HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-10 (2)
I I
\
D~TE ~. "-..A- (0 / ;11 (2-
A ~ENDA ITEM NO. 0,2. o ~ / J ) 3 )1
A ~ENDA ITEM NAME Ctca l eLL /~u/l.LL <.t- ()))e~ ~a (~e..
--'
UNTIL (t)k ~e s ~. t.. '\-' " ~.,,--L/i I
I
t1
Form. 3
7/25/86
. '.
Edward H. Baih. Jr.
Samuei Millet
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesvi]l~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Hpmphris
Jack Jouett i
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
F~OM:
,
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC ~
June 11, 1992
DAlTE:
I
S~BJECT:
Board Actions of June 10 (Afternoon), 1992
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on June 10 (afternoon),
19192, the Board scheduled another work session on the Open Space &
Crlitical Resource Plan for July 1 and requested the staff to
relspond to the comments in the attached letters made by individuals
aqd organizations.
The Board made the following corrections to the report:
, Page 4, 1st paragraph, last sentence, "compliment" should be
"cpmplement". This word also needs to be corrected in other
pllaces.
,
Page 20, 1st paragraph, rewrite paragraph to read: "The Soil
Copservation Service District Conservationist has identified the
belst forestal soils in Albemarle County for the commercial produc-
tibn of various hardwoods and conifer species."
I
Requested staff to be consistent with the use of the terms
"p[-eservation" and "conservation".
Page 26, 6th bullet, 2nd line, "form" should be "from".
Page 32, 4th paragraph, 5th line, "than" should be "that".
Page 34, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line, add the word "is" at the end
of: the line.
I
I
Dc te:
Pcge 2.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
June 11, 1992
MEmo To:
Page 36, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence, "in" should be "is".
The Board scheduled the public hearing on the Open Space &
C itical Resource Plan for July 15, 1992.
LIN:ec
A tachments (8)
cc: Robert B. Brandenburger
Mary Joy Scala
David Benish
Ronald S. Keeler
File
'''I, ".
I
,I ,'-t:'" ~ (
4-/
,',/
/ "
>,~L-~
l\1cGUIREWooos
BATfLE&BooTHE
Court Square Building
P,Q, Box 1288
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902
One lames Center
Richmoad, VA 23219
TIle Army IIId Navy Club Building
1627 Eye Street. N,W,
Washingtoa. DC 20006
(804) 977-2500
Fax: (804) 980-2222
Avenue des Arts 41
1040 Brussels, Belgium
June 10, 1992
frlr. David C. Bowerman, Chairman
.Nbemarle County Board of Supervisors
~bemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
fharlottesville, Virginia 22901
I
I
fe: Open Space Plan
pear Mr. Bowerman:
I
I
I On behalf of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, I submit the following
~anguage in lieu of the last paragraph of Recommendation # 1, on page 41 of the current
~raft: .
I
I
! "When the Board 2f Supervisors considers an application for rezoning, a
omprehensive plan amendment, special use permit or other discretionary land use
roposal requiring Board of Supervisors action, the Board may refer to the Concept Map
and separate resource maps) or the Composite Map to assess the impact, if any, such
roposal may have on open space or critical resources. In considering an applicant's land
se proposal, the Board may consider, in addition to those factors which must be
Fonsidered under current ordinances, whether critical resources should be preserved or
protected as part of any development plan pursuant to such land use proposal. The
~oard shall .also consider such factors as economic and fiscal impacts of critical resource
preservation, the effect preservation shall have on affordable housing, and the overall cost
and benefits to the community."
I
I
I
: I believe the foregoing language reflects the intent of the staff as to implementation
pf the Plan. At the same time, it avoids any perception that the Plan may override or
fupersede other important elements to the land planning process.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. David C. Bowerman
June 10, 1992
Page 2
I ask the Board to consider the above language in its working session on the Plan.
I will be glad to answer any questions the Board may have in this regard.
Very truly yours,
~l?('
Steven W. Blaine
SWB/itm
Ene.
cc: Mr. Robert Tucker
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Mr. Timothy Lindstrom
Mr. Don Wagner
swb80610.ltr
MCGUIREWOODS
BATfLE&BooTHE
/-1:e U-1(,~~ sj~/92-
13~'l'~c.-
Transpotomac Plaza
1199 North F . Street
Alexandria, V 22314
Court Square Building
P,O. Box 1288
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902
ODe James Center
Richmoad, VA 23219
The Army IIId Navy Club Building
1627 Eye Street, N,W,
Washington, DC 20006
(804) 977-2500
Fax: (804) 980-2222
Avenue des Arts 41
1040 Brossels, Belgium
t~t"~ ,........lVED
,,.... "~I' .;.... I
t 'J~_.~' :"". :.11:
APR 2 It 1992
April 23, 1992
i::'~...,~'~~"~~ i-;~:"-J (J ~.: :~~'.: .:'~r .
. V. Wayne Cilimberg
D rector of Planning and Development
C nty of Albemarle
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, Virginia 22901
This is to follow up my letter to you of March 3 in which I provided comments on
half of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders
sociation. On behalf of our Committee, I wish to provide specific recommendations to
i prove the text of the Open Space Plan. The following comments relate to the staffs
d aft dated February 25, 1992 (the "Plan"):
R: Proposed Albemarle County Open Space and Critical Resource Plan
1. We recommend separating the Growth Areas Open Space planning from the
ural Areas Critical Resource pianning. This approach would contemplate an Open
S ace plan for Growth Areas but a separate Critical Resources plan for the Rural Areas.
ch plan's recommendations would reflect the growth management approaches
a propriate to either the Growth Areas or the Rural Areas. This is consistent with the
r commendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It recognizes the differences
b tween the Rural Areas and the Growth Areas in terms of growth management
a proaches. It is consistent with the policy statement contained on page 7 of the Plan
it If.
Dividing the Plan into two separate parts should not affect the use of the Open
S ace maps as a reference. Finally, this approach would enable the County to adopt an
pen Space Plan for the Growth Areas while allowing time to complete the Critical
esource Inventory which the Comprehensive Plan calls for the Rural Areas.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 3, 1992
Page 2
2. In part V of the Recommendations portion of the Plan, delete paragraph 1
on page 40 and insert the following in its place: "When a site is proposed for
development in the Growth Areas, which development is subject to review by the Site
Review Committee, the applicant shall make reference to the Growth Area Composite
Map for delineation of critical open space resources. Where the proposed development
affects critical resources which are protected by existing ordinances, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with such ordinances."
