HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-08
FIN A L
January 8, 1992, 4:00 P.M., Room 11, County Office Bui1din~
(Adjourned from January 2, 1992)
1) Call to Order.
2) Executive Session: Personnel.
3) Certify Executive S~ssion.
4) Adjourn.
January 8, 1992, 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County Office Bui1din~
(Re~ NiJ!ht Meet::inf!)
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) *Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
58) Report from the Registrar on Congressional District lines.
6) ZT A -91-05. Public Hearing on an amendment to Section 5.6.2 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Conditions of approval for Mobile
Homes on Individual Lots by the addition thereto of a subsection "f"
reading: "No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same to be
occupied by the owner of the land on which the mobile home is locat-
ed, or by a lineal relative or bona fide agricultural employee of the
owner. (To be deferred.)
7) SP-91-39. Willie Mae Hoover. Public Hearing on a request to amend
SP-88-86 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile home on 5.0
ac zoned RA. Property on pvt rd on W side of R t 20 approx 2.7 mi
S of Rt 742. TM102,P1E. Scottsville Dist. (To be deferred.)
8) SP-91-41. Gifford & Rachel Crawford. Public Hearing on a request to
amend SP-91-15 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile home
on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 776 approx 3/10 mi W
of R t 664. TM18 , P8J . White Hall Dist. (To be deferred.)
9) Public Hearing: To receive comments on the appointment of members to
represent the Rivanna, Scottsville and White Hall Districts, and the
member at-large on the Albemarle County School Board.
10) SP-91-61. Minor Eager. Public Hearing on a request for a stream cross-
ing in the flood plain of tributary of Buck Mtn Creek. Property on
W side of Rt 601 approx 0.6 mi N of inters of Rt 671/601. TM7 ,P39,
40&40A. White Hall Dist.
11) Citizens for Albemarle, Request for an Historic Preservation Ordinance.
12) Appointments.
13) Approval of Minutes: August 7, 1991.
14) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from BOARD members.
15) Adjourn.
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Resolution requesting acceptance of Stanley Drive in Lowell Pines
Subdivision into the State System of Secondary Highways.
FOR INFORMATION:
S.2 Letter dated December 31, 1991, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer,
concerning traffic accident data for the intersection of Route 656
(Georgetown Road) and Route 743 (Hydraulic Road).
5.3 Copy of Monthly Bond Program Report of Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic
Road Apts.) for the Month of November, 1991.
5.4 Letter dated December 12, 1991, from Hugh C. Miller, Director,
Department of Historic Resources, stating that Bellair has been placed on
the Virginia Landmarks Register and nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places. .
5.5 Letter dated December 13, 1991, from Hugh C. Miller, State Historic
Preservation Officer, Department of Historic Resources, stating that The
Rectory has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places.
5.6 Copy of letter addressed to Mr. Stuart A. Waymack, State Right-of-Way
Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, dated December 20, 1991,
from Mr. J. W. Wade, Superintendent, Shenandoah National Park, re:
transfer of lands for road purposes.
5. '1 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for December 17, 1991.
lc
,
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
FROM, Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC ArJ
DATE: January 9, 1992
SUBJECT: Board Actions of January 8, 1992
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on January 8, 1992, the following
actions were taken:
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Resolution requesting acceptance of Stanley Drive in
Lowell Pines Subdivision into the State System of Secondary Highways. ADOPTED.
Original resolution sent to Engineering.
Agenda Item No. 5.2. Letter dated December 31, 1991, from D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, concerning traffic accident data for the intersection of
Route 656 (Georgetown Road) and Route 743 (Hydraulic Road). Request Mr.
Roosevelt to continue looking into the problem of westbound traffic making left
turns onto Georgetown Road through December, 1991 and give a report to the Board
next week.
Agenda Item No. Sa. Report from the Registrar on Congressional District
lines. Staff to draft letter to legislators concerning correcting the splitting
of the Ivy precinct, and noting that there should be no split precincts for
congressional elections. Have in the packet on Friday if possible.
Agenda Item No.6. ZTA-91-05. Public Hearing on an amendment to Section
5.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Conditions of approval for
Mobile Homes on Individual Lots by the addition thereto of a subsection "f"
reading: "No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same to be occupied by
the owner of the land on which the mobile home is located, or by a lineal
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
January 9, 1992
Date:
Page 2
relative or bona fide agricultural employee of the owner. DKFERRKD to April 1,
1992, at the request of staff, until Housing Committee report can be completed.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-91-39. Willie Mae Hoover. Public Hearing on a
request to amend SP-88-86 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile home
on 5.0 ac zoned RA. Property on pvt rd on W side of Rt 20 approx 2.7 mi S of Rt
742. TM102,P1E. Scottsville Dist. DKFERRKD to April 15, 1992, at the request
of staff, until Housing Committee report can be completed.
