Not LiSted' on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Executive Session: Persc,nnel. rI.e.,u Matte~ and Sale I Acquisition of
Property.
Adjourn to December" 11, l~2il~:po NQOn,Mclntire RCXHD at the Library.
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
"-
CONSENT
AGENDA
FOR INFORMATION:
5.1 Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for November 17 and November 24,
1992.
5.2 Copy of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors Minutes for
October 26, 1992.
5.3 Monthly Bond and Program Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for October,
1992.
5.4 Copy of letter dated November 23, 1992, from the Honorable George Allen,
Member of Congress, to James Ridenour, Director, National Park Service,
expressing opposition to closing of portions of Shenandoah National Park
beginning December 1.
5.5 Memorandum dated November 25, 1992, from Department of Taxation,
Railroad & Pipeline Appraisal Section, Office of Taxpayer Services, re:
CSX Transportation, Inc., and Richmond Fredericksburg &: Potomac Railway
Co., v. William H. Forst, Tax Commissioner, Virginia Department of
Taxation, His Successors in Office, contesting the "1992 Statement of
Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate
Pipeline Transmission Companies".
5.6 Background Information on Route 678 Improvements, received December 3,
1992, from County Executive's Office.
5 . 7 October, 1992 Financial Management Report.
5.8 Letter dated December 4, 1992, from Leo J. Bevon, Director, Department
of Rail and Public Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, re: Public
Transportation Funding for Fiscal Year 1994.
5.9 Letter dated November 25, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner,
Virginia Department of Transportation, re: replacement of substandard
bridge at Millington on Route 671.
FOR APPROVAL:
5.10 Resolution requesting acceptance of roads in the Highlands at Mechums
River 1A into the State Secondary System of Highways.
5.11 Request for amended resolution requesting acceptance of roads in
Willoughby Section IV into the State Secondary System of Highways. The
revision inserts language already agreed to by the Board concerning
sidewalks in Willoughby.
5.12 Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board from the Director
of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Clerk of the Circuit Court
and Regional Jail, for the month of November, 1992.
~
Edward H, Bin, Jr.
Samuel Mil er
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R, Marshall, Jr
Scottsville
David p, Bo erman
Charlottesv He
Charles S Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director/Planning & Community
Development
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC ittl
"
DATE: December 10, 1992
S Board Actions of December 9, 1992 (Night Meeting)
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its
meting on December 9, 1992 (night meeting):
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
f om the PUBLIC.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5.10. Resolution requesting acceptence of
r ads in the Highlands at Mechums River 1A into the State
S condary System of Highways.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Agend Item No. 5.11. Request for amended resolution
r questing acceptance of roads in Willoughby Section IV into the
S ate Secondary System of Highways. The revision inserts
1 nguage already agreed to by the Board concerning sidewalks in
W'lloughby.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
*
Printed on recycled paper
t
!
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
December 10, 1992
"\
,(..
Dc te :
Pcge:
Agenda Item No.6. SP-92-63. 1781 Productions, Ltd.
(cpplicant) Dr. William Orr (owner). Public Hearing on request
f<r an outdoor theater of approx 2000 seats on 63.045 acs zoned
RJ. Property on W side of Milton Rd (Rt 729) approx 0.4 mi S of
N Milton Rd & Milton Rd (Rt 729/Rt 732). Scottsville Dist.
DEFERRED SP-92-63 until February 17, 1993.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-92-6l. Charlottesville Cellular Part
(cpplicant) Henry Chiles & Virginia Chiles Kaith (owner). Public
Hcearing on a request to replace existing communication tower on
2(9.90 acs zoned RA. Property located on Castle Rock Mountain.
Tr97,Pl6. Samuel Miller Dist.
APPROVED SP-92-61 subject to the following conditions
rEcommended by the Planning Commission, with an amendment to
c<ndition #5:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet;
2. The existing tower shall be removed;
3. Staff approval of additional antennae installations.
No administrative approval shall constitute or imply
support for or approval of, the location of additional
tower antennea, etc., even if they may be part of the
same network of system as any antennae administratively
approved under this section;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
5. There shall be no lighting of the tower; and,
6. Administrative approval of sketch plan in general
accord with plan dated August 20, 1992 by Balzer and
Associates in Attachment B (copy attached) of this
report and administrative approval of erosion control
plan, if applicable.
Agenda Item No.8. SP-91-57. First Gold Leaf Land Trust.
Pl~lic hearing on request to establish outdoor display & storage
of autos on 7.08 ac zoned HC & EC. Property on E side of
Seminole Traile (Rt 29) approx 0.2 mi S of inters ofRt 29 &
Ccrrsbrook Dr. TM45,P'slll,lllA&lllB. Charlottesville Dist.
(Iroperty lies within designated growth area.)
DENIED.
1
To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
December 10, 1992
3
D~te:
Page:
Agenda Item No.9. Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk
C~ildren and Families.
APPROVED staff's recommendations which are set out in full
b~low:
Certified that Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville will cooperate as a multi-jurisdictional
district.
Certified the City of Charlottesville's Director of Finance
as fiscal agent.
Certified Charlottesville's City Attorney as legal counsel.
Appointed Karen Morris, Director, Dept. of Social Services;
James R. Peterson, Executive Director, Community Services
Board; Martha D. Carroll, Director, Juvenile Court Services
Unit; Thomas F. Nash, Director of Instructional Services,
Local School Division; and Susan L. McLeod, Director,
Department of Health as the Community Policy and Management
Team (CPMT).
Appointed Janet Royal, Albemarle County parent and
Chatherine J. Bodkin, Executive Director, Family Services,
Inc., Co-Chair, Interagency Council, Charlottesville-
Albemarle Children and Youth Commission as required by the
Act that a parent and representative of private agency
service providers be appointed.
Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution Supporting Increase in
S ipend for School Board Chairperson.
ADOPTED the attached Resolution which has been forwarded to
E~ucation.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
f om the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker announced that Bob Mckinley has been hired as
recycling coordinator. This is a temporary position of
approximately one year.
CONSENSUS of the Board that Mr. Tucker serve on VACo's
Public Safety Steering committee for Region IV.
Mr. Tucker announced that Skyline Drive will remain open.
Mr. Bain reappointed W. Ivar Mawyer to the Equalization
Board for calendar year 1993.
I
.
To:
Robe~t W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
December 10, 1992
4
D~te:
P~ge:
Mr. Bain asked Board members to participate in a tour of
Waynesboro's bailing and solid waste operation to be set for
January.
Mr. Perkins announced that Westvaco is putting a $75 million
facility in Covington to handle recycled fiber that will go
into the paper making process.
CONSENSUS of the Board to wait and see what happens with the
Millington Bridge project (Item 5.9 on the Consent Agenda).
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel, Legal
M~tters and Sale/Acquisition of Property.
Mr. Bain made motion to go into executive session 2.1-
3~4.A.1, 2.1-344.A.3 and 2.1-344.A.7. Mrs. Humphris seconded.
CERTIFIED Executive Session. Mr. Bain made motion, Mrs.
H~phris seconded.
L ~ / j nh
A tachments (4)
c~: Robert B. Brandenburger
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Bruce Woodzell
Amelia McCulley
George R. St. John
File
I
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
V rginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virgin-
i Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept
i to the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and
a proval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in
H ghlands at Mechums River 1A:
Highlands Drive:
Beginning at Station 9+96.90, a point common with the
centerline of U. S. Route 240 and the centerline of High-
lands Drive, thence extending 2105.1 feet to Station 31+02,
the centerline of the Highlands Drive cul-de-sac included in
this dedication. Stations are as shown on the as-built road
plans for section lA dated November 3, 1989, and last
revised July 28, 1992.
Grassy Knoll Road
Beginning at Station 10+00 of Grassy Knoll Road, a point
common with the centerline of Highlands Drive at Station
26+78.89, thence extending 250 feet to Station 12+50, the
centerline of the Grassy Knoll Road cul-de-sac included in
this dedication. Stations cited are as represented on the
as-built road plans for section 1A dated November 3, 1989,
and last revised July 28, 1992.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
p rtation be and is hereby guaranteed a 75 foot unobstructed right-
o -way for Highlands Drive from station 9+96.90 to station 13+85.39,
a d 50 feet for all other road sections, and drainage easements along
t ese requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the
C erk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1176,
P ges 0344 to 0357.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the
Bard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on December 9, 1992.
~~~
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
a
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
unty, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-
9, the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
quested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
bject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
partment, the following roads in Willoughby Section IV:
Beginning at Station 0+20, a point common with the
centerline of Harris Road and the end of previous
dedication, thence in a southerly direction 222.09 feet to
station 2+42.09, the end of this dedication.
Beginning at Station 0+17, a point common with the
centerline of Fielding Drive and the edge of pavement of
Harris Road, thence in an easterly direction 676.64 feet to
station 6+93.64, the end of the cul-de=sac.
Beginning at Station 0+13, a point common with the
centerline of Chandler Court and the edge of pavement of
Fielding Drive, thence in a northerly direction 380.02 feet
to station 3+93.02, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Beginning at Station 0+13, a point common with the
centerline of Towler Court and the edge of pavement of
Fielding Drive, thence in a northerly direction 192 feet to
station 2+05, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
ansportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
ght-of-way for Harris Road; Fielding Drive, Chandler Court and
wler Court have variable rights-of-way of 50 feet and 45 feet,
d drainage easements along these requested additions are
corded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the circuit Court
Albemarle County in Deed Book 858, pages 704 to 707 and Deed
ok 1145, page 499.
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle hereby
arantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
at the sidewalks within the right-of-way of the above named
reets will be maintained to the satisfaction of VDOT at no cost
VDOT.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
iting is a true, correct copy of an amended resolution adopted
b the board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on December 9, 1992.
~~nty Supervisors
~ W'...-'
....
~"'TACHMENT B I
I Page 1\
S MMARY OF INFORMATION
August 31, 1992
-92- CHARLOTTESVILLE CELLULAR PARTNERSHIP APPLICANT AND HENRY
ILDS OWNER
Rfouest:
Cellular Telephone Reception and Transmission Tower
(10.2.2.6)
A
209.9 Acres
z
RA
operty, described as Tax Map 97, parcel 16, is located off of st.
. 695, approximately 3 miles south of Batesville. Plat showing
act location of tower and tax map parcel with relative location
structure site is filed with the application.
of the Area:
site will be accessed by and existing right of way over
operty from State Route 695. There are no dwelling units in
ose proximity of the site. The area is wooded with an existing
o foot tower.
licant's Pro osal:
plicant is petitioning the Planning Commission and Board of
pervisors for approval to replace an existing 150 foot tower and
nstruct a new tower approximately 150 feet high for transmission
d reception of cellular and micro-wave radio signals. The tower
uld be located at an elevation of 2,374 feet, North Latitude:
57' 02", West Longitude: 78 43' 47". Tower construction
uld involve: Minimal work on an existing right of way across the
operty to the tower location; installation of a concrete
undation; and construction of trespass fencing around the site
the tower and building. A sketch of the design of the tower
11 be provided. A transmitter building (approximately 12 feet
20 feet) will be located on the site. The tower will be
pported by guy wires. A copy of a site plan showing the location
the transmitter building will be provided. FCC authorization
s been obtained.
of Relevant Factors:
1 The tower will not be of substantial detriment to adloining
properties (property value; proximity to dwellings): There
are no dwellings located in the vicinity, therefore, proximity
to dwellings is not a factor. The property in question would
not be appropriate for future commercial development and has
no on site water or sewer for substantial development.
.\TTACHMENT il
I Page 21
2. The tower would not chanqe the character of the district The
tower will be a 150 guy tower. A catalogue cut sheet and
engineering drawing depicting the tower will be submitted.
The tower will be very similar in structure to the existing
tower on site but more stable. A preliminary design drawing
will be submitted.
The tower would not change the character of the district since
there is already an existing tower. The tower will be
designed to accommodate other users.
The tower will be galvanized steel and will be in accordance
wi th the current Federal Communications Commission and Federal
Aviation Administration requirements. The tower will not be
lighted. FAA will not require this tower to be lighted.
3. The tower would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the Zoninq Ordinance includinq provisions of 5.0 supplementary
requlations: As stated previously, the tower will not be
located in proximity to existing residence.
The tower will not be located closer to any property line than
the height of the tower and will be designed to meet the
requirements of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The tower will not endanger the health and safety of workers
and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove
detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of
same for the reasons previously stated.
4. The tower would be consistent with the public health. safety
and welfare (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation; signal
interference, safety of tower): Several aspects of this
petition are addressed under this criteria:
a) Access: Access will be over the existing right of way.
Access is not particularly important except during the
initial construction of the tower in order to transport
the tower, crane and construction equipment.
Once the tower is constructed, access will be required
on an infrequent basis. This is an unmanned facility and
the only time access will be required is for periodic
maintenance on a sporadic basis. There is no legal
requirement that the facility be inspected on any regular
basis. It is expected, based on experience with other
facilities, that access will be required, on the average,
once every month.
There will be no mixing of residential and commercial
uses since most of the traffic would be for servicing
other facilities as already referred.
...~
: ATTACHMENT B I
Ipage 31
b)
Safety of the tower. The tower will be engineered and
constructed to appropriate wind and ice loads and the
engineering information from the tower construction
company will be submitted. Tower collapse is a very
infrequent occurrence. The applicant has provided fall
space around the tower equal to the heights of the tower
so that if a collapse occurs, it would not affect
adjoining property. Copies of the plans and calculations
will be submitted to the Building Official as part of the
building permit process~and all legal requirements will
be satisfied.
c) Siqnal Interference. The proposed tower will not
interfere with any existing broadcasts.
d)
Electrical
commercial
generator.
tower that
Power. The proposed tower will operate on
AC power and backup power from a propane
There is a power pole in the vicinity of the
would be accessed for power.
Benefits to the Public: The applicant desires to construct
the tower to better serve the public with two way radio and
cellular telephone transmission and reception.
ellular.sum
~;:J
r:;
[J
Co
'c.
'"
g
:.
~I
!;l
~
"
&::
8
~
~
'"
n
t;'
,~
"'
(0
o
F
<J
"
,co
'0
~
"
'v
,"
L"
0>
o
o
~
"M
1;;"
MX
~~~~
l;lC)t"<f"I
:z:Ct'l;l;l
fi~l"lx
~Ng~
:a~~;:
. <of
N~" r'I
::::<~
\ltN~~
HC
XH
HO
~~
of
:::1 ..~Cd
;; -~~~
" .,......---.
!, ~:c---'
,~ ~::N
! ~ Si1!~L ~
.~ 81/;0
ri,'ct!
,0
0'
. >
> i.
~~ r-
~~~~~
rn~Z{jl()
2 ~~ ~
~ ., ~
~ SIJ I
! r- I
~ ~ I I f
~:I' I
Sg / ..J1
g ~ I ,/1 -~ " ~ I
--l. ~~ I Ii-
I," 1"'0 ,,'0' i~ ~~~~~
~~ ~ G~
~~.
'J~
/
J
W'
_,-I
rl'lm
i
Jrll
"Jj
.f>
:1:
€
~
<.
V'
"
t-
o
-~
::z::
n,
~
~
"<:
g
~
n,
'"
"
~ 3
:e ::;
~ ~
6~"'~
::;Io~f1I
< H
. ~
of
o ~
g ~
r' ,',
,;r---
7. T--
~
'. ~ ~? -
~ ~
~ ~ '-0 ,. ~~ ~
~ ~~~~~o "
;~:;~~l ~
v:' fT.!:, IJm
~~~~'-~ ~
~ ~891 ~
\) ~") r"
~_.~ j; ~
, ::
~
l_
l~~~--/-.-'- -
/,(- ;:
,V~i/-:.----- -!
I>'>
""
nQ
$~
}to,
g~
~1 <
/
/
~
o
>.
<-<
a!:. ..
~~
~-
.)
s.
~
.~, - - .
n
~~
1
~
o
u;
~~
~,
i
~
~
"-:.<.
:J-,
;: ~
~...J'
Ji
~ 'G
iO
&
g ~ ~
)>~ 3:
rr., fJl
OI}:lV'
~~ 'i
,,'
"n
(.~
2.",1
~.;;
,l.rn
")
11Q
[~
~~~
,~l:~
.'...{
-11'
8 'Q
U,r
~~
b
r
~
~
~ ~, I~
C~S
~~zs5a~a~f
~~~~EE6~~~
MOOM>-I:Z::IoJOI\I;l~
:~~:~;oEEf
~B~~~:~~~
~6: ;:;:~~ f.
l/l"<;l .....t'1C-l/l
~~ ~ij~~
r.
~M
a~
~~gr.:~
~3~a~
~~~~~
~MgNt'S
~g~66
V'?:...~~
~ ~ ,"-I' ~
. -"
0<........0
~~~~
;J'" "<;It/>
; ~~
..... ,"L. t~
~ ~~
" E~
~ XI:';;
E ~~
:s :va
-~
l/l ;g~
:z:: 8~
n :if.:
~~
. ~
H>
~?
~ ~
o~
,~)~
:'
.
i ~
.J
--'
"',
.~
00
~~
~Q
I~
I)r\
CI
',.
.~
"""" /:,~,
""'","'., , f~~;'
'" ;tf.>~
~~+~
""~(Io'~ .~~"
<:O;~~~'"
'''-
"
~
'7=- Z ..==-
!(}l f
1-
:-<
~ 1m
I,
~ ~
n
J:
3:
m
Z
-I
~
.
.-
fl~G<36KSD
IDI(\G, ~3:~D
,HORI2,_ ::"KSI
t::J0
;uc
J>:-:'
SQ
ZI'l
Cl-l
;'T'l
Z
Cl--.
-0
:=~
w^'
to
to
]>
Vl
I'l
""
-,
I
,-
~
(
~B
:>z
-n
;"'1;0
~f'Tl
7\-1
I'l
Z
ClCl
'c
:::-=
w!-
]> ()
:J:
Cl
;U
.-----,.. ---r--
~~ d ~ ~i
f,! -<..~ ~ ,-1
i ~Nr'l1 ,I , ...,
i~~ ~~~~di I~~
:El :;~~ ~ 3 ~~
I~ ~?i'Z t:::1 ~~
I ~~~~ ~,!:)~ t>,.
! ti J> .'1 ~~!>J c:s t'
I Vl' C"'J
"':J: " C)
~I'l ~ I~ ~
....- ~~ i~ If. ~~ ~~
I Iill? ,17: I .~~ 1"<2;;
i f\l 1--1 I::l N
l-i'f! I V5
, :\0 I . i :
c_ ~ ,-,- J- L_
,'\
7 114' X 3/8' BENT PLATE
ANGLE 2 X 112 X 3/16
ANGLE 2 X 112 X 1/8
w
q
j
_l
f/
:J.
~
""-1> .. o.
~~u~ I
OOI'l3:Vl
. Z Cl
3:ZC-I
J>J>ZCl
x~-l<
~1>_f'Tl
C-I"';u
3:~v:J:
-":J:;5J>
I"1I"1Vl~
~^,f1~
rr'1<t::l
zO:r~
I'lS-.,::!
^,'-Cl
VlI"1CZ
Nt::l~~
1"11"1
~rton
I"1CJ>
UI~
....
rl
2:1
";"1)
"1"1
]>1"1
rt::l
r!:
z
-11"1
:J:~
:u
I"1Vl
1"1:J:
J>
-Ir
Clr
<lXl
QI"1
~~
nC
1'lJ>
!"~
-<
t::l
:. i
<Vl"O (X) -,." -
Vi ~z~ U1 UI I
-I ::--.... !
~ _I'l_ Q) CO !
Cltl)-l
to ZVl-<
C !"
-l
I'l
t::J
l" !JI z
~ !'" !'> ,..0
~SS;~~ 6-<:1>><:>:'" "'''',. Zt:lJ> ... ,.,
lif' 1Tl", ITl 5: n
Ottf~>>-o ...:>:r ITlMr -M'" 1"1
~:i~~P\ ;:j'::2:1><< lTl:l>r n<r "'r :I> V) X> '" Z
~~~::)r1~ ~Fn gFJg tiC; M ...
. ru....::S; ~H < ?Z ffi -l
,.,,,x Z 0 "'Z C
:I>>M ~~>I""IO", nnz C\!ij~ 1Tl-< V) ~ ~ ~ ~ '" :u
x",<> _ C~-I~ ooz ,.,1Tl c;~ a fi !i! ~ -<
-c"'o zz'" ~:tR r70
~-t~~~~ V)"1n ",';; z,., i' (:I so ... ::< (:I
_Nl>" -<0... ~~;j ",'" ~
~~~~ ~fY1'y>~l'T1~ "''''- _r ...V) ~ Z :;:: " ru Ui n L.
~3:~ "'nO z '"
-~ ::g%v> ~~~ -n :1>... r.c Cl ru 1> 3:
XV)!iM ~_P1z_ ......'" 3:0 2o:r: n z ~ 3: ru q Vl 3:
"'~~-< -<~-<C\Z:l> 80_ :1>]> C::z !i;'1Tl D.l 1"1 I -l '-
;Z:V) J: "0
~F ~ ~P1;. !g~ ~!;~ 8~ ~ :ox> lQ :I: I'l r n
. XJ::o_1"1 t:I,., (I) :I I'l 1"1
'" -<1Tl ,~M"1!:lQ rV)r -en 70 C~ m lXl r
~~~~ 3J.n~ 00 ITl & J> ;U r
(;1~~~~ M:it:1 "120 '" ~~ Z Vl Cl
Cl"'ZXJ '" 1Tl'" -f n n Cl
MXMO :r~-<tuz "':1>:1> ~g '" t:I~ ^ Z
I 3: ~O(j-<C1 -<zz '" ~ I'l
"'... r-~~-f:>>> ~~c M~ l; :l>z
E~!6~ t:lr", n'" ",'" <
f6~M ~~~~~ ;lop ot:l ... 0'"
3: <0 J>
l:l"'M 0"'... Z... !"l"1
-:Ill 10
. 2' ;Z ITl
~
~
I"
10' -0'
3'-4'
D
r
r
b1
o
r
~
en
D
^'
",
U1
"-
(l)
.s
"I
,
~
[Il ~
~L.r
~
<Dl> ",
Dzr D~
C/)t:lr r
~C/)txl r
C/)
.1O~f! ~
"'Or~ ",
",
DrC/) r
rnC/) n
zOI 0
c:Zl> Z
~~r C/)
l>r
OZb;1 8 td
^' ", ", ......
DD ;0 r
",
zrD t:l r
no"" ~
I on-t 0
Ij" ^:I: 0 ."
Zzl> b1
c:C)w f'1
j I\) 3:
- t:l U1 w J>
", '(1\ ~
<0 ^
_;0 ~ J"T1
n Al
fTl""
l> :r ......
p'" Z J>
dc) ~ r
n;o c
^U1 ;r
L
...
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, does hereby request the School Board of Albemarle
C unty to grant unto its Chairman an additional salary up to the
m ximum of $1100.00 per year as allowed by Virginia Code Section
2 .1-32(C), effective as of January 1, 1992.
* * * ..:k *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
w iting, is a true correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted
b the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
r gular meeting held on December 9, 1992.
~rt/J4~
clerk, Board of C nty Supervisors
Wheeler Realty Co~
401 East High Street. Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 . (804) 296-4171 . FAX (804) 979-0145
DECEMBER 7, 1991
THE MEMBERS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
and BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JOHN M. EMBREE, PROJECT MANAGER, BLANDEMAR FARM ESTATES
RE: ROSENSTIEL V. DAVID H. BASS AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
By now you all should have received copies of a letter to Ms.
elia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, (Ref: BFE-102) and an
ticle titled "Selective Downzoning by Litigation". (Ref: BFE-99).
should be abundantly clear from the case record and the evidence
the above article, the accuracy of which can easily be verified
a couple of minutes review of Deed Book 429, page 157, that the
lings in this case were wrong.
The rulings in this case depended upon convincing the BZA, the
C' rcui t Court, and the Virginia Supreme Court that it was the
i tent of prior owners Robert and Isabel C. Patterson to merge the
s veral parcels of land, comprising what is now Blandemar Farm,
i to a single legal parcel when they took out a Federal Land Bank
I an in 1967.
The sole speck of "evidence" of that intent 25 years ago, as
forth by attorneys Richard E. Carter and George st. John, was
e wording in a deed of trust the Pattersons had to grant in order
obtain the loan. In that deed of trust was a perimeter metes and
unds description misrepresented by Carter and st. John as
parting from "the language of multiple parcels". This was not
ue, because in the middle of that description was the specific
atement "following the outer boundaries of the various parcels of
act A".
Is there something you can and will do to correct this
tuation and restore to Mrs. Rosenstiel the division rights to
ich she is rightly entitled? We look forward to your help.
Sincerely. ~
~ ~ree
Offering Piedmont Virginia's Finest Real Estate For Over Half A Century,
,
.
I
itUI'r'(~-
f2/i!~_
L;r ~C-
1
CARRSBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,INC.
9 December 1992
Mr. David Bowerman, Chairperson
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Ref. SP-91-57 Gold Leaf Land Trust's request for a special use
permit for a auto dealership.
Dear Sir:
1. Carrsbrook residents oppose SP-91-57.
2. The Board of Supervisors initially considered SP-91-57 at its
December 18, 1991 meeting. Questions raised by citizens in
opposition to the plan precipitated considerable discussion among
Board members with the result that SP-91-57 was referred back to
the Planning Commission for additional site development
information. The primary difference between the plan before the
Board this evening and the one previously considered is its vastly
increased scope, thus exacerbating problems and concerns which were
the basis for the Board's referral back to the Planning Commission
in the first instance.
3. A primary reason for SP-91-57 being before the Board is the
provision of the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay requiring Board
approval of development in the EC which involves outdoor display.
Whi I e the total area to be developed (approximatel y 7 acres)
remains the same, the Preliminary Site Plan dated 9-23-91 provides
for a maximum impervious cover on site of 2.4 acres with a total of
159 parking spaces whereas the revised plan received by the
Planning Department September 25, 1992 increases impervious
coverage to 3.61 acres with a total of 473 parking spaces. This is
a 50% increase in impervious coverage and nearly 200% increase in
outdoor display.
4. Such enormous increases in the scope of the plan will entail
even more massive alteration of existing terrain with devastating
aesthetical results and corollary increases in the negative impact
on wetlands, sewage disposal, drainage, disposal of chemical wastes
and I ight and noise intrusion into residential neighborhoods.
Details about these concerns were raised in a letter written by Mr.
Jim Mooney, dated 10 Dec 91 and a letter written by me, dated 9 Dec
91, both of which along with other letters of protest were
presented to the Board for consideration at its 18 December 1991
meeting and are included as attachments to the Staff Report given
you for this meeting. For the record, I refer to those letters.
However, in your preparation for this meeting, I assume you have
1
.
I
.. ~
reviewed this material, and unless the Chair desires otherwise, I
will not restate those arguments in detail.
5. During the past year, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has
determined SP-91-57 provides for construction on waters and
wetlands regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act. The
Corps has also determined that this area is a "Headwaters" of the
Rivanna River, and that any work in these areas which is considered
fill under current regulation will require a Department of Army
permit and possibly authorization by state and local authorities.
Since the impact of SP-91-57 is less than one acre, it could be and
was given regulatory authorization, subject to stated conditions.
6. However, filling on a critical slope requires that an
intermittent stream be piped. The Engineering Department supports
a waiver of Section 4.2.5.1 to permi t fi 11 for parking and a
support slope. The Corps of Engineers has identified approximately
900 feet of stream channel to be impacted. Piping any part of the
stream will negatively impact the natural environment presently
made possibl e and sustained by the natural flow of water. Any
piping would constitute a degradation, if not destruction of a part
of a natural waterway presently recognized as a "Headwaters" area.
Incidentall y, this stream is cl assi fied as "intermittent" on County
plats and maps. However, at various times during the year, I have
walked the area where it initially flows into one of the Carrsbrook
lakes. Even during the driest seasons, the stream is live and
flowing at its confluence with the lake.
7. Impervious coverage of 3.61 acres wi 11 radical 1 y al ter the
natural drainage of the area. Intrinsic to the operation of a used
car lot is leakage and spillage of gas, oils and lubricants. It is
assumed that these in their entirety will be washed by rains into
the planned storm water retention pond. Regardless of how well
designed and constructed, there is high probability that some of
these wastes wi 11 1 each into waters and wet 1 ands, further poll uting
them and the ponds further downstream. I have heard that there are
indications that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
is interested in possible use of this storm water retention pond to
catch run off from the adjoining section of Hwy 29N. If this is
true and should occur, the problem would be compounded.
8. While building on an officially identified Headwaters and
Wetlands area may be perfectly legal, it is certain to negatively
impact "headwaters," "wetlands" and ponds further down stream and
in residential neighborhoods. Even the most rigid compliance with
and enforcement of current County erosion control measures will not
prevent unacceptabl e level s of si I ting in ponds on residential
properties in Carrsbrook. This, combined with subsequent seepage,
leaching and drainage of contaminants into waterways and ponds will
substantially increase the levels of pollution and rapidly
accelerate the death of the ponds, thereby decreasing the value of
2
I
"
affected properties and changing the ambience of the entire
neighborhood. A check with the County Department of Taxation will
show that in Carrsbrook lots on lakes have a higher tax basis than
other lots.
9. VDOT's planned improvement of Hwy 29N in 93/94 will require an
easement on the SP-91-57 site. The VDOT plan will destroy
vegetation and trees in the area to be graded and adversely impact
other trees. This of itself will be an aesthetical degradation of
the area. But the point is that VDOT's use of a portion of the
site will lessen the amount of buffer available for plantings
designed to soften the harshness created by the outdoor display of
473 used cars.
10. The Archi tectural Review Board reconunended disapproval of
special use permi t SP-91-57 on aesthetical grounds. Indeed, its
action was amply justified by the drastic aesthetical devastation
which would result form execution of SP-91-57. The lot immediately
north of the SP-91-57 site is identified as Parcell, Section E.
It is zoned Commercial Office by the county. However, Parcel 1,
Section E is deeded residential by Carrsbrook Deed Restrictions,
which pre-date County zoning ordinances and have legal precedent
over them. Parcell, Section E will be reserved for residential
development only.
11. Access to Parcell, Section E is off Carrsbrook Drive. To the
north and directly across Carrsbrook Drive from Parcel 1 is Parcel
1, Section C. This parcel bears the same status and protection as
Parcel 1, Section E. As part of VDOT's Hwy 29N improvement plan,
realigned Carrsbrook Drive will transverse Parcell, Section C.
According to Mr. Gerald utz at VDOT, the unused part of this parcel
will remain residential.
12. The above information clearly shows that the site on which SP-
91-57 would be built is bordered by established residential
neighborhoods and lands. It is not just a conunercial strip along
the highway; rather, a seven acre tract that penetrates
approximately 900 feet into the Carrsbrook and Woodbrook
neighborhoods.
13. Execution of SP-91-57 would require carving out and leveling
this 7 acre parcel. In the process, most, if not all, existing
trees and vegetation would be destroyed; some waters and wetlands
would be filled; and County Zoning Ordinances limiting
construction on slopes of 25 degrees or higher would have to we
waived. On this radically altered and denuded site surrounded by
residential properties and highly visible from the Hwy 29N entrance
corridor, there would be over 3.5 acres of impervious surface
covered with 473 used cars. This is a scene which would say to all
who live by it and all who would see it that Albemarle County
values conunercial development more than its gift of natural beauty
3
. .
I
and the quality of life of its citizens. This is not what you
believe, nor is it the message you want to give.
14. The staff recommends disapproval under the provisions of
Section 31.2.4.1 of the County Zoning Ordinance which allows for
Board approval of a permit, if its "use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony
wi th the purpose and intent of this ordinance, wi th the uses
permitted by right in the district, and with the public
health, safety and general welfare." Since SP-91-57 would degrade
the natural environment, some property values, the ambience and the
quality of life, it would be a detriment to Carrsbrook residents.
Since SP-91-57 would involve radical aesthetical damage, it would
change the character of the district; Since SP- 91-57 wi th its
attendant negative aesthetical, ecological and financial impact
would intrude approximately 900 feet into an established
residential neighborhood, it would not be in harmony wi th the
Zoning Ordinance which in Section 1.4.3 calls for design "To
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
communi ty;" Since SP-91-57 would require 3.5 acres of asphal t
covered with 473 used cars in full view of Hwy 29N, it would not be
in harmony with the uses permitted by right in an EC district and
would be inconsistent with the rationale behind provisions of the
EC Overlay as it pertains to auto dealership outdoor displays which
"gives the Board the opportunity to deny a use that is determined
to be particularly onerous;" and since SP-91-57 degrades the
habitat of people and lessens their sense of well being, it is not
is the general welfare of the public. The justification is
overwhelmingly in favor of disapproving SP-91-57.
15. I ask all present who are in agreement with me to stand in
support of my request that you protect both our and the county's
interest and the aesthetical integrity of the area in which we
live. Please, disapprove SP-91-57.
Respectfully Submitted,
FRANK A. RICE, President
Carrsbrook Homeowners Association, Inc
135 Indian Spring Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804) 978-4488
4
'"
"
1, ."" ')- /~? /)
i ( ~ 7< _c'l
' ,. Ie ~
t
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Appoint ents to the Agricultural/Forestry
Industr Committee
AGENDA DATE:
December 2, 1992
ITEM HUMBER:
(::l/) /, 1/1 /'-) / \
!"/) , ",,0 (J,,:>( ':,"-" I! )
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT PROPOSAL RE UEST:
Approva of Agriculture/Forestry Industry
Committ e Nominees
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ---1L-
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes (1)
STAFF C
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
P&t
Cilimberg, Benish
BACKGRO
At the 4, 1992 meeting, the Board approved the proposal to establish an
Agricul ure/Forestry Committee and directed staff to recommend committee members. The
attache memorandum recommends committee members. All nominees have agreed to serve except
for the Sheep Industry representative (Item 8 in attachment). Staff is still attempting to
contact Mr. Tom Olivier and Ms. Florence Cox. This contact should be completed prior to the
Board meting.
nominations.
RECOMME
Approve
92.174
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
M MORANDUM
Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
.\),~;
David B. Benish; Chief of Community Development
November 24, 1992
Agriculture/Forestry Industry Support Committee
aff has consulted with representatives from the Cooperative
tension Service, Soil Conservation Service, Albemarle Farm
reau and Department of Forestry in order to prepare the
llowing list of persons recommended to serve on the
riculture/Forestry Industry Support Committee. In an effort to
present each sector of the agriculture/forestry industry in
bemarle, the list now contains fourteen (14) recommended names.
wo representatives each from the beef cattle, horse, and
restry sectors have been recommended due to the importance of
ose sectors in Albemarle. Ex-officio members from the Board of
pervisors and Planning Commission would also represent the
restry industry. In addition, staff members from various
encies would provide expertise.
aff recommends that the committee be composed of at least one
presentative from each sector, a minimum of ten members.
COU~:TY
.1/ '!-
NOV :i?ll, 1 c)::n
~ -; ,
.-,
9.
1 .
1 .
Agriculture Business
Beef cattle
Dairy cattle
Horses (race)
(pleasure)
5.
Nursery/Greenhouse/
Truck Farming
6.
Orchards
7.
Grapes
8.
Sheep
Grain
Forestry
Thomas Jefferson
Soil and Water
Conservation
District
Committee Members
Jeff Clayton
John W. Clayton and
Son, Ivy
Farm Supplies
Robert Block
President, Albemarle
Farm Bureau
C. Woodson (Woody) Baker
East Belmont Farm
Paul Thomas
Thomas Dairy Farm,
North Garden
Patrick Nuesch
Braeburn Training
Center, Crozet
Rosemary (Posie) Dent
Polaris Farm
Whitney Critzer
President, VA
Direct Marketing
Association
Ruth Chiles
Crown Orchard
Chris Hill
Farm Manager,
Glendower Vineyards
Tom Olivier
OR
/I/k;,f
-~1.
t;'''rm
t i/y'N (!. /; ~~~'
et
-
R.A. (1/= t~ - 7h()(! I j he--
David g/r;~A
Jfj - /?~ljq r4'~ JA;.r.1 {/ j
J amel . ,'- ( - 1
!,{A'If; Jr:;/Yu:i ,4be ~
fif /~(~CL- {/;nir ~/ (c/
LJ;' Yh .J/ell lfi fl)1~/j
ILumber
~t
Forester
can Resources
~r
.,..-
Ex-Officio Members
~alter Perkins, Board of Supervisors (Westvaco Corp.)
Ihil Grimm, Chairman, Planning Commission (Virginia Department of Forestry)
Staff
[epartment of Planning & Community Development:
David Benish, Chief of Community Development
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner
Rhonda Henderson, Intern
Cooperative Extension Service:
Charles Goodman, Unit Director/Horticulturist
David Vaden, Farm Management/Agent
Mark Reynolds, Extension Agent/Agriculture
\irginia Department of Forestry:
Nelson Shaw, Area Forester, Albemarle County
Soil Conservation Service:
Gordon Yager, District Conservationist
A F;f'L.~~i( L-~\L SEFYICES. ~~~(~.