3. Delete paragraph 3, page 41, in its entirety and substitute the following in
its place: "Study a discretionary cluster development option within the Rural Areas as well
as in the Growth Areas which would enhance protection of critical resources by providing
bonus factors or increased density credits as a function of the amount of critical resources
or open space preserved."
4. Delete paragraph 1 on page 42 and insert the following in its place:
"Allocate funds from the budget for the County's participation in the Shenandoah National
Park related land study and the TJSPARE Study which will provide GIS maps and
additional resource data."
5. Delete paragraph 2 in its entirety, and insert the following in its place:
"Allocate budget funds for the development of an urban street corridor design plan for
implementation in the County Entrance Corridors. Coordinate such plans with the City
and University to the extent such Entrance Corridors are of a joint interest to such
bodies."
6. In paragraphs 3 through 6, (page 42) specific budget allocations should be
made for each long term recommendation.
7. Delete paragraph 4 on page 43.
8. On page 44, delete paragraph 1 and substitute in its entirety the following:
"Where wetlands are to be disturbed as part of a development plan, require the applicant
to demonstrate compliance with state and federal wetlands regulations as a condition for
County approvals."
9. Delete paragraph 3 in its entirety and substitute in its place the following:
"Study the economic effects as well as the environmental benefits of revising the County
Scenic Streams criteria."
10. Under heading E. Mountains, delete paragraph 1 in its entirety and insert
in its place the following: "Allocate County budget funds for the study of a Mountain
Pr tection Ordinance to protect the environmental characteristics of mountainous areas."
Delete paragraph 3 (page 44), under Long Term Recommendations, in its
12. Delete the lead-in for paragraph 1 on page 45 in its entirety and insert the
fo lowing in its place: "Study the benefits and economic feasibility of allowing bonus
fa tors and density credits for development within the Rural Areas and Growth Areas
w 'ch will enhance the preservation or establishment of trees or vegetative buffers in the
fo lowing specific areas:"
13. Under heading H. Civic and Cultural Features, specific budget allocations
s auld be recommended for all short term recommendations. Delete paragraph 4 (page
4 ) in its entirety. Delete paragraph 5 in its entirety. Delete paragraph 6 on page 47.
14. Finally, on page 49, delete paragraph 1 and substitute in its place the
{: llowing: "Consider an increase in permitted density in Growth Areas based upon the
oncept Map in order to provide incentives for development which minimizes impact on
c itical resources."
I would be glad to meet with you at your convenience to discuss the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
~~
Steven \V. Blaine
WB fitm
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Mr. Don Wagner
bl0401.ltr
WI! 7 ...,.-
CITIZENS FOR ALBEMARLE
Statement on Open Space Plan
Citizens for Albemarle applauds the County's effort to initiate a
comprehensive and integrated approach to open space conservation.
The research and consolidation of information wh;ich the plan
accomplishes and anticipates through the additional study for which
it calls should aid the County in making responsible decisions where
open space systems are concerned. The plan is very professional and
thoughtfully constructed. The staff, particularly, Mary Joy Scala, is to
be congratulated on this achievement which places Albemarle among
the leaders in this type of planning.
We would encourage the County to coordinate with other entities to
achieve efficient implementation of the plan's goals. The staff should
find consultation with The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation
will provide valuable information on Monticello's viewshed and
measures needed to protect it. The TJPDC is engaged in a Regional
Environmental Assessment (TJSP ARE) which, if properly funded, will
provide a natural. heritage inventory of rare and endangered as well
as locally important species for Albemarle and neighboring
jurisdictions. This study deserves' the County's moral as well as
financial support, as it should be a cost-effective means for achieving
several of the Open Space Plan's goals.
Unless the Comprehensive Plan's long-stated but as yet unattained,
growth management goals are achieved, this admirable plan will
simply preside over the orderly destruction of the County's rural
character. Growth must be chanelled into the growth areas and away
from rural areas-- and both the carrot and the stick must be
employed. It is too easy to develop in the Rural Areas and too
complicated to develop in the growth areas. There is too much red
tape in the growth areas ( to which this study must be careful not to
add) and too many development rights in the rural areas. If we fail
to address these problems directly, open space in the County will
vanish, Plan or no Plan.
Mr. Blaine's comments advocate use of open space as a tool of good
urban planning in the growth areas. They would reduce the rural
areas to a vast reservoir of building lots with but a few "critical
resources" sprinkled among them like statues of General Lee.
The Agricultural and Forestal Resources Advisory Committee
recommended in the action agenda of the Comprehensive Plan should
be created now, and should be charged with the task of
recommending strategies for encouraging continuation of resource-
based activities and occupations, and for minimizing the conversion
of rural land to non-farm uses. The committee should investigate
whether an amendment of the use value program to allow only the
open space category would have a positive or negative effect on the
rate of land conversion. An incentive to convert to that use in the
form of tax savings may well be more effective. Increasing the
restrictions on land in the AFD program without increasing the
benefits will have a chilling effect upon participation. Conversion of
21 acre lots in AFD's has not been significant thus far.
Lest this Open Space Plan elegantly gather dust, implementation of
its recommendation should be immediately pursued. The plan has
outlined an excellent structure for creation of mountain protection
districts. Creation of this structure is one of the best and brightest
ideas in the Plan. We must not waste it by foregoing passage of an
ordinance creating these districts.
Though purchase of land is impractical and inefficient in most
cases, voluntary conservation in forms of easements and AFD's
should be aggressively encouraged. Use of Purchase of Development
Rights should be studied by the Ag Advisory Committee and County
staff, as should Density Transfer. Enabling legislation for TDR's
should be continually sought.
We have heard much about increased economic development in the
County of late. If we do not at the same time step up efforts to
conserve the county's rural character and special places, Albemarle
will lose the appreciable economic benefit which it now enjoys in the
forms of tourism and desirability as a place to locate. The County is
extraordinarily. blessed in its natural and historic resources. May its
government not simply preside over its orderly degradation. This
plan is the first step in preventing that process. Its passage has no
down side at all and would herald beneficial things to come.
.....~.:.,..:~-,:~ r~ _.:.. :.:..':' "'~'':.'....l'':::;..:5
ON 4' - ........c:;+~ 9 ,2-
----4 ( .