Agenda Item No.8. SP-91-41. Gifford & Rachel Crawford. Public Hearing
on a request to amend SP-91-15 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile
home on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 776 approx 3/10 mi W of Rt
664. TM18,P8J. White Hall Dist. DKFERRKD to April 15, 1992, at the request of
staff, until Housing Conmittee report can be completed.
Agenda Item No.9. Public Hearing: To receive comments on the appointment
of members to represent the Rivanna, Scottsville and White Hall Districts, and
the member at-large on the Albemarle County School Board. Comments were re-
ceived from nominees and supporters of nominees. Appointment will be on the
January 15 agenda.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-91-61. Minor Eager. Public Hearing on a request
for a stream crossing in the flood plain of tributary of Buck Mtn Creek. Prop-
erty on W side of Rt 601 approx 0.6 mi N of inters of Rt 671/601. TM7,P39,
40&40A. White Hall Dist. APPROVED subject to one condition as set out below:
1. No further subdivision of parcels 39, 40, and 40a, without approval by
the Board of Supervisors.
Concerning the whole special permit procedure, re: stream crossing's for
AG purposes, etc, to be included in packet of zoning text amendments coming
before the Planning Commission in the Spring.
Agenda Item No. 11. Citizens for Albemarle, Request for an Historic Pres-
ervation Ordinance. Received and noted that is already on the Planning staff's
work program for later in the year.
Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan for land located on
Route 29 North in the vicinity of the General Electric plant to show land as
Industrial based on statements made by the owner, Wendell W. Wood. (Copy of
resolution attached.)
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
January 9, 1992
Date:
Page 3
Staff to draft letter to the Governor's office on Economic Development
explaining Albemarle County's growth policy.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments:
a. REAPPOINTED Mr. Thomas Jenkins to the Albemarle County Planning Com-
mission, representing the White Hall District, for a term of four years.
b. APPOINTED Mr. Thomas Blue to the Albemarle County Planning Commission,
representing the Rivanna District, for a term of four years.
c. APPOINTED Mr. William J. Nitchmann to the Albemarle County Planning
Commission, representing the Scottsville District, for a term of four years.
d. REAPPOINTED Mr. Walter F. Johnson to the Albemarle County Planning
Commission, for the at-large position, for a term of two years.
e. REAPPOINTED the entire Housing Committee through June 30, 1992.
f. Suggested a staff member for the City's West Main Street study.
g. REAPPOINTED Mr. Joseph Basil Young to the Board of Social Services,
for a term of four years.
h. REAPPOINTED Mrs. Betty Starke to the Equalization Board for a one year
term.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 1991. No action was
taken.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from BOARD
members.
Concerning the meeting of the Senate Finance/House Appropriations
Committees which will meet in Richmond on next Monday, it was the Board's
consensus that Andrea Trank may appear and present statement on behalf of
Albemarle County which staff will prepare.
If Fairfax County is successful in getting a bill introduced to increase
the lodging tax to five percent, the liaison should try to have Albemarle County
included.
Date:
Page 4
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
January 9, 1992
Memo To:
Mr. Bain suggested a meeting be scheduled with City Council to discuss
cooperation.
LEN:bh
Attachments (1)
cc: Robert B. Brandenburger
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Amelia Patterson
Bruce Woodzell
George R. St. John
File
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section
33.1-229, the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of High-
ways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Lowell Pines Subdivi-
sion:
Stanley Drive:
Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the
centerline of Stanley Drive and the edge of pavement
of State Route 743, thence in a southeasterly direc-
tion 756.82 feet to Station 17+81.82, the end of the
cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unob-
structed right-of-way and drainage easements along this
requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
987, pages 453-455.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on January 8, 1992.
alt- ~
Clerk, Board of County
~
RES 0 L UTI 0 N 0 FIN TEN T
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan for land located on Route 29
North in the vicinity of the General Electric plant to show land as
Industrial based on statements made by the owner, Wendell W. Wood,
at a meeting of the Board of County Supervisors on January 8, 1992.
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
and does request that the Planning Commission send its
recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible moment.
* * * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, ~r_ t~::arY 8, 1992.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
. ...
DiSTRIBUjD T '()'.8.".O~'.'OD ",."",.,,,-,..-,-
/ _ ,h ",,-,,,.-'.',',
~ c.' ..