Distributed to Boord' ,.i- - _:;'v'~
, {!:~ n' (l/ 1-5,:' \111 South Calvert Street
Agenda Item No, .' ' ~__..L,,_,_ -<j Suite 1540
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
410-659-7500
N vember 24, 1992
. Bob Richardson
vran Bank, N.A.
P st Office Box 26904
R'chmond, Virginia 23261
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Mr. Richardson:
please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
rsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
October 1992.
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
410-659-7500.
~'~/7
eila H. Moynihan
oject Monitor
Ms. Lettie Neher
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
, 110
Effective October 31, 1992
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apartments
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pu suant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restr ictions (the "Deed
Re trictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Ap 11 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Al emar1e County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
tr stee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Ri hmond-A1bemar1e Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Pa tnership (the .Purchaser.), hereby certifies with respect to
th operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Ch rlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
sh wn below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 51 .
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23%
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOFl the undersigned has signed this Report as of
November 5, 19~2 ,~
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: K~~ 71rea:zz-
Authorized Rep esentative
I
,- . . r SONO PROGRAM REPORT
,~
.
.
Month October YMr~
Pro~"Y: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Project .: 051-35371
location: Charlottesville, VA Number of Unit. 66
SubmlUtc2 by: Loretta Wyatt November 5, 1992 Effective 10/31/92
Manager OaTt
Total Occupied 66
LOWfI iNCOME Bond Occupied 15
I.
The lollow ng Units hive been de~lgnal.d as ..towe, Incom." units
I 1 1 rbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanore Blair 41
el.
2 4 rbor Crest Dr. 22 Beverly T. Lane 42
82.
3 5 rbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43 63.
4 9 rbor Crest Dr. 24 Virginia Burton .... ~.
5 12 rbor Crest Dr. 25 G. Robert Stone 45 65.
6 14 rbor Crest Dr. 26 Evelyn Dover 4<<5 68,
7 . 15 rbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 41 17.
a 20 I\rbor Crest Dr. 28 Evelyn Mandeville 48 e.a
9 24 I\rbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69.
10 78 I\rbor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50 70.
II 84 ~rbor Crest Dr. 31 Juanita Boliek ~1
71.
'2. 90 ~rbor Crest Dr. 32 Florence Wheeler 52
72.
'3 94 !\rbor Crest Dr. 33 Sarah E. Fischer 53
73,
14 102 !\rbor Crest Dr. 34 Anne Lee Bullard 54 74.
IS 106 l\rbor Crest Dr.3S Katherine T. Nowlen 55 75.
16 36 !loG 70,
\1 :\1 51, 71,
Its - :38 5&, 78.
19 39 59 78.
~'O 40 60 60,
T ~ cnan l>es hom prevIOus reporl ,,.f1ecled in the abov. hsllng .,.
Oelellonl Mdl1lona
't H 1.- 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3, 13,
4 14 4, 14.
S 15 5 15.
6 t6 6 1&,
7 17 7 17.
I 18 a, 18..
I 19 9 ".
10 20 10. 20.
RGE ALLEN
. 1.407 '.ONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
Disti:t;~ted to B:~;ll(j, ..".. ." J'; WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4607
,...- -..-'-., TELEPHONE: (202) 225-6561
I'gend~ Iti:m N/L.h );.lzj&~:. 355 W, RIO ROAD
CHARLOTTESVIW, VA 22901
'TELEPHONE: (804) 973-3287
SUBCOMMI E ON PROCUREMENT, TOURISM,
AN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEES:
JUDICIARY
DISTRICT, VIRGINIA
SCIENCE. PACE. AND TECHNOLOGY
Q:ongrtss of tht mnittd ~tatts
iItonst of 1Rq1rtsmtati\1ts
November 23, 1992
o 904 "RINCESS ANNE STREET, SUITE 203
(P,O. Box 3361
FREDERICKSBURG, VA 22401-6149
'TELEPHONE: (703) 373~536
o 11 2 NORTH CAMERON STREET
(P,O, Box 7141
WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4730
TELEPHONE: (703) 667~990
M . James Ridenour
D'rector
N tional Park Service
P st Office Box 37127
W shington, D.C. 20013
7TH DISTRICT MESSAGE CENTER
1-800-648-1405
ar Mr. Ridenour:
Iw~i~~ to express my opposition in tha strongest terms
ssible to the proposal of the National Park Service to close
bstant~al portions of the Shenandoah National Park beginning
cember 11.
I
Once again, the National Park Service has made a major
licy decision affecting the people of my congressional
strict without extending me, and more importantly the people
the affected counties, the courtesy of advance notice or the
portunity to comment. In fact, I learned of your decision
om a Park Service press release sent to my office by one of
e affected counties.
Indeed, several counties surrounding Shenandoah National
rk have contacted me and have expressed grave concern over the
oposed closing of the northern and southern sections of the
rk during the winter, spring, and early summer seasons. My
nstituents are viewing this action as extreme and not a
asonable approach to an apparent operating budget shortfall at
e unit. I share their concern.
Aside from the costs of operating the Dickey Ridge Visitor
nter all year: I do not see significant savinqs in this
oposal. It has already been a practice not to staff entrance
at ions when volume does not justify the personnel costs.
her than road patrol, it is difficult to imagine what
sential staff requirements exist, particularly during the
nter months.
I encourage you to review this radical proposal and to
c nsider the severe economic consequences to the affected
c mmunities. There are several alternatives available to you,
w ich will achieve savings without denying the American people
a cess to their park. These include closing Dickey Ridge during
t e slower months of the year. This also is an appropriate time
t revisit the issue of campground privatization.
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS
"
r. James Ridenour
age 2
ovember 23, 1992
While the proposal does not eliminate pedestrian access,
he vast majority of Park visitors access the Park by motor
ehicle on the Skyline Drive. Due to age and physical
hallenges, it is in fact the only way for thousands of our
itizens to enjoy this national treasure. The Park supports
ultiple recreational activities, and the people should not be
enied access except under the most severe circumstances. Such
ircumstances do not appear to exist.
I would appreciate a prompt reconsideration of this
ecision to virtually deny access to the Park to tens of
housands of citizens. I look forward to your immediate
esponse.
~y, Jib
George~
Member of Congress
The Honorable Manuel Lujan, Secretary of the Interior
Mr. J.W. Wade, superintendent, Shenandoah National Park
: 1k 1I,",~aJ..& ~~ P. ~A1~
--
Distributed to ao.'':i1i(1~j:::5)
Agenda Item No, W:..-_c_-_0
COMMONVVEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Taxation
Richmond, Virginia 23282
emorandum
Localities Containing Taxable Railroad Property
Railroad & Pipeline Appraisal Section
Office of Taxpayer Services
November 25, 1992
CSX Transportation, Inc.; and Richmond Fredericksburg & Potomac Railway Co.
v.
William H. Forst, Tax Commissioner, Virginia Department of Taxation,
His Successors in Office
n November 6, 1992 the referenced suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
astern District of Virginia contesting the "1992 - Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax
urposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies" published by the
epartment of Taxation on September 1, 1992. The suit raises the same claims that were
I tigated for prior assessments earlier this year before, and are awaiting a decision by, Judge
erhige, i.e., plaintiffs allege that the Department has violated the Railroad Revitalization and
egulatory Reform Act of 1976, codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 11503, in determining the fair
arket value of railroad property. Additionally, plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent
i Junctions prohibiting the assessment, levy and collection of any taxes based on any valuation
f property that is the result of the alleged violations. A preliminary injunction hearing has been
heduled for 1:00 p. m. on December 2, 1992 before Judge Merhige.
is memorandum is to provide notice of this suit to all interested parties and encourage affected
I calities to participate in the lawsuit to whatever extent they deem necessary to protect their
articular interests. If successful this lawsuit may have serious financial consequences for
I calities that tax significant amounts of railroad property. Those interested in more information
s ould immediately contact:
Mr. Pat Griffin, Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
101 North Eighth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-5889
...
DISTRl8UT[.,C T ) ~';"", c;
i~') , f Ct"
ON ~.~~:, :,-:-.~i')d.'
'.r;.\~:r_:p
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Background
AGENDA DATE:
December 9, 1992
ITEM NUMBER:
(!)~l . (;:~) //) .16, &)'
,...i} I JYj I ~ ~A'/
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Backgrou
UEST:
#678 improvements
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:~
REVIEWED BY:
r
STAFF CO
Messrs.
ATTACHMENTS:
Cilimberg
BACKGRO
VDOT re ently held a public hearing on proposed improvements to Route #678 and its
intersec ion with Rt. 250 West in Ivy. The attached information provides some history on
this pro'ect and is provided for your information in anticipation of questions/comments from
resident prior to VDOT's recommendations coming to the Board.
92.172
"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
EMORANDUM
Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & communitycJuU~
Development
December 1, 1992
Route 678 Improvements
s a fOllow-up to the Public Hearing on November 17, 1992 for the
roposed Route 678 improvements, I can provide the following
istory of this project:
It first appeared in 1980 land use amendments proposed by
the County Growth Area Land Use Plans.
2. It appeared in its proposed alignment in the 1982
Comprehensive Plan to reflect "the dangerous location of the
present intersection on a curve, the need to handle
increased traffic loads from existing and future residential
development to the north, and creation of opportunities for
the commercial area..."
3. It first appeared in the County's six Year Secondary Road
Plan in 1986 and was continued in the 1988 and 1990 plans.
4. Two plats have been signed by the County with dedicated
right-of-way for relocation of Route 678 (attached), one
with Ivy Commons subdivision and the other with Locust Hill
sUbdivision.
trust this information sUfficiently confirms the planning for
is improvement.
Cjjcw
TACHMENTS
COUNTY OF .A.LBErv11\1'~LE
[,;:,'''~ r"
~1 ,'-~.'- '--"--
*i.\ DEe I 1992
I ~ ,''', ._-~.- --'
EXL:CUTi'lIE 0fflCE
..
. ~ 'I i ' i ., . ., ;" .," l',. ' .
~ 1^'fI~-rl~~
I,
~~l~
.',,';! i. II{ \.C)f....~M(J~. p.\rn~H:nJHlr;
I_:/() r I ~{1 r~1 ~.~' '. H l_ L.
Lf GAL. 1<1:, TM!' Se84A
DJ;, IlJ?b p ICG
I)lIIOit' pi ro (F'I_AT)
IONING: COMMUlr.I/\I_ (C-I)
VILLAGL fl[ jIDr:NTIAL (V,R)
~~LJ..._'l-~/_
'J',\lJlll~, M'j'llu,'^'
I~I ~,::'\"~':~I';' ;',~ ;-'Il'::'~( :. ~'~'t.~;r ~I( ~~l~'\\I~~/t',~:'
1'>111111'1 ()".Il( III rlflltlllill',I(,lIl011"'''IIl.
/"1(-"'" 1011':0 . M,ll JIlL I', III", MIf 11111 f'lllfl
I" I tJ 1'~ll 1'1111 liliA, 1\1 viI ('I'~'l III I'~ 10 IH
J{ (lool n A'j IIII Ollt ll'~^' 0'" 1 All 'j 1^ 11 .." tI' ~
^1'I~lrl'O II~', "lA' Mlf 111l}( MoO LulUllCl 10
'111lltJr--tJr-M:~1oI01n..>!!5'('
--L~:':'/C:..L/jJ'i(',f>/ /
.~----._-
EX,MPT
,AMIL Y
IIUM!
PU\N C
Il[DATE
/1"1015 CREATE
'-,
t:l e" "1'1,cr ( :cl
(.f
, /
/
;::
q
.J
~
f2
Q~
'"
!?J<J~
",..:J
,,"
~
~4- 0'" '
d" "
"
/ LOCUST HILL SUEIOIVISION
LOT 10
T,M,SO A 12)
Pl\RCEL I
"
/
V'
'D
I
Ql
Ii)
Q: :
3)
/
I
Ii!!",
Co ui
I Ii ~
, '"
'-' ~
'" ,
a "'
/'f';;
q a
<.> 0
a rv
.J -
'" '"
'"
lM,SOAI2}
PARCEL 20
PLAT SHOWING
I) SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 'A
2) DEDICATION OF PARCEL'C' TO PUAlIC USE
3) THE ADDING OF PARCEL 'B' a '0' TO T,MP. 58- 84E
PARCELS A,B,C,andD CURRENTLY
COMPRISING T,M,P' 58-84A
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT of ALBEMARLE CO" VA,
4)PARCEL"S"IS FOR JOINT SEPTIC SITE
ONLY AND IS RESTRICTED FROM FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
5JPARCEL"S" IS A PORTION OF T,M,P 58-84E
AND SHALL NOT BE SOL D SEPARATELY
'\
~
f.~i>.
~~~~\lP
'.P-
lM,SOA(Z)
PARCEL 2 B
,.,." "
6" "A
:... '" ~ " FORMERLY TM,P' 58A(2) - 2C
~~,:,"" rc~ 0'" "~ SEE PLAT BY ROUDABUSH,GALE, 8 ASSOC" INC,
"l' / ~~,o~, ',COMBINING THIS PARCEL WITH TM,P' 58- 84 E
'" "'r 'oS' ' "'-
",<> Co c;, ~ "'-,
<?~ l/-It~-ItOC;9~ >"'-..., '",-
<?c; '/0/ -It ~.s' ',,- "'-
, /o/oS' S ~ -It/c.y, ,o4/;'/', "-,' "-
"! 9-t-t ~('1r~ ',-.,
9-t /;'~ "
oS'd 1y40 "'--',
. '.J. . ,
~~ /' '",-~,
01) "'-.. "-
" -.........
~,'
''''-''
~J' "-
'-5> "-
J'<t "
'<'so '"
/1- "-
"'1-5>'-16> "",- /
<~ , .'
-5>_", '............./
" .
/'
I
I
SCALE: L'~
DATL /,1AY-.?~~'QClO_
SHEET 1 OF 2
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOC.,INC.
A Professional Corporation
CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR - ENGINEER
Charlottesville. Virginia
r " r "'n
l,a,Q,
g.
Lewi. Fomlly
c.m.twy
/ t
L._,
"""c:~
Oil 250-137
0,8. 246 -In<PIat)
S82"18 'l'I"r
,''..
EaiQno RiQht of Way
\ \ 0,8,485 -17(Plat)
\ DB. ~-:304
\ '/ O,B. 246-176
\ \
\ ,
Richard P Boll Ilr
o,e, 687-4S3,4S6(Pkll)
.... P_" lcwlOcIllS-1.
I "'-" . ....._ of _ .. of
Ir.a..... lie,
, All Lof. ....1 _ "'.......11'* A.-
I No _ _.._..--.
~.... -low,
I Shxted Area in Lolli ZI.3a6 Sq.'!"
P,~k,
- """..lol. '1,20] %Ft,
0,027 Ac.
_ _.. lollO' m,I.""Fl,
0647 k,
--~I"'o...
1._ LOOd lot .... Fvlwo _...
of Stat. Route 678.
'-.,T_m_c:a.tall,
1Icw_ ....... .... ",-" '"
0,8,"7. ~l,
en ~t;,~~i~:,~"o:': I~~
Lot Cot,." ,E~ ot ,... Tw,\a-
rownd ....." 'her ore on... 70.
< Denot.. I,Oft (3M)
To... At.. I 18. tOil __
Lot 4
79,373 Sq Fl
1.822 AI:.
'.
i"' S13018'2'''W
- 87,]]'
25' Strip (0,507 Ac.)
Dedicated 10 the Call!)'
of Albemarle far Rood
Purposes ,
Monac:hem G Iorio Mo)'O
0, B &40- ,388(Plal)
~:~~.
0R'14102'
L'=86'
A' 44"57"2"
0~;~~:
L' 284 .45'
Vie"'Ilt}' Mop
S04044'3~"W
52,X)'
5oo041'OI"W
~I 83'
Iv,
no
,,'CONSTI/fUCTlOII
EASEIliE.Nr
County Boord of Superv-. :
A'64006'?9''
T I 240.00
R I 383.28'
L I 428.8~'
T homo. W B Suoan B B..,
D 8532 -210
DB /95 - 65(Plol)
~.+~,r~fJi!l,~ ~
~.. A...
Plat Showing Survey of
Locust Hill Subdivision, Located on State
Route 678 and US Route 250 near Ivy. Samuel Miller Magis-
terial Distnct ,Albemarle County,
Virginia,
for
John K. TOQIiIOrt m ond COOrles R BorcOOrdl
County PIGnni~ CcmmI..ion l
Ma"e 5, Andr",
o.B. 617 - 254
o.,B. 262-~P1a1)
Seal. ' i". 100'
'f:X)'
50'
0'
0.01. '6 11,00
Y:X)'
5101. of VlrgtNo, County of
Albemarle. To-Wit I .
- .....
Nn.OI'w
!Ill.Ie'
U S Roule 250
r-;.
25'
100'
R 0 Snow B R W Ray , Inc PC
Chodotles"'ll~ I VI'QlnIQ
-"
J.J'],~' J I::tt:..,
....f....'~I..
DISTRISUT[[! :~-: r ='ej3,""
ON -4.~ .L:_L~ .."-"-~
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
October Financial Report
AGENDA DATE:
December 9, 1992
ITEM HUMBER:
(]<J, ,/-;l. /q. (''5. r7 \
I /) /)!, - )
SUBJECT PROPOSAL RE UEST:
October 1992 Financial Information for the
General Fund and School Fund
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: -X-
STAFP C
Mr. Tuc
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY~
ROUND:
ttached Financial Report reflects October figures for total County operations, and
idually for the General Fund and the School Fund. In looking at total County
tions, the projected balance of revenues over expenses of $1,037,815 reflects a 15%
ack in the School Fund (p.3) approved by the School Board in October.
The
expe
call
of r
ear to date balance of revenues over expenditures of ($8,291,714) reflects the
ted negative cash flow balance in the General Fund in October prior to the December
ction of property taxes. You will note that the General Fund (p.2) shows only 12.3%
venues collected while to date expenditures are 25%.
Shou d you have any questions prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to call me.
\bt
92.18
rn
z
Q
I-
<
a:
UJ
c..
o
~
Z
:J
o
U
UJ
..J
a:
<
~
UJ
l:C
..J
<
I-
a:
o
c..
UJ
a:
..J
~
U
Z
<
Z
U.
~
J:
I-
Z
o
~
I-
Z
UJ
U
a:
UJ
c..
*******-
"'-O)O)VOC\lO
~~,,":~~~T"'
...-O)OC\lo...-cO
...- ...- (W) I ...- T"'
* **1*
(W)vO)I/)
~~~~
(00...-1/)
(W) C\I
00010
fltflt~fIt
UJ
"
z
<
J:
U
...- T"'
fit ...-
~
T"'
o
T"'
.,.
-
C\I
01
01
T"'
a:
UJ
l:C
o
I-
U
o
1'-001/)0)001/)C\1
,...- I'- 00 I'- ...- 0 CIO
~ 1/)_ 1'-_ 00_ 0)_ I'- ~
(0 0) (0 ...- I/) I/) (0"
"'-OO(O(W)1'-0
(Ov(w)I'-(W)O)~
C1i fit .f fit ,...:- V "
~ ~ fltfltC;;
.,.
00 V oi C\I
1'-...-00)
"!. ~ I'- (W)_
I/) O)(W) 00
C\I 1'-00 00
0)_ 1/)_ I/) ~
...-(w)(oC\I
C\If1tflt(W)
fit fit
C')I-
OlUJ
C\j"
Ole
~~
rn
UJ
:J
Z
UJ
>
UJ
a:
en
o
- Z'
o ::>rn
~ U.w
u._ <!J:J
-len zz
<(-l -UJ
0:0 Z~>
WO -<(UJ
ZI ~~a:
llig -lW::>..J
__ <(u.en<(
-l-lwo:en II-
<(<(I-WZu.O
oO<(O<(-l1-
OOI-WO:W
-l-lenu.l-en
en
Z I-
o Z
i= W
<( ~
0: Z
W 0:
c.. W
o >
I- 0
Z-l <!J
w<( -l
~I- <(
zz a:
a:w W
W~ Z
W
6~ <!J
<!J<(en-l
-lc..a:<(
<(WWI-
a:OLLO
1 en I-
W zco
zZ<(::>
WOa:en
<!JZI-
rn
UJ
rn
z
UJ
c..
><
UJ
***
O)I/)(W)
~~~
I/) v I/)
C\IC\1C\1
! ~ il/)
(W) (W)
0) 0)
(W) (W)
...- ...-
...- ...-
~
I/) I/)~ I
0000)
(W)I'-O
C\II/)OO
vl'-...-
(W)O)(W)
.fVO)
I/) fit I/)
fit
Z
en 0
ZenCi5
Qo::;
I-Z-
<(::>0
a:u.-l
w<!JO
c..zO
O-I
O~O
Z<(en
::>I--l
u.en<(
-l::>1-
OenO
o I I-
Iu.co
-l::>
OWen
en en
~
I'-
''It
Ll)
C\I
-
II)
CIO
C')
01
C')
T"'
T"'
.,.
-
co
T"'
co
I'-
C')
o
T"'
.,.
T"'
C\I
co
~
to
o
V
o
.,.
T"'
01
.,.
rn
UJ
rn
z
UJ
c..
><
UJ
..J
<
I-
o
I-
rn
UJ
rn
z
UJ
c..
><
UJ
a:
UJ
>
o
UJ
:J
Z
UJ
>
UJ
a:
u.
o
UJ
U
Z
<
..J
<
l:C
0
Z
:J
u. I-
...J a:
< 0
a: Q.
w w
z a:
w
t!:l ...J C\I
~ ~ en
(,) en
....
Z z a:
:J <
Z W
0 IXl
(,) u. 0
w ~ I-
...J (,)
a: :r: 0
< I-
~ Z
W 0
ID ~
...J
<
I-
Z
W
(,)
a:
w
Q.
,-0 ,-0 ~ '-01 ~
0...... 0...... 0 0...... 0
.-C\I <0 00
C?...... <00 c?
~o)C\ioC\i
.-C\Ic? ..-
* * * * * * * * * *1 *
<OO'l............lOOC?......~O'l......
~OC\llOOO~LOCOO....
cDMO),...:cDLri~,...:o~Lri
C?C?C?C?C?C\lC?C? C\I
,,:,:,:,:,::J?}}}}}}titii:m:mt:}lil}}}iiitttttti}tittmtitt:mlitmmii:mtmi:i~:~f:~m~fM}IIIIIIIIII:!IlI!::1!1:j!l:l!:!!!IIIIIIIII:~:i::Il!lm!l
o 0 0 01 0
~~~iA-I~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0
~~~~~~~~~iA-I~
w
t!:l
Z
<
:r:
(,)
C?I-
O'lw
C\it!:l
eno
it~
.......-000<0 C?'-O'llOCO~C?O'l~O<O
..-C\I0..-LO C?CO..-O......<OCO........-OlO
<OCO......O'l~ COOO'lC?<O<OCOlO~"""O
~~~O""" O~~~OOOOOO~~C?......
..-O'l<Oc?..- lO......lOO'lC\lC\llOlO......CO..-
<OO'l.-..-O'l CO C\I <0...... 000 1.0...... LOlOO'l
~~~.-~ ~~~~~cici~~<o~
1O~ ~<O ~~~~~C?~~~~<o
~ ~ ~ ~
W
:J
Z
W
>
w
a:
ZW
-::)
(/)Z
o:W
-lW>
<(u.W
-lWO:(/) 0:
<(I-WZ-l
0<(0<(<(
OI-WO:OI-
-l(/)U.I-
I-
Z
o
I- W
<( 0:1- (/J
~Z ::)Z W
(/)0 ~W (/J
zi= I-::)~ ~
-<( Z Oa.. a..
~ --O-l
00: W Z-l<( X
<(t; ~ QWI- W
1:-Z>-(/)O ~~~ ~
>~I-~-l Wo~ I-
OOWo:W 0:>-1- <(
CJ<(U.O~ZOI-O:(/)O:
-l-l~~oQwz<(ffiw
<(<( 1-0: a.. a..
O:-OOZ<(--::)WU.o
wO:J:J<(o~~O~-l
Zororo::it::)o:~Z<(<(
w::)::)::)::)o<(oOo:l-
CJ-,a..a..IWa..OZI-O
I-
(/J
w
(/J
z
W
a..
X
W
co
en
"""
<0
Lt)
C?
CO
..,.
-
o
..,.
C\I
(/J
w
(/J
z
W
Q.
><
W
a:
w
>
o
W
:J
Z
W
>
w
a:
u.
o
w
(,)
z
<
...J
<
IXl
0
Z
:J ~
u. a:
....I 0
0 Q.
0 W
J: a:
0 ....I ('II
en ~ 0)
~ 0 0)
z ....
z <( a:
:J z W
0 U. OJ
0 0
~ ~
w 0
....I J: 0
a: ~
<( z
::!: 0
w ::!:
OJ
....I
<(
~
z
w
o
a:
w
Q.
*****
O)ooC'?"<tC\l
O)C\I(Ooo"<t
mON..icri
...-C'?...-C\IC\1
I
*******
(O"<t...-(OI.OC'?O)
~~~":~'<:!:~
...-00 C\IC'? (0 0 1.0
C\I"<tC'?C'?o)l'-C\1
w
~
Z
<(
J:
o
o r::- 0 01 r::- Ii) :;:::- 1.0 (0 0 01 Ii)
I.O...-~~(O O...-OC\l~~oo
oo"<t 1.0 ...-0"<tC'? C'?
~~; oomo~ m
...-...- 0 ooOI.O~ C'?
0~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ,.:~~.,....
~ ~
rrJ~~tt~: ti~:~t~~ttttm~~~m~iAA:t4't~:*:~:~II\~i:ttttirr:ttir:ttttttt&r&::%5.r&r:I::~t:':'::"j:im::..
.mmmml!lml!llil) ._....m........ ...m",.. ....iljm 'a
C'?~
O)w
C\i~
0)0
~~
00"<t0)"<t1.O
1'-(01'-(000
1.000"'-(oC'?
o)(oC\lC'?C\1
000)C'?"<t
"<tC'?1.00C'?
~o~C'?"<t
C\I C'?I.O
~ ~tf}
I'- "<t 1.0 ...- 0 0011.0
001'-"<tC'?0"<t00
C\I...-...-oo"<tl.OC'?
.. - .. ..... ..
1.OC\lC'?"'-C\II'-C\1
",-001'-0)000)"<t
l.O(Ooo"<t~(oC'?
;;~I.O- tf}~
"<ttf}~~ 1.0
tf} ~
W
:J
Z
W
>
w
a:
en
...J
o zUJ
o _::>
I enZ
U a:UJ
en ...JUJ>
I <CLLUJ
...JUJa:ena:
<CI-UJZ...J
U<co<c<C
o I- UJ a: 01-
...JenLLI-
I-
Z
J: 0
I- UJi=
<i. u<C
UJenzS:2
IUJ<C~
-U Z 0
UJ-:cco
O>I-~
za:z___ en
<CUJ-z UJ
oen<co en
ZZ~- Z
UJOZ0 UJ
l=i=Q::> ll..
<C<CI-a: Ej
- I- <C I- ,,,
ZO:a:en 'V
OOUJZ Z
zi=ll..ll..O I-
O<cenOUen<C
-a:Zeneno:O:
I-I-<CUJUJUJUJ
Oena:--LLll..
::>:zI-!::!::enO
a:_...J...J...Jz...J
t)~a:oo<c<C
Z 0 ::> <C <C a: 01-
_<Cll..LLLLI-
I-
en
UJ
en
z
w
a..
x
LU
0)
....
('I).
co
....
"
~
co
....
co.
"
('I)
o
.
....
~
C'?
en
w
en
z
w
a..
x
w
a:
w
>
o
w
::>
z
w
>
w
a:
u.
o
w
o
Z
<C
....I
<(
OJ
, '...
. County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA
October
Report
AGENDA DATE:
December 9, 1992
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
for the
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: ~
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BI~
OUND:
tached Financial Report reflects October figures for total County operations, and
idually for the General Fund and the School Fund. In looking at total County
oper ions, the projected balance of revenues over expenses of $1,037,815 reflects a 15%
hQldback in the School Fund (p.3) approved by the School Board in October.
.
The ear to date balance of revenues over expenditures of ($8,291,714) reflects the
expec ed negative cash flow balance in the General Fund in October prior to the December
colle tion of property taxes. You will note that the General Fund (p.2) shows only 12.3%
of re enues collected while to date expenditures are 25%.
you have any questions prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to call me.
.
\bt
92.18
, ..
<fi. <fi.<fi. <fi.<fi. <fi.'#. <fi. <fi. <fi.1<fi. <fi.<fi.<fi. '#.
l- T"" 0'l0'l VO C\J0 C'? VO'lI!) 0'l1!)C'? 1'0
~ O'l I!) 0 ~ T"" CD COOC'? 1!)0'l1!) V
Z o~lfi lfi-ilfi
w T"" 0'l0 C\JO T"" CD CD I!)
T"" T"" C'? I T"" C'? C\J C\JC\JC\J C\l
() ,...
e a:
w
Q.
en
Z
o
~
<
a:
w
Q.
a
~
eg
()
w
..J
a:
<
~
w
m
..J
<
e
I-
a:
o
Q.
w
a:
..J
:5
()
z
<
z
u::
~
J:
I-
Z
a
~
w
C!:l
Z
<
J:
()
o 0 ;:::::- 0 0 01;::::- 0 0 01 0 Ii) 011 iO co
*I!)T""***CD **~* CO~co co ,...
COv l!) C'? C'? C'? co
~~ ~ ~ O'l ~ ~
T""T"" 0 C'? C'? C'? C'?
*T"",... ~ T"" ,... 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~
- ~ *...
-
C\l
O'l
O'l
,...
a:
w
m
a
I-
()
a
I'- co I!) O'l co l!)~ C\l
,T""I'-COl'-T""OCO
~ I!)~ ": CO~ O)~ I'- V
CDO'lCDT""l!) I!) cO"
,...OOCDC'?I'oO
CD~ v C'?~ 1'0 C'?~ 0) V
O'l*V*T"" V .
~ ~ **0;
...
co v O~ C\J
1'-,...00)
C\J~ v. 1'0 C'?~
1!)00C'?co
C\JI'-COCO
0). I!)~ l!) O~
T""C'?CDC\J
C\J**C'?
* *
C'?I-
O'lw
C:;C!:l
O'le
it~
en
w
::>
z
w
>
w
a:
en
o
- Z'
o ::>en
5 u.w
u._ C!:l::>
-.J(/) zz
<-.J -w
a:0 z~>
wa -<(w
ZI (/)I-a:
w a:(/)
C!:l ~ -.J W ::> ..J<
__ <u.(/)
-.J -.J W a: (/) I I-
<(<(I-wzu.a
uU<(O<(-.J1-
OOl-wa:w
-.J-.J(/)u.I-(/)
(/)
Z I-
o Z
I- W
<( ~
a: Z
w a:
Q. w
o >
I- a
Z-.J C!:l
w<( -.J
~I- <(
zz a:
a:w W
W~ Z
6~ lli
C!:l<((/)-.J
-.JQ.a:<
<(WWI-
ou.o
a: I (/) I-
~zzm
WO<(::>
C!:lzg:(/)
en
w
en
Z
w
Q.
><
W
l!) l!)~ I
COOO'l
C'? 1'0 0
C\Jl!)CO
vI'oT""
C'? 0) C'?
vVO)
I!) * I!)
*
z
(/) a
z(/)OO
Qo;;
I-Z-
<(::>0
a:u.-.J
WC!:lO
Q.zO
O-I
O~()
z<(/)
::>I--.J
u.(/)<
-.J::>I-
0(/)0
011-
Iu.m
-.J::>
UW(/)
(/)(/)
,...
C\l
co
v.
<.0
o
v
o
...
,...
O'l
...
en
w
en
Z
w
Q.
><
W
..J
<
I-
a
I-
en
w
en
z
w
ll.
><
W
a:
w
>
a
w
::>
z
w
>
w
a:
u..
a
w
()
z
<
..J
<
m
.
0
Z
::J
u. I-
...J a:
< 0
a: l1.
w W
z a:
w
~ ...J C\I
~ ~ 0)
0 0)
....
z z a:
::J <
Z W
0 u: CO
0 0
.~ ~ I-
0
:r: 0
< I-
~ Z
W 0
CO ~
...J
<
.
I-
Z
W
o
a:::
w
l1.
w
~
z
<
:r:
o
rf-rf-
.- C\I
~"
.-O'l
.- C\I
rf- rf-Irf-
\000
~~~
C\lOC\l
C') .-
rf-rf-rf-rf-rf-rf-rf-rf-
\oO'l""l!)OC')"
~~"!~~~~~
\oC')O'l"\ol!).-"
C')C')C')C')C')C\lC')C')
~ '01 ~
o 0........ 0
~O'l"
~~~
O.-l!)
C\I
o 0 0 01 0
(;A.(;A.(;A.(I)j(;A.
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0
(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.(I)j(;A.
,::::illillllillllliillllllllll'~II:IIII'I:lil:::I::11l'IIIIIIII'lilii1,11",lljr:!ili!iil:lillilillililiiiii:i:liiliilii::~ji)fi:!:it:!;!:i:!;!:i;i:i:!;~:!:!:mt
C')I-
O)w
(;J~
0)0
~~
"'-01\0
.-C\l0.-1[)
\000 "O'l 0
cao)'o)'O"':
.-O'l\oC').-
\oO'lT-.-O'l
0)' C')- (;A. .- ..f
l!)(;A. \0
(;A. (;A.
W
::J
Z
W
>
w
a:
zUJ
-::>
(/)Z
a:::UJ
...JUJ>
<(LLUJ
...JUJa:::(/) a:::
<(I-UJZ-I
0<(0<(<(
OI-UJa:::I-O
-I(/)LLI-
I-
C')'-O'll!)oo~C')O'l~!\O
C")oo.-O,,\Ooo"'-Ol!)
ooOO'lC")\O\Oool!)~"O
ci 0)' ..f 0)' 00- cO cO c<i 0)' C') ,..:
l[)"I[)O'lC\lC\lI[)l!)"ooT-
ooC\l\O"Ooo l!)" I[) I[) 0)
c<i"':ca"':..fNN"':c<i\O..f
(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.(;A.C")(;A.(;A.(;A. \0
(;A. (;A.
C/J
LU
C/J
Z
LU
l1.
><
LU
Z
o
I- UJ
<( a::: I- C/J
g:Z ::>Z LU
(/)0 ~LU ~
zi= 1-::J::2: LU
-<( Z OQ. Q.
::2: a: UJ 20-1 ><
01- ::2: 0-1<( UJ
<((/) Q. _UJI- CJ
r-z>-(/)o ~Gj~ Z
>::EI-~-I LUO::2: i=
ooUJa:::LU a:>-I- <(
CJ<(LLOGjZOI-a:C/Ja:
-I...J~:>ooUJz<(ffiUJ
<( :> i=a::: Q. Q.
a:~oOZ<(--::>UJLLO
UJo:J:J<(o~::2:o~...J
zocncn:iiE::>a:::::2:z<(<(
UJ::>::>::>::>o<(OOa:::1-
CJJQ.Q.IUJQ.OZI-O
I-
-
co
0)
,...
<0
I[)
C')
co
~
-
o
~
C\I
en
LU
C/J
Z
W
l1.
><
W
a:
LU
>
o
LU
:J
Z
W
>
LU
a:
u.
o
w
o
z
<
...J
<
co
..
.
I-
Z
W
o
a:
W
a..
cft.cft.
O'lCO
0'lC\l
0'l0
.-t'?
cft.cft.cft.cft.cft.cft.cft.
<D'<t.-<D1Ot'?0'l
co .-r--O'<t1O
. . . . . .
'-CO C\lt'? <DO 10
C\l'<tt'?t'?0'lr--C\l
cft.cft.cft.
t'?'<tC\l
~~~
C\l'<t<D
C\lC\l
W
~
Z
<(
J:
o
o r:::- 0 01 r:::- LO ;:- 10 to 0 olLO
1O.-~~tO O.-OC\l~~co
CO'<t 10 .-O'<tt'? t'?
~~ ~ oomo~ m
.-.- 0 COOIO~ t'?
~~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ,.:~~..-
~ ~
0)
,..
('I)
CX)
,..
,...
*
c
z CX)
:J I- ,..
U. a: CX)
..J 0 ,...
0 0- ('I)
0 W 0
J: a: ,..
(,) ..J *
C'II
C/J ~ 0)
.~ (,) 0) ('I)
Z ,..
<( a:
z UJ CO'<tO'l'<t 10 "''''''-or
0 m r--tOr--tO co cor--'<t('l)O'<tco
0 U. 0 10000.-tO t'? "!.'-_'-_~~IO ~
~ I- ('1)1- O'ltOC\lt'? C\l 1OC\l('l).-C\lr--C\l
UJ 0 O)UJ 000'lt'? '<t .-CX)r--O'lCOO'l'<t
..J J: 0 C\i~ '<t('l)100 t'?_ IOtOCX)'<t~tO(')
c:: I- ~o~t'? '<t ~~~..o ~~
<( Z 0)0 C\l t'?1O '<t*~~ 10
~ 0 it~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
UJ ~
m
..J
<(
.