FARM
BUREAU
VIRGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM BUi~~A~..'( (iF i~"Leavi,~,RLt
1128 East High Street · Charlottesville, Virginia 22tt[i::..i2S2JJ':J..a.~ r~'
Mr. avid Bowerman, Chairman . l~.\;I\ ~.f.~y ~:."C.l~~.:'2 )\~;
A 1 be ar 1 e County Board of Superv, sors 11\ I , ~,.._..._..-._..J UJJI
May 26, 1 99 2 : : \ \ , t:tc.~ \ '... I \ IJ \I...oj
lo..l I..-J 1..--.. __... .'_'_ ,U i .._
BO/~~.RD OF SU ?U~VISOl\S
Dear David,
j The Albemarle County Farm Bureau urges you to vote against the
Ipend i ng "Open Space Plan".
Everyone.agrees that Albemarle is blessed with especially beautiful
scenery. Our vistas are legendary. Farm and forest owners are
justifiably proud of their stewardship in making Albemarle as an
attractive home as can be found anywhere.
These landowners must be able t9 take more than pride in their open
spaces, however. They also must be allowed to take profit. It costs
serious money to buy, improve, maintain, and pay taxes on our open
spaces. Albemarle's privately-owned open spaces are working assets -
not museums.
Were the County to confiscate half a person's land to build a
sch 01 or park, the County would pay that landowner for the land.
How ver, should the County confiscate a portion of property rights from
taxpaying landowners it feels no need to compensate. TO THE LANDOWNER,
THE E ARE EQUIVALENT ACTIONS.
We support compensation for value received and voluntary programs
bet een government and landowners to restrict land use. Ag/Forest
dis ricts, conservation and historic easements, TOR's, land-use
tax tion, etc. are valuable public-private collaborations.
Farmers raise commodities. We cannot raise our prices to cover
inc easing regulations as a merchant might do to cover higher taxes.
Our land is our present and future. We have always known that only
fer ile and productive soils and timber can sustain us. This is not a
new concept. Laudable as the objectives are, these additional
reg lations will serve to abridge our flexibility to live off our open
spa es and encourage, .!l21 deter, convers i on 'to more intense uses.
For the sake of Open Space, stewardship and livelihood, please
strive to encourage and expand the scope of voluntary publici private
pro rams rather than seize through regulation.
s~/
Rob ~~esident
cc: Edward Bain
Charlotte Humphris
Forrest Mar.sha 11
Charles Martin
Walter Perkins
..v. 'It
Ch~rm.an of l~e Bo..rd
Charla S. Whllellou..
Vice Ch..lrm....
Johl\ R BinIN1~ !II
SeaNI)'
Jeu S. BI'OWI\ I
Trusurer :
J.W.AbeISmllh:
I
Presldcnt j
,Rebert T. Dna..
, I
Albclft.vle Co nty ,
&. Ch.adollesv IIc
.Jamea 1.. Ballhel
Mn. C. McC_ uter
, JoIuI H. BIrdsaJ~ .
, . Mn. RGbert r
Reuben Clark 1
F_do J:L Fife i
Reuben HIli!
C. W, Mc:Neely.
Mn. 0, French "shier. m
", ~,~!~~jr1'
:>: Cukc Counli
'~~~~m '
Mn. Matthew '""P"Y.smah'
I
Culpeper Cou"ty
John C.....adl I
Ja_R.~r I
Zann Neloon ref
Mn.J,I..Fray"
F..uquler Cou ly
J. W. Abel Sm1th
Cynthia 0,
John Cola
Bel\gt O. Famst
Mn. Paul Fcut'
Mesan CallaShJ
Peter F. s. Ohntfon\
Hope W, Porter I
, Charla S. WhIl+OU".
cree.. ne. <;'oun~y .
ICel\deU S. Benyl
Loudoun eoJnty
Jean s. Brown' I
Unda S. Cox I
Bennett Davls
. 't:r~~tlh' ,
, G. A. Horlcan, J '
;~. "f::.=.~t:: " '..
=::~;IY. '
-:..:,.NeU:r'l~": I' ~.,',
Or.ansc Co~IY'
Mn. A. N. Da e1
Mn. John B. ,
, ::~:~.: .~.::~'ty
Susal\ c. B .
DiaM Bnaee
, Mn. Thomu Eutham
. Hulll HMrIa . .
Ch~rm..n Elj\critus
. B. ~1I Ha+II.Jr,
I.
Dlrcclolll Eajeritus '
.Mn. DemllT,j:nw
PhUlp irwin I .
. GearS" C. M~1ift
Mn.J.......P. Ills
M....Ja..-B.: u""y ,
joocph Pn:nde..ut
, DuneuR ~a~ '
. ,Theodore C, Jr, .
, Sandra Speld
'. M....Jama.L, lie)'
ee
Istn uted to BMrd: j /", -::: -
Agenda j~~m No, .', - "
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL -
Protecting The Environment Is EVerybodys\I"u~1f~s/~~ElvU\Rlt:: ,;'.
,-- :-~ '':"', :-;::: ~\\ ,'ir;:J I " "'"
. ~. ' \ : -' ,,-. .._,___..L~,..L:..J, \ I CEIVED :'f,".'
~ . \!<\Y ~H \99f ~ t 219~,~,,:
NING'DEPT.,'
~y,12, 1992
".,,,
','.\ .
Mr.y. ,Wayne :Cilim~rg
:Dire~or' '",'.. . '
Department o~. PI~g and Community'Development
CoUI:lty. of Albemarle
40tMcIntire ,Road
O1arlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Open Space Plan
Dear Wayne:
I am writing on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council to
give, you some of our membership's thoughts about the proposed Open
Space . Plan, and to respond to the communications' which you have
received from Steve Blaine on behalf of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders
Association.