ON_ If ~ .Z ~___.,.,_
McGuI REWOODS
BATTLE&BooTHE
Transpotomac Plaza
1199 North Fairfax Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
8280 Greensboro Drive
Mclean, VA 22102
One James Center
Richmond, VA 23219
Court Square Building
P.O. Box 1288
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
The Army and Navy Club Building
1627 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
World Trade Center
Norfolk, VA 23510
(804) 977-2500
Fax: (804) 980-2222
. . , ,.AUAnnc;, de~'r: 41
,...l.~l"''''.;.( ,',:- '\"'n.~''s''
~, .) . ; !;' ,: C ':,' IV'+V Bru sel. 19ium
,..;.:',,""
January 7, 1992
<;
. -. .,
'.,.". I I.,
Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman
and Members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Blue Ridge Home Builders Association Positions on 1992 Legislative Issues
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board:
On behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Blue Ridge Home
Builders Association, I enclose the BRHBA's statement of positions on Legislative issues
for 1992. The enclosed statement is a compilation of issues affecting the home building
industry state-wide, and reflects the views of our affiliate organization, the Home Builders
Association of Virginia. The BRHBA endorses these positions and intends to discuss
them with, and seek the support of our State Legislators during the current session of
the General Assembly.
In the areas of Growth Management and Local Governmental Structure, our
organization's positions differ from the positions taken in the Board's 1992 legislative
packet. We realize that the Board did not have the benefit of our positions before
submitting its legislative packet. Nevertheless, we wish to share with the Board our views
on matters which can have a profound effect on the building industry and on the local
economy in general.
Mr. David Bowerman and Members
of the Board
January 7, 1992
Page 2
If it is the Board's pleasure, I can arrange for BRHBA representatives to further
discuss with you these issues at the appropriate time.
Very truly yours,
~~
Steven W. Blaine
SWB/tl
01060003.ltr
cc: The Honorable Edgar S. Robb
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres
The Honorable Peter T. Way
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. Don Wagner, Chairman
BRHBA Governmental Affairs Committee
Mr. Michael C. West
STATEMENT OF BLUE RIDGE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION POSmON
ON
LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
1992
1. ISSUE: Affordable housing-fiscal impact analysis.
Position: BRHBA supports the provision of affordable housing to the citizens of the Commonwealth. This
goal is made increasingly more difficult by the imposition of costly and unnecessary local requirements, and
by delays and uncertainty in the planning and zoning process.
Rationale: Both state and local governments are passing additional laws and regulations without due regard
to the cost impact on affordable housing. For example, it is estimated that in the Richmond area, between
$10,000.00 to $15,000.00 of the cost of a new home is directly attributable to government imposed fees and
regulations, exclusive of compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Act Regulations. State and local governments
should be required to prepare a housing affordability impact statement similar to presently required
environmental impact statements prior to adopting new laws which unnecessarily increase the cost of
housing.
2. ISSUE: Change or modification of the Dillon Rule.
Position BRHBA supports the Dillon Rule in its present form, and opposes any attempts to change or
modify it.
Rationale: Under the Dillon Rule, the powers of local governments are limited to those specifically
delegated by the General Assembly, or reasonably necessary to accomplish certain governmental purposes.
The Dillon Rule is a strong check and balance on the powers of local governments which prohibits them
from going beyond their duly authorized statutory authority.
3. ISSUE: Escalating water and sewer connection fees:
Position: BRHBA supports the idea of builders paying a fair share of providing water and sewer connections
to new developments; however, BRHBA would oppose increases in fees by local governments as an
alternative to increasing monthly charges to all users of the system.
Rationale: The costs of water and sewer connection fees should fairly represent the charge of providing the
service. Connection fees should not be used to subsidize the general operating costs of the utility. To curb
the abuse in the escalating costs of connection fees, the following matters should be considered:
(a) Prohibit localities from using connection fees for anything but expansion of facilities due to
growth related capital improvements.
(b) Require that any cost for maintenance, operations, or replacement/improvements of existing
structures must be paid for by user rates of general fund dollars.
(c) Require localities to refund monies collected, but not spent for specific service/facilities to home
owners.
(d) Prohibit connection fees from being used to supplement utility budgets, expansion of lines to
existing subdivisions, funding improvements to public water systems, etc.
(e) Establish a review board to act as an oversight to local governments with regard to connection
fees. The review board would have the authority to determine whether or not a proposed fee, or
increase in fees, is justifiable, and meets all necessary requirements.
4. ISSUE: Impact fees for roads and schools.
Position: Oppose.
Rationale: An impact fee is nothing but a tax on new development. It is a discriminatory tax since all
purchasers of new homes are not strangers to the community. Studies show that more than 55 % of new
home purchasers are existing residents of the community. The imposition of an impact tax on such persons
results in double taxation. Impact taxes are an unpredictable source of revenue to localities, and more broad
based measures should be considered to fund public services such as schools and roads.