UJ
:J
Z
W
>
W
a:
en
..J
o ZW
o _:J
J: enZ
o a:W
en ..JW>
I ct:LLW
-Jwa:enO:
ct:I-WZ-J
Oct:oct:ct:
Ol-wo:l-o
-JenLLI-
I-
Z
J: 0
I- wi=:
<i. oct:
wenzQ
J:wct:!:!::
-Ozo
w-<i:o
O>I-~
za:z"=: en
<(w-Z" w
oenct:O en
Zz~- z
wOZ"b w
l-i=o:J a..
1-...._ X
ct:.....I-O: W
- I- ct: I- '"
za:a:en \oJ
oOwz z
zi=g,a..o I-
oct:zooenct:
i=g:ct:eneno:ffi
Oena:!!!!!!Wa..
:J-I-I-I-LLO
O:~-J::J::J~-J
t)~o::uu<(<(
~~~~~g:b
I-
en
W
en
z
W
0-
X
W
C/J
UJ
en
z
UJ
0-
X
UJ
c::
UJ
>
o
W
:J
Z
UJ
>
UJ
c::
u.
o
UJ
o
Z
<(
..J
<(
m
(
DjstributD'~ ~c D;)~rd:
, (7') !~,n' / )
.Agend' it~rft ;"..c. ,~_~/~.,~.,-L ~~ /
. .
COMMONWEALTH 0/ VIRGINIA
LEO J. BE ON
DIRE~ R
DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUSUC TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROADSTREET
RICHMOND. 23219
(804) 786-&410
TOD (804) 786-8819
FAX (804) 786-7286
December 4, 1992
Public Transportation Funding for
Fiscal Year 1994
0: City and County Governments, Public Transportation Operators,
Transportation District Commissions, Planning District Commissions,
and State Agencies
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation is now accepting requests for
nancial assistance to support public transportation and ridesharing programs during Fiscal Year
994. Funding will be available to help support the cost of technical studies, capital
uisitions, operating expenses and administrative expenses of public transportation and
desharing programs. A variety of federal and state financial assistance programs for public
sportation and ridesharing is administered by the Department of Rail and Public
ransportation. A brief description of each program is attached. For general information
garding public transportation funding, please contact Charles M. Badger at 804/786-8135. For
i formation regarding specific programs, please contact the program manager designated in the
ttachment.
Applications for financial assistance under these programs must be received by Tuesday,
ebruary 16, 1993.
Sincerely,
cr.ucr Op.-
Leo J. Bevon
Director
ttachment
c: Charles M. Badger
David W. Berg
Linda L. Eads
Leading Virginia To Greater Mobility
. .
APPENDIX A
GRANT PROGRAMS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
FY 1994
Applications for funding must be received by the Department of Rail and Public
ransportation Division at 1401 East Broad Street in Richmond, Virginia by 4:00 p.m., on
ebruary 16, 1993. Information and application instructions for the Department's grant
rograms are organized into three documents:
. . Section 18 Program Application Package
. Formula and Capital Assistance Grant Application Package
. Special Programs Grant Application Package
brief description of each document and grant program follows. All applications must be
s bmitted using the latest application forms and guidelines. For further information, please
ntact the appropriate grant program manager.
ECTION 18 PROGRAM APPLICATION PACKAGE
Contact Person:
Mr. Darrel M. Feasel, (804) 225-3930
This program provides federal assistance for public transportation in rural and small
urban areas of the state (areas under 50,000 population). Eligible applicants include local
public bodies and their agencies, nonprofit organizations and operators of public
transportation services. To receive assistance, private for profit providers of service are
eligible through purchase of service agreements with a local public body for the provision
of public transportation services. Assistance may also be requested for support of the
cost of technical or planning studies associated with eligible public transportation
programs.
ORMULA AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE
Contact Person:
Ms. Linda L. Eads, (804) 786-5756
This program provides state assistance to support operating related and capital costs for
eligible public transportation projects. The funds are also used to match federal grants.
Eligible applicants include local governments, public service corporations, and
transportation district commissions. A special 95 percent state matching ratio supports
A-I
capital projects designed to serve the disabled.
SPECIAL PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE
Ridesharing Program
Contact Person:
Ms. Charlene C. Robey, (804) 786-7968
Ridesharing grants of 80 percent state assistance matched with 20 percent non-state funds
support the administration of ridesharing local and regional programs. Funds can be
used for continuation and expansion of existing ridesharing programs or to encourage the
development of new local ridesharing programs. Eligible applicants include local
governments, planning district commissions, transportation district commissions, and
public service corporations.
Demonstration I Experimental Program
Contact Person:
Mr. Gary D. Kuykendall, (804) 786-1154
Up to 95 percent state funding is available to assistant communities in preserving and
revitalizing public or private mass transportation services by implementing innovative
projects. Eligible applicants include local governments, transportation district
commissions, public service corporations, and the Virginia Department of Rail and
Public Transportation.
Technical and Planning Assistance Program
Contact Person:
Ms. Linda L. Eads, (804) 786-5756
This program provides state funds to support efforts of communities and public
transportation agencies to improve or initiate public transportation related services.
Eligible applicants include local governments, planning district commissions,
transportation district commissions, public service corporations and the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation. These funds may also be used to match
federal planning and technical assistance grants.
Public Transportation Intern and Apprentice Program
Contact Person:
Ms. Felicia H. Woodruff, (804) 786-7858
This program provides state assistance to transit properties and ridesharing agencies to
support an intern for three months, or an apprentice for twelve months at up to 95
percent of the project costs borne by the locality. The program is designed to increase
A-2
I
. .
T
awareness of public transportation as a career choice for aspiring managers, zto make
additional resources available to Virginia's public transportation agencies now and to
increase the potential number of committed public transportation professionals for the
future.
P~blic Transportation Facilities Sign Program
Contact Person:
Ms. Felicia H. Woodruff, (804) 786-7858
The purpose of this statewide program is to promote, through the use of highway signs,
existing public transportation facilities or rideshare matching services. It is a program
designed to provide the traveling public with more information on where existing
facilities, such as park and ride lots, are located and what commuter services are
available.
1 ransportation Efficiency Improvement Fund Program
Contact Person:
Mr. Gary D. Kuykendall, (804) 786-1154
The TEIF Program offers grant funds to reduce the demand for new or expanded
transportation facilities that serve single occupant vehicles. Activities under the program
contribute to the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard in non-
attainment areas of the Commonwealth. Initiatives at the state, regional and community
level that demonstrate innovative approaches to reducing traffic congestion can be
supported by this program. Authorized to $1 million per year and using Congestion
Management Air Quality (CMAQ) federal funds, grants can be matched up to an 80
percent federal, 20 percent non-federal level. Eligible applicants include local
governments, transportation district commissions, planning district commissions, public
service corporations, and transportation management associations.
A-3
. ,'/"; ..' 1..../'\/
Dlstnhuted to Bo4rd: ~/2,
Agenda Item No, ~LL2L((. L5. (1 )
...
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PE HTEL
COMMISSI NER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
November 25, 1992
. David P. Bowerman, Chairman
bemarle County Board of Supervisors
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
ar MD~
In response to your letter of November 4, I summarize the
d'fficulties which I envision with Albemarle County's construction
o a substandard bridge at Millington on Route 671. The reasons
s em from statutory, engineering, and environmental limitations.
First, S33.1-69, Code of Virginia, holds that "The boards of
pervisors . . . shall have no control, supervision, management
d jurisdiction over such public roads, causeways, bridges,
I ndings and wharves, constituting the secondary system of state
h 'ghways. " Thus, for the county to assume responsibility for
r placing the bridge to standards other than VDOT's, I believe the
b idge would first need to be removed from the secondary system,
e'ther by abandonment or by discontinuance.
Second, S33.1-151, Code of Virginia, has been interpreted by
e Virginia Supreme Court to mean that the primary justification
r abandonment under this statute is "public disuse." Wi th
affic counts of several hundred vehicles per day, it would seem
fficult for the county to find that " . . . no public necessity
ists for the continuance of the section of the secondary road as
public road, or the crossing as a public crossing. . ." If the
unty were to so find, then replace the bridge, the acts would
pear contradictory.
The alternative justification for abandonment under S33.1-151
where continued use of the road essentially constitutes a public
nger. The condition of the bridge, and the amount of traffic
ing it, may not now warrant such a finding; this is a matter for
u to consider. But, if the county were to abandon on such
ounds, construction by the county of a new bridge which does not
ange the fundamental design limitations of the existing road and
idge could place additional risk of tort liability directly on
e county. Your counsel can guide you in this regard.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
Third, S33.1-150 allows the Commonwealth Transportation Board
t discontinue a road, public landing, or crossing II . . . in any
c se in which the Board deems such road, public landing, or
c ossing not required for public convenience." The traffic counts
m ke such a finding difficult, if not impossible.
For the above reasons, what you have proposed is not a
s raightforward matter. However, let us assume that Albemarle
C unty, on advice of counsel, does abandon the bridge, and that
V OT does not appeal such abandonment. Where turnarounds for the
e ds of the road would be located, and how their right-of-way is
p ovided, are matters for further study. Aside from the issue of
r ght-of-way now owned by the state, the county would seem free to
p ovide a crossing of its own design, at its own expense.
Should the bridge and approaches be lawfully abandoned, there
w uld be no need to retain funding for the bridge's replacement in
t e secondary six Year Plan. I would expect those funds, which
i clude federal funds intended for bridge replacement, to be
t ansferred to other high-priority and eligible bridge replacement
p ojects in Albemarle County.
As a practical matter, I see no way that any bridge (and
a proaches) not meeting state and national standards could ever be
a cepted back into the secondary system, for the same reasons that
V OT is not free to design and build substandard bridges: increased
r sk of injury or death to the public, and consequent risk of tort
I ability claims. It may be possible for Albemarle County to
c ntract with VDOT to plow a county-owned bridge, or to provide
o her specific services such as periodic inspections, on an
a counts receivable basis. However, I do not support VDOT's
a suming maintenance responsibilities for a crossing not in the
s ate system.
There are engineering complications, also. The existing truss
b idge has its support structure above the road surface, but new
b idges usually have support beams below the road surface. In
o der to provide the same (or greater) under-bridge clearance for
h gh water conditions, the road surface would need to be raised.
W th the existing sharp curve and short approach at the south end
o the bridge, raising the bridge surface would increase the
a proach slope and may result in a very steep ramp. This could be
a more dangerous approach than at present. This is one reason why
w recommend against the bridge being replaced without
s raightening the approaches.
Environmental considerations include the fact that an
e dangered species (the James Spineymussel) has been identified at
t is location of the Moormans River. Our environmental commitments
i clude contracting with specialists to relocate such mussels found
i the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge, and keeping
e uipment out of the stream during construction. In the event that
A bemarle County considers replacing the bridge, I would encourage
s milar actions.
In summary, I recommend strongly that Albemarle County not
u dertake to construct a bridge without providing a transportation
f cility meeting state and national standards. However, if your
bard should decide to do so, the existing bridge and approaches
m st first be lawfully removed from the secondary system. If
r moved from the system, the crossing will remain the county's
r sponsibility unless and until it has been brought to design
s andards acceptable to VDOT for addition to the secondary system
p rsuant to S33.1-229, at no expense to the state.
You asked for a forecast of the useful life of the current
M llington Bridge; I am unable to comply. I believe you are well
a are that the structure was inspected in August, and its load
c pacity reduced sharply from 7 to 3 tons. It would take only one
o erweight vehicle to cause immediate and permanent closure of the
b idge, which could happen at any time. Absent such catastrophic
f ilure, the structure's lifetime will depend on how long it can
s pport 3 tons. If our bridge inspectors and engineers determine
t at it cannot do so, it will be closed, as 3 tons is the lowest
wight limit for keeping a bridge open.
At present, we have taken every action available to us to plan
f r and fund a specially-designed replacement bridge along the
" reen line" chosen by the Albemarle County Board of supervisors,
a I environmental studies are complete, and we stand ready,
wIling, and able to replace this structure. The release of a
s all amount of Open Space Easements is the only impediment to
p oviding a safe transportation facility for this and future
g nerations.
p Mr. J. S. Hodge
Mr. Claude D. Garver, Jr.
Mr. Thomas F. Farley
Mr. M. T. Kerley
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
V~rginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virgin-
i~ Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept
ipto the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and
approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in
H~ghlands at Mechurns River 1A:
Highlands Drive:
Beginning at Station 10+06.90, a point common with the edge
of pavement of U. S. Route 240 and the centerline of High-
lands Drive, thence extending 2140.10 feet to Station 31+47,
the end of the Highlands Drive cul-de-sac included in this
dedication. Stations are as shown on the as-built road
plans for section 1A dated November 3, 1989, and last
revised July 28, 1992.
Grassy Knoll Road
Beginning at Station 10+10 of Grassy Knoll Road, a point
common with the edge of pavement of Highlands Drive at
Station 26+78.89, thence extending 285 feet to Station
12+95, the end of the Grassy Knoll Road cul-de-sac included
in this dedication. Stations cited are as represented on
the' as-built road plans for section 1A dated November 3,
1989, and last revised July 28, 1992.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
pcprtation be and is hereby guaranteed a 75 foot unobstructed right-
o -way for Highlands Drive from station 10+06.90 to station 13+85.39,
a~d 50 feet for all other road sections, and drainage easements along
t ~ese requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the
C erk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1176,
pc ges 0344 to 0357.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
L a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the
Be ard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
mEeting held on December 9, 1992.
c~:~~4rs
Edward H, Bin, Jr,
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr,
Scotlsville
David P Bow rman
Charlottesvil e
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jouett
Waller F, Perkins
While Hall
MEMORANDUM
TO: Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~
DATE: December 10, 1992
S Road Resolution
tached is the original resolution (plus three copies) adopted
the Board on December 9, 1992, requesting acceptance of
ghlands Drive at Mechums River 1A and an amended resolution
questing acceptance of Willoughby Section IV into the State
condary System of Highway.
1 n/jnh
A tachments (3)
*
Printed on recycled paper
J-.~
"YJ
) ~)j'
Cj
BE \ IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
V"rginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virgin-
i Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept
i to the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and
a proval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in
H'ghlands at Mechums River 1A:
"'-""
, ,,- , ,J. / ,Ij ,4 . q~
D' "r''-''t'', tJ ,,\r'<I"1,' U' "-.--.....:-. ,j. )"
~S.i. It...J:;;-..... " ,~.....' (:~~-1"8.'4 +-"',~. (';'; / ~; /' '~j
v_ ,]'/ ',7 " /
. ~,~... , , . , '/ .-\...... ~\.
Agenda Item I~V .1~-." .:-.,------
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
Highlands Drive:
Beginning at Station 9+96.90, a point common with the
centerline of U. S. Route 240 and the centerline of High-
lands Drive, thence extending 2105.1 feet to Station 31+02,
the centerline of the Highlands Drive cul-de-sac included in
this dedication. Stations are as shown on the as-built road
plans for section 1A dated November 3, 1989, and last
revised July 28, 1992.
Grassy Knoll Road
Beginning at Station 10+00 of Grassy Knoll Road, a point
common with the centerline of Highlands Drive at Station
26+78.89, thence extending 250 feet to Station 12+50, the
centerline of the Grassy Knoll Road cul-de-sac included in
this dedication. Stations cited are as represented on the
as-built road plans for section 1A dated November 3, 1989,
and last revised July 28, 1992.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 75 foot unobstructed right-
of-way for Highlands Drive from station 9+96.90 to station 13+85.39,
an 50 feet for all other road sections, and drainage easements along
th se requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the
Cl rk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1176,
pa es 0344 to 0357.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a t.rue, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the
Bo rd of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
me ting held on December 9, 1992.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
ATE:
E:
Lettie E. Neher, Board of Supervisors Clerk
Peter Parsons, civil Engineer II 0P
December 2, 1992
Highlands at Mechums River 1A
low is a description of roads in the above referenced
bdivision which are to be accepted by the Virginia Department
Transportation for maintenance.
Hiqhlands Drive
Beginning at station 9+96.90 a point common with the
centerline of S.R. 240 and the centerline of Highlands Drive,
thence extending 2105.1 feet to station 31+02, the centerline
of the Highlands Drive cul-de-sac included in this dedication.
Stations are as shown on the as-built road plans for section
1A dated November 3, 1989, and last revised July 28, 1992.
Grassy Knoll Road
Beginning at station 10+00 of Grassy Knoll Road, a point
common with the centerline of Highlands Drive at station
26+78.89, thence extending 250 feet to station 12+50, the
centerline of the Grassy Knoll Road cul-de-sac included in
this dedication. Stations cited are as represented on the as-
built road plans for section 1A dated November 3, 1989, last
revised July 28, 1992. \ \1. l,o
e above roads have been sub~antially completed and their plats
a e recorded in deed book ~, pages 0344 to 0357. Right-of-way
w'dths are 75 feet for Highlands Drive from station 9+96.90 to
s ation 13+85.39, and 50 feet for all other road sections.
PI
solutions/hilnds11.92
.'" ,.
Edward H Bam, Jr
Samuei Mille
David P. Bow rman
Charlottesvill
Charlotte Y Humphns
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
November 2, 1992
. Hunter Craig
aig Builders
Box 6156
arlottesville, VA 22906
Forrest R Marshall. Jr
SCOll5vdle
Charles 5 Martm
Rlvanna
Walter F Perkms
White Hall
Your request to have Highlands Drive taken into the State
condary System of Highways has been received and referred to the
unty Engineer. When the County Engineer has certified that all
rk has been completed in accordance with approved plans, this
quest will be placed before the Board of Supervisors for adoption
the necessary resolution.
ar Mr. Craig:
Neh r,
L
c Jo Higgins, County Engineer
_ 1.1
-...
CR
o
IG BUILDERS
ALBEMARLE, INC.
E ~~ \\.U'\1ft,
Oc ober 22, 1992
Peter Parsons
emarle County Engineering Department
McIntire Road
rlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Highlands at Mechums River - Highlands Drive
Peter:
Please consider this a request for Highlands Drive to be
epted into the Virginia Department of Transportation's road
tern. Also, please consider this a request to have the Albemarle
nty Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution to accept Highlands
ve into the Virginia Department of Transportation's road system.
If you have any questions, please call me at 973-3362.
Thank you.
si
,,...
1 :
'),' '
,....~ \
1-:\\,,,,
38 Rio Road · Post Office Box 6156 · Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 . (804) 973-3362
,I ,
.. '
Edward H, Bai . Jr.
Samuel Mille
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R, Marshall, Jr
Scottsville
Charles S Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, H mphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
MEMORANDUM
TO: Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC/~vL//
DATE: December 10, 1992
S BJECT: Road Resolution
A tached is the original resolution (plus three copies) adopted
b the Board on December 9, 1992, requesting acceptance of
H"ghlands Drive at Mechums River 1A and an amended resolution
r questing acceptance of Willoughby Section IV into the State
S condary System of Highway.
1 n/jnh
tachments (3)
*
Printed on recycled paper
" ,
I :~
, '
':""i
;5, ;' ! )
(J.. )
l;;>i.
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, that pursuant to virginia Code Section 33.1-
2 9, the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
r quested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
s bject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
D partment, the following roads in Willoughby Section IV:
Beginning at Station 0+20, a point common with the
centerline of Harris Road and the end of previous
dedication, thence in a southerly direction 222.09 feet to
station 2+42.09, the end of this dedication.
Beginning at Station 0+17, a point common with the
centerline of Fielding Drive and the edge of pavement of
Harris Road, thence in an easterly direction 676.64 feet to
station 6+93.64, the end of the cul-de=sac.
Beginning at Station 0+13, a point common with the
centerline of Chandler Court and the edge of pavement of
Fielding Drive, thence in a northerly direction 380.02 feet
to station 3+93.02, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Beginning at Station 0+13, a point common with the
centerline of Towler Court and the edge of pavement of
Fielding Drive, thence in a northerly direction 192 feet to
station 2+05, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the virginia Department of
ansportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
ght-of-way for Harris Road; Fielding Drive, Chandler Court and
wIer Court have variable rights-of-way of 50 feet and 45 feet,
d drainage easements along these requested additions are
corded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the circuit Court
Albemarle County in Deed Book 858, pages 704 to 707 and Deed
ok 1145, page 499.
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle hereby
arantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
at the sidewalks within the right-of-way of the above named
reet will be maintained to the satisfaction of VDOT at no cost
VDOT.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
iting is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
ard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
eting held on November 18, 1992.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
.' ,
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
0: Lettie E. Neher, Board of Supervisors Clerk
Peter J. Parsons, civil Engineer II :JL~f)
I
December 3, 1992
Willoughby Section IV
Pam discussed with you this morning, there are two additions
t at need to be made to the Board resolution adopted 11/18/92 for
W'lloughby Section IV road acceptance:
Add deed book 1145, page 499 to the deed book references.
The following statement must be included in the resolution:
"The County of Albemarle hereby guarantees to the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) that the sidewalks
within the right-of-way of the above named streets will be
maintained to the satisfaction of VDOT at no cost to VDOT."
This wording was obtained from George st. John and should be
included at the end of the resolution.
appreciate your effort in getting this on the Board's 12/9/92
enda. Once a revised resolution is prepared, please contact
m (Ext. 3246) and she will pick it up. Jim Kesterson of VDOT
a vises that he needs the revised resolution by first thing
M nday morning (12/14/92) in order for the roads to be accepted
i January. If the Monday deadline is a problem, please let me
k ow as soon as possible.
/
I
!
!
, i
/ v
l'
,\ I
/ } s.
I '). ' '~/' 'i )
I c_./' t~
0: State Compensation Board
Month of ~ tit' /VI bf 1/ /912-
, ,
ST A TEMENT OF EXPENSES
Clerk, Circuit Court
-0-
,(/7~J?Cl
///6 eft?
ote: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
ich the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
a e not the total office expenses of t~ese departments.
1\ /, -
01 ;'1' i ,
DATE / \ { \ \ t/,'
/ J I' ~ I f -71
AGENDA ITEM NO. 'I'~ I "",I ,
,.- .
AGENDA ITEM NAME I " I - -, ,
l ./ I ,- ,
-, \ -
I \ " ' '')', i , \
~ I
-.....--
DEFERRED UNTIL / ; --\ \. /' - ,
\. ; !
I
Form.3
7/25/86
.
"':~il>l'lcd ~ Suatll1, __.
\~ ~~/ \ ~'---.
" .' I ,'''1'1
'. 4C .,A~
Distributed to Board: W1,_....,
in /')J;(7 ,~v~ ,
Agenda item No, (2.;BJ~.J:0)J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296,5823
N vember 18, 1992
. Henry Chiles
. Virginia Chiles Keith
O. Box 299
tesville, VA 22924
SP-92-61 Charlottesville Cellular
Tax Map 97, Parcel 16
Mr. Chiles & Ms. Keith:
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
vember 17, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the above-
ted request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
ease note that this approval is subject to the following
nditions:
1 Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet;
2 The existing tower shall be removed;
3 Staff approval of additional antennae installations. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support
for or approval of, the location of additional tower
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network
of system as any antennae administratively approved under
this section;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
5. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a
federal agency;
SP-92-61 Charlottesville Cellular
age 2
November 18, 1992
6. Administrative approval of sketch plan in general accord
with plan dated August 20, 1992 by Balzer and Associates in
Attachment B of this report and administrative approval of
erosion control plan, if applicable.
A though the sketch plan indicates only 7,500 square feet of area
w'll be disturbed, the County Engineer believes the project may
a tually result in over 10,000 square feet of disturbed area.
S ould the applicant vidate the 10,000 square foot limit, this
a ended condition puts him on notice that he must comply with
e osion and sedimentation laws.
P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
w'll review this petition and receive public comment at their
meting on December 9, 1992. Any new or additional information
r garding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
Bard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
h aring date.
you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-
ted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Hipski
Lettie E. Neher
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Richard E. Carter
Charlottesville Cellular Partnership
AFF PERSON:
ANNING COMMISSION:
ARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YOLANDA HIPSKI
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
DECEMBER 9, 1992
S -92-61 CHARLOTTESVILLE CELLULAR
titian: Charlottesville Cellular petitions the Board of
pervisors to issue a special use permit for constructing a
lti-Iegged tower and equipment building for cellular telephone
ansmission and reception (10.2.2.6) on a portion of a 209.9
re parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax
p 97, Parcel 16, is accessed through a private road located off
Crown Orchard Road (Route 695) approximately 3 miles south of
tesville. This property is located in the Samuel Miller
gisterial district and not in a designated growth area (Rural
ea III See Attachment A).
the Area: There is an existing 150 foot tower on
is property. The area is heavily wooded and steep. There are
houses within 1,400 feet of the proposed tower location. The
operty contains an orchard on lower elevations.
licant's Pro sal: The applicant is proposing to replace an
isting 150 foot private communication tower with a new 150 foot
wer for transmission and reception of cellular and microwave
dio signals (See Attachment B). There will be a minor
alignment of an existing right-of-way, construction of a
ncrete foundation and a 12 x 20 foot transmitter building.
ter initial construction, access to the tower will average one
ip per month. The tower will be designed to accommodate a
tal of at least four users one of which is the present user.
"strobe" type lighting of the tower is proposed and F.C.C.
a thorization has been obtained.
Y AND RECOMMENDATIONS: On October 22, 1992, the Zoning
inistrator determined (SP-92-61) Charlottesville Cellular
quired the following approvals:
o Review by the Planning Commission under Virginia Code
Section 15.1-456 and,
o A special use permit for a multi-legged tower.
S aff has reviewed this request for each of the above and
r commends approval.
P annin
N/A
1
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (15.1-456
T e County's Zoning Ordinance (Section 3.0) defines a public
utility as "any plant or equipment for the conveyance of
telephone messages..." Therefore, this request for the location
of a tower and related facilities is defined as a public utility
a d requires a review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
as per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia.
e Comprehensive Plan Objective regarding corporate public
ilities is as follows:
"Maintain cooperative planning efforts between the County
and other non-public utilities which provide essential
services, such as telephone, electric, and natural gas
utilities, to insure the adequate provision of these
services to support existing and anticipated development in
the County" (p. 153).
A general standard of the Plan (Scenic Resources, Design
S andards) states:
"Design public utility corridors to fit the topography.
Corridors should be shared by utilities when possible..."
(p. 88).
Wile this tower does not represent a corridor, the general
i tent of this standard is to consolidate, where possible,
1 cations of facilities necessary to provide public utility
rridors. It has been the County's policy to encourage
oadcast towers in clusters or tower farms. In an effort to
duce the total number of new towers, the County has encouraged
towers be designed to accommodate multiple users.
aff opinion is that the request is consistent with the
mprehensive Plan. The applicant has pursued, although
successfully, utilization of existing locations and facilities
a recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Other locations either
d"d not meet technical needs or existing tower owners were
u willing to agree to use by Charlottesville Cellular. The
d sign of the tower will accommodate other users in the future,
c nsistent with County policy. The proposal is to replace an
e isting tower with a new facility of similar size, therefore it
c ntinues an existing use and proposes no significant additional
i pact.
USE PERMIT:
aff has reviewed this special use permit for compliance with
ction 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2
be
nce this application proposes to replace an existing tower of
e same height, the character of the district should not be
gatively altered nor the adjacent properties further affected.
d that such use will
this Ordinance
strict with additional re
is ordinance and with the
lfare.
of
staff opinion, this tower should not negatively affect areas
historic, visual or scenic value due to lack of visibility
om public roads or areas. This use does not effect uses by-
ght from continuing and can be adequately covered by
pplementary regulations in Section 5.0 which staff recommends
part of the conditions of approval. There will be no harmful
issions due to the proposed use.
aff has reviewed this request and has found the following
ctors favorable:
1 Visual impact should be minimal. The new tower will replace
an existing one of the same height. The tower will not be
lighted. The base of the tower and equipment shelter will
not be visible due to existing vegetation. The nearest
residential dwelling is 1,400 feet away.
2 Approval of this request would improve cellular telephone
service in a portion of the County. The applicant has
provided letters from representatives of fire and rescue
groups supporting improved service (see Attachment C).
3 In order to provide equivalent service, the applicant would
have to locate two towers so as to circumvent Castle Rock
Mountain. As a policy, the County has attempted to reduce
the total number of new towers.
4 The applicant is designing the tower to accommodate a
minimum of two additional users. As a policy, the County
has encouraged tower design to accommodate additional users.
S aff offers the following comments which are unfavorable to this
r quest.
1. The tower is not located in a tower >>arm.
3
2 Approval of this commercial tower may lead to additional
requests at this location for a tower farm in an area
partially served by an existing cluster on Heard's Mountain.
Staff may not endorse future tower requests at this
location.
S aff opinion is that this request is in compliance with the
C(punty's Comprehensive Plan and with Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Z(pning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-92-
6 Charlottesville Cellular subject to the following conditions:
Rl~COMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet;
2 The existing tower shall be removed;
3 Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support
for or approval of, the location of additional tower
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network
of system as any antennae administratively approved under
this section;
4 Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
5 There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a
federal agency;
6 Administrative approval of sketch plan in general accord
with plan dated August 20, 1992 by Balzer and Associates in
Attachment B of this report.
A'rTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Applicant's Proposal
C - Emergency & Rescue Representative Letters
4
I
.-J
Ii
)'[~:~
168 i\Ii",:1J
,,_ D '"
.....'.!if.
~o
<;:,'<.v
~:l'
J.!LQ;<'
-z.
'\::
;.
@J'-
(<'
('
s
<f\
o
-z.
.r:,,"
('
Part.
C-
\
\ '
~
-'-
TO RT ]9
,---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
, '
I 0
tf!li;l
: <'
;-..i'';; to- - - - - - -
m 1Iq
010~\-1t;
[~I'J
m;.,"'i -I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
.
.
.
<;)
.ii'J
(~mo'"
r1f1.
0,10.
TOOlcoll
,~~f;
FE]
y~
\'" / (
\1 " x
'~I J
\
'~, )
/ ~(~ '
, ~' /' /
/--- ~/ /
\, / (\
\_1 \ ~
'___. __'__, '>\ 2. // I~ \
\ \( "f
__ ~ / '-L J", ___ j
\ I ~~/4 14Aj.'
'\ ) */; /~ / Ol'
" I (/ //~!:-~'
-\l (/ //,
~, " ','-r'>,' "'"P"".-l~[{;:"j..,. ,.!', / ""'...~
ttUt: .... ;,', ..... <:'\Q..~z':(.::;: ">-I~.~~~.t:~) ~,- _.~__..,~
SP-92-6l
C lottesville Cellular Part.
85
I ATTACHMENT Al
I Page 21
ALBEMARLE COUNT)
/
i
\
)
. /
/;;( 1--
t 17 \/ ,I 18
~\ \1
I ' ,.n ,
-.-.-l --.--~l L'---I'
, .--.---......---'
--~---------- f
""..,id' I
19 A
/" ,
r
I
'~,
~
'~.
I \
/ ,,-~
/ )
\\ I
\
\
\
\
~'"
) 21
/
'" (
+' ) r---;-
// '\
"'-/
I
96
./'
--
27
SCAL( IN f((1
.~ II~O "lX'_ 'r
SECTION 97
~TTACHMENT B I
I Page 1\
OF INFORMATION August 31, 1992
CHARLOTTESVILLE CELLULAR PARTNERSHIP APPLICANT AND HENRY
OWNER
Cellular Telephone Reception and Transmission Tower
(10.2.2.6)
209.9 Acres
RA
roperty, described as Tax Map 97, parcel 16, is located off of st.
t. 695, approximately 3 miles south of Batesville. Plat showing
xact location of tower and tax map parcel with relative location
f structure site is filed with the application.
of the Area:
si te will be accessed by and existing right of way over
roperty from State Route 695. There are no dwelling units in
lose proximity of the site. The area is wooded with an existing
50 foot tower.
licant's Pro osal:
pplicant is petitioning the Planning Commission and Board of
upervisors for approval to replace an existing 150 foot tower and
onstruct a new tower approximately 150 feet high for transmission
nd reception of cellular and micro-wave radio signals. The tower
ould be located at:] '~""'~_;{")n of 2,374 feet, North Latitude:
7 57 I 02", West : (, / 47". Tower construction
ould involve: Mini - ing right of way across the
roperty to the t ! I V stallation of a concrete
oundation; and co It-f:' .,I..;:,.','iN-;, 5S fencing around the site
f the tower and b , 1- ii I j/)f the design of the tower
ill be provided.n ,-I~ I'd\,; , ,ing (approximately 12 feet
y 20 feet) will , '1"/''-0 '.,/ site. The tower will be
upported by guy wj I . /:'Jui) i.-!J V :e plan showing the location
f the transmitter buildlny w~~~ __ covided. FCC authorization
as been obtained.
of Relevant Factors:
The tower will not be of substantial detriment to adioining
properties (property value; proximity to dwellings): There
are no dwellings located in the vicinity, therefore, proximity
to dwellings is not a factor. The property in question would
not be appropriate for future commercial development and has
no on site water or sewer for substantial development.
I .\TTACHMENT B I
I Page 21
The tower would not chanqe the character of the district The
tower will be a 150 guy tower. A catalogue cut sheet and
engineering drawing depicting the tower will be submitted.
The tower will be very similar in structure to the existing
tower on site but more stable. A preliminary design drawing
will be submitted.
The tower would not change the character of the district since
there is already an existing tower. The tower will be
designed to accommodate other users.
The tower will be galvanized steel and will be in accordance
wi th the current Federal Communications Commission and Federal
Aviation Administration requirements. The tower will not be
lighted. FAA will not require this tower to be lighted.
The tower would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the Zoninq Ordinance includinq provisions of 5.0 supplementary
requlations: As stated previously, the tower will not be
located in proximity to existing residence.
The tower will not be located closer to any property line than
the height of the tower and will be designed to meet the
requirements of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The tower will not endanger the health and safety of workers
and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove
detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of
same for the reasons previously stated.
4. The tower would be consistent with the pUblic health. safety
and welfare (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation; signal
interference, safety of tower): Several aspects of this
petition are addressed under this criteria:
a) Access: Access will be over the existing right of way.
Access is not particularly important except during the
initial construction of the tower in order to transport
the tower, crane and construction equipment.
Once the tower is constructed, access will be required
on an infrequent basis. This is an unmanned facility and
the only time access will be required is for periodic
maintenance on a sporadic basis. There is no legal
requirement that the facility be inspected on any regular
basis. It is expected, based on experience with other
facilities, that access will be required, on the average,
once every month.
There will be no mixing of residential and commercial
uses since most of the traffic would be for servicing
other facilities as already referred.
; ATTACHMENT 81
Ipage 31
b) Safetv of the tower. The tower will be engineered and
constructed to appropriate wind and ice loads and the
engineering information from the tower construction
company will be submitted. Tower collapse is a very
infrequent occurrence. The applicant has provided fall
space around the tower equal to the heights of the tower
so that if a collapse occurs, it would not affect
adjoining property. Copies of the plans and calculations
will be submitted to the Building Official as part of the
building permit process and all legal requirements will
be satisfied.
c) Siqnal Interference. The proposed tower will not
interfere with any existing broadcasts.
d)
Electrical
commercial
generator.
tower that
Power. The proposed tower will operate on
AC power and backup power from a propane
There is a power pole in the vicinity of the
would be accessed for power.
Benefits to the Public: The applicant desires to construct
the tower to better serve the public with two way radio and
cellular telephone transmission and reception.
ellular.sum
p
r:
[;)
r-
',-
Co
g
"
~I
t;i
~
,~
8
r:
~
~
'"
c:
~~
"
o
,'::
Q
Fri
,=
co
8
'v
'0
L"
0'
o
>
~
>M
~~
M~
~~~~
ClClt"'r-l
z<::tll;tt
~~8~
:~ ~ ~
-<"
~:~E
~'->R~
~o
;j;;;
~5
~I~
~,~
CT'oim
;
}11
Qr
;>>
:z:
f~
V'
"
r
,~
,~
~' (tI
,~ ~
~>
> E.
%c
CI ~ -qy
~;r ~~ e
~ ~F iJ
,~ ., i~
- ;'IJ
2 r
"0
r "
0>
0,
~Q
-<L
I)'')
~. T1 /
..
!
..L
~
r"
<:
:;;,
"<:
(j
::::
~
hJ
'"
o
~ @
~ ~
da'"l~
;tt8~CIl
z ~
~ ~
"
~ ~
~-l:,
-r--
zr--
, I
/ -# ~ I
;/1 I ~ A/ i i
--__/_;." ~ ~~A~)~
_,I/'O~[ ~~;1 ~~
~.
'J~
;~ ~.:
~~
"
.
o
I'l-J
~::
n~
~ ~ ,r
,j>
"C)
cD
\\\!I~
~i~
'1t.J~
~;~~
8]
cu:~
~~
"'
D
0,
k
C
'-
F-~-_ Z ,==-.