First let me say that the PEC supports the Open Space Plan. Because
we recognize that it is only a uplan., that is it is not uselfexecuting., we
also. urge the, <;:ounty, in . addition to adopting the Plan, to act expeditiously
, to 'implement~~, r,econunendationsof the ,Plan. It seems to us that if the_
County. is "going to Pec<?me . more '. aggressive in promoting economic
'developmen(itis'even more critical that the County act to increase'
protection for open'space. While we believe that it is possible to have
'incr~ase4' gro\Vl:h,:and stillmainta4l. the rural characteristiCs which are an
,important' aspecfqf th.e CO\.lIlty, it will require a substantial increase in
efiot:ts to protect the Rural Areas. Failure to do this'wi1l'result, we
believe, ,in ~~d g9yemmentcosts to local citizens, a long term
reduction iJ;lprepertyvalues, and a generalloss of the appeal which haS
made Albemarle. a, place known throughout" the nation as a desirable place
to live. ' ,
I 'believe that the most important recommendations, from the PEes.
perspective,are those which call for mandatory clustering in the Rural
Areas, 'reconsideriltion.of the number of existing development. rights in
the Rural Areas, and both historic and mountain. protection ordinances. I
think it is ~ealiStic to plan upon any significant acquisition 'of open
space reso~~esbjr the County (with the exception of limited "greenway.
areas), 'and I W9u1d not hold my breath for TDR enabling legislatiC?nin the,
. near future. '
28-C Main Street, Box 460, Warrenton, Virginia 22186/703-347-2334/Fax 349-9003
1010 HarrisStreet, Suite 1, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901/804-977-2033
Mr. V. Wayne Olimberg
May 12'.1992'
Page 2
In .aclditi~n.to'the fo~~~o~gJ .~, that open space .protectio~ intlle. Rural,..", '
Areas, as well as'the c1uste~con~p~,upon w1)ich the ComprellensivePlan is b~d;::
, would benefitfrom.a,co~prfili~_iy.e a.pa1ysis of the 'conSequenceso(theCourity's"
,entire package: of or~ces'.Cil}d p~~cieS .upon the dynami~ 'of land development.,
I suspect that"thecurteI\fr,e.gW~to~,structuremakesit much:'more attractive for the
average developer .to open1tein the: Rural Areas than in the Growth Areas.
'In general, ,the PEe would eIldorse enh~cing the benefits, of developing in
. the Growth,Are~Jincludipg,.~d,cliti~,POI\~{as su~edbyt1le H9JJ:1.eb,uil~~),
, and fu.rther,~o~aging: ci(!V;~l()PD:t.~:m the Rural Areas, per~p~tllr.o~gJ:l-,'a:'de.':';::'~?>:;::<-',":'
''fpcto trans(er of 'develop~p.t#gh.tS'from the Rural Areas to the GroWtb,.',~as~ . ",. ,
includingpo~QleenIa.x:g~t Qfthe Gr<?wt1\, Areas. We wouldvigqrO\1Sljr opwse
any ",~mpt ~ointr04u.c.eb~~sfor~y,purpose into the RuralAreas~" Tl1e' cu.rrent
Rural :PreserYationDeyelqpment .0ptiOri'~ady contains the built inb~Us of'
potential significant, savings:in ,devE!lopment costs. While we support consideration'
. of 'mandatory clustering of develqpment,in ,the Rural Areas.it may be that existing
mcentivesaregreat enough with the Rural Preservation Development option to
make mandating of ,clusterlng 'unnecessary. ,This should be studied.' (I do think.that
further conside.ration should be given to strengthening and clarifying the 1989 ':
action of the Board'of Supervisors to limit the amount of area utilized by the small
__ development lots in light of ,the BZA opinion in the Kincannon case. Staff's current " '
position in response to this ruling seems to be to simply to codify the BZA ruling.)
Specificpriints regar.ding the draft:
, Page 20, open space inventory: : Refe~ceshould be made to the
· Southwest MountainsRnralHistonc Distrlct~ After the bullet"Historic Sites"
should be added the words.:"alldDistriCts: :At the end qfthe ~st sentence lU\der
:~o:,_. ;":t:1$,topic,,add'* pl':,\yhichJue;1ocated ,within a 'de~~ted historic district:
. . . . '~: .' . "', ",.:..'.' .
Pa~ .21;.third,line from the top of the page:, a~d 'after the word .
*Landnu1rkS~ ~~,w~rds.'''~dWor1dHeritage sites.'- I believe that aU tmee of these
sti-ucturesareori,theWorldHeritage list. ,You,may wish to double check this.
. .. .. Page 26; ~~u: Currently Used~: The intrOduction implies that
.all'ofthe Regulations listed are intenc:led.to protect open space, which may lead to
the conclusion thatthe..CoWlty,is already doing more than enough in this area. In
fact all of these regUlations ,are designed to do something other than protect open
space, open, space protecijon'is only an incidental, and som~ what unpredictable,
benefit. Suggested language change:' Revise the introduction to this section to read:
*Tec1miques currently used which may incidentally protect open space..."
",.-', '0
:tv1r.' V. Wayne Cilimberg
~y 12, 1992
rage 3
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
i
" '
, Pages 28 and29, .pwner~initiated Techniques. under .Contacts. f~r, ,
s and e~ents '(both c~rvation arid historic) should incluc;le refereIlCesto,
. e, O\arlotb!svil1e, office. of. .~"V~ginia,:~tdoors ,Foundation, the. Charlott~ville
. ce of the 'Piedmont Enviroru:n~tal Council, and The Preserviltion Alliailce . ,
hieh is now-located in ~unton.1he PEe ~ould be',referenced.as ac:ontact for
s, conservation :easemerits, 'historic, easements, . arid the r:ural preservation
evelopment option. The Preservation Alliance 'for' historic: easements. These
rganizations sh(),uld, be mentioned b,eca~they are expert in these areas ~d have
,fulltime'staff~hichwill.prov.ideirif()Mlationtointerested persons free of~ge. ' '
. .' ,'. -. .. -'. ~ .,:" .
I ' . " ' , ' " '
lh , page" '29~r,~,e~ceto~pu,bli,'C Recreational, ,Facilities Authority: add at
I....e end of the ~ond ~~ence "or' condemn property." "
1 ',', Page30>atthe,'~dof the ,section describingthePublicl~ecr~Cltiona1 '
j;acilltieS Authorityw~chbegins on page 29, just before the paragraph beginning
liCon, ta,ctW add,a sen,' tenc", eas, ~ f,Oll,()WS:: liD, ana, tionof an easem~t to the, PUb, lie '
Recreational'Facilities Auth<?rity',does'not'open,land subject to such.'an, easement to "
public access: I think this is iinportant ,because the name of 'the authoritjeonveys a
different impression which may disCourage people' from using the Authority.
~-
, Page 31, add The Preservation Alliance to contacts for information
regarding the VlI'ginia, Landmarks Register.
. Page 44, paragraph F, Short Term recommendation 1: Unless the
benefits of AFD,status are--somehow,highlighted, tightening the restrictions for
, property 10000edin'such. districts is like1y'to be counterprOductive. ThePEC would
oppose thiS recommendation, ~ss the suggestion on page' 39 'for amen~nt of
the use ,value;i:'Ssessment'pI'ograD;lisadopted~' This wo.uldincrease the relative
beriefits of Deing41anAFP sufficiently to overcome the disincentives of tightening'
~e restrictiOnS~tedwith AFDs. '
, Finally' 1. have~e tolloWing,coJDDlentslVith respect to Steve Blaine's letter
: for the Homebuilders,of,A:pril; 23:(my p~graph numbers correspond to the
, numbered paragraphs of his letter):
1. We would oppose deferring adoption of the Plan's provisions relating
to the Rural Areas until the critical resource inventory 'is complete. The Comtty'has
sufficient information about resources in the Rural Areas to proceed with the Plan's
provisions for this area now. As the inventory is completed, further steps to
implement the Plan's recommendations can be considered All of the provisions of
Mr. V. Wayne Olimberg
. May 12, 1992 '
Page 4
the Plan are advisory rather than regulatory, adoption of the.Plan in and of.itself
will have no effect upon development in the Rural Areas anyway, except where
discretionary decisions are involved.
2. The sole' immediate benefit of the, Open Space Plan is, as an' additional,
, resource for eV,al~ting, discretionary, development proposals. The Homebuilders'
pr~osed lan~ge wowdeJiminate:thisJ?en..efit, and it would undermine the staff's
'al:JilitY. ey~tq,~g~~~yi9""~9:9~:$P~:',r~~~in.rio.n~P9~,""" "",
development'P!OPc;>>sals>'~~Y" 'tl1e>I:I~mebuiideIS' 1ariguagecOOsti~,',i{de ftigo<' :
impJementation ,of his ~~o~cia~onthat adoption of 'the PlaIl (or Rural, ~~ '
be d~er.re~~ql\1seitl~v~"O.utaI1yref~rence to the R1J1'al Areas. We support the
lanID1'lge as' pJ;oposedby S~ ,~d:as'recommended by the Plannmg Co11UItission.' I
recognize that theHom~l>Ui1ders ~.. concexned about p~ntia1" overreachfug"',by
Staff. I don't-think past histOry:justifies this concem. Furthermore, the law does not
allow interference wi~ *,o~,discreti.onary land use decisions.
. '
3. As stated ,ab<)ve, the, Rural Preservation Develop~ent option already
contains a s~tial,'~nomic,IIb9~us" 41 the form ',of substantially reduced
developD;lent ~~,(and'pr~bably..i~tlle form of more marketable lots).
,. _ AdditionauYICll.\y,bon~:.in:theR~cil Areas"~'like1y to furt11erencourage eXisting
pressure for l1U'aLdevelop~ent and,thereforewou.ld ~counter tothe entire thrust
of the Comprehensive P1an.Wehave po :objection to'theHomebuilders' propOsal
that consideration be giverito providing bonus factors' or increased density credits
(I'm not sure what ~Cti()I\.the'.~omebuiI.ders'intend here) to sUPP9rt open space
, protection in the Growth'Areas.As $~ed"earlier, I think that the County should
encourage use of tJ:\eH9rowth Areas, not-discourage their Use. I know that the
County has had a'n~of density bonuses available in the Growth Areas,for at
"leasta decade>1t wOuldbe.'agood idea to reevaluate the effectiveness of those
bonuses before adding new Ones.
" .'
4.' ""The Home\)ui:lders' suggestedl8JlglUlgechange h~re (as well as similar
,recommendatlOtls 4l.thefr:,paragraphs.-S, 6,'-10,:'and,13)higIilightsthe fact tbat all :of
, , these thingsCQstUloney,:w:J;Uch,~y do. :Jthinkthat it~~sponsipletoip.en\ify costs
,assOciated withthese~yit:ies~)ong as there is.acorrespondil"lg'statement of '
anticipated publiCbeI1efitsi 'for example, protection of lands related to:the
ShenandOahParkthro\lgh aJed~allY sponsored (esSentially volunteer) program
such 'as the 'Related Lands. Study will generate significant, economically quan~ble,
benefits to County cit:izenS. ' These benefits could be expected to occur in the value of
increasedto~ (or the protection of existing tourism), m: the value of land
protected without localexpenditUre for acquisition, in the value of a sophisticated
../
.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
~y 12, 1992
lfage 5
I
I
1
1
1
.,
1
i
~dy done without expen~gCountyrevenues, and so forth. The only danger in
ifientifyingthecost:ofg~dpublicprogramsis if the value of the benefits deriyed
*,om the program is not cleady and comprehensively stated.
" ' '
1
i ' .
~I 5. The development of final guidelines for the Entrance Corridors is
, ady in. pr. ocess.... Marcia Joseph was hired, in part, for this project. ,and the balance
the work will be done by volunteers: the members of the ARB. In other words
ese ,costs have already been allocated. , ,.
1 '
I . . ,
i I think it is i:l ~omer to call the Entrance Corridor GuideliIles Murbanstreet.
~OrridOrd. esi.gns'. as~. Y.:O...f.. the En.trance'COrrid.ors are not urban streets (inOfactin.
VOOT parlance,' n~e of them are). I agree that coordination with the Qty and "
niversity is a goodidea;~andisalreadY'Planned.Fina11y~the HomebwJders'
anguCige ,leaveS the ,Plan reconUxlendation thatadditional,coni-dors be considered
or,designation. 'While it.may:bedesirable to make eertain,that no:aiti~ corridors
ere overlooked,'I thinktha,t th.eARBhas sufficient responsibility already. .
6. See my comment in paragraph 4.
1
1
1
_ _ i ,7. Although I am not hopeful of passage of TOR enab1ing~legislati()I\ any
ltime S?on,it. is a means .of'com~ting . landowners . for the ,loss qf. ,development
poteI\tial as a result cn,lawi'uI. zonmgchanges. Because these changes.can normally
be'made. without provision of.anycomp~nsation. opposition to this 'meth()dof
providing some compensati~wouldseem to be counterproductive.TDRshave
unders~bly receive~ thecon~\l~4sUpport of th.eBoard of Supervisors.
The Homebuilders' also object to the use of TORs in connection with a
possible MountainProtecp.on zone, although the Homebuilders do not object to a
TOR program for farm and forest land protection (page 45, paragraph number 3).
Perhaps this i$. an oversight. ' .
8. The Homebuilders'suggestion that compliance with wetlands
~gu1ations be made a c~ditionto a . development, approval, as opposed to a
preliminary. consideration for the granting of the approval (which I take to be the
recommendation of the Plan), seems to be a distinction without a difference -,on
the surface. ' In fact it may be less effective with wetlands protection to monitor
compliance afler approval and during development than it would be to insure
compliance prior to approval.