-,
,,,
H
nO
r;;::
z.;::
00
I~
Of..
0:;:
, > .
:l'};:)
~
~ ~; I!
~e~~E
H M M H 1'1
onO);l);l
~~~~~
t"'MClC'llt'l
-< c
(Il'[/)>i>-l
....0>-100
~<:: "O'tl
~g~~O~O
~ ~n
-<........0
~>-I:c
.., ~ t'l 'tl
s::""O~
" -~
~ ~~;~
:'l ~~
1: t"'>-l
~ :0<::
~ ~:
~ ~O
~~
~ ~~
~~
~ ~f,;
~~
~?
~
~
~
n
J:
3:
m
Z
-l
w
~~~S53~E~f
~;g~~S~~~"d~
~U1>-lC'I:"'''''Z )'t
~~g~:a:E~f
)>oM" dI;")OM/:,t'
~I~~~i:~~f
O>-l: xn~~
:~ ~g;t"'ln
~~ ~~~~
~~ "~~1i
aB O\n ;~)F
""
,~
"
"
n ,
g t':
Ii:
-.J
1-
\n
II~
I
\ i
.
rL:i:G(~i6i<SD
~G, ~3~'~~D
,HDRIZ, c.:>I<SI
7 1/4' X 3/8' BENT PLATE
ANGLE 2 X 1 1/2 X 3/16
ANGLE 2 X 1 1/2 X 1/8
'"
M
M
t:J~
~~
;S~
Zr'1
Cl-l
r"1
:z
0-.
-0
-<
:::r'1
WAI
to
to
J>
V>
r'1
,-
~
'"
-r
I
w
~
,"\
>,
. '
j
_J
(/ ,J "
-~
';--."1 ,... J> -l..
Zrl "ZUI ,
J>r'1 '-l ~ ~ ~Ir
( CD r'13: V> , ~(..
rt:J 'ZO
rC ,
t10 3:ZC-l ~I
NO Z l>J>ZO
.> ::z -lr'1 XVl-l<
-n IVl ~l>""",M Vlnoo
,-'j;:o AI -lr'10
~(Tl r'1Vl C-l""AI Oro
r'1I 3: " t::Jr-~
71~ l> -l I
r'1 -lr .,,:r:~:r> Vi < N 3:1
Z Dr r'1r'1V>Vl I
PCl <to r;:Alf1~ I, ' I
c: ~.
:::~ ~r'1 rp'<t:J
wp -.,r'1 zOx- J>
:-1> (.) ,."S.,,~ AI
J>D AI'O 3:
I nC Vlr'1CZ Vl
0 r'1l> ~t:JIl> d
AI Vlr N -"r -G iU
-r r'1r'1
-< '-"rtoC'1 01'"" v
t:J r'1CJ> ;x;-- ZI
Vi <V1-o n1i
~z~ UI
-l " I
~ ~r'1~ CD CD
OVl-l
to ZVl-<
C 0
-l
r'1
t:J
-- ---,"--,-- Z
~' a: Si I P' !Jl ;- "" [\l ,..0
~S~iS:t a---4:>^:I:-t Zt1l> -i M
t.i~ _q;;~; ~: ._Jt'-~ "'''',. l>l> fTl t1 fTl ~ n
I zO\~.....~~ "I ~~3:Q'" Ctx:litl:boO -i:I:1'" MI'l1'" W1'" ~M '" r'1
;:1<z)><< fTl)>1'" n<1'" O\r- :1>", '" '" Z
' p i:l~~ -l I _,,~<:::> (I) (1')0]> "TJ",O"'T'lrrl,..., P~n ~PB "':<: t1C1 M -< -l
,j -, <:::> - ru.....,C::iU Fi~~-iz;o < )> ~
0 -i:l> fTlZ % C
- ;z:-<... 0 I '. <:::> :1>)>'" t:;I;;Ql>FTIoV) nnz Cl~~ I'l-i '" ;;; s ~ '" AI
,~ g: ;:j-;... ~ ~ I x~<::J>. ~r-Z_H'1 ooz fTlfTl -:<: a n ~ ~
W ~~M rr, -C"'a ~~38tO~ ZZfTl ~:r8 1"'''' "'", ~ % -<
1:I;ll:ll "'"'1n ",';;' 2", i' ~ .., .., '" ~
"" 6~~5 AI ~~ ...-N:J:>o"" ~ fTl'Zr'l_ -i0-< ~~;j ",-<
Vl. S1 ;U~~:i gMY>~fTl~ "''''- ~1'" -<'" ~ Z ::::: " ru Ui n L
c::<:o "'nO 2 0 0
~o ,., t:J Ll;)~ S;~,...,~'ZV) n Z "')>2 -n "-< ~ ru ~ J> :r
"t::lM J> X"'~'" -l-l ,..., ~-o(.l) :<:0 %:r: ~ n Z ru Vl :r
Q) ;0 C! -l ~ :<:~ W$~-i ;;1~~~~~ so...... )>l> C:z t:lM r'1 :r I -l ,
ill> ~ n", ;<:'" l> J: "lJ r'1 r n
." ~F ~ ~~~_~1"'1 ~?!:~ ~ "'", I
" I;~ ~ :;", t1", 3: r'1 f'l
lil V> 0\ ~M .~Pl""~E 1"''''1''' -<n r:g to r
t1 "'I '" m AI
,. ':!of'l ~O~"J )).("')~ 00 fTl J> r
:1>", ",- Z 0
-< IS Z -f'''' ",~~t::1~ ;;ii~ "'1Z t:I -i'" v:>
", 'I'TJ C'l"::C;o '" fTl'" -I (=; (") 0
- )'" --; lA' ::I:~-<trJ'z "')>)> ~8 )> t:I~ :II: Z
~ I~ , '''~~<::. f;;x",o -i2Z '"
I ,:\5 ~ 2:i I 3: ~O(")-<Cl lTlj;t:t ",Q )>Z l:ll f'l
I-~!~ I' ! "'-i r~~-tl> ~
i-i Ci S~!il:i! t:lr-", n'" ~~ <
J>ngM ~~~~a 30p ot:l -i
:<: <0 l>
I .' 'i'Q", t:l"'''' o"'1-i 2-i ~"'1
:\0 I ! -;0 2 ,., 10
I ' ~' ~
c,_~,.,-,- J-" L
I-
10' -0'
3'-4'
J>
,
,
~
o
r
-i
V?
J>
::u
fT1
Ul
"-
co
S
,
,
~
~'
[\J ~-
-i
~J>l> ,..,
J>Z' J>\:?
1Ilt::1, ,
~IIlOj ,
III
20~p;2 -i
.,,'-i fT1
,..,
l>'V'! ,
'nV'! n
zOI 0
CZl> Z
-i-i' V'!
J>,
0- :;
::uzOj fT1
J>"" ::u
~,J> fT1
t::1
no V'!
on-i -i
A:I: 0
Z-
Czl> OJ
-ic;)W ,.., 3:
'-' ru
- t:l Ul W J>
fT1 '(]'.
<0 A -1
_::u ~ f'Tl
n
""V'! 3: /0
J> >-<
, p"" Z J>
dc;) :2 r -
n::u c
AUl ;<:
IAr.,,~HM-ENT- cj
J~~e 1L
CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEl\1ARLE RESCUE S , C.
A VOLUNfEER. NON-PRoFrr ORGANI7.xnoN
P. O. Box 160 - CHARLOTTESnLLE, VIRGINIA 22902
BUSINESS PHONE: McIr..-rutE ROAD 296-4825
November 3, 1992
ear Ms. McCulley,
mergency Medical Services relies heavily on communications.
e have found that cellular telephone service has been
nstrumental in serving the public. Maintaining the
ntegrity of our communications is imperative. The expansion
f cellular in the Charlottesville area would enable us to
ervice the community more effectively. Without expanded
overage, from time to time we have found low signal areas
hich hamper our ability to communicate' with necessary
gencies such as hospitals, fire departments, police
epartments, etc..
lease consider any request that may come before you with the
ublic's best interest in mind.
.ly,
-7)~
. J. DUdley, EMT-C
aptain
IATTACHMENT cl
I Page 2\
TO WHa1 IT MAY CONCERN:
JUST A FEW LINES TO INFORM YOU ABOUT THE NEED
AND IMPORTANCE OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES.
I AM A FIRE CAPTAIN WITH THE CHARWTTESVILLE
FIRE DEPARTMENT, A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER WITH p.1iliMYRA
VOLUNTEER FIRE CCMPANY, CHIEF OF THE NEWLY FORMED
ZION CROSSROADS VOLUNTEER FIRE CCMPANY AND A FATHER.
I HAVE A CELLULAR TELEPHONE AND HAVE USED IT
ON MANY EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. I HAVE CALLED 911 TO
REPORT LCX:::ATION OF FIRES AND VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. DURING
AN INCIDENT, I HAVE MADE CALLS TO RELATIVES OF PERSONS
INVOLVED AND INFORMED THEM OF HOSPITAL LCY'...ATION AND ANY
OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION NEEDED.
AS A FATHER, I ENCOURAGED MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER
TO GET A CELLULAR TELEPHONE AND USE IT FOR EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS. IF SHE HAD VEHICLE PROBLEMS AT NIGHT, SHE WAS
TO LeeK THE JXX)RS AND CALL HER PARENTS OR SHE COULD
CALL 911 AND WAIT FOR ASSISTANCE.
I BELIEVE IN CELLULAR TELEPHONES AND THEIR BENEFIT
TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CCMMUNITY. I BELIEVE THE MANY
LIVES AND PROPERTY SAVED WOULD GREATEL Y Ca1PENSATE
FOR THE FEW OBJECTIONS OF THE ANTENNA TOWERS NEEDED
TO ASSURE A GOOD OPERATING CELLULAR TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
WILLI~ A. LEWIS, JR. ~
, ~ ")
"%4/;f~~;~1 q ;-'J13;~
PLEASE SEE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 1992, FOR
MINUTES ON SP-92-61, BEGINNING ON PAGE 23.
t~q4~
,.--/
Oc ober 30, 1992
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 2%5823
Mr. Henry Chiles
Ms. Virginia Chiles Keith
Po t Office Box 299
Ba esville, VA 22924
RE: SP-92-61 - Charlottesville Cellular Partnership
Mr. Chiles & Ms. Keith:
notify you that your above-referenced petition,
scheduled for public hearings as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1992
Bo h of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room
#7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Ch rlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff
ort and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning
ission meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE
you should have any questions or concerns about this petition
schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Charlottesville Cellular Partnership
Richard E. Carter
vMs. Lettie E. Neher
L
. itl~
DIstributed to Bo.1rd: I, ~:..LJ.."
Agenda Item No, ~ . : J
t110
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
N vember 18, 1992
F'rst Gold Leaf Land Trust
P. O. Box 5548
C arlottesville, VA 22905
SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust
Carrsbrook Auto Preliminary site Plan
sir:
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
vember 17, 1992, unanimously recommended denial of the above-
ted request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
w'll review this petition and receive public comment at their
meting on December 9. 1992. Any new or additional information
r garding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
Bard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
h aring date.
you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-
ted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
lliam D. Fritz
nior Planner
Lettie E. Neher
Jo Higgins
Tom Muncaster
Amelia McCulley
Larry E. Seay
AFF PERSON:
ANNING COMMISSION:
ARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
DECEMBER 9, 1992
S -91-57 FIRST GOLD LEAF LAND TRUST
P titian: First Gold Leaf Land Trust petitions the Board of
S pervisors to issue a special use permit to establish outdoor
d.splay and storage of autos [30.6.3.2(b)] on 7.08 acres zoned
H , Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property,
d scribed as Tax Map 45, Parcels Ill, lIlA, and lllB, is located
o the east side of Route 29 approximately 0.2 miles south of the
i tersection of Route 29 and Carrsbrook Drive in the
C arlottesvil1e Magisterial District. This site is located in
N ighborhood 2.
aracter of the Area: The site is largely open with several
all buildings and a vacant mobile home on the site. A large
ount of brush and debris is also located on the site.
PLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to develop an
to dealership on the site. A site plan for development
companies the special use permit and has been submitted and
viewed by the Site Review Committee. (The ARB has not reviewed
e latest revised plan but has reviewed the use.) A copy of the
an is included as Attachment C.
Y AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for
mpliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
commends denial of SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust.
ING AND ZONING HISTORY: The special use permit was heard by
e Planning Commission on December 10, 1991 at which time it
commended approval of the request. The Board of Supervisors
quested additional site development information and referred
is request back to the Planning Commission.
MPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is located in Neighborhood 2 and
recommended for Community Service designation. Carrsbrook
ive is to be relocated approximately 165 feet to the north.
to dealership was not intended as a use under Community
rvices part of the Comprehensive Plan.
is use is subject to special use permit only because of its
cation within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The
view of the special use permit is limited to matters of
sthetic consideration and whether the use can be aesthetically
commodated in the proposed location. The application has been
1
viewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The minutes of
eir meeting are included as Attachment D and the action letter
included as Attachment E. The ARB recommended denial of the
s ecial use permit and made no specific recommendation regarding
s"te design. (The ARB did not review the site plan for a
c rtificate of appropriateness but only for the use proposed.
T is was done at the request of the applicant.) Staff recommends
t at if the special use permit is approved, that the ARB have the
f exibility as to site design as specified under EC regulations.
ring the initial review of this request, letters of opposition
w re received and staff has attached those letters (Attachment
F).
e comments of the ARB indicate that the issues of aesthetics
nnot be overcome through site design. The current application
cludes a significant increase in the parking areas over the
an reviewed by the ARB in 1991.
e Board of Supervisors reviewed this special use permit on
cember 18, 1991. (The Planning Commission and Board of
pervisors minutes of the original staff report are included as
tachment G.) In its initial review, the Board of Supervisors
quested additional information pertaining to aesthetics and the
wage pump station.
e issue of aesthetics from Route 29 is addressed by the ARB
ich has recommended denial of this request. The current
quest is more extensive than that reviewed in 1991. The
rrent request is for a 7,000 square foot building served by a
tal of 473 parking spaces. The increased amount of parking
suIts in more impact on the adjacent residential property.
aff requested that the applicant indicate substantial buffering
om adjacent residential properties. The applicant has
dicated substantial buffering which makes use of existing
getation and new plantings. The nature of the screening
suIts in two distinct buffer zones adjacent to residential
operty. The topography of the area is such that, after
velopment, this site will be at the same elevation or a higher
evation than adjacent residential development. This
pographic separation should provide for effective screening of
e site. However, the site will be visible from adjacent
operties.
e other issue raised by the Board of Supervisors was the
stallation of a new sewage pump station. A new facility is
own on the commercial property. The installation of this pump
at ion will require a waiver of Section 21.7.3. The waiver of
ction 21.7.3 is to permit grading within 20 feet of residential
operty at the rear of the site. This grading is proposed in
der to allow the construction of a new sewage pump station.
2
The existing pump station is at capacity and the new pump
tation is required to support this or any development in this
rainage area.) The pump station site can receive screening to
eplace lost vegetation. The area disturbed will not make the
emainder of the site significantly more visible. Because of the
eed for a new pump station and the need for the station to be
ocated at the rear of the site, staff is able to support this
aiver.
taff also notes a waiver of Section 4.2.5.1. is required. The
aiver of Section 4.2.5.1 is to permit fill for parking and a
upport slope. This area of critical slopes is adjacent to
ommercial property to the south and is visible from Route 29.
ctivity on this slope does not affect the visibility of the site
rom adjacent residential properties, but does increase
isibility from Route 29.. The applicant has submitted a waiver
equest which has been reviewed by the Engineering Department
hich is able to support this request. The filling on critical
lopes does require that an intermittent stream be piped. Based
n the Department of Engineering comments, staff is able to
upport activities on critical slopes.
he other issues raised by the Board of Supervisors were
tormwater detention and wetlands. A site plan has been reviewed
y the Site Review Committee. This site plan shows above-ground
etention at the rear of the site. The conceptual layout of the
tormwater facilities has been approved by the Engineering
epartment. Regarding wetlands, approximately 0.8 acres of
'urisdictional wetlands will be impacted according to the Army
orps of Engineers. Since less than 1 acre will be filled the
orps granted a Nationwide Permit #26 on July 16, 1992. Prior to
he Department of Engineering's final approval, the applicant
ust submit evidence of review by the Virginia Marine Resources
ommission to assure compliance with State regulations.
the comments of the ARB, staff is unable to support this
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this
staff offers the following conditions:
Approval is for automobile storage and display;
No flags, pennants, spinners, tinsel, banners, or other
attention grabbing devices other than signage approved
specifically by the Albemarle County Zoning Department and
the Architectural Review Board will be displayed;
3. Vehicles shall only be displayed in areas designated in the
approved site plan;
3
No elevated vehicles;
Prior to final plan approval, a lighting plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department which shall
include methods for directing light downward.
-----------------
TTACHKENTS:
- Location Map
- Tax Map
- site Plan
- ARB Minutes
- ARB Action Letter
- Letters in opposition to this Request
- Previous Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors minutes
4
,/
WI
I'
,
!]
~
'"
[ATTACHMENT AI
.
~
~
c
o
(J
EARL YSVlllE AREA
'OUlIIl "...u MA,. SCAU
o~
""",
G~
\
"",
.t
c: Oln
----.
ALBEMARLE 'COUNTY
IATTACHMENT BI
44
SEE
46.180
SECTION
...
61 '
CHARLOTTESVILLE. RIVANNA
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 45
"'tl :xl
;~".."1~::-~'~';,'", ~',,,~,~~~'~.;:.I~~.:~~::"~:1~~~I~-"\'~<::':''":'''~'''~:;-_.. '_ ~ I g I m
.. l.....,.~. ..I' ."'I'~~:., """'_1...~.~J,-,.. ...~,. :J..i*....., . ...~-\ "'~"'~ "'''J~'.~. .,....,.. '_" :J --f 0
,", '''''\''l'''~'''':''''''::'',~~,~';.~~,'~': ~".'~"~..~.~, ' " ':;', :::;,' I":> ,m,
ilf~rl: :11~t~n:;:~;'~J~B~;~~i.:' ~~i:'; :~:.:lL .-', ,-.., ':~:, ' ' ; ~ ce,~~,-<
r, .1.'\','.' -:i:~;',!~~ I-r''S'~i.' '.~- ~~l"o . ~ ~ ..... - '-'...0 m
~ .....~.\'-..\.~~ "'~a....~ ~~. - '~";,,,,~'~~:-j'?f.~.1.~::'" ~~::~;:'/. '''': .'~-r ':-,-' -- ; ar N ~
1'" ", ':-t~ ~4Ej""5;'" ';$. .,.... :.t'S' , .'/' ". ,," ~ ,-". \' t' , "0' ..., ...
'::j';~;'~~~~i~;~(("~:~:::':E.:='f'::,:,:~,;~~ ~,~'~S;-::-~':'-' :'_~~: -~-~- ,--~'- '\ ,
f.:~:;~\,:'S':::',':'::if?lh ~;0:' ~F::~' J : '.>~ ~';</'" ~,oy, T. E ~_, 29,:;.. "
,<' .' "'C-=::r'" - - ------ -- -:;=== -=--=r-I- ~ -~~~
.: j!IJt~- '~~I~::?~~t(:~+'::'>~'~:'-~.-2f::---t~~~-=_.~.:~.~- r;;r: , .-
=I"-~" -........ .. ......:4> -~.... ~ ,,. ,J =Jr." '. ". . a~ '~\.. W . I:
~. ,.~i.:i~~ft"q~"~;:;:;;\-.:::..~ ;;'::',__~,~;ol-~ ~=.~ -:===+-=-~.: j'''''<::t. :==:.=--=-
: 1,:i"<;.)'.r~(#.~\II~;:-;-;""';' Jr::-:i:'1:-\',", -:-::;:?' .a-----::-:--.'~. . ' , ; ~_ , :: : ' '. '
f,::' =....':'.'yAr,~~ll'...'.,;-<~-,;}.,...~...\. fi(f,. "!"~.p.' :'"
-' " ...="-'--m,>:.... - . --.;-. '. '. ,-'"- ~--_..:.._---.;..,- ~ ; ~_ =_ E~ -f __ ' 1: ._, _
!. : ... - ....:;';;;" ~.::...... Mn_MllO,.r,'_ _" Ii,' :'~..:1 _ _
'hi; ..- , ').. -'-?-. ~' /i-c ,;,,_~":~~' .-z::- .
I" , . ......... .,' ..' ." ':tho ,., - . _ _ ~.. _ _ !' ,: ~ _ _. ,_.. .... . ..., ",
: - . ~ : '. 7/.': ~'.. ;:'k.~~~ . .."",... ,. -.'< "l,,~ ',- . ..7" '7 ',~". - _: :: <>,'. .~
", ~:.. ~ ',,:'._.:,7":?~!,~\,..' "p,,~' -j;~. ~ !;I4--,A~-,'ki~I.:5-['., -,', , !
l' ~ ,.JI~,1;;'T":' iW'i~.i:.' I ~ ' .1, ,fY'1~1J~~ ~ ~-, :~~-:.:..~: '. '. ~ :~A. ,"~/p~':.1 i ! I " .
t. ~ : \' -/-=:;: ~ Pc - ...~' ...... . ,.. lui2 _ ."..... ,..,~ j / ./
I , , ..." ,.. , '. ..Aj<:; 'I ~j:.-:r";~ - :.l /f.:<L; ~bl/ . " i.. ,/1/,' "
, ' ' ~-p' ~~ . l-!, . Y 'l./i,'JiJ,~',i ~ ,: ;;./ 'I ' '\
- ~,r:, i:t'\.frr~%,. \"_\;;.~' V ~" ~ ,-: """;" ..~_.,I/ /' .,r/ //~. i
:.m r-<<: !" :~'~_\-1... ":\- ": ':',\J..: , ~-> i \~II ~ \ ~ ==, "-,,. .... ~~ .V ",~",,,,"''''.. .....:"~ j/ / l -
~: ~'~ I '<~ '''''.' '- "l". ,'~ ':~. /'. lV'''' -L7! I.' 'I ,~ ,
. ,. \" \ \ .. S\ \",'\::K. ~ ' ., :-. ....... ~ ) ...... __t"_ ,"...__.. ,,' I' / ,
. ," \ \:, \ \ ~ \. \ \~ ...."I.... ... . '. ~ ...~..~ "- ..__ I..":.L'-'-' ~-) 1 ',o I / /
I ., \ \ \ \ r., .. ..., \ , ,...... 1 2.... ''7,- ~ :/ fez ' I I
:J ^ ~ '. I \ 1 .. \ , , \ '...', . r ...'. "'3... ~ ......... .. ... c.'''' j( /' I I ~ I , .
fl: .~\\\\:.>~, \\'<~' [I l.~.........,.-.~--\-~\ \:.L,~h~ /' z.-..'-..~..J.i 1?'ii:'~I;.4ft~
\' . . '. '?' ' , . '.t:;t, r, ... '-. ".l) r :!' '/ ,I (.- , : ~",_ '\~ !,.
'I, ~ . ':,\ j, \'\' ".. \ " <::::<' I',: '. - 'v'); A,jj f< ,~, ; ',.:,....;..~. \ ....Il!ti .
· \\ '\~\ \ \ ~, \ ~ \" ,\,}.. ~\< :.,.' "-~-<, """ , ,I:) ~:I) t-'l-zll .~ \ :....' .c, ~ ~~ ~ II~;
,\ " \ I ~, \ ,.. ,,\[J ~,; ; t,' Cwo ~ :~....., ."~ ~ ~, "/ ...
I P:/.')"Y~-:~i7I'{) \ ~ '(;: \ 11 j1 '~ :(.. . _' .
"',,[~+ l;' '.~_r;., I "~" '\ " ~ "l :,' ') !~.j t~~ 0~~(!/(~ ...
,,', ......................~ I. '\ \.... : - . ,I I -------...~ N ""-~ ..-.ow;
\'<" .>....::- '" '. \. \ " : : \ '~:~~'I;t' ~?i" / :~-,--:/ .~~', . -.' '~, ~ -
II \ ' "....~-\ ~ i/.. '. . I : ~ '~)l{ I \ \~.'!.:~,:...... ~ i -in:r:~ :!!'ai~~~.I~~
"i . '. "" 1-. " , . P/~ . ~i ' ,~, ' .. r."II'I"S i'..' ,I .- ,. '.
~ \:'," ': J : =-; :~ : ' : ~~ ~': . I.~. >;t " (...,.~ ii~~ii ~i~ ;.i & .3 :;', n ~~ h
'\ \ ,~\ \ 'd I .11..; I l' ': .,.:. ';;)':~: ~-1 , " / :>-. :h!.1 '-:iIi :-4 J ~; 5! '; &1 :~. .
\ ~\p' \~\, \ ' \ \ ,\:.; m.V' / 'f Q"'~' : j1 . ,/ :' : / ~ h:~~!'I~i zjU,;' ~ '; ! li',~f!'
\' \ \"". \ :.t ".\ \~.:'/i~.//: I _~ "'7'~: ':~ I · I I ~ . . !=:Ii g g E..,: I.. R .
~-: ,)-\. . I I "". ,I I /1 I. / ,Jo", ., . I :: I ~ I J &: . 'I 3'~U I , 10. e E. :;.:
'}!~~~ '~\I-\'f'\'::, l\ \' y1{/i I'}!:.' i)- ""Si..~ ::,;~ \!~; \:: L"E I;~ ~:!q ; r'; '!~i
~ . ~ \ \ ~ ; : ~I ~ \ I V\IL/:';--' I / t,:I;\ I " ,- 1 \ :...: \ \ i ' 'iiU-~ 'I ~ai: .- ~ ii . !"..~.
~'~ '~L:;\I.\~'~\\;~;m'5X'!: 'l"l"~;l ! \ \:! \-t~ \ ./ Ii ~;~i~:.._!~~.!~" f:;~:;";;.
. \ \ll\1 '\'7''-!,';;''\ \ \ \;),. 'I: ,: : ""r'J! 1/' I , \ '.. \ / ~i5!~; ii' ~i;" f': L~ ~; _
I: · .\~\~~":~-\~.! i1\'\ \.\ \1\ 1 ~.'\ ~~ ~ ~~( .1l~" \..' ,'~\. '__ ~, "~~'\'b~~~~lr~:;:!~'~~. '~:~~'~~'~~'::j[i'~~~' ,',.":
i:1-\'~ ,. I' 1,1 II, \11 \ \ /. ,..,~' \Vl~\ -'~ ~ J 0,-: 't; ,irlftjJ \~.' .\....
'\ I.. ~\\ \t~,~ \' \; '\, \~~ '\7'" '~~= >',.," '',::! I.. ,'.. '~.~~'~ ' ~===
\ - '\":,1",,,..,, ~ .;\'IJ.,,";4.:,d~:\ I"~ ",::F- '. ,~- . . "'-'~~~---'F=-?'~:::::
.I\, "'~< '. \~~~, \,\ \" ...~ '~~~ ,'" """ 'i~, " ~ ,,:<== :::;:t:li<~-:=.;:fec:-:~. ~ ,~
. ':Yl'~\ 'at'i \1.,1',' ,~', · ~ "<>~><:":'~
, ;~.':~: i r-~'~:':~:'::<:'<, ~ / ,-:t .~o f ~. ,~~~\~ \./J~',' iA r .-::','~ I ".
. ~"""'~\ (j ':- ~~;:::.:<~ ~ .,{ \If t~1. 'Ji'~ '='w" .
/!,:r ':':\~:\<\7'~-r."" ,~ ~
- \ " ./ I ,~, \ ~ I ~ -~, ~\'-~,'-- ~l~f(":').',,~---"
,i, ,~i~ Tl:"\\\ i\~].~ ~'i,:;~~\' ..' ..' ~ 'i'%>.n~..' ~ ~
/. · t.~:\ ~,',:,~,~ '\,':,~ '-.;:'::S>j,ij ':'~:;~~-~::':'." 'r ~'~;~m '.:, "'~'ON o..~n r.n,
" .P'f'~l:~""'''''',__';:;-~_' \'. v..,~ ',oJ, '..- I ." lE,U;i!~ ~.g~ ~~r~ Ql"~
-, "..,,- "i''''~ . .;......-\ .; " '".~\, .'1..... .. ......- ' ,-. ; i,:.i: i, ;,':: I: ... 0 l'I _...... ~
,. , I f}.;(:, ~'~1',,'" .......' ,,\ ,',,, '" . ...... - := ,=" ! = r;1i.r~ - .. D._ ... ~a 2. ~ .E
, . '. ,', ~. ::-~ :';;:'~>>', '~~:'i~' .' I .~ '~" . :1 n iE ! j~ :!Hih! I :';';n'O~~~5 ~,:
!..... 'H~~\"\"~ ". .",~;:,'i 0'~ ,,', 0" 0";"11 i I ~ i=h~L ! ~~L'ltlfin~!:>~:,:;>~ d e
r'l-1j:'/<~ 'I ':"g,,',," 8€Yefl ~..(i) .",.0 ~ n, ,q'lI~ l~ .~~ ": ,:: ~ " I" ~~r;'[aJ: 0
r' .~~~~ F", .'.-,:....;: "" . ~ n ' !"'O' !t"kt~li~! ( ~ ;:pr.r. r . I ~~ ~~~~:i ~ ~
It,,' t' ". s!; !.,...~. ~:. 1-: .~ i: ~_.~..-.~_.~... -. r E. - ~ l'I 00 t:S :;:l........ HI
~ rrl'i: t~.~,,~,\ ! t..,.~. ~,l, n. " l)')~ ';P'~i~ ~I:mm~ ~~r ! "ii ~'=~~ ~ ~'
f :' f~' '~,~' :'" ~ I:'"i.,"~',',', ,- _ " '~;i i' . l:m.~!ti~ ili " -6'-~ ~'i:, ~ ~"J
'I( . -"\.;J',,.'ff:--c,~-- "1"'."" I . : ,~':':'d ..../.. 10_ '-'''''''-~'..n_,..
; \ : J'/"" t: .'.J;.. ~ .. ... !.811!0I~~ ::- s g:.:; ~.. -
i." 1_" 1",[,11:, ~.~,;,~.:,~",:~,',;~_"_""",.,'.~,, 1",:,=,' :, ::::':: ":, ':"80(>: .n'lt.~1 .-: :i:ms~ j~ "',',',:."-,,.,:_'-~,";;,,,- --~M~",'
~ !1 Ii '" - _" ,"L ,'-' . ".', -";.~.',J Ii!.' ..':';;':' :;: :t~l",,"~'~ -~~ ...i~ ~'f~' 't.;,~:.' -.;; .~..., -.
I Ii"t.... ,'- 'I ~ ~~",~r:.~ ,Ii ~ r' .-_. . ,- ~ _ ~
i;:, " -~: d::: I .:;:' ~:::;,',;':::.~::,n ';~ ,;..., :',::" _ .'.':' ~:~.:: l :::''.:;', > <''7:' - ' ; ~ d . . O' _ I " "
~.
i
!., '..
,
\ \:, I .'
'\:. =:i
,\.
i:"
1-
l'
f.: : I
I
f'
(
r
~ I
--.......
~~J,
I"
, t
,"
I
".,-}
, I
.=-_",,-j \~____ I !
_------~ ::::::-:\~__:!,~~':.E -2.-------"-----./
_={::;_::;::::6::'~~::;-u~,", ..;c::-=::._::~::. ~I: --.:._- '
-=-~_~",:-=~;u..:~_
./C- .---- ';" - - -- ~-
,...-. _/ ---4- · '. -'. -I .:==-==--
..' / / , --,-,~ ' --
-.- i - '7__>-7- ~)- ---
'__ __ 1'''--
~~ I
........ .~
.....P~--~----~ " '.
~ \
"
..
,-".'"
"
,
"
.'
i!-
: ::
. ;'i-
~!
"!"'
if '~ .'
/~;., \ '''\
\...__.~ .-..
!~~ . \,
Zi~ .:
- .':' '
----.;.. ,/ t'~
.'
/'
/',/
;'::
:~ .
!i'~
,.
;':'\
"x" '; ".
/\. .. " ",
.. . . .
, ' .. .
, " ... "
. . '
, " ...
~ll'\,~'~'" """'"
, "'>"
/,/'<..
\.~
1;f-"/
. !.
;
;/'" ..-
// . '....
:r!"',,/
i!ii
z;"
.;
t
RAFT
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
I Page 11
marle County Architectural Review Board
Minutes of
October 21, 1992
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board held a public
meeting on Wednesday, October 21, 1992, at 2:30 p.m,. Meeting Room
#7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were C. Timothy
Lindstrom, Chairman, Diane Miller, Frank Kessler, and Rudolph
Beverly. Harry Porter, Jr. was absent. Staff personnel present
included Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner.
I. Call to Order
II. Establish a Quorum
After establishing a quorum, the meeting was called to order at
2:35 p.m.
III. PUBLIC MEETING
B-P(SDP)-92-04 Carrsbrook Auto
equest for special Use Permit
r. Lindstrom stated that this was the first time there was public
interest on an item reviewed by the ARB. He stated that the
equest before the Board was as an advisory agency for the Board of
upervisors concerning the request for recommendation for the use
hat requires a special use permit for outdoor storage and display.
e pointed out that the ARB's responsibility involved granting a
ertificate of appropriateness for architectural design and site
evelopment. He stated that the application before them was not
resented for design comments and the ARB could not grant the use
roposed. He stated that if the Board of Supervisors granted the
pecial use permit, then the applicant would come back before the
B for a certificate of appropriateness. He pointed out that this
oard was limited to what the appearance of a project would be from
he Entrance Corridor, and they would limit their action today to
hat. He urged the public to focus on those things pertinent to
he ARB authority, and to be brief and not repeat statements that
ad been made.
s. Joseph pointed out that the Board of Supervisors had the
earing for the special use permit scheduled for December 9th.
s. Joseph presented the staff report as follows:
'ARB-P(SDP)-92-04 Carrsbrook Auto
equest for Recommendation for Use
RAFT
I ATTACHMENT 01
I Page 2/
Special Use Permit for Outdoor Storage and Display.
DESCRIPTION
Tax Map 45, Parcels, 111, 111A, and 111B, Charlottesville
Magisterial District, Zoned HC Highway Commercial, Total Acreage
6.95 acres.
LOCATION
Located on the east side of Route 29, north bound lane, just south
of the Rivanna River bridge.
HISTORY
SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust
This item was first reviewed and deferred by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors (BaS) at its meeting on December 18, 1992.
The deferral date was determined to be March 18, 1992, the
applicant then on March 18, 1992 requested a deferral date to July
15, 1992. The proposal was not heard in July, the applicant then
requested a hearing date for the Planning commission of November
17, 1992, and for the Board of Supervisors of December 9, 1992.
The BaS deferred this item to allow the applicant to address the
aesthetic impact of the proposed improvements to this site.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a special use permit for outdoor
storage and display. Section 30.6.3.2 requires a special permit
for this activity. This use is not allowed by right therefore, the
B is requested to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the
appropriateness of this activity on this site.
he site in its present state consists of several buildings
formerly residential in use, and several stages of successive
egetative growth on the site. The vegetation includes several
large oak trees in the most western portion of the site (adjacent
o Route 29), several large beech trees located on the northern
ost portion of the site, mixed hardwoods on the eastern most
ortion of the site, and riparian growth on the southern most
ortion of the site. This site included with adjacent properties
located on Route 29 North forms a wooded corridor 2,700 feet in
length. This wooded area is one of the few areas adjacent to Route
9N that has not been developed.
he property directly adjacent to the north of this parcel is zoned
o Commercial Office; the property directly to the south of this
arcel is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Other auto dealerships
xist within 2,400 feet of this site.
2
:
DRAFT.
I ATTACHMENT DI
Ipage 31
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) plans (see
Attachment A) to improve the road within this corridor in the
Spring of 1993. When this occurs, a portion of this site will be
graded. The applicant has illustrated the VDOT easement on the
proposed plan. The VDOT plans will affect the existing vegetation
along Route 29 North. Several trees will be removed and others
will be adversely affected by the close proximity of the grading in
this area.
The letter dated April 24, 1992 (meeting date April 20, 1992)
states that the Board reviewed a site plan and expressed the
following suggestions:
Using window muntins in the windows,
muntins should be appropriate to the
building.
2) Using the west elevation of the building to face Route
29N.
1)
the number of
scale of the
3) Realign the building and parking to make the layout
parallel to Route 29N.
4) Accurately locate existing vegetation in the area
adjacent to Route 29N.
5) Building materials should be as follows: brick facade,
gray standing seam metal roof, and gray window muntins to
match the roof.
6) Additional landscaping should be planted around the
perimeter of the parking area, with a greater number of
plant materials planted adjacent to Route 29N.
7) Address the signage on the site.