Mr. V. Wayne Olimberg
May 12, 1992
Page 6
9. In general, we would object to the kind of benefit ~ost analysis proposed
here ~ the Home~~d~rs'. I~appears to arbitrarily select only one aspect of land use
regulation. Thus It ,18 either inh~rent1y inconsistent, or it is the foot in the door for a
kind of ana1y~which could cost County taxpayers a great deal of money if applied
to land use regulation in general, and I or paralyze the regulatory process outright
(perhaps this is the real objective ,of the suggestion).
. . . . . .
~-
, 10. My understanding was , that the development of.,auMountain Protection'
zone was already in the Staff's work plan, thus it had already be allOcated bud~" ,
funds. Further, it seems to me that ,Staff has sufficient experience with mountain
development' and the issues and enabling' authority involved to develop an
ordinance without a great deal of additional study. Developing such protection is
probably one ofthemos.t important recommendations of the Plan as the mountain
setting, of Albemarle.is without, doubt its most important ~c ,asset: an asset,
generating substantial additional revenues to the County from both tourism and
development. . .' .
11. See my comments in paragraph 7. Mountain protection would appear
unusually well suited to the~pplication of TORs.
12. The Homebuilders', proposed langUage, more appropriately fits under
.Short Termll',~ecoDUl'l(mdations than in the 4ttroductio~,andthe reference to
Rural Areas,is out of place. Asalr~ady stated, bonuses for preservatiOn of existing
vegetation ~adyexist m.the Gro~ Areas. , Any study should focus :upon the
effectiveness, o.f ,existing,in,~ves'and~:~pon how to improve that, effectiveness. It
. ~ hard to lcnoV{ from ~e,Ho~~W1de~s': language 'What kind of ~economic ,
feasibilitY.study,isbeirig'reco~deti','. However, a study of what will actually . '
encourage developers .t9 vob~nb;ui1y,protect open space resources identified, in the
Plan is probably a good idea~ It inay be ,that the mar~et for higher, density simply
doe~ not exist ~ Albeinarle. H so, density bon~ may be, an empty incentive.
13. Completion of final guiaelines has been promised to the Board of '
Supervisors and is expected.' It would seem to me to be in ~veryones' best interest to
have a final set of guid~ pinned down. The, ARB will continue to operate
under the Interim Guidelines which were adopted some time ago by the Board of"
Supervisors until there are final guidelines available.
, With respect to paragraph 5 referring to the Monticello viewshed, as you
know, the Thomas Jefferson,' MemorialFounda~on, hired the Trust,for Public Lands
and Land and Community Associates to undertake a very extensiveviewshed study.
..
.
Mr. V. Wayne Olimberg
May 12, 1992
rage 7 .
1
,
tnus is complete, and would seem to me to eliminate the need for any additional
r definition.* This study also includes a very extensive list of techniques for the
protection of that viewshed.
1
1
! The second half of paragraph 5 is quite important and should be retained.
~ter all, what other attraction b~gs over a half a million visitors to Albemarle
~unty every year?
1 '
i 14. As stated above, ,we have no objection to increasing densities in.the
IGrowth Areas if it will a~omp1ish the objective of pr~rving open space resources,
~ in the Growth Areas and in the Rural Areas. We feel strongly, however, that a
IRural Area zone which allows a potential of over 40,000 additional development
I ' '
IParcels, and which has been unable to stem the tide of rural development as called
Ifor in the Comprehensive Pian is badly ,in need of revision. The Staff
lrecommendation, if taken in conjunction with paragraph 2 on page 49, is very
I important. A Board of Supervisors decision to undertake public promotion of
leconomic development makes strengthening the Rural Area zone even more
I important..
~ -
Thank you for your attention to this long letter. I hope it is helpful in some
degree. And thank you and your staff (especially Mary.Joy) for the excellent work on
the Open Space Plan. '
Sincerely,
~
TIm Lindstrom
Staff Attorney
xc: Steve Blaine
Di~:r::::'::::' ::~ ::~~.:: S-I-901- '
p..".'" , '0. /'" ~? 0 ~/'J "2/"Jl
-~Cl.....:........ l~'_", I :oJ. ~ /, I. :J ~
" .'- - r ~ p"'. .......
REPUBUC CAPITAL CORPORATION
P.O. Box 7885
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
(804) 979-5748
FAX (804) 979-0575
~~ \.);. ,', J
1 5 ,~ :~' ): 2
."'~
,-.-~. ~., ....._...r
'-'~ 0~1 L:' \/;.S;JttS
AprillS, 1992
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Humphris and Gentlemen:
With regards to the proposed Albemarle County Open Space and Critical
Resource Plan, I have the following suggestions:
I applaud the Planning Staff's desire to guide efforts in the County to plan for
and protect open space in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. I do not believe,
however, that the 56 recommendations and the 65 + pages of description that now
constitute this draft succeed in this goal. I believe the plan fails in the following
areas:
1. Although the plan seems to be comprehensive in its identification of possible
resources, it fails to identify the relative benefits of each type of protected
resource or the criteria for determining such benefits. An effort should be
made in this plan to specify the benefit of the resource and to provide some
sort of ranking of the value that further regulation would create. An example
would be a determination that rural areas which are close to scenic roads and
visible from the highway are more important than those that cannot be seen
from the road. Thus, protection of hidden property would be ranked less
important th~ public vistas.
Without an assessment of the relative benefits of these resources, it is
difficult to see how a planning commiqion, a planning staff or the board of
supervisors can accomplish the plan's stated goal of balancing open space
preservation with accommodating growth.
2. Although the plan implies that many current natural resources are
underprotected, the plan fails to identify resources that are over protected.
One example of this is the twenty-five percent (25%) critical slope restriction
that is applied to all county land without regard to its soil sensitivity or the
robustness of the surrounding property. The soil information and better
topographic information available today should be used to refine this
regulation to make it reflect the original intent of protecting only sensitive
slopes.
3. The plan appears to be comprehensive in suggesting further restrictions and
protection measures, but it fails to measure the cost of these restrictions to
county citizens. Despite the avowed claim that "these recommendations are
not intended to reduce density or development rights..." it is a certainty that
such recommendations like the one that requires a developer to seek both
State and Federal approvals in certain circumstances or the one that suggests
reducing permitted density, will increase the cost of development and thus
effectively reduce development opportunity.