The ARB at its meeting on May 4, 1992 reviewed a site plan for the
proposed use. The Board expressed the following suggestions:
1) The applicant respond to the elements expressed in a
letter dated April 24, 1992 (enclosed);
2) A steeper slope should be used on the parking area, 5%
was suggested;
3) A lighting plan should be submitted, this plan should
indicate the hours of operation;
4) the building should be orthogonal in its relation to
Route 29;
5) The guidelines should be used to determine the plantings,
3
:
. DRAFT
-----------1
I ATTACHMENT 0
Ipage 41
size, and placement on the site;
6) Provide a substantial sketch of the building;
7) Provide better proportion on the building, break down the
muntins and spacing of the bays in sets of threes or
fives, and design end pieces to make them more
substantial to provide a balance.
The applicant has addressed the suggestions stated in the letter of
April 24, 1992 in the following manner:
1) The muntins have been added to the windows, however these
should be placed in a more vertical arrangement. The
applicant has proposed the muntins in a horizontal
arrangement.
2) The applicant has shown the west elevation as the
elevation facing Route 29N.
3) The applicant has realigned the building and parking to
be parallel to Route 29N.
4) The vegetation shown in the area adjacent to Route 29N is
still shown as an approximate location.
5) Building materials have not been submitted.
6) Additional trees have been added to the frontage area.
These consist of a mixture of Pin Oaks, and White Oaks,
interspersed with Bradford Pear, Russian Olive and
Redbuds. Staff suggests the Bradford Pear and Russian
Olive be replaced with Redbuds.
7) Signage has not been proposed for the site.
Letter of May 5, 1992 suggestions have been addressed in the
fOllowing manner:
1) This has been addressed above.
2) The slope on the parking area now measures 5%.
3) A lighting plan has not been submitted.
4) The building and parking are orthogonal in their relation
to Route 29N.
5) The size of the plantings has not been indicated on the
site plan. The street trees lining Route 29 have been
placed thirty-five (35) feet on center. The perimeter of
the parking area does not include sufficient vegetation.
4
I
WHAt-I"
I ATTACHMENT 01
[Page 51
6) A more detailed sketch of the building has been
submitted. It illustrates the material and window
treatment in more detail than the original submittal.
7) The proportions of the building have not changed since
the previous application. The muntins have not been
added to the windows in a manner that enhances the
building proportions.
Because there are several items that have not been submitted at
this time, the applicant is not currently seeking a certificate of
Appropriateness. The applicant is only seeking a recommendation
from the Architectural Review Board for the proposed use of the
site.
staff suggests the ARB recommend approval of the Special Use Permit
if the use is illustrated on a plan as follows:
1) The sales and display area visible from Route 29N shall
be clearly defined. This shall not include the entire
site. This area shall be adjacent to Route 29N and not
exceed fifty eight (58) parking spaces. The area
designated shall be the parking on the west and the north
side of the building as noted on the plan submitted.
2) The area on the south side of the entrance shall contain
a four to six foot high berm. The top of the berm shall
be planted with street trees 3 1/2" caliper planted
thirty-five (35) feet on center with groupings of
coniferous trees 4'-6' in height, and smaller flowering
trees (2 1/2" caliper) interspersed in a staggered row.
3) Addi tional plants shall be placed around the periphery of
the parking area visible from Route 29N. These plants
shall include groupings of coniferous trees 6'-8' in
height, and deciduous trees 3 1/2" caliper twenty (20)
feet on center.
4 ) Additional street trees shall be planted around the
building to frame the view of the building from Route
29N. These plants shall be 3 1/2" caliper deciduous
trees.
5) Additional trees must be placed within the parking and
display area to break up the expanse of asphalt that will
be visible from Route 29N. This should include a
substantial break in the pavement measuring a minimum of
twenty (20) feet parallel to Route 29N, and 2 1/2"
caliper deciduous trees planted twenty five (25) feet on
center, and groupings of coniferous trees 4' -6' in
height.
5
"
.'
~ ;
RAF-I-
l ATTACHMENT 0 1
IPage 61
6) The trees in the rear of the site (parallel to the most
eastern border) adjacent to the parking area shall be Red
Maples 3 1/2" caliper.
7) The applicant shall submit, for ARB review, final
drawings to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness."
Ms. Joseph pointed out that in site review, th& Highway Department
and Planning Department were recommending that the entrance
proposed be moved 500 feet from the crossover. She stated that the
Planning Department also recommended that this area become a
service road so there would be only one entrance to serve both
parcels. She pointed out that quite often the Planning Department,
if there was a service road, would not allow parking in this
configuration, and that would mean that the parking must shift if
the applicant proposes to maintain this amount of parking. She
stated that Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority .wanted to place a
water line through this site 20 feet off the property line parallel
to the property line within a 30 foot easement. She stated that
the Service Authority would not allow the stormwater detention over
the sanitary sewer line, which would also have to be moved.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the Highway Commercial zone allows by-
right about 38 uses in addition to this one which required a
special permit. He stated that staff was suggesting that the site
be designed so that only a small portion be visible from Route 29
with the remainder of the site being visually protected by berm and
substantial plantings from Route 29.
David Walsh, representing Muncaster Engineering, was present to
speak for the request. He stated that they did not know the exact
location of the waterline in the rear but had put in a lot of
vegetation there which would have to be moved, and pointed out that
the intent would be the same. He stated that possibly the
stormwater detention area would be moved. He then said that they
did not have any problems with the conditions. He pointed out that
the ARB could still have discretion when they came back for the
certificate of appropriateness.
r. Lindstrom stated that if the Board of Supervisors did not
impose conditions that would supersede what the ARB could do, that
the ARB would still review the site for a certificate of
appropriateness and have total discretion. He asked for public
comment, but pointed out that the Architectural Review Board is
limited to aesthetic issues as seen from Route 29.
Frank A. Rice, President of Carrsbrook Homeowners Association, Inc.
resented a written statement to the Board. He pointed out that
he residents of Carrsbrook had many concerns about the property
djacent to their sUbdivision used as a used car lot. He stated
hat among these concerns were sewage disposal, drainage,
egradation or destruction of wet lands and ponds, disposal of
6
'l~HAJ- I
I ATTACHMENT 01
Ipage 71
chemical wastes, light and noise intrusion and devaluation of
property. He asked for those in agreement to stand in support of
the request that they recommended disapproval of the development of
the subj ect site as a used car lot. (Approximately 41 persons
stood in agreement.)
James P. Mooney, representing homeowners in Woodbrook Subdivision,
presented a written and oral presentation to the Board. He stated
that the proposed use of the two pieces of property comprising the
site submitted was not appropriate and could create an eyesore. He
asked for denial for the use of outdoor storage and display for an
auto dealership requested under SP-92-04.
other persons speaking in opposition to the request were: Thomas
A. McQueeny, an adjacent property owner of 121 Indian Spring Road;
Claudius Sencer, a resident of Woodbrook SUbdivision; John Kirk,
resident of Carrsbrook; Lee Lucas, a resident overlooking Automart;
Edie Turner, resident of 107 Carrsbrook Drive; and John Gratt,
resident of Carrsbrook and a professional Forester with twenty-one
years of experience.
There being no further public comment, the matter was before the
Board.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the Board would address whether it was an
appropriate use in this setting. He suggested that if the Board
found that it was, then they would focus on the conditions they
felt the Board of Supervisors ought to consider. He stated that
Mr. Rice and Mr. Mooney had spoken previously about deed
restrictions. He was concerned that if the land on either sides of
the property was going to be substantially changed with an island
of trees of what would be left after the Virginia Department of
Transportation was through with the road improvements. He checked
the Clerk's Office and found that both the parcels adjoining this
parcel to the north and the parcel across the road from the
Carrsbrook Road were restricted by Carrsbrook's deed restrictions.
He stated that the restrictions could be amended or waived, but if
the restrictions were enforced they would supersede the zoning and
would limit the development on the adjacent property. He stated
that the property to the south did contain wetlands.
Mr. Kessler stated that previously the Board of Supervisors had
designated this property as Highway Commercial, which was the
highest use that one could put on a piece of property from a
commercial standpoint. He therefore supported the staff' s position
and concluded that the Architectural Review Board could take into
consideration what had been stated today, and felt that the
proposal could be aesthetically compatible. He asked what
alternative uses would be available for this property. He felt
that the site would be developed to its maximum because of its
value and its zoning designation. He supported staff that this use
~ould be appropriate for this property.
7
[~RAFT
LATTACHMENT oJ
~age ~
Mr. Beverly stated that the property zoned Highway Commercial was
something controlled by the Board of Supervisors and out of the
preview of this Board. He pointed out in reviewing the materials,
that he could not find anything to make him vote against the
special use permit. He voiced concerns over what would happen to
the trees and the neighborhood, and felt they should be addressed
with the developer to make sure they were aesthetically pleasing to
the entrance corridor and for those surrounding it. He supported
the staff recommendation in support of the approval of the special
permit.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that there were 42 uses by right in the
Highway Commercial Zone and other uses by special permit. He
stated that in order for an auto dealership to survive they would
have to be massively visible from Route 29. To do that would
require recreating that section of the road, and the parcel would
probably be graded down to the Route 29 level. He voiced concerns
due to the deed description that an island would be created
incongruous with its surrounding. He stated that the other uses
allowed in the zone did not depend on the public viewing the wares
of the business. He felt that the regrading of the site was the
biggest problem aesthetically. He felt it was an inappropriate
place for an auto dealership with outdoor storage and recommended
that the Board not approve the special permit. He felt it would be
a harmful aesthetic change on Route 29 and could not support it.
Ms. Miller felt there was nothing aesthetically appropriate about
this design as far as leveling the site and having outdoor display.
She recommended that the Board not approve the special permit in
its present form. She felt they should preserve the rural nature
of the property and voiced her reluctance in making a
recommendation because all of the materials had not been submitted
and felt they did not have all of the facts.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that all the Board was being asked to do today
was make a general determination if this kind of use depending on
outdoor display was appropriate on this site.
Mr. Kessler stated that there was no use that was not going to take
removal of the trees, and if they felt that the trees should not be
cut that they should recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
they purchase the property because condemnation without
compensation could not be done. He stated that they were only
charged with the aesthetics from Route 29 north and felt they could
make it aesthetically appropriate by providing vegetation and other
things.
~r. Lindstrom stated that the question before the Board was should
~hey add this use as a matter of right to this zone or not. He
stated that they were not denying the owner the use of his
8
liAr- I
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
Ipage 91
property. He read section, "34A.2 Powers and Duties of The
Architectural Review Board, c. The architectural review board
shall be advisory to the commission, board of supervisors and board
of zoning appeals in rezonings, special use permits, site
development plans, subdivisions, variances and other matt'ers within
EC overlay districts."
David Bowerman, Chairman of the Board of Superyisors, stated that
he did not want to interfere with this meeting because the decision
within which he would participate would be at another time. He
stated that the function that they were requesting was not one that
he wanted to lend any information to other than to say that the
special permit being required for outdoor display was a very
deliberate act because they recognized that outdoor display in the
'~ntrance Corridor had a nuisance potential and was discretionary.
He stated that they were looking at each particular site on how
that use incorporated outdoor display and would affect that site in
that location on the Entrance Corridor Overlay. . He stated that the
reason that they created this and asked for ARB advice was to get
an opinion as to whether or not it was an appropriate use. He
~tated that clearly they wanted to look at each site individually,
and felt that they had to look at all of the characteristics of the
site when you do that. He stated that it was properly before this
Board for advisory comment back to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if they wanted to know whether they think as an
aesthetic matter an outdoor display of the nature involved in an
automobile dealership was appropriate for this site recognizing
that there were a lot of other questions out there that they did
not have before them.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Beverly stated that after rereading the intent of the ARB, he
changed his vote. He felt that this was not a good special permit
use of the property only in the sense that they did have to provide
protection on aesthetic grounds.
Ms. Miller made a motion to disapprove the use of this particular
parcel for a special use permit for a car dealership.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if her motion was to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors not to approve this special use permit for the reasons
stated, and Ms. Miller agreed.
Mr. Beverly seconded the motion.
Mr. Kessler stated the other uses allowed in the highway commercial
?,one would have parking, buildings, asphalt, and cars.
The motion was approved with the following vote.
9
. HAt- I
Mr. Kessler - No
Mr. Lindstrom - Aye
Ms. Miller - Aye
Mr. Beverly - Aye
Mr. Porter - Absent
As advisory to the Board of Supervisors, the ARB voted (3:1) for
the recommendation of denial for the use of Qutdoor storage and
display for an auto dealership requested under SP-92-04.
Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning Division, stated that the special
permit would be heard by the Planning Commission on November 17th
and by the Board of Supervisors on December 9th. He stated that
Bill Fritz was the Planner for the project and asked for any
comments to be directed to him.
The meeting recessed at 4:05 p.m. for a five minute break.
The meeting convened at 4:10 p.m.
IV. Worksession
Design Guidelines
Mr. Lindstrom stated that at the last meeting they had gone over
the guidelines that had been redrafted and ended up with the notion
that there should be some specific guidance given in the
guidelines. Staff had presented a list of buildings that they
thought were elements that ought to be exemplified as being the
sorts of elements for that kind of construction that would be
appropriate. He stated that they wanted to give examples but make
it clear that there was a lot of latitude in how those examples and
ideas were implemented. He stated that they wanted to make it
clear that they did not want the applicants to replicate these
building, but use them for guidance.
Ms. Joseph stated that Ms. Miller and herself would meet next
Wednesday to talk about the different historical properties and
come up with some attributes that would be appropriate to ~nclude
in the guidelines. She stated that the item to be included was a
photo appendix where examples of some of these properties would be
located for the applicant to view examples of good architecture
that fits in with the historical concept.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that staff identify the significant
elements of the building to include the different kinds of roof
lines. He suggested getting some pictures and breaking down the
elements. He set a work session on Monday, November 2nd to go over
the guidelines and asked staff to confirm Mr. Porter's attendance
since his input was needed.
10
!
'L~nAr- I
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
Ipage 111
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
(Transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Administrative Secretary)
Approved by C. Timothy Lindstrom, Chairman
11
c..'
I ATTACHMENT E I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
RECEIVED
ocr 2 3 1992
October 22, 1992
Planning Dept.
Muncaster Engineering & Computer Applications
338 Rio Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
ATTN: David Walsh
RE: Carrsbrook Auto - Outdoor storage and Display
Under Special Use Permit 92-04
ARB-P(SDP)-92-04
Tax Map 45, Parcels 111, 111A, and 111B
Dear Mr. Walsh:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on
October 21, 1992, as advisory to the Board of Supervisors, voted
(3: 1) for the recommendation of denial for the use of outdoor
storage and display for an auto dealership requested under
SP-92-04.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-
noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinc~~el ,
, .,J'-V
Ma cia eph
Design Planner
MJjst
cc: Amelia Patterson
Wayne Cilimberg
Bill Fritz
C. Timothy Lindstrom
I ATTACHMENT FJ
I Page 11
JArlnEs P. MOONEY
2917 Brookmere Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901. (804) 979-3234 (D), 973-3842 (R)
Bil~ Fritz
Senior Planner
Plapning and Development Commission
410 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: SP-91-57, Gold Leaf Land Trust
I criginally expected to address the issues in this letter at
toright1s meeting of the Commission, and had drafted it to meet
yo~r request for advance warning. Now I understand that the
site plan will not be on tonight's agenda.
My wife, Mary Mooney, in whose name the property is deeded, has
si~ned the letter you have received from affected Woodbrook and
Calrsbrook residents, urging you to refuse a special use permit.
I ~trongly endorse that position and the arguments advanced in
thE letter. The issues below I hope to address when the site
pl~n does come up for discussion; you may, however, find them
peltinent to tonight1s discussions, especially the final point.
ThE Wood brook Sewage Problem
We have been told by Wendall wood, the developer of the Gold
Lec f Trust project, that the Authorities (Rivanna and ACSA) will
prbvide sewer service for the property by "upgrading" the lift
st~tion located in an easement near the back end of the
prpperty. If this is the case:
It directly contradicts a statement made to me by Mr.
Brent's office approximately two years ago: "That property
cannot be developed unless the developer agrees to pay for
a new sewer extension line that gravity-feeds the main
interceptor. The woodbrook system 1s at capacity and we
won't connect anyone else, even a single-family dwelling."
It will add significant quantities of untreated sewage,
including chemicals and petro18um distillates, to a
system which:
CUrrently works only unpre~ictably and unreliably;
.'
Pag~ 2
IATTACH-MENT F-I
I Page 21
The Authorities refuse to fix;
The Health Department recognizes as a significant
enough health hazard to issue a written reprimand to
the Authorities;
Already deposits noxious quantities of raw sewage in
yards and gardens.
The Authorities' answer to the problem is straight out of
Charles Dickens: spread caustic lime over the spillsl And
they add this additional hazard without notifying any of
the howmeowners or leaving any warning signs!
Is this the "system" into which the Planning Commission want::! to
risk approving the dumping of sewage from 18 more acres, with
industrial chemicals addedl
Licht pollution
Ha\e escaping-light levels been projected? Has the planning
Con~ission verified these projections? Have they taken into
account the carefully-polished, highly-reflective automobiles
thet will blanket the parking/storage lots? Will site plan
ap~roval be issued contingent on the property user staying below
thE maximum allowable level~, at all points on the property
bo'\. ndary?
No se Pollution
Ha'e noise levels been projected? Has the Planning Commission
ve'ified these projections? Do they take into account the sound-
tr4 nsmission-enhancing effect of placing the building at the
bo tom of a gully from which essentially all vegetation has been
st ipped? Do they include the effect of peaks like paging a
sa esman on the outdoor PA system, pounding dent5 out of
fe~ders, and the other day-to-day realities of a car dealership
pl~ced squarely in the middle of a residential neighborhood?
An~, considering the unsettled enforceebility of noise-
li~itation statutes, will you get a commitment from the
developer and the lessee as a condition of approval?
.'
r-
I ATTACHMENT FI
Ipage 3\
pag 3
wet
A h
is
Has
pro
eli
meowner near the cul-de-sac in Woodbrook claims that there
n area on the property that is under water all the time.
this been examined? Does it fall under any wetlands
ection jurisdications, and it so, has the grading that will
inate this area been cleared with those jurisdictions?
Set acks
idering the proximity of this property to residential
hborhoods, and the absence of natural barriers presented by
planned slopes on each side, can setback requirements be
eased to give us more protection?
The A royal Process
have apparently structured the
edures, review boards, etc.
is aesthetically acceptable
ing north on US 29.
approval process --
to be sure that the proposed
to people who pass the site
have you done to see that it is aesthetically even
rable to those of us who look down at it for 12 hours
day?
your approval process take into acount our
vi
wh re does your approval process recognize that, even though the
pr perty in question has been zoned commercial for years, its
un que shape, depth of penetration into residential areas, and
to ographical characteristics make it necessary and appropriate
to be much more restrictive than usual about what a developer is
al owed to do with it?
look forward to the chance to speak to these issues.
Si cerely,
Ja es P. Mooney
jATTACHMENT Fl
\page 4\
9 December 1991
At n: Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Planning Division
~jWq)
'l(:"C 9 1991
PLANNING DIVISION
Co nty of Albemarle
De artment of Planning and Community Development
40 Mcintire Road
Ch rlottesville, VA 22901-459G
Re
SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United LaI'rn"'C01fit}a.hy
SDP-91-103 Carrsbrook Auto Preliminary Site Plan
oJ'. .
De r Mr. Fritz,
Ca rsbrook residents prefer that the above referred to property
re ain undeveloped. This is strongly desired by those whose
perty adjoins or overlooks the property to be developed as the
ience of the neighborhood would be adversely affected, thereby
ucing quality of life with the subsequent decrease in property
ues. However, we recognize the right of the owner to
mercially develop his property. Our concern is that the
erests of the residential community be addressed prior to
roval of SP-91-57 and SDP-91-103.
Se Under no circumstances should the plans be
ap fully funded plan to solve both the short and
10 g term sewer disposal problems affecting both Woodbrook and
Ca rsbrook sub-divisions. The plan to solve this problem must
be completed before or simultaneously with development of the
pr perty. Raw sewerage presently being pumped onto residential
pr perties and into the drainage system constitute a health
ha ard. Some homes in Woodbrook and the majority of homes in
Ca rsbrook have septic systems. Many of these systems are old.
Pr bably sooner than later, these system will need to replaced.
Lo ically, a comprehensive plan should be designed and executed
be ore any further development which would only intensify and
pound the problem.
Attention to drainage is a priority item. Surface
er run-off from develop~ent of properties on the West side of
29N directly across from the property under discussion caused
siderable silting of the drainage area and two of the ponds in
rsbrook. There must be strict enforcement of county erosion
inances with assiduously maintained compliance reports. A
rm water detention pond must be constructed prior to site
elopment. This is essential to prevent further degradation to
drainage system and the ponds in Carrsbrook.
I AJrACHMENT F I
~age 5J
Page 2
osal of Chemical Waste Leakage and spillage of gasoline, oil
an other chemicals are inherent in the operation of an
automotive dealership. Provisions must be made for the disposal
of this waste in a manner to prevent its intrusion into the water
ta Ie, streams and ponds in the area.
ht and Noise Intrusion Development of the site and its
ration as an automotive dealership routinely entails
tallation of lights, outdoor speaker systems, burglar alarms
engine and other mechanical noises. Close attention must be
gi en during the design process to ensure the absolute minimum
intrusion of light and noise into the residential community. The
use of pagers in place of loudspeakers would help solve the nbise
pr blem.
fer Zone Under present-day ordinances, this incongruous
ing situation would not exist. While this incongruence cannot
addressed, ordinances do allow for increasing the depth of the
back or buffer zone. An absolute minimum of a fifty foot
back should be required in order to minimize the averse impact
the commercial operation on residential areas. This is a
sonable request, especially since the commercial property is
rounded on three sides by developed residential properties.
es and Plantin s In the increased buffer zone, the maximum
ber of trees and other natural growth should be retained. In
ition, there should be a planting of evergreen trees large
ugh to form a visual screen extending the full length of the
erface between the commercial and residential areas. These
ms will greatly attenuate levels of noise and light generated
the automotive dealership.
A fence of adequate strength and height should separate
commercial and residential areas in order to prevent any
vehicular or pedestrian traffic between the two.
ffic Access to the site must not restrict, impede or
erwise exacerbate entry to or egress from Carrsbrook Drive.
of Name "Carrsbrook" We adamantly object to the name
rrsbrook" being used in the name of the automotive dealership.
rsbrook is presently known as a nice residential community,
we do not want that image and identity to be diminished by it
ropriation for commercial purposes.
i n Creative architectural design would minimize disruption
to existing topography and result in facilities that are
utilitarian, visually attractive and more harmonious with
existing residential communities. We are prepared to provide
ex mples of such creative design.
I ATTACHMENT FI
/Page 61
Page 3
A ain, we recognize the legal and moral rights of the owner for
t e commercial development of his property. By the same token,
t e residents of adjoining subdivisions have the right to retain
e vironmentally wholesome, aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods
were the quality of life is not adversely affected and the value
of their properties is not reduced. Yours and other county
governmental agencies are our main advocates.
Sincerely,
~d.~~
ANK A. RICE, President
rrsbrook Homeowners Association
I ATTACHMENT FI
Ipage 71
10 December 1991
ty of Albemarle
rtment of Planning and Community Development
McIntire Road
lottesville, VA 22901-4596
Att Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Ref SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land Company
Dea Mr. Fritz,
Car sbrook residents oppose SP-91-57.
Whi e recognizing that the site is zoned Highway Commercial and
the owner's right to develop it, there are valid reasons to deny
its use as an automotive dealership with large outdoor storage.
The subject property was zoned commercial after the Carrsbrook
Sub ivision was incorporated. At the time Carrsbrook was incor-
por ted, the subject property remained unzoned until County
zon ng laws were applied sometime in the 1960s. Carrsbrook has
exi ted as a residential community for thirty years. The
Car sbrook deed restrictions pre-date County zoning ordinances
and have legal precedent over them. In fact, one parcel of land
ad j c en t t 0 and nor tho f the sub j e c t sit e i s z 0 n e d ~ Did t:: H t-i-a-l C- _ P
and as such is protected by Carrsbrook deed restrictions. While
the e factors do not alter the zoning status of subject site or
neg te the owner's legal right to develop it, they do suggest
tha Carrsbrook residents have the moral right to disapprove
ercial construction which would significantly degrade in fact
and in image what is now accepted as a premier residential sub-
div'sion.
lanned, development of the site will entail drastic altera-
of existing topography, removal of most of the trees and
r growth. On this stripped, leveled space, a surface would
aid to accommodate outdoor storage of used and possibly some
cars.
bmit that this kind of commercial operation is incongruent
the residential communities which would surround it on three
s .
The e are commercial applications for the subject property which
are more appropriate to a residential area. On behalf of
Car sbrook residents, I strongly recommend disapproval of SP-91-
57 nd recommend re-zoning subject property to reflect a status
con istent with that called for by existing ordinances.
Res ectfully Submitted,
G-Ooo'\ k A. R,te
Bob ucker
Davi Bowerman
Cha lotte Humphries
Don A. Swofford, ALA
321 Dover Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
18 December 1991
Ron Keeler
Edward H. Bain, J r.
F. R. Bowie
I ATTACHMENT FI
IPage 81
Marsha Joseph
Walter F. Perkins
The Rev. Peter T. Way;
Are ent request by Wendall Wood for a special use permit (SP-91-57) to store used cars
on t e site of a proposed development near the intersection of Carrsbrook Drive and Rt.
29 orth should be denied. Th~ development of a used car lot on the site will have a
tragi aesthetic consequence, inconsistent with the prevailing neighborhood texture. Two
poin s in support of this request for denial come immediately to mind. One is the design
over ay for the entry corridor into Charlottesville, for which the storage of automobiles for
resal is incompatible. For proof of this, one only has to look at the present auto dealerships
in th corridor and the extreme clutter they generate. A second point has to do with the
ent into Carrsbrook. The history of the Carrsbrook development is one of quiet and
har onious design in an older neighborhood which has been basically regulated by deed
restr ctions for almost half a century. Section 1.4.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordi ance gives those of us in Carrsbrook the right to demand that the continuity of our
neig borhood be maintained.
Rec ntly the Board of Supervisors approved the special use permit for the automobile
stor ge and thus opened the door for development of the site for an automobile dealership.
I a requesting that the Board of Supervisors deny this special use permit to stop the
proli eration of unsightly business development along this corridor and allow the residents
of arrsbrook and Albemarle County to continue to enjoy the scenic beauty of our
neig borhood.
ectfully submitted to you, I am
truly yours,
~//)
~t
Don A:Off rd, AlA
I ATTACHMENT F I
Ipage 9\
December 7, 1991
~~w,
rJFC 9 1991
PLANNING DIVISION
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Va 22901-4596
Attn.: Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
-......0..-. .. ..' ._.
Re: SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land Company
SDP-91-103 Carrsbrook Auto Preliminary Site Plan
Dear Mr. Fritz:
As homeowners in Wood brook and Carrsbrook, with residences
adjacent to and overlooking the above referenced property, we wish to
express our concerns regarding these petitions, and request that the special
use permit SP-91-57, be denied. We offer the following reasons for this
request:
1. We understand that the developer needs to have the right to
appropriate commercial use of his property which is so zoned, and do
not object to or oppose such appropriate commercial use. However,
we submit that an auto dealership inserted between these two
established residential neighborhoods would cause great disruption
and degradation of property values, and is an inappropriate use of the
land because it will permit the penetration into this residential area of
incongruous and disturbing activities for a major part of each day and
night. There are few legal commercial uses of the land which could
be more disturbing to the daily lives of the residents of this
neighborhood than an auto dealership, with its noise, all-night
floodlighting, air degradation and ground water pollution.
2. We wish to emphasize that this site is not merely a strip of land
which fronts on Route 29 and borders on the back edge of a
neighborhood; it penetrates deeply into the space between two
residential neighborhoods which are actually joined at the back of this
property.
1
/
I ATTACHMENT F I
IPage 101
We also have the following technical concerns related to these
petitions:
1. Sanitary Sewer. The sanitary sewer line serving the site is
presently serving at capacity and must be improved before any
development can take place, according to the County Engineer's
office. We wish to urge that this line and the lift station associated
with it be improved to accommodate any further commercial
development of the site in question or the one adjacent to it, as a
condition of any consideration for a use permit.
2. Surface Water. Any development of the presently referenced site
and the adjacent lot. #110, will affect the rate and quality of run-off
of surface water. In addition, auto traffic, and particularly activities
connected to use of the site as an auto dealership will result in
increasing the amount of hazardous and toxic substances in the
surface run-off from the site, which would also adversely affect the
homeowners in both the Wood brook and Carrsbrook neighborhoods.
3. Air Qualitv. Any use of the site that increases vehicle traffic in the
Woodbrook-Carrsbrook neighborhood will affect air quality in the area.
However, use of the site as an auto dealership will intensify the
degradation of air quality due to activities of dealer preparation,
service of automobiles with engines running for prolonged periods of
time, and fumes due the pumping of gasoline and other volatile fluids.
If a body shop is operated as a part of the dealership, there will be
additional emission into the atmosphere of fumes and some paints,
lacquers, and other volatile and toxic substances.
Finally, we wish to express our concern over the aesthetic impact of
an auto dealership on the residential neighborhood. We understand and
appreciate the concern for the aesthetic impact on Route 29 and the need to
protect the view from this entrance corridor. We are pleased that the
Architectural Review Board is consulted regarding the matter. However, we
are also very concerned about the aesthetic impact on ourselves of
businesses that are adjacent to our residential neighborhoods and wish to
urge some consideration of these concerns as well.
1. Visual ImDact. Clearing of trees and grading of the land will
expose adjacent Carrsbrook and Wood brook residents to whatever
activities are subsequently conducted on the site. Parking lots and
auto storage lots are always surrounded by numerous bright
floodlights, brightly illuminating the lot and surrounding area from
2
.
I ATTACHMENT F I
Ipage 11J
dusk until dawn. This will represent a constant disruption of the
peace and tranquility of the residents.
2. Noise Pollution. Auto dealerships produce numerous characteristic
and unique noises which are disturbing and intrusive by their very
nature. Nearly all have public address systems which cover the entire
lot, and are used to summon employees to telephone calls and to
various parts of the property throughout the day. The service and
preparation of vehicles for sale entails running engines at various
speeds for extended periods of time, sometimes at high decibel levels.
In addition, various shop noises are present throughout the day,
including pneumatic tools, power drills and wrenches. Deliveries of
vehicles are often received at odd hours, including early morning and
late at night; these also are accompanied by loud noises over a ;
prolonged period of time. If a body shop is part of the operation,
there are other characteristic noises which are very loud and
penetrating. Finally, experience of living in close proximity with the
Jim Price Agency has shown that noise from electronic burglar alarms,
which frequently sound off at odd hours, further disturb the peace of
nearby (and some not-so-nearby) residents.
Finally, we wish to point out again the unique shape of the parcel of
land in question. It is "wedge-shaped," with the widest portion fronting
along Route 29, with the long sides penetrating deeply into the space
between Woodbrook and Carrsbrook. As such, any business that utilizes
the full depth of the property places much of its operation actually within,
and surrounded on three sides by, the residential neighborhoods. This is
different from strip businesses which face the highway with the residential
neighborhood behind.
We wish to reemphasize that we do not categorically oppose
development of businesses along Route 29. What we are trying to do is find
some support for protection of our own property rights and quality of life in
ways that are compatible with necessary commercial development.
Sincerely,
~e1f~
~9/?~~~.
M~ Y!l- ~ ~9tJ I
(
Additional signatures attached
3
Signature Page
December 7, 1991
Letter to Mr. William D. Fritz
Resident
. .
--.,. , I .--r--.....~. ---...... ...-
~~.y~
I ATTACHMENT F I
Ipage 121
Address Date
d1/,:>r /Z~.//U-p~ /2--8-7/
~ '1/ g &~/f\UM 12d.. /2- <6--9 /
E~ L~J5.~V\.V\. 10'7 ~~~~ 12.;~-<jJ
!}'j/lj ~ rZI. IJ -~~71
~~1~
2r'/4 gl2oc/c:nc~& C
2t):J/ g{COUt/4wt0
[d9 3/ ~{C~y{M yU- fo
Jq~l ~ ;2J
,{ '7/./ IZ/Le'wIID fZv.
/L-P-t'/
,
/2.trqj
I L _ )S _ 'if
/d.- - 8--~J
j;2-!-;..fj
~ 1 /..1 b(lc:Jo /(fi1€ j1 e f(d /). 8'- 9' /
k \ '2 c;J i fJlcJ()!vue ttef(J. J 1~ ~... r /
~,,,"\S~~ 2. '\e..3 B)-o'K""~l'\ R~. p..-1\.~l
~ (bI ~ /tJ/ ~~Id/ /:zj~/
4
I ATTACHMENT F/
/page 131
Signature Page
December 7, 1991
Letter to Mr. William D. Fritz
Resident
Address
Date
aI~~_ f/~
Q tM.\I~
IO( ~~ 72ot.. /:(-jT-91
2 ~ I J. T> I< · oj~ "" '--11.-<-- rI ~
o..;tJ~, ~/dnl!r J-'ll l' tf3~-" & P/fin/
~H2.e) W;ah- d- 7/S~fJ (d.' g-- 1{
~. C!111~12,
Q
'X fJ ~ 9:J. <) 6)oo*yv.~rt ffo{.
1/VLI tL 1/ ~
C I I
U'Y1/IJ rA.:JLvu: d..'11 d /;1rU?kj0"'~ R;.. / ,j / ff/ '1/
,
/ d. - f 7/
~
1.- y) ({1 f544~~.,t jJ
(Z/~/y/
I
'71aA'(J/6-t4.dL ~7'35 &~ w-#/
5
I ATTACHMENT FllPage 141
RECEIVED
NOV 1 7 1992
1
-'-
Planning Dept.
~_bBJ$$)3K9_QJ~__HQI1EQ}'JN E~ s_ A$ sac I ATI ON, I}{C_.
J_L__Ngv E:.mb e_1 1992
Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
F<et:
SP-91-57 Gold Leaf Land Trust's request for a special U3C
permit for a used car dealership.
Dear Slr:
Carrsbrook residents oppose SP-91-57.
; SP-91-57 is a revision of the plan first considered by tbs
Flanning Commission at its 10 December 1991 meeting. Conce:..ns
expressed by residents of Carrsbrook and Woodbrook preC1p1 tatt.:d
considerable debate among members of the Planrl1.ng CommlssiGIl.
Sufficient were the doubt and questions ralsed that reluctantly and
only w1tl-:. a split vote did the Commission recommend approval. At
lts 18 December 1991 meeting, after hearing pertinent arguments and
0xtensive discussion, the County Board of Supervisors referred
5P-91-57 back to the Department of Planning and Community
Development for addition action. Most of the issues which resulted
in the leservation and split vote by the Plann1ng Comm1::;sion and
the referral by the Board of Supervisors have not been resolved.
Indeed, the revised plan 1ncreases the scope or the project,
tnereby, exacerbating most of the problems.
2. While the total area to be developed (approximately 7 acres)
remains the same, the Prelim1nary Site Plan dated 9-23-91 provides
for a maximum 1mpervious cover on site of 2.4 aCles w1th a total ot
159 parking spaces whereas the revised plan received by the
Planning Department September 25, 1992 1ncreases imperv10us
coverage to 3.61 acres with a total of 473 parking spaces. This is
a 50% increase in impervious coverage and nearly 200% increase 10
outdoor display. Such enormous increases in the scope of the plan
will entail even more maSS1ve alterat10n of existing teL~ain with
devastating aesthetical results and corollary 111Ci:eases 1n t.hc
negatlve impact on wetlands, sewerage disposal, drainage, disposal
of chemical waste and light and n01se intrusion 1nto res1dentlal
neighborhoods. Detai 1 s about these concerns wer-e ra1sed In Ct
letter written by Mr. Jim Hooney, dated 10 Dee S1 and a leth::r
w r i t t eo by me, d ate d 9 Dee 9 1, bot h 0 f w h 1 C 11 a 1 011 9 w 1 Ul 0 t h t.: ~
letters of protest were presented to this c.:omm1s:::,lan Io~
consideration at its 10 December 1991 meeting and are included as
attachments to the Staff Report glven you for this meeting. ?ar
the l:ecord, I :refer to those letters. However, 1n you~ preparatloll
ror thls meeting, I assume you have reV1eweu thlS material, eWd.
unless the Chairman desires otherwise, I w1ll not restate those
arguments. '
ATTACHMENT F Ipage 151
3. The U. S. Army Corps of Eng1neerS has determined SP-91-57
provides for construction on waters and wetlands regulated under
Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act. The Corps has also determined
that this area is a "Headwaters" of the Rivanna F,lver, and that any
work 1n these areas which 13 considered fill under current
regulation will require a Department of Army permit and possibly
authorization by state and local authorities. Since the impact of
SP-91-57 1S less than one acre, it could be and was given
regulatory authorization, subject to stated cond1tions.
However, filling on a critical slope requlres that an
intermittent stream be piped. The Engineering Department supports
a wa1ver of Sectlon 4.2.5.1 to permit fill for parkL'1g and a
support slope. The Corps of Engineers has identified approximatel}
900 feet of stream channel to be impacted. Piping any part of the
.::;tream will negatively impact the natural environment f)resently
made possible and sustained by the natut"al flow or water. Any
piping would constitute a degradation, 1f not destruction of a part
of a natural waterway presently recognlzed as a "Headwaters" area.
Incidently, this stream is classified as "intermittent" on county
plats and maps. However, at various t1me dur1ng the year, I have
walKed the area where it initially flows into one or the c.:l.l":.:sbrou;;
lakes. Even during the driest season3, the stream 12, live and
flowing at its confluence with the lake.
On Section 45 of the Charlottesville, Rivanna & Jack Jouett
D1str1cts, the parcel identified as 110 is continuous to the SP-91-
57 si te, zoned Highway Commercial and owned by Gold Lear La.nd
T~ust. At this point, I have not been able to determine whether
regulated waters and wetlands cover any part of parcel 110. But if
i:.l:ey should, development of Parcel 110 could further impact the
area.'s regulated waters and wetlands. Should this be the case, you
might have the situation whet'e parcels Laving common waters all!...,
wetlands developed separately would be authorized, but would ))'::
denied authorization if developed as a single parcel. The point 1
make 1S that there m1ght be potential ror greater negative impact
on 1dentified waters and wetlands areas than would occur with the
exec~tion of SP-91-57.
4. Imper-vious coverage of :3.61 acres w1ll radicall y al te:.:- the
natural drainage of the area. Intr1nS1C to the operation of d used
ca:.:- lot is leakage and spillage of gas, oils and lubrlcants. It 1S
assumed that these in their entirety will be washed by rains lnLu
the planned stormwater retention pond. Regardless of tlOW well
Jes1gned and constructed, there is high probability that some o~
L'lese wastes will leach into waters and wetla11Cs, further ,?ollut.ill':J
them and the ponds further down stream. I have heard that there
3.1:e indications that the Virginia Department of 'I'ranspo1.-tat.1oll
lVDOT) is interested in possible use of this stormwater retentlon
ponel to catch run off from Ltle adjolning sect; on of Hwy 29N. If
thi~ 13 true and should occur, the problem would be compounded.
;l-
I ATTACHMIENT F Ilpage 161
5. VDOT's planned improvement of Hwy 29tJ in 93/94 will rt~qulre an
easement on the SP-91-57 site. The VDOT plan will destroy
vegetatlon and trees in the area to be graded and adverse~y impact
other trees. This of ltself wlll be an aesthetical degradatlon of
the area. But the point is that VDOT's use of a portion of th~
s::..te will lessen the amount of buffer available for plantings
deslgned to soften the harshness created by the outdoor dlsplay of
over 400 used cars.
o. The Archi t ect ura 1 Rev i ew Board r ec ommended di sapp rova 1 of:
special use permit SP-91-57 purely on aesthetical grounds. I want
to explain just how drastic the aesthet1cal devastation would be.
Please look at the Section 45 Plat. Look at the SP-91-57 site plan
posted on the wall. The lot immediately north of the SP-91-57 ~lte
1 sid e n t i fie d asP arc ell, S e c t ion E. I t l S Z 0 n e d C I) mm ere 1. a 1
Office by the county. However, Parcel 1. Section E l~ d~eded R-l
by Carrsbrook Deed Restrictions. Carrsbrook deed restrlctions pre-
cia t e County zoning ordinanc es and ha.ve 1 ega 1 pr ec eden l 0'.1 er thcn.
Parcel 1, Section E will be reserved for R-l development only.
Access to Parcel 1, Section E 1S off Carrsbroo~ 0riv~. To the
no~th and directly across Carrsbrook Drlve from Parcel 1 is Parcel
1, Section C. This parcel bears the same status and protectlon as
Parcel 1, Sectlon E. As part of VDOT's Hwy 29N improvement plan,
:c e a 11 g n e d Car r s b roo k Dr i ve will t to an s v e ro s e P a :c c c' 1 1, S e c t ion C.
According to Mr. Gerald utz at VDOT, the unused part of this parcel
w1ll remain residential.
SP-91-57 is bordered by establ1shed residential neig~borhocds
and lands. It is not just a commercial strip along the higJ:lway,
:cather penetrates approximately 900 feet into the Carrsbrook and
Woodbrook neighborhoods.
Execution of SP-91-57 would requIre carving out and level~n0
d 7 acre parcel. In the process, most, if not all, existing t:"l,:,e::;
and vegetation would be destroyed: some waters and wetla~ds woul~
be filled; and County Zoning Ordinances Ilmitlng construction on
~lopes of 25 degrees or higher would have to we waived. On thi~
raGlcally altered and denuded site surrounded by residentlal
properties and highly visible from the Hwy 29N entrance corrIdor.
you would have over 3.5 acres of impervious surface covered wlth
over 400 used cars. Thls is a scene which would say to all who
lIve by lt and all who would see It that Albemarle County values
commercial development more than the gift of beauty and the quality
of life of its citizens. ThlS IS not what you believe. nor is It
the message you want to give.
')
oJ
I ATTACHMENT FllPage 17\
-;. Indeed, aesthetical consideratlons alone are sl1fficlent for
Jen1al of the request. Comb1ned w1th all of the relevan~ data
presented. provisions of Section 1. <1.3 of the Zo"nng l)r(hno.li('l~
wruch lS des1gned "To facilitate the creation of a conVerllell~.
G:.ttra:~tlve and harmonious community," and the ;:atioLal behind
provl:.;ions of the EC Over-lay as it perta1ns to auto d.="aler-srup
outdoor displays which "gives the Board the opportunity to deny a
use that 1S determined to be particular-ly onel:ous," there 13
overwhelming Justification for denlal of request SP-91-57.
':'. I ask all present who are in agL-eement wi th me to stand 111
support of my urgent request that you protect our lnterest and that
0: the County by preserving the aesthet1cal integrity of the area
Hi which ,.;e live. Please, recommend denial of SP-Sl-57.
Respectfully Submitted,
,-~Jid t:::2.~:. _
?RANK A. RICE, pre~
Carrsbrook Homeowners AssOc1ation, Inc.
135 Indian Spring Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
4
ATTA~HMENT F jPage 181
~\ S (Sr\ \: l" (Lr)~-:z V- Kt
et,\Q"-V w \-\-=~~~ ~
VCA ~.~ &\0 \
\ ~ (\0 \J e..vvJve.-V \ (\ (r~
~. /;J"
Y J\\CS
j
\ ______ 0v'\/'-"- va v '- L ~'\ l.. .0 O' ~- \.
./ \ \. _) '}t> \ y 'C.<2-<.' \ (~l\. \, ~st
i-\~ (JY'O fO~ '-''-~- ~V' J.u\"L_x~~('P (0V\ te",---
~t- ~~'\,0 Q.QAA.. lu ooclb \/OO"C cr 6,vvS6 \rOO k
"1) \/ \. \J.e..., ,
~\/\/\. \--u ~'.e... ~ v 1-00 \ ~V\JA ~
<:?ft.- v" cllLeJ.JV.r":j h C f..:7 eAJ V .Q...QW~ '1) x/\. \~ l- .. R q N ·
~ V\ ovcle...-V rv, ~ ilir M~ lo~ VV\IA. ~
\0 rO , VC'--r\'\ '-L.. C.Q cl\..Qv\'~J C>0&Q l-v~~-\-o G.e........
\"v"J[ k e.O"'" 0' CC~\j el\..Q~j'^'~ ~" ~ /
~~f V:^""~ ..~ k~ ~vJ-v-~ ~ ~'-VvS~VO(}k
~& ~,S C00--> ~ ~,-\-rJ:,~ ~ CJStv~
\;0 ~ S~XV\',\ \ C~CJ' ~t \-0 ~~ V\.O~St- QA\}\.\)'v~"e~_l:v\'\...t\
U \J . ~ ~ ,"--"'
. .~ Y't-z- '&-~N. CA.D~~~ r'-V""o ~vk\ (1I)V\...1~lL\."
~ . ~ .~
~\AD ' VODt/7c& \/0' ,- q () /~ 0 ()
-, T l\V> /\"''-~~ \XA l'(O\j\;~"-
DECEMBER 10, 1991
I ATTACHMENT G I
I Page 11
T e Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, December 10, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman;
Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter
Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were:
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda
Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
A sent: Commissioner Wilkerson.
T e Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
e tablished that a quorum was present. The minutes of November
2 , 1991 were approved as submitted.
M . Fritz briefly previewed the items to be placed on the
D cember 17th Consent Agenda (Lakeland at Reynovia Phase I
Final Plat).
-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land Com an
tition to establish outdoor display and storage of autos
[ 0.6.3.2(b)] on 7.08 acres zoned HC, Highway Commecial and EC,
Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels
111, l11A, and IllB, is located on the east side of Rt. 29
a proximately 0.2 miles south of the intersection of Rt. 29 and
C rrsbrook Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
T is site is located within a designated growth area
( eighborhood 2).
. Fritz passed out letters from Mr. James P. Mooney, Mr. Don
lker and Mr. Frank Rice, all expressing opposition to the
oposed development. Mr. Fritz summarized the reasons for
position: Effects of sight and sound from the site; water
r noff; lighting; fuel spillage; and general concerns regarding
site and building design.
. Fritz presented the staff report. Mr. Fritz stressed that
" his use is subject to a special use permit only because of
s location within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and
is review is limited to matters of aesthetic consideration
a d whether the use can be aesthetically accommodated in the
oposed location." He explained that if this were not an
trance Corridor the item would be before the Commission ONLY
a site plan because it is a by-right use under the existing
ning (HC). [NOTE: This point was re-emphasized several times
roughout the hearing.] He noted that the application had
en reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The report
nc I uded : "Staff opinion is that wi th the appropr ia te si te
sign this use will be in accord with the Entrance Corridor
erlay
1 -10-91
2
l ATTACHMENT G I
[Page 2]
District. Sufficient regulations are in place to ensure that
the site plan is reviewed for compliance with the Entrance
Corridor regulations. Therefore, staff recommends approval of
this request subject to ... conditions."
Mr. Rittenhouse explained the Commission's latitude in relation
to the review. He again explained that the special permit is
before the Commission because it is a proposal for an outdoor
di play area in an Entrance Corridor. He stated: "Our purview
in looking at this from the standpoint of aesthetic appeal or
suitability is limited to the considerations from the Entrance
Corridor...which does not include the aesthetic compatability
with an adjacent property zoned otherwise."
Mr. Fritz confirmed that matters such as stormwater drainage
an control, grading, etc. would be addressed at the time of
site plan review.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling if the Commission had the
latitude to place conditions on a special permit which relate
to the control of noise, lighting, etc. Mr. Bowling responded
th t he agreed with staff's analysis of the request, i.e. that
th "analysis you are required to make is limited to matters of
thetic consideration."
response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Cilimberg explained
t there had been particular concerns about outdoor
plays, particularly with auto dealerships, during the
cussions about the EC Overlay. Thus, this type of use had
n included as a special permit because (1) it gives the
Bo rd the opportunity to deny a use that is determined to be
particularly onerous, or (2) it gives the opportunity for
co ditions to be attached which will limit the scale of outdoor
st rage.
appliant was represented by Mr. Dave Walsh and Mr. Tom
caster. They expressed agreement with the staff report.
offered no additional comment.
Chairman invited public comment.
following persons, all residents of the Carrsbrook and
dbrook neighborhoods, addressed the Commission: Mr. Frank
A. Rice (President of the Carrsbrook Homeowner's Association);
Mr. Don Walker; Mr. Don Swafford; Mr. Jim Mooney; and Mr. Joel
Hamilton. (Approximately 12 persons were in attendance to
support the speakers' comments.) Their concerns included the
following:
12 10-91
3
I ATTACHMENT G I
IPage 31
--Will radically and significantly alter the topography of
th landscape.
--The appearance of the site from the residences of
Ca rsbrook and Wood brook should be given consideration;
--The past record of the developer should be considered;
--The site has no natural buffer between it and the
re idential property;
--Light pollution;
--Imcompatability with adjacent residential property;
--Eventual widening of Rt. 29 would destroy any buffer
wh ch may be installed;
--There are many other HC uses which would be much less
ob ectionable.
Mr Swafford described auto dealerships in Texas which have
be n developed in such a way that they fit in with the
la dscape.
Mr Rice expressed the understanding that his comments would be
e appropriate for the site review hearing. Mr. Rittenhouse
firmed that if his concerns dealt with site specific issues
h as drainage, sanitary sewer, landscaping, etc., then his
erstanding was correct.
Ms Huckle felt that the issue of sanitary sewer was a matter
of public health and safety and therefore Mr. Rice should be
ab e to present those comments. She thought the time to place
co ditions on a request was at the time of a special permit
re uest. Mr. Rittenhouse again stated that the Commission is
co sidering whether the use is appropriate and "for there to be
an development of that property, the developer would have to
me t the requirements of our Ordinance and if issues of safety
an health could not be satisfied, then the Ordinance could not
be complied with and the development could not take place." He
ag in pointed out that the County Attorney and staff have
st ted that the Commission's review is limited to matters of
thetic consideration." Mr. Cilimberg added that "health and
ety predominates even when there is a site plan and you
ays have the latitude to deal with mattters of health and
ety matters--no matter what the review is before you--
cifically that is why we have site plan provisions of our
inance and there will be a requirement that this development
t those requirements during the site plan review process."
Johnson suggested that interested residents attend the site
iew meeting and the Architectural Review Board meeting.
re being no further public comment, the matter was placed
ore the Commission.
1 -10-91
4
lATTACHMENT GJ
~age ~
M . Johnson noted that staff and counsel have advised that the
C mmission's review is confined to aesthetic concerns. He
ggested, however, that condition No.5 have the following
ded at the end: "...with emphasis on items 1-8 of the
chitectural Review Board minutes of Nov. 12, 1991, and
ragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance." He quoted from
ction 1.4.3: "To facilitate the creation of a convenient,
tractive and harmonious community." He stated: "Hopefully,
adding that it would emphasize the aspect which has been
monstrated here--the effect on the community and not just the
e fect on Rt. 29."
he Commission expressed no objections to Mr. Johnson's
ggestion. Condition 5 was later amended as recommended by
. Johnson.)
M . Huckle did not think it would be possible to screen the
s"te from Rt. 29, given the topography of the land. She also
e pressed concern about lighting and felt it would be
" ifficult to live with that in your back yard."
. Grimm noted that one of the attractions of having a
siness along Rt. 29 is high visability. He did not think a
siness would want to be completely screened.
M . Huckle noted that there are many businesses which could be
placed on the site which do not operate late at night and would
n t require all the outdoor display.
Rittenhouse noted that the appropriateness of the zoning
s not the issue. He added that if the permit is ultimately
proved, then the Commission will consider very carefully all
e issues of public concern at the time of the site plan
r view.
a brief discussion about Mr. Robertson's (Water
sources Manager) encouragement of above-ground stormwater
orage so that all runoff would eventually feed into the
gional detention basin. Staff did not know how this issue
uld be resolved because the ARB may feel that underground
tention is aesthetically preferable. Mr. Fritz stated this
uld have to be "worked out with a detailed analysis of what
required."
ere was a brief discussion about spill-over lighting. Mr.
itz referred to Section 4.12.6.4 in terms of maximum,
ielding, etc. He confirmed that this issue would be
dressed in the site plan review and staff will assure that
II ne-half foot candle is not exceeded." He stated that
ghting plans have been required in the past where
velopments are adjacent to residential property.
1 -10-91
I ATTACHMENT G J
[page 5]
5
M . Andersen referred to the ARB's minutes and stated that she
w s concerned because the ARB expressed concerns. Mr. Fritz
a knowledged that the ARB had specific concerns, but he felt
t e general outcome had been that they felt the aesthetic
c ncerns could be addressed during site plan review.
. Rittenhouse pointed out that the ARB had stated that the
ncerns could be addressed through the 8 items Mr. Johnson had
ferred to earlier in his amendment to condition No.5. He
ated those 8 items relate to plantings, no storage in plateau
assy area, reduction of acreage in the request for outdoor
orage and display, and storage of stormwater runoff in
derground pipes.
. Huckle pointed out that the ARB had expressed concerns
out the sanitary sewer and the storm water detention. She
ted this was also one of the concerns expressed by the
jacent residents.
. Rittenhouse summarized that the permit was before the
mmission because of the location in an Entrance Corridor. He
plained that "to deny the special permit application assumes
at there are aspects of this site that cannot be made
ceptable to the ARB." He noted that the ARB will "predicate
eir review and the issue of a Certificate of Appropriateness
some of the items they have looked at preliminarily and if
e ARB feels they cannot grant that Certificate of
propriateness, then this development cannot take place."
. Johnson noted that the intent of his addition to condition
was to emphasize the Commission's support for the ARB review
a d not to imply that these items would be overlooked.
answer to Mr. Johnson's question about additional turn
nes, Mr. Fritz confirmed that those items would be addressed
the time of site review. He added that the plan has been
vised based on .VDOT comments.
. Rittenhouse suggested that the words "will be displayed" be
leted from condition No.2. (No objections were expressed to
is suggestion.)
M . Cilimberg suggested the addition of the following to No.1:
" ..approval does not guarantee any maximum display area of
o her feature." (No objections were expressed to this
s ggestion.)
12-10-91
I ATTACHMENT G I
[f>age ~
6
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-91-57 for First Gold Leaf Land Trust
b recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
t the following conditions:
1. Approval is for automobile storage and display; approval
d es not guarantee any maximum display area or other feature.
2. There shall be no flags, pennants, spinners, tinsel,
b nners, or other attention grabbing devices other than signage
approved specifically by the Albemarle County Zoning
D poartment and the Architectural Review Board.
3. Vehicles shall only be displayed in areas designated in the
approved site plan;
4. No elevated vehicles;
5. Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval
of the site plan with emphasis on items 1-8 of the
Architectural Review Board minutes of November 12, 1991 and
paragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(It was clarified that the motion assumed that the stormwater
d tention issue would be addressed by the Engineering
Department and would be satisfactorily resolved.)
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins asked if approval "authorized site development."
Mr. Ri t ten house responded: II No. I f the Board gran ts the
special permit, the developer will go through the normal site
review process and Condition 5 says that the ARB and the
Commission will review the site plan. Staff will not
administratively approve this site plan." Mr. Rittenhouse
stressed that even though the preliminary site plan had been
included in the report for information, no approval was being
granted to the preliminary site plan.
The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle
casting the dissenting vote.
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
l,AfTACHMENT G J
. Ipage 71
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Novem-
ber 19, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-64 subject to the four
conditions recommended by the staff, and the following condition 05: "Removal
of existing structure within 60 days of approval of special use permit."
Mrs. Humphris asked if a contractor installed the original stream
crossing. Mr. Cilimberg did not know. Mr. Bowie asked when the crossing was
installed. Mr. Cilimberg said the violation was discovered in May, 1989, but
he did not know when it was installed.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to be able to make contractors
responsible for their actions as well as the owner of the property. Mr. St.
John said the County has the legal authority to hold any person who partici-
pates in this kind of violation responsible. Even if the owner did not
participate in the violation he/she is still responsible. Any person who
actively participates in violating the zoning laws is criminally and civilly
responsible. When the staff became aware of this violation, the person who
installed'these culverts had moved out of the area. There is an outstanding
criminal warrant for the person but it cannot be served until he is found.
The present owner purchased this property after the pipes had been installed
with no knowledge that they were illegal. There is pending a civil proceeding
against the property owner to abate this violation. If the Board approves
this special use permit, it would not relieve the original violator from the
criminal warrant, but it could allow the dismissal of the suit against the
present owner.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments.
Ms. Lois Stewart-Wiebe, the applicant, said she would respond to any
questions from Board members. There were no questions for Ms. Wiebe.
There was no one else present to speak to this petition, so the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins asked the engineer, Mr. Tom Muncaster, what type of structure
would replace the old crossing. Mr. Muncaster said they plan to install a
multiple pipe culvert crossing. Mr. Perkins asked what size pipes. Mr.
Muncaster said they plan to install eight 36-inch pipes, designed for the one
hundred year storm to go over top the road.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris. seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve SP-89-64 subject to the following five conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission:
1. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
2. Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements
pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream;
3. Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to ensure
compliance with Section 30.3;
4. Approval by the Water Resource Manager of a water quality impact
assessment under the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance;
and
5. Removal of existing structure within 60 days of approval of
special use permit.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-91-57. First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land
Company. Public Hearing on a request for outdoor display & storage of autos
on 15 ac zoned HC and EC. Property on E side of Rt 29 approx 0.2 mi S of
inters of Rt 29/Carrsbrook Dr. TM45,Pl11,lllA & 111B. Charlottesville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 3 and December 10, 1991.)
December 18, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
I ATTACHMENT G I
Ipage 8/
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is largely open with several small
buildings and a vacant mobile home on the site. A large amount of
brush and debris is also located on the site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to develop an auto
dealer on the site. A plan for development has been submitted and
reviewed by the Site Review Committee and the Architectural Review
Board (ARB). A copy of the plan is included as Attachment C (on
file).
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Neighborhood 2 and is
recommended for Community Service designation. The crossover just
south of the site will be closed as part of the Route 29 expansion.
Carrsbrook Drive is to be relocated approximately 165 feet to the
north.
Staff Comment: This use is subject to special use permit only
because of its location within the Entrance Corridor Overlay Dis-
trict. The review is limited to matters of aesthetic consideration
and whether the use can be aesthetically accommodated in the proposed
location. The application has been reviewed by the ARB. The minutes
of their meeting are included as Attachment D (on file) and the
action letter is included as Attachment E (on file). The ARB made no
specific recommendation regarding the appropriateness of this use.
However, the ARB did provide comments on several items including
landscaping, building design and delineation of display areas. These
items can be addressed at the time of site plan review. The amount
of area devoted to display is a concern of the ARB's. Staff recom-
mends that if the special use permit is approved, the extent of the
display area should be addressed by the ARB and the Planning Commis-
sion during site plan review and that approval of this special use
permit shall not be deemed to guarantee any maximum display area or
other feature.
The comments of the ARB indicate that the issues of aesthetics may be
overcome through site design. Staff will refer the site plan to the
ARB prior to review by the Planning Commission.
Staff opinion is that with the appropriate site design this use will
be in accord with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Sufficient
regulations are in place to ensure that the site plan is reviewed for
compliance with the Entrance Corridor regulations. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of this request subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. Approval is for automobile storage and display;
2. There shall be no flags, pennants, spinners, tinsel, banners,
or other attention grabbing devices other than signage approved
specifically by the Albemarle County Zoning Department and the
Architectural Review Board will be displayed;
3. Vehicles shall only be displayed in areas designated in the
approved site plan;
4. No elevated vehicles; and
5. Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval of
the site plan."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Decem-
- ber 10, 1991, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of SP-91-57 subject to
the first four conditions recommended by the staff and amended condition #5 as
follows:
"5. Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval of
the site plan, with emphasis on items 1-8 of the Architectural
.
December 18, 1991 (Re~ .ar Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
I tTTACHMENT G I
! Ipage 9/
Review Board minutes of November 12, 1991 (copy on file) and
paragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Cilimberg then suggested the following rewording to condition #5 to
ensure that the health, safety and welfare aspects of the site are addressed
by the ARB:
"5. Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission approval of
the site plan, with emphasis on items 1-8 of the Architectural
Review Board minutes of November 12, 1991 (copy on file) and
paragraph 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that nothing
in this condition shall be deemed to impair or otherwise
restrict the Planning Commission's authority under Section
32.0, Site Development Plan, to ensure appropriate screening of
the site from the adjacent residential areas."
Mr. Bain asked if the issues concerning elevation and VDoT right-of-way
could pos~ a problem for screening the front of the property. Mr. Cilimberg
did not know.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for
corrnnents.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Dave Walsh and Mr. Tom Muncaster of
Muncaster Engineering were present to answer any questions.
Mr. Frank Rice of 135 Indian Springs Road, President of the Carrsbrook
Homeowner's Association, said the Homeowner's Association opposes SP-9l-57 and
provided a list of their concerns to the Planning Commission. Although the
property is zoned HC and they recognize that the owner has the legal and moral
right to develop the property, the homeowners strongly believe that it is not
in the best interest of all concerned to put a used car lot in this location.
The proposed site is surrounded on three sides by established residential
communities. Carrsbrook has been in existence for 30 years and Woodbrook for
a shorter period of time. The proposed development would drastically alter
the site and aesthetics would be completely "shot". The homeowners are
concerned about erosion, sewer, lighting, noise pollution, the outdoor display
area and all the other activities associated with the sale of cars. He
believes that this proposal is incongruent with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which calls for the creation of an attractive and harmonious
community. Allowing a used car lot in the midst of two communities is
certainly not promoting an attractive or harmonious community.
Mr. Rice said if the Board does not wish to deny this petition, then it
should be deferred until the impact of proposed construction to Route 29 is
known. During discussions of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor Overlay District,
the Board expressed concerns about allowing a used car lot in this area. A
used car lot would greatly diminish the monetary value of those properties
that abut the development. This plan would diminish the aesthetics of the
area, the attractiveness of the properties and the quality of life of the
residents. This plan should be denied because it violates the spirit of the
Zoning Ordinance and the EC Overlay District for a harmonious and attractive
development. He asked the persons present who were in agreement with his
comments to stand (13 people stood).
Mr. Ian Robertson of 2931 Brookmere Road, in Woodbrook Subdivision, spoke
about the problems he and his neighbors have been experiencing with the
stormwater and wetland situation near his house. He does not think develop-
ment of commercial properties in the area will improve the already vulnerable
wetlands. If this request is approved, stormwater specifications, erosion
control measures and screening are exceptionally important.
-
Mr. Jim Mooney, a resident of Woodbrook Subdivision, said he is not
opposed to development of this property because he has always known that the
property is commercial. He is opposed to this special permit request and
thinks the following issues need to be dealt with: the wetlands, the ponds in
Carrsbrook, the longstanding inadequacies of the adjacent sewer pump lines,
and the Albemarle County Service Authority's ability to determine what method
of sewer expansion is appropriate to serve the site. There is no sewer
service available to serve this commercial site. Two years ago he was told by
~
December 18, 1991 (Reg .r Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
the Service Authority that the pumping station in Woodbrook was at capacity
and nothing could be added to it; in order for commercial development to
occur, the property owner would have to build a new gravity feed sewer line to
the interceptor. He then related some of the problems the neighbors have been
experiencing with the pumping station and suggested that the issue be studied
in more detail before proceeding with the special permit.
Mr. Mooney said another concern is the great depth with which this
property protrudes into the residential area. Despite the elevation drawings,
the property in Wood brook and most of the property in Carrsbrook along the
diagonal property line, are elevated significantly and this would be like
looking down into Scott Stadium filled with used cars. He urged the Board not
to make a final decision until it has a site plan it can review. He also
suggests that the Board get an aerial analysis to show whether the wetlands
protection issue needs to be considered and to request the Service Authority
to review all of its maintenance logs to determine if a pumping station is a
viable long term alternative for solving the sewage problem.
Mr. Jim Batten, a resident of 110 Indian Spring Road, said he lives in an
area of Carrsbrook downstream from the proposed development. The lowest point
shown on the elevation map is a pond in Carrsbrook. He lives on the next lake
below that. The entire community of Carrsbrook is built around the lakes. At
one time there were five lakes. At the present time there are three in a row
where he lives and then one located in another area. His appeal to the Board
is to restrict the types of problems that allow massive amounts of earth to
flow downstream into the lakes. He presented some pictures which showed how
development has caused the lakes to fill. Each time major development occurs
a little more of the lakes disappear. He asked the Board to help them
preserve the integrity of their community.
Mr. Don Swofford, a resident of 321 Dover Road, Carrsbrook, asked the
Board to deny the request because of the aesthetic affect of the site, light
pollution, the affect on the topography, drainage runoff and the landscaping
that will occur.
Mr. John Kirk, 3509 West Monacan Drive, said his property is north of the
proposed development, adjacent to Automart and the nursery. Two years ago he
came before the Board and was told that the property would be screened and
erosion control measures implemented. To this date, there is no fence, his
trees are falling down due to the slope of the hill and vegetation is dying
because of erosion problems. Nothing is being done to correct these problems.
He does not see where this proposal is any different.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman said, in response to Mr. Kirk, his statements are correct.
Because those conditions were not required as part of the approval, they were
not done. Fifteen years ago Carrsbrook had five lakes, today one has been
washed out totally and the one downstream from this site is completely filled
with sediment because of development on Route 29, but this property is zoned
for commercial and nobody is going to put a house on it. He thinks the Board
should defer this request and review it with a site plan. The development on
this site needs to be harmonious with the neighborhood. All of the issues
raised tonight, such as the adequacy of the pump station, screening and
buffering, need to be considered when the Board acts on the request.
Mr. Bowie said he would support deferral of the request because he thinks
the concerns raised about sewer need to be addressed.
-
Mr. Bain asked the legal stance of the Board if the applicant decided to
proceed because the Board deferred action. Mr. St. John said the Board has a
year from the time the application is filed to act. Mr. Bain asked if the
Board is within its parameters to deny the application. Mr. Bowerman said he
is concerned that a by-right application could be filed which only requires
site plan review and the Board would not have the opportunity to review it and
place certain conditions. Mr. St. John said the Board has the same latitude
with this application as it has with any other special permit. Mr. Bain asked
if it could be argued that the Board is taking away a by-right use. Mr. St.
John said that is not the situation here.
I ATTACHMENT G I
Ipage 101
.
December 18, 1991 (ReB .r Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks there are a lot of issues that need to be
considered and that it should move forward with the application. She, also,
thinks that the Board needs to find out what went wrong with the Automart site
to the north.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that to deny this request takes away the
Board's opportunity to deal with the issues, i.e., the outdoor storage,
potential wetlands, stormwater runoff control management during and after
development, the type of sewage disposal provided, pumping vs. gravity, etc.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
SP-91-57 until the third meeting in March, 1992. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
P.M.
.
The Chairman called a recess at 8:33 P.M. The Board reconvened at 8:44
Agenda Item No.8. SP-91-59. Mark R. Wilson. Public Hearing on a
request for outdoor display & storage of modular bldgs on 0.4752 ac zoned PD-
SC & ED. Property on W side of Riverbend Dr approx 250 ft S of Rt 250.
TM78,P17D2. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 3
and December 10, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This site and Taco Bell share an entrance
onto Riverbend Drive. There is an on-site access road connecting this
site, the bank and Taco Bell to the shopping center ring road. This
parcel is flat with four Bradford Pears along Riverbend Drive.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted two descriptions of
this request (Attachment B-on file). There will be approximately
eight sheds.
Plannin~ and Zonin~ History: This site has extensive history. The
following list is a summary:
ZMA-83-02 - Riverbend Limited Partnership - On June 15, 1983, the
Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to rezone 28.735 acres from
C-1, Commercial, to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center, on Tax
Map 78, Parcels 17D, 17(D)2, 17F, 17G and parts of Parcels 15(C)1 and
17A.
SP-83-029 - Riverbend Shoppin~ Center Site Plan Phases I, II and III -
On June 7, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a site plan to
locate a 183,600 square foot shopping center.
SDP-83-054 - Riverbend Shoppin~ Center Phase I Entrance Clarification _
On November 15, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a proposal to
relocate an access road on Parcel 17(D)2.
Summary and Recommendations: The Architectural Review Board (ARB)
recommends approval of SP-91-59 on a temporary basis and subject to
conditions (Attachment C-on file). Given the applicant's written and
verbal statements, staff recommends an 18-month limit.
The applicant intends staffing this site and has demonstrated that
businesses within the shopping center agree to his employees using
their restroom facilities (Attachment D-on file). In a memo dated
October 21, 1991, the Inspections Department outlined their position
regarding occupancy of the sheds (Attachment E-on file). The appli-
cant has verbally indicated that he does not intend to occupy any
shed.
I ATTACHMENTG-/
IPage 111
~ .
PLEASE SEE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 1992, FOR
MI UTES ON SP-91-57, BEGINNING ON PAGE 7.
...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
o tober 29, 1992
F'rst Gold Leaf Land Trust
P.O. Box 5548
C arlottesville, VA 22905
: SP-91-57 First Gold Leaf Land Trust
Carrsbrook Auto Preliminary Site Plan
ar Sirs:
is letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petitions
ve been scheduled for public hearings as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1992
B th of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room
# , Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
C arlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff
r port and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning
C mmission meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE
you should have any questions or concerns about these
titions or schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me.
ncerely,
- /// . }.c~/
v#~~- ~<~/
lliam D. Fritz
nior Planner
Ms. Lettie E. Neher
Tom Muncaster
,
:). <~-I
12 / ")'1 Z-
1
CARRSBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION~]NC.
9 December 1992
Mr. David Bowerman, Chairperson
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Ref. SP-91-57 Gold Leaf Land Trust's request for a special use
permit for a auto dealership.
Dear Sir:
1. Carrsbrook residents oppose SP-91-57.
2. The Board of Supervisors initially considered SP-91-57 at its
December 18, 1991 meeting. Questions raised by citizens in
opposition to the plan precipitated considerable discussion among
Board members with the result that SP-91-57 was referred back to
the Planning Commission for additional site development
information. The primary difference between the plan before the
Board this evening and the one previously considered is its vastly
increased scope, thus exacerbating problems and concerns which were
the basis for the Board's referral back to the Planning Commission
in the first instance.
3. A primary reason for SP-91-57 being before the Board is the
provision of the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay requiring Board
approval of development in the EC which involves outdoor display.
Whi I e the total area to be developed (approximatel y 7 acres)
remains the same, the Preliminary Site Plan dated 9-23-91 provides
for a maximum impervious cover on site of 2.4 acres with a total of
159 parking spaces whereas the revised plan received by the
Planning Department September 25, 1992 increases impervious
coverage to 3.61 acres with a total of 473 parking spaces. This is
a 50\ increase in impervious coverage and nearly 200\ increase in
outdoor display.
4. Such enormous increases in the scope of the plan will entail
even more massive alteration of existing terrain with devastating
aesthetical results and corollary increases in the negative impact
on wetlands, sewage disposal, drainage, disposal of chemical wastes
and I ight and noise intrusion into residential neighborhoods.
Details about these concerns were raised in a letter written by Mr.
Jim Mooney, dated 10 Dec 91 and a letter written by me, dated 9 Dec
91, both of which along with other letters of protest were
presented to the Board for consideration at its 18 December 1991
meeting and are included as attachments to the Staff Report given
you for this meeting. For the record, I refer to those letters.
However, in your preparation for this meeting, I assume you have
1
.,
reviewed this material, and unless the Chair desires otherwise, I
will not restate those arguments in detail.
5. During the past year, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has
determined SP-91-57 provides for construction on waters and
wetlands regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act. The
Corps has also determined that this area is a "Headwaters" of the
Rivanna River, and that any work in these areas which is considered
fill under current regulation will require a Department of Army
permit and possibly authorization by state and local authorities.
Since the impact of SP-91-57 is less than one acre, it could be and
was given regulatory authorization, subject to stated conditions.
6. However, filling on a critical slope requires that an
intermittent stream be piped. The Engineering Department supports
a waiver of Section 4.2.5.1 to permit fill for parking and a
support slope. The Corps of Engineers has identified approximately
900 feet of stream channel to be impacted. Piping any part of the
stream will negatively impact the natural environment presently
made possible and sustained by the natural flow of water. Any
piping would constitute a degradation, if not destruction of a part
of a natural waterway presently recognized as a "Headwaters" area.
Incidentall y, this stream is cl assi fi ed as "intermi t tent" on County
plats and maps. However, at various times during the year, I have
walked the area where it initially flows into one of the Carrsbrook
lakes. Even during the driest seasons, the stream is live and
flowing at its confluence with the lake.
7. Impervious coverage of 3.61 acres wi 11 radical 1 y al ter the
natural drainage of the area. Intrinsic to the operation of a used
car lot is leakage and spillage of gas, oils and lubricants. It is
assumed that these in their entirety will be washed by rai.ns into
the planned storm water retention pond. Regardless of how well
designed and constructed, there is high probability that some of
these wastes will leach into waters and wetlands, further polluting
them and the ponds further downstream. I have heard that there are
indications that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
is interested in possible use of this storm water retention pond to
catch run off from the adjoining section of Hwy 29N. If this is
true and should occur, the problem would be compounded.
8. While building on an officially identified Headwaters and
Wetlands area may be perfectly legal, it is certain to negatively
impact "headwaters," "wetlands" and ponds further down stroeam and
in residential neighborhoods. Even the most rigid compliance with
and enforcement of current County erosion control measures will not
prevent unacceptabl e level s of si I ting in ponds on residential
properties in Carrsbrook. This, combined with subsequent seepage,
leaching and drainage of contaminants into waterways and ponds will
substantially increase the levels of pollution and rapidly
accelerate the death of the ponds, thereby decreasing the value of
2
affected properties and changing the ambience of the entire
neighborhood. A check with the County Department of Taxation will
show that in Carrsbrook lots on lakes have a higher tax basis than
other lots.