4. Many of the recommendations and proposed regulations of the plan already
fall in the jurisdiction of a variety of other County regulations. As shown in
one of the tables, there are at least fourteen different regulations on the
~ks with which the county can control and influence the use of open land.
This plan fails to arrange these fourteen other pieces of the puzzle so that the
existing regulations are non overlapping, consistent and coherent.
Furthermore, this plan goes in just the opposite direction by not only
failing to review and assess existing regulations but it promotes an additional
fifteen techniques without identifying how such new regulations would be
integrated with the existing ordinance.
Despite its admirable purpose, the proposed plan needs additional study and
refinement. In particular, the proposal should be expanded to (1) to identify the
benefits of such additional restrictive regulation in a manner that can be compared
with the costs .to the County's citizens; (2) to identify, on the basis of more up-to-
date County information, those resources that are overprotected; (3) to identify the
costs to the citizens of the proposed additional restrictions; and, (4) to outline more
clearly current restrictions, with the goal to rearrange existing regulations so that
County ordinances are non-overlapping, consistent and coherent.
/tt)),! C
~/K/r
Blake Hurt
President
/fbm
Attachment: Regulation list
Albemarle County ()pen Space and Critical Resource Plan
lanuary 17, 1992
56 additional changes and restrictions proposed by Open Space Plan.
Re~nmmendation Area Short Term Lon~ Term
Open Space 5 1
Rural Area 2 8
Acquisition 5 6
Streams 3
Mountains 1 2
Farmlands 1 3
Growth Areas 1 1
Ovic 5 '5
Public Use 1 3
Further Policy Changes 3
27 29= 56
J
)
8280 to orne
McLeul, ~ 22102
(804) 977-2500
Fax: (804) 980-2222
, ~!':'::"!, ~:{""'" "\ ,)~.~pd' /" ',-...... ,'/,?..-
(~'.<~, ~;';':.~.....H~'~:_~~":>; 'I' t....,.,::~ -,/.~~;)-~ . '" --;.... ..., ~
f 't' 'I' ."'.; "'lu. ',',' ".'-' ~.. ~ (;'",.; "'//,,:":,1..,
~ ~;:....--r~>-k~."~r\.l~~'l_,~:.~: .~... - '."' ''<;'
, '.il . ",
)..'. "f uAR A 100') ,"I, '
-:' rVI - 'J\.)'_ . ":
< \ J:; ;
, ' '." ,~' ~ '" ,-, ~ ": ~~Thlde Center
~ "~at~JfilVB 'Fk~~lM 23:
~~[:= r;:;:l r::!.......:..r:t\\.Rlti "on 23219
D ' ,\' ,U:-._", ,"'" ,
;..------ ' .
I 137
,I ~!I\\'l 1:.q lq~b .
r \ 1 ~ll.."\ I. r i -
,\ \ \
I \ \ h'--r;'-':"-~-' n., N
\J \ I.-J ~J \..::::; L 27 NW.
B 0 Af; D (\ F SUP ~w.~~".~ 20006
McGUIREWooos
BATfLE&BooTHE
Court Square Building
P.O, Box 1288
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902
STEVEN W. BLAINE
March 3, 1992
r. V. Wayne Ciiimberg
irector of Planning and Development
C unty of Albemarle
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Proposed Albemarle County Open Space and Critical Resource Plan
I am writing t9 you on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Blue
'pge Homebuilders Association. This letter sets forth our Committee's comments to
t e proposed Open Space and Critical Resource Plan, draft dated February 25, 1992 (the
"Ian"). We applaud the Planning Department's efforts to protect open space and critical
r sources in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. The Planning Department's
c mpilation of technical data and mapping of natural resources reflects a great deal of
h rd work and we appreciate the staffs efforts. The text of the Plan, however, requires
rther refinement for it to become an effective planning tool.
Our Committee has two main concerns about the Plan. First, the Plan fails to
a hieve its stated objective to provide an integrated approach to critical resource
p otection. Instead, the Plan advocates adopting additional regulations.
Second, the Plan is too broad in scope and its directives are too vague to permit
f 'r and consistent interpretation by those involved in the planning process, including
p operty owners, land planners, engineers, the County staff, and public officials.
Rather than integrate the many existing federal, state, and local regulations designed
protect critical resources, the Plan simply calls for more regulations. Even though the
n describes thirteen existing County regulations designed to protect critical resources,
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 3, 1992
Page 2
together with numerous state and federal resource protection techniques, private, and
owner-initiated measures, there is no discussion of the efficacy, success, or failure of any
such measures--only that they exist. The chart on Table 1 of the Plan illustrates that many
of the existing County regulations protect the same resources. The Plan ought to provide
a mechanism to avoid overlapping of federal, state and local review to the extent existing
regulations protect the same resources. The Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association
opposes any further regulation without carefully examining the benefits, shortcomings and
overlapping of existing regulations.
Vagueness and Ov.-:rbreadth.
One of the Plan's fundamental problems is an apparent confusion between the
terms 'open space' and 'critical or significant resources.' Among the critical resources
described in the Plan are steep slopes, flood plain, sensitive soils, water resource protection
areas, wetlands, historic and architectural sites, scenic rivers and streams and water supply
impoundments and watersheds. Open space, on the other hand, is defined as "land or
water left in an undisturbed, natural condition and unoccupied by building lot structures,
streets or parking lots." In essence, open space is any land that is not currently developed.
The Plan creates confusion by using the terms open space and critical resources
interchangeably.
While an area of open space may contain significant critical resources, and the
government may have a legitimate interest in protecting those resources, open space,
without more, should not be equated with such critical resources. There is no inherent
value associated with an undeveloped area of land that requires government preservation.
On the other hand, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting certain critical
resources. For example, wetlands should be protected, not because they constitute 'open
space', but because of-the peculiar benefits that wetlands contribute to the environment.
. Our Committee supports planning measures such as the use of bonus factors and
density credits to provide incentives for better use of open space in the Growth Areas.
Open space planning is perhaps more appropriate in the Growth Areas than in the Rural
Areas. In an urban, or dense community setting, open space can provide an area for
active recreation for the inhabitants of the community. Open space in the urban setting
also provides a form of 'passive' recreation. It can serve as a buffer between dissimilar
uses. We do not object to restricting the use of open space as an element of responsible
land planning. We do object to the use of so-called open space planning as an instrument
for growth management.