9. VDOT's planned improvement of Hwy 29N in 93/94 will require an
easement on the SP-91-57 site. The VDOT plan will destroy
vegetation and trees in the area to be graded and adversely impact
other trees. This of itself will be an aesthetical degradation of
the area. But the point is that VDOT's use of a portion of the
si te wi 11 1 essen the amount of buffer avai 1 abl e for pI antings
designed to soften the harshness created by the outdoor display of
473 used cars.
10. The Archi tectural Review Board recommended disapproval of
special use permit SP-91-57 on aesthetical grounds. Indeed, its
action was amply justified by the drastic aesthetical devastation
which would result form execution of SP-91-57. The lot immediately
north of the SP-91-57 site is identified as Parcel 1, Section E.
It is zoned Commercial Office by the county. However, Parcel 1,
Section E is deeded residential by Carrsbrook Deed Restrictions,
which pre-date County zoning ordinances and have legal precedent
over them. Parcell, Section E will be reserved for residential
development only.
11. Access to Parcel 1, Section E is off Carrsbrook Drive. To the
north and directly across Carrsbrook Drive from Parcel 1 is Parcel
1, Section C. This parcel bears the same status and protection as
Parcel 1, Section E. As part of VDOT's Hwy 29N improvement plan,
realigned Carrsbrook Drive will transverse Parcell, Section C.
According to Mr. Gerald utz at VDOT, the unused part of this parcel
will remain residential.
12. The above information clearly shows that the site on which SP-
91-57 would be built is bordered by established residential
neighborhoods and lands. It is not just a commercial strip along
the highway; rather, a seven acre tract that penetrates
approximately 900 feet into the Carrsbrook and Woodbrook
neighborhoods.
13. Execution of SP-91-57 would require carving out and leveling
this 7 acre parcel. In the process, most, if not all, existing
trees and vegetation would be destroyed; some waters and wetlands
would be fi 11 ed; and County Zoning Ordinances 1 imi ting
construction on slopes of 25 degrees or higher would have to we
waived. On this radically altered and denuded site surrounded by
residential properties and highly visible from the Hwy 29N entrance
corridor, there woul d be over 3.5 acres of impervious surface
covered with 473 used cars. This is a scene which would say to all
who live by it and all who would see it that Albemarle County
values commercial development more than its gift of natural beauty
3
and the quality of life of its citizens. This is not what you
believe, nor is it the message you want to give.
14. The Staff recommends disapproval under the provisions of
Section 31.2.4.1 of the County Zoning Ordinance which allows for
Board approval of a permit, if its "use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony
wi th the purpose and intent of this ordinance, wi th the uses
permitted by right in the district, and with the public
health, safety and general welfare." Since SP-91-57 would degrade
the natural environment, some property values, the ambience and the
quality of life, it would be a detriment to Carrsbrook residents.
Since SP-91-57 would involve radical aesthetical damage, it would
change the character of the district; Since SP-91-57 wi th its
attendant negative aesthetical, ecological and financial impact
would intrude approximately 900 feet into an established
residential neighborhood, it woul d not be in harmony wi th the
Zoning Ordinance which in Section 1.4.3 call s for design "To
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community;" Since SP-91-57 would require 3.5 acres of asphalt
covered with 473 used cars in full view of Hwy 29N, it would not be
in harmony with the uses permitted by right in an EC district and
would be inconsistent with the rationale behind provisions of the
EC Overlay as it pertains to auto dealership outdoor displays which
"gives the Board the opportunity to deny a use that is determined
to be particul arl y onerous;" and since SP- 91-57 degrades the
habitat of people and lessens their sense of well being, it is not
is the general wel fare of the publ ic. The justi fication is
overwhelmingly in favor of disapproving SP-91-57.
15. I ask all present who are in agreement with me to stand in
support of my request that you protect both our and the county's
interest and the aesthetical integrity of the area in which we
live. Please, disapprove SP-91-57.
Respectfully Submitted,
~ .... /~.~--
~- ~
FRANK A. RICE, Pres> nt .
Carrsbrook Homeowners Association, Inc
135 Indian Spring Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804) 978-4488
4
_ ...,_ A -"", lll'"",','."":'-r,;,:C
DI..STr:H'!~-'-D F:_>).~ . ..>, '""
/ . ..' 'I./) .
!,.~ : p, ~ -~~'.
.,.. ....,..,
O. ..". .., .
.
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGE A TITLE:
Certific tion for Comprehensive Services
Act for t-Risk Youth & Families
AGENDA DATE:
December 9, 1992
.. ITEM HUMBER:
(/<'.; /.~) fie; 7p"J
, j I I I ('/") Lr ! I L/ JV^)
ROPOSAL RE UEST:
Board approval for the following
four c rtilfication components of the
Comprehe sive Services for At-Risk Youth &
Families: designate jurisdictional
boundari s; designate fiscal agent;
designat legal counsel; appoint Community
Policy a~d Management Team.
I
I
I
STAFF CO
Mr. Tuc White
ACTION: ~ INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY, PI
=>0
BACKGRO
The Com rehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families, passed by the 1992 General
Assembly, will restructure the way certain public social services are funded and delivered,
starting July 1, 1993. It is intended to simplify funding and increase interagency
collaboration in providing services.
DISCUSSI N:
Nine sep rate funding sources, presently allocated to four different public agencies (Social
ervices, Mental Health, Juvenile Court Services Units, and public schools), will be combined
to a ingle State Pool and allocated to local governments under a new formula. Local
matching funds will be based on the JLARC "ability to pay" formula in use for the Health
Departme t. A State Trust Fund has also been created to provide "seed money" for new
services in some local communities to be awarded starting January 1, 1993 on a competitive
proposal basis. Albemarle and Charlottesville have submitted a grant proposal for $300,000.
Spending these funds will become the responsibility of a Community Policy and Management
Team, an interagency group to be appointed by the local governing body.
Each loc 1 governing body is required to certify to the state that it is in compliance with
the requ'rements of the Act. The certification is in two parts, the first of which must be
provided by January 1, 1993 in order for a locality to accept a Trust Fund grant, if it is
offered I~ne. Part 2 is due by May 1 and is required to receive the initial State Pool
allocatiFn on July 1st.
The Act ncourages inter-jurisdictional collaboration and allows localities to decide whether
to imple ent the Act individually or together or with other jurisdictions. The County and
the City of Charlottesville already have a cooperative interagency service system for youth
and fami ies called the Charlottesville-Albemarle Interagency Network (ChAIN), established
in 1989, which is nearly identical to what is required by the Act. Therefore, staff are
recommen ing that the County and City certify as a multi-jurisdictional district to continue
this co laborative relationship. City Council is expected to vote on this on Monday,
December 7, 1992.
RECOMME ATION:
Part 1 c rtification for the Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families has
four com onents requiring act~on by local governing bodies.
1. ~lish Jurisdictional boundaries.
~e loca~ity must specify whether it will be a single or multi-jurisdictional district for
plemen ing the Act. certifying as a multi-jurisdictional district means that one Community
olicy a d Management Team (CPMT) will be appointed to represent multiple localities in the
planning and delivery of services.
Certification for Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth & Families
December 9, 1992
Page 2
Staff recommendation: Certify that Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville will cooperate as a multi-jurisdictional district.
2. Desiqnate fiscal aqent.
Multi-jurisdictional districts must designate a single fiscal agent to receive and audit
state funds under the Act. Each locality's state pool allocation would still be accounted
for separately.
Staff recommendation: Certify the City of Charlottesville's Director of Finance
as fiscal agent.
3. Desiqnate leqal counsel.
The Act requires that local governments designate legal counsel to support the work of the
Community Policy and Management Team.
Staff recommendation: certify Charlottesville's City Attorney as legal counsel.
4. Appoint the Community Policy and Manaqement Team (CPMT).
The Act requires that the directors (or their designees) of five public agencies be
appointed. These persons are already serving as the Administrative Team of ChAIN, and staff
recommends they be appointed to the CPMT.
* Department of Social Services: Karen L. Morris, Director (the city of Charlottesville
will appoint its Social Services Director)
* Community Services Board: James R. Peterson, Executive Director
* Juvenile Court Services Unit: Martha D. Carroll, Director
* Local school division: Thomas F. Nash, Director of Instructional Services (the City
of Charlottesville will appoint its school representative)
* Department of Health: Susan L. McLeod, Director
The Act also requires that a parent and a representative of private agency service providers
be appointed. Staff recommends the following appointments:
* Janet Royal, Albemarle County parent (a City of Charlottesville parent will also be
appointed)
* Catherine J. Bodkin, Executive Director, Family Service, Inc.
Co-Chair, Interagency Council, Charlottesville-Albemarle Children and Youth Commission
The Act allows for appointment of other discretionary representatives to the Team (see
Attachment 2). Staff may recommend additional appointments at a later time.
The following documents are provided for additional information:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Description of the Act and a copy of the enacted legislation.
Informational brochure on the Charlottesville/Albemarle Interagency
Network (ChAIN).
Detailed description of funding formula.
Attachment 3:
92.178
.
."
'-
'.
I
.. n_ 4 "
ATTt.CHMENT 1
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FOR AT-RISK YOUTH AND FAMILIES
The 1992 General Assembly passed the Comprehensive Services
~'Ct for At-Risk Youth and Families (Senate Bill 171, House Bill
35). This Act restructures Virginia's services and funding to
etter meet the needs of families with children and youths who have
emotional and/or behavior problems.
I
I
J The intent of the Act is to establish a comprehensive policy
qirection designed to:
I
preserve and strengthen families;
provide services in the least restrictive environment
while protecting the welfare of children and youths, and
the public's safety;
identify and intervene as early as possible;
create services to meet the needs of individual youths
and families;
increase involvement of the family and child-serving
agencies;
encourage a pUblic/private partnership; and
provide more community control and greater flexibility in
the use of funds.
, Coordination among the five major child-serving systems is key
to the Act. Schools will work with child welf~re, health, mental
*ealth and juvenile justice systems to plan and provide services
*ccording to the needs of the youths and their families.
I
Five demonstration projects preceded the legislation in
~oanoke, Norfolk, Richmond, Lynchburg-Bedford and the RADCO
Flanning District. An array of services were provided to youth and
families, including: school aides, pre-school prevention,
transitional summer school, alternative school, case management,
therapeutic family homes, therapeutic foster care, in-home services
~nd intensive probation.
I
Effective July 1, i992, the Act formalizes state
!dministrative structures. At the state level, the State Executive
ouncil (agency heads and parent representative) and the State
anagement Team (state and local agency representatives) coordinate
Wlanning for program and fiscal policies for target populations
~cross state agencles.
I
The Act creates a state Trust Fund (effective January 1, 1993)
for local projects to establish early intervention and community
services. The General Assembly appropriated $1.4 million,
effective January 1, 1993 and $3.4 million, effective July 1, 1993.
Information regarding applications for trust funds will be
forwarded to communities in early fall, 1992.
The Act also establishes local administrative teams and a
sta te Pool of Funds , effective July 1, 1993 (only if the 1993
General Assembly approves the funding formula and funds are
provided during the 1993 Session).
Locally, each community shall establish a community policy and
Management Team to manage the cooperative efforts in each
community. This Team also is responsible for development of fiscal
policies that will allow the community to receive funds. In
addition, local Family Assessment and Planning Teams shall be
established to assess the strengths and needs of troubled youths
and families referred to the team, and shall identify and determine
the complement of services required to meet these unique needs.
A state Pool of Funds consolidates nine categorical agency
funds across four agencies. These funds will flow to communities,
providing greater flexibility in managing and using funds based on
the needs of children and families.
Secretary of Health and Human Resources, Howard cullum, is
coordinating planning for the implementation of this legislation
and is chairing a Funding Formula Task Force which will finalize
the Act's funding formula. The Secretary will make his
recommendations to the 1993 General Assembly. .
The State Management Team will be generating information
regarding the Act for localities on a regular basis. A July 14,
1992 Memorandum from Dr. George Musgrove, Chairman of the State
Management Team was the first communication sent to localities.
. .
.
'.
\,.
Chapter 46.
Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families.
Sec.
2.1-745. [Not set out.]
2.1-746. State executive council; members; duties.
2.1-747. State management team; appointment; membership.
2.1-748. State management team; powers and duties.
2.1-749. Duties of agencies represented on state management team.
2.1-750. (Effective July 1,1993) Community policy and management team;
appointment; fiscal agent.
2.1-751. (Effective July 1,1993) Community policy and management teams;
membership; immunity from liability.
2.1-752. (Effective July 1, 1993) Community policy and management teams;
powers and duties.
2.1-753. (Effective July 1, 1993) Family assessment and planning team;
membership; immunity from liability.
2.1-754. (Effective July 1, 1993) Family assessment and planning team; powers
and duties.
2.1-755.
teams.
2.1-756.
2.1-757.
2.1-758.
2.1-759.
(Effective July 1, 1993) Referrals to family assessment and planning
(Effective July 1, 1993) Information sharing; confidentiality.
(Effective July 1, 1993) State pool of funds.
(Effective July 1, 1993) Eligibility for state pool of funds.
(Effective January 1, 1993) State trust fund.
92.1-745.
Not set out.
9 2.1-746. State executive council; members; duties.
The members of the state executive council shall be the Commissioners of Health, of Mental
Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services and of Social Services; the
Superintendent of Public Instruction; the Executive Secretary of the Virginia Supreme Court; the
Director of the Department of Youth and Family Services; and a parent representative. The
parent representative shall be appointed by the Governor for a tenn not to exceed three years
and shall not be an employee of any public or private program which serves children and families.
The council shall annually elect a chairman who shall be responsible for convening the council.
The council shall meet, at a minimum, semiannually, to oversee the administration of this chapter
and make such decisions as may be necessary to carry out its purposes.
The state executive council shall:
1 . Appoint the members of the state management team in accordance with the requirements
of 9 2.1-747; _
2. Provide for the establishment of interagency programmatic and fiscal policies developed by
the state management team, which support the purposes of this chapter, through the
promulgation of regulations by the participating state boards or by administrative action, as
appropriate;
3. Oversee the administration of state interagency policies governing the use, distribution and
monitoring of moneys in the state pool of funds and the state trust fund;
4. Provide for the administration of necessary interagency functions which support the work
of the state management team;
5. Review and take appropriate action on issues brought before it by the state management
team; and
6. Advise the Governor and appropriate Cabinet Secretaries on proposed policy and
operational changes which facilitate interagency service development and implementation,
communication and cooperation.
~ 2.1-747. State management team; appointment; membership.
The state management team is hereby established to better serve the needs of troubled and
at-risk youths and their families by managing cooperative efforts at the state level and providing
support to community efforts. The team shall be appointed by and be responsible to the state
executive council set out in ~ 2.1-746. The team shall include one representative from each of
the following state agencies: the Department of Health, Department of Youth and Family
Services, Department of Social Services, Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and
Substance Abuse Services, and the Department of Education. The team shall also include a
parent representative who is not an employee of any public or private program which serves
children and families; a representative of a private organization or association of providers for
children's or family services; a juvenile and domestic relations district court judge; and one
member from each of five different geographical areas of the Commonwealth and who is
representative of the different participants of community policy and management teams. The
nonstate agency members shall serve staggered terms of not more than three years, such terms
to be determined by the state executive council.
The team shall annually elect a chairman who shall be responsible for convening the team.
The team shall develop and adopt bylaws to govern its operations which shall be subject to
approval by the state executive council. Any person serving on such team who does not
represent a public agency shall file a statement of economic interests as set out in ~ 2.1-639.15
of the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act (~2.1-639.1 et seq.). Persons
representing public agencies shall file such statements if required to do so pursuant to the State
and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act.
~ 2.1-748. State management team; powers and duties.
The state management team is authorized to:
1 . Develop and recommend to the state executive council interagency program and fiscal
policies which promote and support cooperation and collaboration in the provision of services to
troubled and at-risk youths and their families at the state and local levels;
2. Develop and recommend to the state executive council state interagency policies
governing the use, distribution and monitoring of moneys in the state pool of funds and the state
trust fund;
3. Provide for training and technical assistance at the state level and to localities in the
provision of efficient and effective services that are responsive to the strengths and needs of
troubled and at-risk youths and their families; and
4. Serve as liaison to the participating state agencies which administratively support the team
and which provide other necessary services by serving as fiscal agent, designing and
administering the interagency tracking and evaluation system, and providing training and
technical assistance.
~ 2.1-749. Duties of agencies represented on state management team.
The state agencies represented on the state management team shall provide administrative
support for the team in the development and implementation of the collaborative system of
services and funding authorized by this chapter. This support shall also include. but not be limited
to, the provision of timely fiscal information. data for client- and service-tracking, and assistance
statements if required to do so pursuant to the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests
Act.
.
9 2.1- 752. (Effective July 1, 1993) Community policy and management teams: powers and
duties.
.
The community policy and management team shall manage the cooperative effort in each
community to better serve the needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their families and to
maximize the use of state and community resources. Every such team shall:
1. Develop interagency policies and procedures to govern the provision of services to children
and families in its community;
2. Develop interagency fiscal policies governing access to the state pool of funds by the
eligible populations including immediate access to funds for emergency services and shelter
care;
3. Coordinate long-range, community-wide planning which ensures the development of
resources and services needed by children and families in its community;
4. Establish policies governing referrals and reviews of children and families to the family
assessment and planning teams and a process to review the teams' recommendations and
requests for funding;
5. Establish quality assurance and accountability procedures for program utilization and funds
management;
6. Establish procedures for obtaining bids on the development of new services;
7. Manage funds in the interagency budget allocated to the community from the state pool of
funds, the trust fund, and any other source;
8. Authorize and monitor the expenditure of funds by each family assessment and planning
team;
9. Have authority to submit grant proposals which benefit its community to the state trust fund
and to enter into contracts for the provision or operation of services upon approval of the
participating governing bodies; and
10. Serve as its community's liaison to the state management team, reporting on its
programmatic and fiscal operations and on its recommendations for improving the service
system, including consideration of realignment of geographical boundaries for providing human
services.
9 2.1-753. (Effective July 1, 1993) Family assessment and planning team; membership;
immunity from liability.
Each community policy and management team shall establish and appoint one or more family
assessment and planning teams as the needs of the community require. Each family assessment
and planning team shall include representatives of the following community agencies who have
authority to access services within their respective agencies: community services board
established pursuant to 9 37.1-195, juvenile court services unit, department of health, department
of social services, local school division and a parent representative who is not an employee of
any public or private program which serves children and families. The family assessment and
planning team may include a representative of a private organization or association of providers
for children's or family services and of other public agencies.
Persons who serve on a family assessment and planning team shall be immune from any civil
liability for decisions made about the appropriate services for a family or the proper placement or
treatment of a child who comes before the team, unless it is proven that such person acted with
malicious intent. Any person serving on such team who does not represent a public agency shall
file a statement of economic interests as set out in 9 2.1-639.15 of the State and Local
Government ConUict of Interests Act (92.1-639.1 et seq.). Persons representing public agencies
.
in training local agency personnel on the system of services and funding established by this
chapter.
9 2.1-750. (Effective July 1, 1993) Community policy and management team: appointment;
fiscal agent.
Every county. city. or combination of counties. cities. or counties and cities shall establish a
community policy and management team in order to receive funds pursuant to this chapter. Each
such team shall be appointed by the governing body of the participating local political subdivision
establishing the team. In making such appointments. the governing body shall ensure that the
membership is appropriately balanced among the representatives required to serve on the team
in accordance with 9 2.1-751. When any combination of counties. cities or counties and cities
establishes a community policy and management team. the board of supervisors of each
participating county or the council in the case of each participating city shall jointly establish the
size of the team and the type of representatives to be selected from each locality in accordance
with 92.1-751. The governing bodies of each participating county and city served by the team
shall appoint the designated representatives from their localities. The participating governing
bodies shall jointly designate an official of one member city or county to act as fiscal agent for the
team.
The county or city which comprises a single team and the county or city whose designated
official serves as the fiscal agent for the team in the case of joint teams shall annually audit the
total revenues of the team and its programs. The county or city which comprises a single team
and any combination of counties or cities establishing a team shall arrange for the provision of
legal services to the team.
9 2.1-751. (Effective July 1. 1993) Community policy and management teams; membership;
immunity from liability.
The community policy and management team to be appointed by the local governing body
shall include, at a minimum. the local agency heads or their designees of the following community
agencies: community services board established pursuant to 9 37.1-195. juvenile court services
unit. department of health. department of social services and the local school division. The team
shall also include a representative of a private organization or association of providers for
children's or family services if such organizations or associations are located within the locality
and a parent representative who is not an employee of any public or private program which
serves children and families. Those persons appointed to represent community agencies shall be
authorized to make policy and funding decisions for their agencies.
The local governing body may appoint other members to the team including. but not limited to.
a local government official. a local law-enforcement official and representatives of other public
agencies.
When any combination of counties, cities or counties and cities establishes a community policy
and management team. the membership requirements previously set out shall be adhered to by
the team as a whole. -
Persons who serve on the team shall be immune from any civil liability for decisions made
about the appropriate services for a family or the proper placement or treatment of a child who
comes before the team. unless it is proven that such person acted with malicious intent. Any
person serving on such team who does not represent a public agency shall file a statement of
economic interests as set out in 9 2.1-639.15 of the State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act (9 2.1-639.1 et seq.). Persons representing public agencies shall file such
shall file such statements if required to do so pursuant to the State and Local Government
Conflict of Interests Act.
.
9 2.1-754. (Effective July 1, 1993) Family assessment and planning team; powers and duties.
The family assessment and planning team shall assess the strengths and needs of troubled
youths and families who are approved for referral to the team and identify and determine the
complement of services required to meet these unique needs.
Every such team, in accordance with policies developed by the community policy and
management team, shall:
1. Review referrals of youths and families to the team;
2. Provide for family participation in all aspects of assessment, planning and implementation
of services;
3. Develop an individual family services plan for youths and families reviewed by the team
which provides for appropriate and cost-effective services;
4. Refer the youth and family to community agencies and resources in accordance with the
individual family services plan;
5. Recommend to the community policy and management team expenditures from the local
allocation of the state pool of funds: and
6. Designate a person who is responsible for monitoring and reporting, as appropriate, on the
progress being made in fulfilling the individual family services plan developed for each youth and
family, such reports to be made to the team or the responsible local agencies.
9 2.1-755. (Effective July 1, 1993) Referrals to family assessment and planning teams.
..
The community policy and management team shall establish policies governing the referral of
troubled youths and families to the family assessment and planning team. These policies shall
include which youths and families are to be assessed by the family assessment and planning
team and shall consider the criteria set out in 9 2.1-758 A 1 and 2.
The community policy and management team shall also establish policies governing the
circumstances under which youths and families are not required to be assessed by a family
assessment and planning team, but for whom funds from the state pool may be directly accessed
to pay for specified services.
9 2.1-756. (Effective July 1, 1993) Information sharing; confidentiality.
All public agencies which have served a family or treated a child referred to a family
assessment and planning team shall cooperate with this team. The agency which refers a youth
and family to the team shall be responsible for obtaining the consent required to share agency
client information with the team. After obtaining the proper consent, all agencies shall promptly.
deliver, upon request and without charge, such records of services, treatment or education of the
family or child as are necessary for a full and informed assessment by the team.
Proceedings held to consider the appropriate provision of services and funding for a particular
child or family or both who have been referred to the family assessment and planning team and
whose case is being assessed by this team or reviewed by the community management and
planning team shall be confidential and not open to the public, unless the child and family who
are the subjects of the proceeding request, in writing, that it be open. All information about
specific children and families obtained by the team members in the discharge of their
responsibilities to the team shall be confidential.
....
Demographic, service and cost information on youths and families receiving services and
funding through this chapter which is of a nonidentifying nature may be gathered for reporting and
evaluation purposes.
~ 2.1-757. (Effective July 1, 1993) State pool of funds.
A. Effective July 1, 1993, there is established a state pool of funds to be allocated to
community policy and management teams in accordance with the appropriations act and
appropriate state regulations. These funds, as made available by the General Assembly, shall be
expended for public or private nonresidential or residential services for troubled youths and
families.
The purposes of this system of funding are:
1. To place authority for making program and funding decisions at the community level;
2. To consolidate categorical agency funding and institute community responsibility for the
provision of services;
3. To provide greater flexibility in the use of funds to purchase services based on the
strengths and needs of youths and families; and
4. To reduce disparity in accessing services and to reduce inadvertent fiscal incentives for
serving children according to differing required local match rates for funding streams.
B. The state pool shall consist of funds which serve the target populations identified in
subdivisions 1 through 5 below in the purchase of residential and nonresidential services for
children. References to funding sources and current placement authority for the targeted
populations of children are for the purpose of accounting for the funds in the pool. It is not
intended that children be categorized by individual funding streams in order to access services.
The target population shall be the following:
1. Children placed for purposes of special education in approved private school educational
programs. previously funded by the Department of Education through private tuition assistance;
2. Handicapped children placed by local social services agencies or the Department of Youth
and Family Services in private residential facilities or across jurisdictional lines in private. special
education day schools, if the individualized education program indicates such school is the
appropriate placement while living in foster homes or child-caring facilities, previously funded by
the Department of Education through the Interagency Assistance Fund for Noneducational
Placements of Handicapped Children;
3. Children for whom foster care services. as defined by ~ 63.1-55.8, are being provided to
prevent foster care placements. and children entrusted to local social service agencies by their
parents or guardians or committed to the agencies by any court of competent jurisdiction for
purposes of placement in suitable family homes, child-caring institutions, residential facilities or
independent living arrangements. as authorized by ~ 63.1-56;
4. Children placed by a juvenile and domestic relations district court, in accordance with the
provisions of 9 16.1-286. in a private or locally operated public facility or nonresidential program;
and
5. Children committed to the Department of Youth and Family Services and placed by it in a
private home or in a public or private facility in accordance with 9 66-14.
C. The General Assembly and the governing body of each county and city shall annually
appropriate such sums of money as shall be sufficient (i) to provide special education services
and foster care services for children idel'ltified in subdivisions B 1. B 2 and B 3 of this section and
(ii) to meet relevant federal mandates for the provision of these services. The community policy
and management team shall anticipate to the best of its ability the number of children for whom
such services will be required and reserve funds from its state pool allocation to meet these
needs.
D. When a community services board established pursuant to ~ 37.1-195, local school
division, local social service agency, court service unit, or the Department of Youth and Family
Services has referred a child and family to a family assessment and planning team and that team
has recommended the proper level of treatment and services needed by that child and family and
.
has determined the child's eligibility for funding for services through the state pool of funds. then
the community services board, the local school division. local social services agency. court
service unit or Department of Youth and Family Services has met its fiscal responsibility for that
child for the services funded through the pool. Each agency shall continue to be responsible for
providing services identified in individual family service plans which are within the agency's scope
of responsibility and which are funded separately from the state pool.
.
9 2.1-758. (Effective July 1, 1993) Eligibility for state pool of funds.
A. In order to be eligible for funding for services through the state pool of funds, a youth, or
family with a child. shall meet one or more of the criteria specified in subdivisions 1 through 4
below and shall be determined by policies of the community policy and management team to
have access to these funds.
1 . The child or youth has emotional or behavior problems which:
a. Have persisted over a significant period of time or, though only in evidence for a short
period of time, are of such a critical nature that intervention is warranted;
b. Are significantly disabling and are present in several community settings, such as at
home, in school or with peers; and
c. Require services or resources that are unavailable or inaccessible, or that are beyond the
normal agency services or routine collaborative processes across agencies, or require
coordinated interventions by at least two agencies.
2. The child or youth has emotional or behavior problems, or both, and currently is in, or is at
imminent risk of entering, purchased residential care. In addition, the child or youth requires
services or resources that are beyond normal agency services or routine collaborative processes
across agencies, and requires coordinated services by at least two agencies.
3. The child or youth requires placement for purposes of special education in approved
private school educational programs.
4. The child or youth has been entrusted to a local social services agency by his parents or
guardian or has been committed to the agency by a court of competent jurisdiction for the
purposes of placement as authorized by 9 63.1-56.
B. For purposes of determining eligibility for the state pool of funds. "child" or "youth" means
(i) a person less than eighteen years of age and (ii) any individual through twenty-one years of
age who is otherwise eligible for mandated services of the participating state agencies including
special education and foster care services.
9 2.1-759. (Effective January 1, 1993) State trust fund.
A. Effective January 1, 1993, there is established a state trust fund with funds appropriated by
, the General Assembly. The purposes of this fund are to develop:
1. Early intervention services for young children at risk of developing emotional or behavior
problems, or both, due to environmental, physical or psychological stress, and their families; and
2. Community services for troubled youths who have emotional or behavior problems, or
both, and who can appropriately and effectively be served in the home or community, or both,
and their families.
The fund shall consist of moneys from the state general fund, federal grants, and private
foundations.
B. Proposals for requesting these funds shall be made by community policy and management
teams to the state management team. The state management team shall make
recommendations on the proposals it receives to the state executive council, which shall award
the grants to the community teams in accordance with the policies developed under the authority
of 9 2.1-748 of this chapter.
\..
o '" -....,
o 0 ::s :r
3 :s q t:O
S o'g ::s
cO'" 0
~. g- ~. ?
~ == c;;- ~
<: Cl) ~
.~ go:_.
=-:(1\
0-<0
_0
00::1
g; -0 5'.
0.'" C
.., 0 Cl)
o :S. =
::I 0.,<
o
Cl) -
::I cr 0
0.00
- ~
;" (; S-
3 .., ~
_.0
-.., r.l
0.-.""
'" 3 ~
-'''0 r.l
::I .., '<
o C/l
o <
c 0 -
.., 0.. 0
~~.
-0 a....,
o c 0
s.~. 3
B.g g
? ~ 3"
'" Cl)
o ::I
S. g-
o -
o 8..
::I ..,
o 0
O..c
o.c
'" -.
o n
.......3
(")n
:r::l
~C;;
~ 0'
:J :.
. ~~
g~
o.g
o n
.......'<
c:- Cl) o' g. 0 ET Cl) 3 n Cl) 0
o ::s -. c ~ 0 0- 0 '" c
o.::s 'J oo..og..,
::s - 0. 0 '" C 0 Cl) -.
o gl'.l\ '-. 0 ~.;- ,... _ ~ ..., :3
.. .':1 COO_o' oO~
~-o"'.......::Io,. :r -
o .., -0 .., 0 (II Vi' 0 ..... - S.:r
cr 0 - 0'" 0. Vi' 0 ~ ~ ..., 0
- 0.. Cl) 0.. ~ 0 -. '" ..:: ,., S' :r 0.. 0' :::"l
~coc:r"""p.c;:;,- 00..,::;
2. D. 03 D. Il' .., o' 0 -' Cl) ~ (i Cl) ~
. ::s' 0 0 ::s '" g.,::s '" :r c;:; 0 ~ O"~ ::s
~ ~ = ~ 0.. 0 Il' :r-o 0 0 0 -0 = 5'
,..._,...o.,.....~~_~c_ 0
;'..,"':r8~1l'0''''0 -0 ,<0
_ coo ~'" _ - 0 Cl) 3
o Cl) = 0 ~ "0 0 5' ~ c :S ::s ~
.;) ~ 0 ~ no cr - ~ 2. ",' 0.. 0 15
~ '< 0.., CIl 0 .... - -. _
. n 0.. Cl) S' ~ 0 .., Cl) '< 0' =. c :r
::I ......0' gll'~-oo..t:l"O'"
.Q oo..R 0.000 "0",,0
.., C/l _. 8 0. 0 c: :;:; Il' 0' <: ......
(") oc-"O..,o"'<:=aQ(")
o co"'oD:'<oQo. ~~
::s - 0 1::' '" '" n ~ ~ 0 0
'" 6 0 ::l ~. n ...... d '" .., g 0..
o ....... '" "0 -. 0. 0' 0 Z
.., .~_o ...,(')O~__
=. g c: 0 ::s ~ - 0 c;:; 0.. :r 0 ",-
c: S-aoo~8~ o~o
8 8 0 g ......:r...... 8 :r ~ 0 ~ ~.
~ ~--~,;'C::o""cO""_
c: c:-~o"'30"'0",~o
o 2. ~ 0-' ~ _ .7' 0 ::!. n 0
~ -< -. = ~ :r =- ....... -. a.::I - R
::I__o.C/l::l",_O_
C/l
o
. ~
o
. '"
.So
o
o
o
~
~.
o ...,
::s 0
.Q 0
"0 ::s
~8
::s c:
2.;)
::I~
q<l 0
...,
:r
Vi'
~
..,
o
c:
"0
Cl)
'"
'"
:r
o
..,
-
,
0'
..,
a
~~.
go.....,
.Q g-~.
- "0 ::I
;;:: Cl) q
=.;::. 0
=:.a Il'
Jg 0 ~
. ::s _.
Sf!
-n
.., ..,
D:~
o 0
E; ~
0'<
D: 6
~ 0
o.~
(1l
"00.
..,()Q
o 0
8 0
o ......
(;" ~
5''''
_ :S.
o 0
.., (')
, '"
Cl)
o
0.
0"
c
~
n
3
5'
n
..,
gg,.
<0'...,
~no
=t <:" ~
o!!.o..
'" '< ..,
2.00
~ 0 ~
--0 ,...
O..,:r
::I 0.. 0
~ 5."0
~ ;:;
5' cr
()QO'
.., a
D: 0
o ....,
c 5'
.., Cl)
g 0.
'" 0
~.g
o.~
'" 0
o ;::'
o =
Coo.
::s S'
()Q~
S' cr
, '<
-il>()
CI . 0
III . 3
3 : 3
...&.. c:
3 :J
CI -.
::I -<
()
o
3
3
c:
:J
~
-il>()
CI . 0
III .. 3
3 :: 3
~.. c:
3 :J
CI -.
;a-<
g .
~ ~
c Cl)
E!.~
~~
~ :
0..::1
0:0.
o 0
o x
_ Cl)
~::l
'< =:.
.., 0
o 0
'"
o 0
~ ~.
R ~-
::I
~~
'"
"0 '"
~ 0
s.
o
n
'"
5'
c-
o
::!. a 5. 2. 5. ET 0 8 n
"'1l'-0~0~1l':r
:-;-::I~()Q-gc::l>
g.frCl):"2 Il'fr-
-. - ()Q :r I>> E; - _ Z
0: 0 g 0 = _ 5' 5. 0
... - 0 0 0 Il' ()Q ()Q ::!.
00,<0'<"'''' Cl3
Oil' :;:;0(')01>> .
1>>0.0<:.., "']::1::1
::s 0. 0 Q .., [~. _. ~
0..., =:-;-C:o.oo 0
_ 0 Cl) "" ::1.,- 0' 0..
:r ~ g- <: Cl) 0 ~ .., _.
~. _ .., ~ ~ 0 0 0.. 0
.., :r '" 0 ~ 5. 0. Vi' ,....
~ 0 ='::1 0- Z '" D. ~
S g 15 :S. 0 0 O'"'Q.. \0
E c.: ~.:r 0 .., -. I>>
o' 0 0- 0 r.l 0.. g.. g '"
'" .., 0 0 :S.o c::..:.::! Cl)
5. '" 'C5 8.. Q ....... 0.. ...
~=_. ~oO'D:
g ;So 0.. 0 "T1 "0 ::I Il' g.
..,0_O-"'OCl)8~
oO:rooso. 0
S ~ : ~ :: ~:i:g ::
3 8.. 0 0 :r 15 -..., JJ
c: '" 03. e: 0 _. g 0 -c;;'
00~!2.g-00'~~
~. ...... ~ 0 Cl3 a o..:r =.
':-: ~ <' 0' o. <" cr -. 0
I 0 .., I . '< ::l ::I
.
...,
o
r.l
<
o
0.:
0..
c
"0
~
o
Il'
-
o'
o
o
....,
'"
o
S.
R
~
g .
8 ...,
8 0
c"O
2.0
-< ;S.
.., 0.
o 0
'" cr
o Q
c: ._
n 0-
n ..,
~ '"
n
S.
o
o
0-
o
~
<:
(')
..::l
0...,"'3t'"'
(i ~ Q c --
.., Il' -::I ~
a. a c. -. C;;'
-~ a 0
8..., . :::
Qe:;;i ~
0..'" Cl) .Itl
5'~ a ~
~. g Cl) 3
o "0 ::I
oao..
0'0:;-
.., ~ (1)
.' 93(")
> 0 0
-::I 3
;ZETa
-<;
I>> _.
::I -
0..'<
"0 >
o ~
:S.o
g-~
'" a
- 0
g-~
~O'~a;7>
0. Il' ::l c _. Co
...a:::':;:"'3
D: ~ o. a.0<:l -.
~~"'o;:;=.
'" 0 -. 0 c en
0- C/l ::I 0 "0 ....
g,~oRa;:2
Q':I c:.., ....
o So'" ::I 0 _.
SOOo~<
.... "0 0 O<:l C/l Itl
'<oa~8(j
l>>~ao..oO
8...Q c: 5.::1 :::s
"0 0- 2.0<:l So ~
..,g-<",-<~
0..,. (1) ....
Q':I 0.. :s - -.
;;:: ...., -i 0.0 C
gO:rOI>>3
a .., 0 '" 0.
n -o.~
~:r1>>0"'1tl
-. > 0. 0 0 ~
O_a:r'"
Vi. z -. :: '" 3
'" ::l 0--.
C I>> -'.., '"
o ::I ~ ("> '"
"'o....,o~
. r.l ~ Il' '"
- -'::1
13(i0.~
r-
iD
..
o
:J
-i
CI
III
3
'"
::I
0.
Il'
()
()
o
'"
'"
~ .
0..""
~o
ire..
::;.~
""'0
~.g
o'r.l
C/l 0
- 0
g-g
g S'
Q':I i::
:'8
go
o ....,
.., '"
~ 0
g 3.
.Q g
'"
8 0-
o ..,
"g ()
;) ~
=. 0..
g 0
. c
o
eo
>
(J
~
C1
:;:::l
o
c
z
~
~>:r:CIloo-an
(lll:l.0000Cl):r
III ::l Il' ~"O 8 '--. >
3 =.:=: 0' Cl) I>> Q -
w ::l:ro::l::!.. 2:
1>>-. "'ao"O
o ~ 0 I:l:l 0 Cl) c: Iii.
0...,00::1"'0-
O'lll"Ol>>~g~g
c::::Cl)"''''. Os
..,<;::'_0.0""1>>
n (ll a - .... :r()Q "0
o n g go CIl D: g ;;;.
ao-....oooo
::l ::I . i:: D. -. -, 0..
.. CIl < Il' ::I 0
=ono-o"'o
=. ;:l :r E: CIl =- -. ....
~_.>ooo..o..,
.<<=- 'JO_O
:> 3 Z (') ;s, -:r :r"Sl
iii 0 0 0 0
C/l ..., -. c: 0 0 '"
~(ll"';::'J""tlnO
CIllllgCll_c:rg
33 o:rcr~Cl)
8:s~~--
(ll - ,. 0 0 -.
::l "0 '(')CIl- (i
....1>>00 O-C/l
.....:I '" 0 0 0
~c--o.!"ag"'....,
g _,o..~ a 0 ~o
3 ::.0 o..c c:.o-s
~cn~""'::J"""~
o Cl) ~~.:r c, "'.
::IOO,<OIX
l>
a.
3
5"
~
~
=<
CI
()
o
::I
..
o
:1
C
3
-i
CI
III
3
Gi
~O
~
U'1
~
d
o
eo
~
~
~
U'1
O-....,o(")o~n
ogoo:r::::::r::r
o '" ;::. 0 Cl) 0 0-. >
o.-CI'l"'O.., (')::r-
~ 0 2: S O"~. g Z
5!:. 0 ,..... ::: 0 _.
::!. 0. o' D: '" 0 '"
P. ::;. ::I < 0 a.. Cl)
<. g '0 ==:s. 5' 0
o_oonCl)o
g8..~3;D:O'~
~. 0 = ~ 0 So Q
o ~ E!. 8 '< ~.:-;-
a ~ g r.l g .., 0
o c.. =.. -t ,.... 0 ......
o:-;-go-:r13:r
-0 I>>CC
"Oo~Ero..,a
~ 'E, = .., 0.. R Il'
",=o..O_C/lo
cr()Q 0 c :r _ '"
0' 0 2. ~ ~. 0 0
e: ~ "'"0 s.
o 0: 0- 5. ;' 0 0
a ... Q - 8 ;s.o
o 0 r.l ~ _. 0. I>>
o::l =.r.l ~O()Q
- -. 0 ~ ~ 0
-::100' ao
:r_-::I on
~. g- ~~ :r ~ if
~
~
~
U':J
~
.~
)::0
-i
-i
)::0
CJ
~
IT!
:z
-i
l\)
s:
~
s:
OJ
~
:;:::l
U'1
0-3"'-n
~cqg-::r
8. e. ~. c: :::;
C/lgog,2:
o =. 0. 0 Vl-
2"0 !!.::!..o
=._::1 <''$ ...
o 0 0 ::I.g
t;; 0 -< QQ =.
, a Cl) -0
8 0 g 0
c O-a.~
g. a 0 0..
,<1>>0
o ~ a 8
~ ~ 3 g
o 0 -'_.
o ... -3 0
~ 0 c:
=- J. g 8.-
--0 _.-
-::l 0
~ 0' 0 ~.
c...~();a.
() ()Q 2. 0
o 0 _::l
_ ::l I>> 0
::l 0 cr 0
3,<0..,
co;) 0
00-::1
~'3 <'g
'<IO~
o So !2. C I:l:l ..., D. ""I:l () ~ ~ 0' '"1:r n
C/l 0 c 2 0 c: Cl) coo 0 81l' ,., 0
o 0.. _. ~ 0- - 0- c: 0.. ":::S
~go. o..g:~g:ogC/l"'~'"
08~ w "']CIl-<80~o3
a cr '" :::0 ~ ~ ;So 0 0"0 ....,:::- 0 C
o ~ 5..g o..:r g go::!.::;- 0 ::I ::l
o I>> ~ 0 ,.... 8 ;l; 0"2 ~ g a ~'.;;;:
Cl) ::l bl (n 0\ c;:; , J C;:;.., 0.. 0- 0 n '-<:
'j'o._g:;:.w 0- aoO'~o>
"'go_ ~sno-'o.."""""en
Vi' p.. ~ 0 0 S :r 0 ... '< <: CIl
~ 3 -. -'03 i:: ~ - 0 0 g 0' Itl
o "0 ~ (i ~ 0.2 - 0 '0 C c: C CIl
e: 0 I>> '" ::!. 0 _' ~ ...., 0 c. '< .., en
~ ~. t:S (') '<,.... en en - 3
0..=.'" 0 -...,......0 00 I>> 00
..,OpO....,....o..-"'o::lo _Itl
00 0 ... 0 c: 0 ::: :S. ~. S 0. pO Il' :::s
"_< oc:::__ (1\-,-.
pO 0 c: :r 0 () 0 0 CIl <. Er ~ o' ....,
o ...... 0 ~ ~ 0 =. 0 0 no", ()Q Itl
0. :;:. ~ 0 8 g 0 'J V> ~. '" - OJ
0- (1) "'1 ~ S - "0 :S.:;, ~ p) ::: 3
o-~n(") (")1l'()o""::lC
::;. 0 r.l 0 0 c: :r ~ D: 8 So-::. CIl
...., S ~ D. ~ g. ~ a ~ .~ E:~ e-:
""",oo-,<_oc,c::..O..,,,,
S. o' 6' V> CIl CIl ~ g cr cr ~ 0 a.
E ()e:onnoo"'-1o~
... 0 .., 0 "'] "'] '" ....... 8 3 n .., _.
'" .., 0 ~. ~.S .., pO "" 0
. g. ~ 6' g R :::: ~ ::c. ::0. 3 S- ~
~ (1) t ~ ~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
.' .
.
ATTACHMENT 3
~G
f.oM
DN
uP
COMMONWEALTH of VIR
Howard M. C lIum
Secrelary of H lh and Human Resources
Office of the Governor
Richmond 23219
A
0
f
b
t
.' c
f
0
s
d
f
I
F
0
b
s
s
p
r
G
f
f
e
r
A
. s
h
September 22, 1992
D ar Chief Administrative Officer:
The 1992 General Assembly enacted the Comprehensive Services
t for At-Risk Youth and Families (copy attached). The adoption
this important legislation established clear policy direction
r Virginia. Services for at-risk youth and their families are to
community-based and community-managed with maximum flexibility.
The Act enables front-line staff to focus more clearly on the
eatment needs of children and less on administrati ve
nsiderations such as categorical restrictions on the use of
nds. A centerpiece of the new legislation is the consolidation
nine funding streams into a single pool. Pooling funding
reams provides local staff agencies with greater flexibility in
livering services to troubled youth.
Among the most important issues related to implementing the
nd pool has been development of a method to allocate pool funds.
November 1991, the Council on Community Services for Youth and
milies recommended that the entire fund pool be allocated based
poverty, as defined by the number of children receiving ADC
nefits.
Many local officials questioned the use of poverty as the
ngle best indicator of need and expressed concern that historical
ending levels were acknowledged only through hold harmless
ovisions. The enacted legislation contained a provision which
quires that the Comprehensive Services Act be amended by the 1993
neral Assembly to revise and-specify in more detail the funding
rmula to be used in allocating pool funds.
In June 1992, I appointed a task force to recommend a funding
rmula to include in the amended Comprehensive Services Act. To
sure appropriate local input in revising the formula, I asked the
presentati ves from the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia
sociation of Counties to serve on the task force in addition to
aff from local social service agencies, court service units,
alth departments, school divisions, and community service boards.
.
.
.
.
-3-
The task force strongly recommended that a review be
ertaken of the funding formula after two or three years to
the impact of the formula on localities.
I appreciate the willingness of local officials to assist the
monweal th in developing a formula which advances our mutual goal
of improving services to troubled youth. I am requesting that you
carefully review and comment on the attached draft. A final
meeting of the task force will be held in early November to
c nsider changes based on your comments. Please submit your
co ments to me in writin no later than Frida October 231992.
In addition to the funding formula, several work groups have
b en formed to develop guidelines to implement other aspects of the
C mprehensive Services Act. There is widespread local involvement
i these work groups and their recommendations will be included in
a eport to the Governor and the General Assembly in mid-November.
Thank you for your cooperation and input. If you have any
q estions, please call Dian McConnel at (804) 786-5394.
Sincerely,
~ /l1.,e'~
Howard M. Cullum
tachments
Funding Formula Task Force
State -Executive Council
State Management Team
Local Social Service Directors
Court Service Directors
Local School Superintendents
Community Services Board Directors
e
z
0
-
~
0
z
UJ
~
~
0
()
UJ
a:
UJ
()
a:
0
u..
~
Cf)
e ~
~
:J
~
a:
0
u..
(!J
Z
-
(:)
Z
:J
u..
.,-
UJ
-.J
CO
~
t-
('II
Cl
ei
.D
E
Cl
Q.
Cl
0
...10
<0 -
Oz
O::l -
~ ...ILL.
...I
0 Z
~ + W0
...I I- 1-0 €:
~ in ~z
0 a: 02
I- a:
::l
2-
...I
~ ~
~
CO)
-
oJ:
Cl wO
.. !E~
z - s:
C ::l~
:5 0...1
z w<
::l ::l a:O
LL. ~
~ a: 0
0 ...I
Z LL.
W Z W('ll
~ 0 ~-
0 0 1-0 :!:
w 00
0 0 ~5
...I <
...I m
< ZLL.
...I
~ ~
~
a: 0
0 ...10
U. W <0
W a: Oz ~
::l
0 I::: 0::;)
~ ...ILL.
0
0 in
~ c..
c.. ~ W0
I- 1-0
in ...I ~Z e:
<
c: ::l 02
c: t
::l
0 <
z ('II
~ Cl ...I
it ~ :E
c: ~
- ,
0 (1) It'l (1) V l") ~ v OJ co ~ (1) N It'l N (1) It'l l") N
OJ It'l ~ 0> ~ ~ F"- l") v '" ~ :g '" 10 0 F"- ~
'" F"- co v_ v F"-. 0 ":. F"- 0> v l") v_ '"
lli lli ri g ~ a) ~, N ~ ~- ,..: v 10' <D ",- g N v (\j ~-
v F"- ~ V V V V co '" (')
l") ~
~
:2 10 ,... a; v ,... 10 :2 ,... ,... v ,... N ~ v N 0 0 .. ,...
~ N 0 co ~- 0 co 1:6 N 10 (') (') ...- 10 ~
N (') .. 0 ...- .. '" ,... 10 '" co 0, ~ '" ...- g '"
10- ~ crj i lli It'l' g N ,..: <D FJ crj co- .. v- N ",- It; lli
v N 0> N 0 10 (\j N ~ v v co .. ...- 0)
~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..
10 V N 1:6 ~ ~ ,... :g '" ~ CD ~ ;1) 0> ~I ~ 10 (') (') 1:6
,... ,... :2, ~ ~ ~ '" 10 CD ...- N
0) 0 0> ~ ~ '" ,... (') 10 '" ,... C'!. .- 10
~- ~ .. i ;:;; ;; '" lli g ~ ,..: ri ;1)- ,..: .. 0) co. ~ ,..." g
~ ...- ...- ...- M ,... ~ 10 ,... ,... <0
~ ~ ~ N .- M ~ ~ N ~ .-
N
0 F"- ...- .. N M (') CD 10 ,... 0) M ~ ...- :g N v ~ 0) ltl
ltl ~ 8" N ;1; ~ 10 N ~ CD ~, V ~ ~ ,...
,... M v It'l v CD ...- 0 It'l ~ CD .- ...-
crj g 0 .- 0)" a) lli ,..: g <D <D ...-. <0- ~ <D ltl" 0 <D 0" fli
~ .. '" .- ... ... ... ~ ... ..
CD 0 0 0 0 0 CD ,... 0 0 0 0 0 ,... 0 0 0 0 0 0
,... ~ 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 M 8 in 8 8 8 8
M. ... ...- N
;:;; 0 lli ltl. v; lli g- o lli lli ltl- lli ltl' N- ltl- N lli It'l- .0 lli
...- N N N N M N N C\I N N M N M C\I C\I C\I C\I
(
'-
CD ,... ...- .. ... M in ltl It) ,... 0) (') C\I ~ <0 ('II ...- CD 0) It)
~ C\I ~ 8 C\I C\I ... It) C\I ~- CD N g 0) It) 8 ~ ... ,...
~ v It) <0 ...- V ~ ...- 0, III <0 .. v"
0 v. It)- ~- ;; ;; .0 ~ Ifi ~ ;:;; a) ;:;; ~ ;:;; ,..: Ifi ;:;; .0 ;:;;
v ,... M V V M v M (')
..
0 ~ (\j CD M U; ~ <0 v ... ltl ltl 0 ... I/') CD ... I/') M CD
~ 1:6 ,... ,... CD ~ N CD 0> g C\I C\I I/') ~ I/') (\j
v It) I/') CD v N, ~ C\I <0 M ~ v_ ~
g N N 0)- ~ ~ ~ (\j a) ... g 0)' .0 a; in ,... .- ,..:
~ CO) C\I co M ,... C\I ... ('II
...
,... It) ,... ... v ,... ,... <0 ,... ,... ~ ,... C\I ,... V ... 0 0 U; ,...
0 v C\I ~ 0 CD .. <0 0 CD C\I It) I/') CO) ... M V ~
0) It) ... v ~ ~ C\I ,... ltl_ <0 CD CD ... ... ...-, ... <0
ri ,..: ri a) 0 N N Oi v ri ri ~- a) g Oi 1/')- g 0"
~ N ,... ,.... ,... M 0 0> ... M ,...
~ ...- ... ... ... .-
...
,... ,... ~ 0) ,... co ~ C\I .. 8 ~ M C\I 18 0) 0> lo' I/') CO) I/')
CD V CD ,... V v 8l ... ...- ltl M 0 8 0
co 0) CD 0) C\I ,... CD .. Cl It) (') v ~ CD V ...
g 0)- It). crj g 0 $- ~ g- <D g g i 0)- ;:;; N N N ~
<0 .. ... ...- <0 M
~ ,... ... .. C\I ... ... ... C\I ..
N
~ x ~ ~ L
...I :.:: w >- ~ z h: :.:: ~ (3
0 ...J Z 0 :r: ...I t:
< "' a: "' l- 0 ~ 0 ::> ;: C!> ...J W ..J en
0 "' :r: en l- a: 0 ~ w Z ..J W 9
9 ~ ~ C!> < a: ~ C!> en 0 0 t!i en z co ::::i a? ..J
0 w ::::i w ~ z ::> ~ LL. ~ z 52 c.. a? a: a:
0 co w w :r: ::::i Cl 0 l- ZE 0 0 ~ a: ~ "'
..J
0 ..J ..J ~ ~ c.. a: ::> w g ::> ::> "' "' :r:
"' < < "' < < "' co co co co co 0 0 0 0 0
.
z
0
-
~
0
z
w
~
~
0
()
w
a:
w
()
a:
0
u..
~
(J')
. <(
I-
:5
:::>
~
a:
0
u..
~
z
-
0
Z
:J
u..
,.-
W
...J
CO
<(
I-
.~
Cl
.&J
E
Cl
Q.
Cl
en
0 ,... 'J, g) N N lD N 01 CD N It'l '" 0 CD 01 0 ,... ~ ::s
-Jen N '" ~ N ~- ,... :rl ~ '" lD ~ N Ol 1?l C> CO ~
'" It'l '" '" O!. ..- v 0_ CD C') ,...
<0 g <t$ N ..,: ~ M v :1 N ~ r-: ~- 2 :1- M It'l- M ~ .0 r-:
()z ~ ~ 1?l 0 N N lD N ..- N N 0
0::::)
~ -Ju..
-J
0 Z
~ It'l ,... C> It'l .... N N co N 0 ~ Il'l It'l N CD 0 It'l
+ wen ~ Ol It) M g CD g) g (; It'l Ol to ~ ,... 1?l g (!; C>
v. M. co .... ,... ..- to ,.... It'l_ ,...
-J I- 1-0 cO :8 g ~- ai gi g. :8- .0 ai N o. 10 c;; v gi ..,: N ~
~ ffi <z 05. ,... ;:: v M M to :rl '" ,... M
1-::::) N ..-.
0 a: enu..
I- a:
::::)
2- It'l ;;r; ~ Ol co It'l ,... ~ ..- .... .... :2 ,... '" .... N ~ M g:
-J 0 M ,... ~ co ~ 0 ~ ;1;_ g C> co ,... N 1?l
C') lD Ol Ol v N 0 v co C> C') It'l
~ ~ M ai ~- M- g M 1i ..,: 01- r-: :8 CD- ;;r; i .0 g N r-: :8 CD-
0 ,... ..- ,... N .... It'l ..- 0 It'l C> N
0 .... ,...- M ..- ..-- (')
I-
'"
-
oJ:
" w()
.... ~~
~ - ::::)~ s:
0 :s O-J
z w<
::::) ::::) a:()
u.. ~
~ a: 0
0 -J
Z u..
W Z WN
~ 0 ~-
() 0 I-en :!:
w eno
0 en ~5
-J <
-J a:l
< zu..
1?l co ..- .... N ..- It'l 0 C> 0 It'l ~ N It'l ~ M Ol ~ .... Ol
It) N ;;r; N ~ Il'l g 8 :1 Il'l :g It'l <Xl as ,... .-
~ C\I '" ~ .... .... .... ..- Il'l ....
a::; <t$ It'l. N ..,: M g 0 <t$ ..,: g ..,: It'l- g It'l- M <t$ r-: <t$ N
N 01 ..- .... .- .... .- ..- M ..- .... .... ..-
C\I ,...
<Xl :rl
gi ;i
~ ,... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol 0 0
It'l ~ 8 888 8 8 8 8 ~ 8 8
~ ~ g g g g g g g g ~ g g
..-
o 0 0 0 lD
8 8 888
.0 .0 It)- .0 r-:
C\I N C\I N M
0 It'l LO ..- N Il'l 0 01 0 It'l Il'l M Il'l 0 '" Ol '" .... It'l
-J ,... Ol N N N ~ It'l g 8 :1 It'l Ol g: Il'l as to as :8 ,... It'l
~ C\I ,... <<!. .... .... v .... (') v ..- It'l ~
~ ~ N .... ai ai ~ .0 .0 ~ ai .0 gi ai LO- g ~ ",. N M ai
0 lD N v M v '" M .... ,... v .... M .... ~
I-
a: C\I Ol ~ Il'l Ol ~ co C\I 0 18 ~ Ol N Il'l <Xl ~ N v 0 It'l
0 en -Jen :8 ,... ~- ~ ~ :rl C\I co :g :B 1?l It'l ,...
u.. W <0 co N ..- 0 co ~ M N 0 (')
a: ()z ..... r-: 0) r-: .... r-: 0) ..,: M ..,: a:i r.D ~ N <Xl- N- ..,: .0 r-: .0
w ::::) ~ ..- ,... co en C\I v en
() t: 0::::) ... v
i= -Ju..
0
() ffi
~
a. a. '" g It'l ;;r; It'l v co C\I C\I co N (') Il'l It'l N <Xl * 01
liS wen ,... It'l (') g g: g- o It'l '" Ol <Xl g) ,... 18. g It'l
I- 1-0 ... Ol <Xl. Il'l v ..- ,... ..- ..- ,... It'l ,...
ffi -J ~z e ,....- ~ en N ",. v- .... :2- ~ 0 ....- ,....- r-: g :8 ai v ai r-: :i
< v M ,... C\I .... It'l <Xl v
en2 C\I q .... ....
a: ::::)
a: I-
::::) ()
(J <
z C\I It'l Ol ~ <Xl v .... C\I .... N v en 0 ~. co M ~ 0 ....
01 -J 8 M Il'l .... ~ ~ (') ~ N ~ .... Ol ~- co (; ,...
~ < co Il'l q C\I 0 v. v M ,... 0
>- I- ~ .0 r.D ,... ..,: N ;i trJO g 8 a:i N m :2 m ..,: ..- m "i .0 0)
u.. 0 lD ..- N co <Xl M ,.... ..- ,...
~ It'l. C\I q N
a: I-
z
g
en ~
g z z
::::)
J: 5: 0 W "
~ I- W W
::::) () ::l " ~ a: i
-J 0 " ~ 0 a: a: 0 ::l (i5 \...
0 ~ 3 W ex: CD ::a
< (fl a: 0 0 3 ::l (fl Z
() ~ W 0 ~ C3 W I- ~ ~ (fl 0
() u.. ~ ~ (fl m W
0 > ~ 0 (fl " <C 0 <C Z s2 W "
u.. 0 Ci W 0 (fl (fl I -J I-
-J I 0 0 () W 0
:J ~ Z Z W ~ " ::l 5 0 ..... () z
:i W w " -J Z Z Z ~ w 9 9 z <C <C W 0 0
I !!2 W :3 :E
J: I -, ~ ~ ~ -J ::a ::a ::a ::a
I
. .
.
e /
~ N <.0 ~ ~ M ~ ~ <.0 1O ,... 0'1 1O ~ 1O co M 1O 0'1 &;
-Jen 8 1O 1O l6 0'1 g ~ ~ N 8 M ,... 0'1 g ,... 1O
<0 ,... ~ N co 1O 0 0'1 0'1 ~ <.0. M, ~ co
Uz ~ ~- ~ 1O- ,..: If)' ~ ~ a:i ~ i N 1O- 0'1- ~- i, ,... a:i ;;; "'1". 0"
~ ~ ,... M ~ co 0'1 ~ ,...
O:J N ~ ~ ~ N
Z ~ -Ju.. ~
-J
0 0 Z
0 ,... M ('); ,... j:;: !:: 10 <.0 M ~ <.0 0'1 If) a; l8 N 0 N N :g
- c.. + wen M 0'1 ,... ,... ~ :!3 ~ I() 0 8 '<t" 0'1
~ 0'1 0'1 N co '<t" 10 co 0'1 ~ M 10 ,... co_ If) .... ,...
...J ..... .....0 ;g ,..: g ~- ~ <.0- ~ ~- ,...- ~- M- g ?f $ ~ ,..: M If)- ,..: It'i ~-
< ffi <z If) ;;; N ~ ,... ~ N 0 co
..... .....:J ~ ~ - - ~ ~ cg
0 0 0: CJ)u.. -
..... 0:
Z :J -
UJ 2- 0 ~ 0 ~ 8 0'1 0 ,... co Ol M co Ol ~ N g M ,... ~ ,...
-J 8, ~ i'ii. 10 ~ co N Ol Ol ,... co g ~ :2 ....
,... ~ ,...- ~ - N If) M N 10 Ol. "<t, Ol 10_
~ ~ ~ Oi ~ i'ii Oi 0" a:i ~ ~ ~- N It'i g oi ;;; - M ~- gf Oi
If) ,... ,... Ol "<t ~ ;;!; '"
~ 0 ~ If) "<t ~ N N ~ co
..... N
0
0 '" ~ "<t I() ~ ,... ,... 10 ~ 10 co ;::; '" M ..... 01 g N '" 0
UJ - 10 '<t" N N If) co ~ j:;: ~ "<t !:: <.0 en :g
en ,... ~ en <.0 - "<t ..... 0 ..... en ~ 10
a: oJ: It'i M. ,...' a:i a:i ~ g ,..: N It'i oi 0" M ,..: a:i N a:i 0" a:i ",'
wU - N - ~ - - N 10 ~ -
c:l ~ 0:.....
UJ ~ - -< 8
:;)::E
0 0 ~ o-J
z w<
a: :J :;) O:u
u.. ::E
0 ~ 0: 0
0 ...J
U. Z u..
W Z wN 0 0 en 0 co (0) 0 0 ,... 0 <.0 0 It) 0 1O co 0 0 0 en
~ 0 8 8 ~ 8 ~ (0) 8 8 "<t 8 co 8 :g 8 M g 8 8 8 :g-
~ ~- en ":. ,... en
CJj 0 .....en 1O- It'i a:i It'i i N It'i It'i - It'i gi It'i 'i It'i N ~. 1O- It'i It'i ;;;
U w eno :!: N N N N "<t N N "<t N N N (0) N N N
<: 9 en ~5
<
e I- ...J CO (
< zu..
:5
'" '<t" '<t" (0) 1O 0 10 '<t" '" co ,... (0) co - N ,... '" N '" en
-J 1O 10 ~ 10 lD ~ 10 ~ ~ ;::; co co :!3 '<t" ~ co g 10 en '<t"
en ,... ~ 01 "<t '<t" '<t" '<t" N - 10. -
~ ~ ~ g ~' i ~. g a:i It'i N ~; 0" Ol- IO. 2- N oi ,..: ~ It'i ;;; 10'
,... .... '" '<t" '" '" '" 10 ~ (0) ....
~ ~ ~
a:
~ 0: ~ co ~ i8 ~ :8 ~ ,... en ..... 10 :g ~ ..... en en 0 '" ~ 8
0 en -JCf) '<t" 8l ;::; ~ ..... 0 en ~ N '<t" !6_ ~
u.. W <0 - 10 ":. ~ 10 '" 10 10 N '"
~ W 0: Uz ~ ,.: g ~ a:i a:i j:;: oi - ~ re ~ ~ <D. It'i ,..: ~ N ,..: ,.:
:J N .... ..... .... N 10
U C O:J N - .... .... N
~ -Ju.. ....
0
p U in
~
c.. ..... '" 10 !:: !6 ~ 10 ~ 10 ~ 0 en ~ a; i'ii ~ 0 N N en
~ c.. ~ wCJ) '" en ;;; ,... i'ii 10 ~ en co
..... .....0 en en co ~ 10 co_ 10 en .... ":. 10. co '<t" ....
ai ...J ~z e N- It'i oi a:i a; ~ M N ~- g g It'i N -i Ol N g oi
'" 0 ..... N ~ '<t" ,... co :g
< en2 ~ N ~ - .... o.
~ 0: :J ~
c: .....
:;) 0
. U <
~ Z N ,... Oi ~ co 10 8 10 (0) 10 ;::; 10 10 .... ~ 8 N 0 10 co $
I ell -J ,... 10 co ~ en en :;l j:;: .... .... 10 1O
~ ;: 0 en (0) It) 0 .... co 10 It) 0 N ~ ~ ..... Ol '<t"
~ > :!: g oi ,..: ,.: a:i N ~ M a:i co- N oi $- ,..: N "<t 8 ,..: a:i
u.. 10 .... .... N Ol ,... N It) ;;; ,... N 10 (');
c: ~ - ~ 10 (0) (0) - .... ..... ~
s: N
fcX
~
z w
~ 0 ...J
Z 0 ~
ei ~ z en
~ :J: ~ z :5 0 (
< ~ ~ < ~
0 w :J Ii.
...J 0 a:
< 0 ~ ...J 0: 0 0 CJ) ~
.J:J ~ a: ...J 0 0 2 0 :>
E U ~ 0 ~ w Z Z 0: ...J
Cl 0 ~ J: en Ll.. >- ~ w I ~ w ~ 0 0 <
C. ...J ffi ~ ..... ..... Ll.. a: en a: w ~ ~ Ll.. ..... Z 0:
0 :J 2 ~ 0: en ~ 0: en en en 0: 0 en w <
Cl U :J: :::; 0 :J :J ~ ~ w :: 0 ...J W a: :J :J:
en en en en CJ) en en en en ..... :: >- < CD CD CD U
- .
-
/ "
e CO) C\l r-. C\l lD lD '" :8 CD ~ ~
..I en '" ~ CO) ... C\l l1 Sl. CO)
<0 '" - C'!. r-. 0 0 lD_
Uz ~. .0 C\l "" "," .0 ~ M ~. -
~ - r-. ... r-. ~ r-.
O::l ... -. ": CO)
Z ~ ..Ju.. N - -
..I
0 0 Z ~
0 * lD u:; r-. CD ;;; lD ~ CO) u:;
- Cl. + Wen (') ~ r-. C\l ~
~ - ""- ~ ... - r-. ""
..I f- f-O ;S r-. Ill. 8 ~ N ~ ~ rD ~.
~ ffi ~z ill. '" ... ('oj
enC2 "" - (')
(:) 0 a: - (')- - . N a;
f- a: 01
Z ::l "0
2- = ::l
~
W '" CD ~ 0') (') 0') N c;; - ~ r-.
..I III N " 0 lD C\l 0 .s
< .... o. -. " - " lD i " (jj
~ f- :9 lD 0- C\l c;; ,.: III ~ CD- 0')- CD
" " 8 C5 ~ "" ... (')
0 0 - - " ..c
~ f- N .0 M ~ .. CD
0 >
0 '"
0 ...
-0 8-
() ;,; ..
1 >. 0
CO) lD ~ - 0') " (') N '" III r-. (; ~ 0
w - ~ SI '" '" ~ ~ III r::. c:; "0 U
0 " co ... ~ CD CD
a: oJ: M CD. ,.: ;;;" oj g ",- M g ,.: ~ .. .s
wU (') '" co - - CD 0 '0
~ 9:~ - CD 6.
W - N .s
~ - s: ... 4>
::l~ 'i5 G
() 0 :s 0..1 2 ..c
Z w< :c ai ..
a: ::l ::l a:u 01 ~ ..
u.. ~ 0 4i ~i
0 ~ a: ~ :c
0 ..I '=== U "'Ill
01 u...
u... Z u.. "0 2....
~ :::J C
W Z wN III 0 CD - 0 ... lD 0 0 0 0- ... c-
~ 0 "" 8 Sl 8 12 "" 8 8 8 CD c
~ ~- lD lD " II) ..- CD-
_ ::l
0 rD .0 ,,- ~ .0 oj ~ .0 .0 .0 CD c-o B-E
C/) u w f-en :!: - C\l ~ C\l "" C\l ('II ('II .~ - CD
0 eno - ('II Ol cO -[:0 E 0
~ en ~~ ou..
..I < 8 -E:
e ..I U .sf
< m (; CD 0'-
zLl. u.. ~u ~ 2l"
:5 ~ 1:: C <Ii ~:t -
.:.:
~ .. CD :::J .- "0
- 0 ('II ill .... .... .... '" III .... c "OoE c :5~
..I "" ?J CD 0') III lD ~ III r::. f- 5 u ~ .2
g r-. IC) 0 " ('II III "" C 'c
:) :[ oj ~ ",. (')- ~ ci li ~ Ill- N "5 i~-;' CD >.~
"" g ('II .... ... ... ~ ~ CD
:E - - "" E '-c~ C.
"0 CD ~ "00
f- (; =~CD ..
~ CD 0
a: u. "fi,(; CD ~()
Ol :€ .ci .; c CD()
0 c .E ~a:
'i5 ~.~ i ~:5
a: ~ c 0
u... ,.... ('II ,.... 16 co ('II "" ~ ~ 0') i! ~c.."O 8 :l,
0 en ..JU) Ol 0') ~ SI r::. ,.... ....
w "" r-. - - '" Ol E E CD E 0
~ u. <0 ll'i rD ~. oj ii oj ~ CD ISO-E .0
w a: Uz ]: ... (') - = ('II 0=
::l ~ C;; (') .... co -';();1 lI't -= G;
0 t:: O::l "': C'!. - >. "0 en .!!! -
i= ..Ju.. N - - ~ 00."0 .. .."0
0 IS IS C
P 0 ffi 1: 2.U~ ..! "O::l
~ ~ "0 5 Ol 0l0l Gi CD 4>
Cl. lD 8 * co 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ "t; .s:6 l5 c ~
Cl. ~ u:; "" c
~ ~ wen (') " E "5 ~ 2'~ .. o..c
f- - ". (') CD " ... CI> "0 ..
f-O g ~ rD ~ 8 >
ffi ..I ~z ;e: c;; ('II as - oj Eg.guE '0 ..01
< co - r-. III 8o.~':CD U -u
U)C2 cot ('II - ... ('II (') ! ..co
1..1- a: ::l - M - N !=:2(;~ u-
a: f- ~ Gi E
::l 0 .!!g.,g~o E ~
U < 01
. ~ ~>-CDu..~ U
('II co CD .... ~ :8 ('II ~ " :8 g 2. "0_
rr- z CIl ..I r::. SI ~ - ... o:!~~fn ! lil
~ ~ (') 10 ('II - ... - 0 0._ :l ~ "5 E
~ >- ~ ~ ~ ,.... co. 18 ,.: i8 18 M M CD f-:t a: CD 0-0
u.. <2 '" 0; C;; r::. ~"':(\jM ~ ~~
a: Cl III - ...
- .0 N M
- ~ ~
-
~ ,
.
('II ~
CIl ~ :t ~
ei ~ :t (3 U g a: a:
I- (3 L5 ::l
::> 0 g w
..I 0 W Z CD CD I-
~ < 0 Z g :s en en
E U ~ a: 0 :.: <C en ~ w
0 0 en 0 ~ 0 Z ~ ~ W <C :t ..J
Co ..J Ii: Ll.. :t ~ ::> Cl ~ :J U ;::
0 U ~ Ll.. ..J Z
0 ~ ~ g ::l a: ~ g
U) a: en en :;: ~ ~
DIST~12t;T[J T.:" L<.,',..~} "._"
: :), .!7 <}/)
ON "./ J ' .:L l
County of Albemarle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITLE:
Stipend for School Board Chairman
AGENDA DATE:
December 9, 1992
ITEM HUMBER:
/J')'0 '10 '~_.'7;;'
"'/ (~- t . /"7, (I ,1. ,~r.......)
. ~" J I J
SUBJECT
Approva
School
the Cha
PROPOSAL RE UEST:
of a resolution which allows the
oard to increase the stipend for
rperson from $500 to $1100
ACTION: ~
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF C
Mr. Tuc
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIBWBD B~~6rfp.)
BACK ROUND:
In r sponse to the Board's request at the December 2 meeting, compensation for School
Boar members, including a stipend for the Chairperson, is set solely by State Code,
Sect on 22.1-32. The statute enables any school board "after passage of an appropriate
reso ution by the governing body" to pay the chairperson an additional salary not to
exce d $1100. Prior to a 1989 amendment, the limit on the stipend was $500.
proved, the resolution below will give the School Board the authority to raise the
of the stipend. It does not require any action at the County Ordinance level. The
ional stipend for the Planning Commission Chairperson is set by County Ordinance and
rrently set at $1200.
NDATION:
recommends approval of the resolution below:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby request the School Boa~Albemarle County to grant
unto its Chairman an additional salary up to,\ maximum of $1100.00 per year
as allowed by Virginia Code Section 22.1-32(C) effective as of
January 1, 1993.
jbt
92.179
Edward H. Bai , Jr.
Samuei Mille
Charlotte Y. H mphris
Jack Jouett
F
TE:
S
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
MEMORANDUM
Board of Supervisors
o
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
December 4, 1992
Reading list for December 9, 1992
, Ja uary 22, 1992 - Pages 11 (#8) - end -Mr. Marshall
fl')..../. (,'-
8C~T1~! 1""-:'"'1 Tf>' "C.I ...... '. t.~}..j"j,l~/-..'-
':'~lr;\.:" 1ed i~ 0;):!I'] - . 1 'J4-
~:rl ,u... Iill.. C'li.{,j... u\.!
~~~daittm N.).+A.J2Jl,.U.~..J
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
ScottsvHle
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hail
{J
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: December 9, 1992
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi-
sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1
requires a certification by the
Supervisors that such executive
conformity with Virginia law;
of the Code of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of
meeting was conducted in
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of
each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia
law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Martin.
/
!'. //
./ Ii "'<:
VI, '.J./' /
Deputy Cler ,'-1\'lbemarle County
Board of 9Upervisors
I ~/