Examples of good open space planning in urban areas or settled communities are
Lee Park in the historic downtown area, the Lawn, and the new Rivanna Greenway Park
r. V. Wayne Cilimberg
arch 3, 1992
age 3
. .
i Charlottesville. These are examples of created or enhanced open space. Open space
lanning should include incentives for creating open space to achieve the benefits that
eas like these provide. Unfortunately, the Plan does not recognize the importance of
e anced open space as an element of good land planning. The Plan ignores the
otential in providing additional incentives to property owners to 'create' open space such
a parks and recreation areas. Because the Plan's definition of open space includes only
tural and undisturbed land, exemplary open space planning like that of the Lawn, Lee
ark, or Rivanria Greenway Park is disregarded.
Another of the Plan's problems is that it contains the premise that the County is
c mprised of "systems" of open space. The County does not consist of open space systems
s mply because it possesses vast areas of undeveloped land. To constitute a system, there
h s to be some arrangement of things that are related or connected so as to form a unity
o organic whole. Critical resources, such as aquatic habitat may be' related or dependent
u on other critical resources such as wetlands and streams so as to form a biological
s stem. But it is an overstatement to suggest that one area of undeveloped land, as such,
i part of a system of other undeveloped lands throughout the County. The use of such
t rminology serves only to confuse rather than to guide future planning. A plan based
u on the premise that a County-wide system of open space exists is at best vague. This
c ncept may be arbitrarily and unconstitutionally applied by administrative agencies or
o lcials empowered to implement the Plan.
The best example of the Plan's potential abuse is in the first recommendation for
t e use of the Open Space Maps (page 40). In a site plan submission, the property
o er must determine "a site's open space value," subject to County approval. This
d rective is so vague that it is unenforceable. The likely effect of a directive such as this
is to create doubt and uncertainty in the development community. It will be extremely
d fficult, if not impossible, for property owners to make informed business judgments on
t e viability of a site if they are subjected to the arbitrary determination of "how the site's
r sources relate to the County-wide system of open space."
Although the Plan begins with an admirable purpose, it goes beyond the strategies
i tended by the Comprehensive Plan and, at the same time, falls short as an effective
a d comprehensive land planning tool. Further study of the Plan should take two
d rections. First, the staff should narrow the focus of the Plan by implementing the
s ecific strategies called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should place priority
o preserving the Rivanna River Greenway Corridor. The Plan should make
r commendations for the further protection of critical resources only after careful
e amination of the effect of existing regulations protecting such resources. Only after
c reful cost-benefit analyses of existing regulations should further regulations be
r commended. Second, the Plan should integrate existing regulations into a sensible and
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 3, 1992
Page 4
practical planning scheme. Much of the technical information and compiling of data
which is needed for this Plan has already been done or is underway. The hard work
already put in by the staff should be brought together in a more useful and effective
plan.
Very truly yours,
#c;lr~ -
Steven W. Blaine
SWB/lkw
Enclosures
cc: ~~~...
Mr. Robert B. Brandenberger
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Mr. Don Wagner
SWB50302.1tr
Mrs, C, M. Garnett, Jr.
Route 5, Bo:lC 273
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
7. --;l ~~.. -" _ ~ ~~ _
~ ~ --
~
IM~) cr 2..
~ ~~ ~ ~
-th ~ ~-( ~ 1I~., _.
'/dw ~ ~ "'- ~ (,- -- -fke--
~ c~ -To --jJ:, P/~ ~. ~
-rte-v 4~ 3 ~ tv-zLI 90 ~" ~
~~ ~~ ~w.o~
71'711 - fto ~ -f,. 'fl.:t "- ~
~ OY mJu cL ~ I a-
~~~~-
r:f; t f Ld -/~ ~ J ~-rt...
/ ~ - r/uf4-- &4 -r~ A/Y) r
-;~ ~/. ~ ~
~. t>>-Av ~~ ~
-Ita c,::h ~ ~-1 k c~j w--J..c <L-c.Q.
~-~J~~JCUv ~ \Pfj-c '
~~~-/L -~ - c
6- Vh ,~ .5l ~...~ ~f-- fJ:l Jtr&~
~Dod. ~.(&1'U'\~fCQ~c-~~' ~~ ~ q~
~
fV1 ~ :::>
.0: ~..,J.e (1 . ~ 5~ a.dJ e,.J/:J; ~ r>1cU.<.
~ PI4/><- fA ~ ~ ~cI--' i ~ 4
,euLV>~ To ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /T> f*,
~ ~~~ ~~aAJ~
~ ~ ~ Of s-r-~ 8~'" :h-' '("0:L
~ '1.5 If7'Y'! W> ~ ~ &>-t.... ~ ~.
-fu I~ t: <'<- ~ ~.~ ~ ~;;,
w-Jv.t~ ~ ID ~ tu/iL ~ ~ ~
~, ~ V> RA~ ~ -- -/1.. ~ /AA-'
~.
~ j) I~ ~.....;..... !f - S eM<-'-- ~ J.-w..
~ '1fi-eJ ~ ~ zf;' ~.:1-"'~'
-j i-.R ~~~ ~ 01", --1/..e ~ ..:r;r I/> LU' q-<-">
~.
~O{.j~~-Jr ~-A"" ~
~ .e.--r IW< n..P.tA-> .
o~. .. ^ ' ,v- I' " ~. .~ ""I-< Lo r...~
rt) 't-f.,Q (j - ~I f.!-~ . - I - ~.
~/ " ~~~.'_ .~' 7!J
~7U~ ~~ .' 'tU? ~o-
'~-rdJ ~ ~. ~ .....,.....-.- -C ~ 9 1f"..P t>Y-,:;,J
G 10- ~ ~ -rfp... 9gb
-~_~L~ ,~T","
f~..:1-~ ---
. ~ 1M- -,- - J f7~ /.,p. ~
_~{\ \ p;;:' {~Tc;K ~ ~ IJ u-J--
. . / . /'> a:;.- .L0:!"- . . :-D~P ~ .
! t :JJ ~~<t"' _ ~ V7~.'0. . rp~ lP-'
! .f~I.Hi t'.2k~C.:!::'" 7' cur... (L.C( ~ - p~!!: or.
1~~ -:. .~:Jf."!.~ 1~~!p_K. ,P- 5 d'><- PfZ
~/ ~)-: ~.$~' (p,lt. . v.:.l'-;;::'T~
.' ,"'VNU-"'1 p~~ U-<--') c~ tk ~ -<=12.; ",,--'/~ ~
_, k~ }L~~ . L-~