5. ISSUE: Transferable development rights.
Position: BRHBA is opposed to the implementation of the concept of transferable development rights.
Rationale: TORs are used by local governments to preserve certain agricultural, open space, and otherwise
rural lands, and as a growth management tool. The concept allows the use of land development rights to
be "transferred" from one parcel ofland to another. The landowners in the designated "sending" areas are
given the opportunity to sell and transfer their development rights to designated "receiving" areas where
increased density will be allowed. Lands in the "sending" area are subject to perpetual restriction by deed
of easement. TDR programs in other areas have met with limited success, at best.
6. ISSUE: Adequate Public Facilities.
Position: BRHBA opposes enabling legislation that would allow local governments to require private
installation of public facilities before allowing development of property.
Rationale: A local adequate public facilities ordinance would, in essence, shift the burden from the public
sector to the private sector to finance capital facilities such as roads, schools, sewer, water, and parks as
a condition of development. The practical effect of such an ordinance would be to impose a moratorium
on all building and development activities. Under present economic conditions, these costly additional
restrictions would hamper unduly economic recovery.
7. ISSUE: Constitutional amendment to provide for recess of up to 14 days during annual session
of General Assembly to allow time to review budgetary and fiscal matters.
Position: BRHBA supports the proposed Constitutional amendment.
Rationale: Re-enactment of the resolution adopted by the 1991 General Assembly is supported on the
grounds that a recess period would allow for more thoughtful and less harried General Assembly
consideration of legislation related to fiscal matters. The recess period would also allow business
organizations and others to analyze the potential effects of other legislation, and provide additional time for
lobbying efforts.
8. ISSUE: Construction financing/lending crisis.
Position: BRHBA supports appropriate action on the state and federal levels to ease the present "credit
crunch. "
Rationale: Under present federal monetary policies, financial institutions have severely restricted all forms
of commercial and real estate lending. Financial institutions are refusing to renew existing loans to credit-
worthy borrowers thereby causing unnecessary foreclosures and losses.
9. ISSUE: Contractor license regulations.
Position: BRHBA supports the Regulations by the Board of Contractors to the extent that they are not
overly burdensome and insure that only qualified individuals are permitted to operate as registered
contractors.
2
Rationale: There are many instances where unlicensed and unqualified people are engaging in the business
of residential construction. This results in poor workmanship, increased consumer complaints, and additional
claims against the contractor transaction recovery fund.
10. ISSUE: Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Regulations.
Position: BRHBA supports the general goal of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay so long as a balance is
struck between this effort and preserving a healthy climate for economic development in Virginia. The
General Assembly should consider reallocating the resources and funds from the Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department to local governments to aid them in administering the Bay Act.
Rationale: After two years of controversy, there appears to be a consensus among business, industrial,
agricultural, local government, real estate and private property owners that the Bay Act Regulations are too
burdensome and too costly. It has not been established that the cost/benefit of improving the water quality
in the Bay is justified by the restrictions placed upon land in RPAs and RMAs. The reallocation of funding
to local governments could provide technical assistance to help localities deal with an aftermath of problems
in implementing programs under the Bay Act.
11. ISSUE: Duration of final subdivision plat and site plan approval.
Position: BRHBA supports legislation that would guarantee the validity of final subdivision plat and site plan
approval for a fixed period of time and would provide that no changes to local land use regulations adopted
subsequent to plat or plan be applicable during the fixed period of time.
Rationale: State law should guarantee a reasonable life span for subdivision plats and site plans. A time
period of not less than five years after the date of approval by the local governing body is recommended.
During this time, the plat or plan should not be subject to any newly adopted zoning or land use regulations.
Under current economic conditions, such legislation is needed to insure fairness and predictability in the
development process.
12. ISSUE: Groundwater studies authorized subsequent to plat approval.
Position: BRHBA supports legislation to provide that localities may require groundwater studies followinl!:,
not orecedinl!:, preliminary plat approval.
Rationale: In 1988, the General Assembly enacted legislation allowing for groundwater testing prior to
approval of preliminary plats. The cost of studies early in the development process has proved to be so high
that legislation should be reintroduced next year to specify that studies can be required following, not
preceding, plat approval.
13. ISSUE: Extension of broad based taxing powers to local governments-Funding of infrastructure
from broad based sources.
Position: Support.
Rationale: The provision of necessary public facilities should be paid for by broad based public taxes. Such
options could include sales tax, meals tax, gasoline tax, and income tax. At present, many localities are not
deriving the full benefit of the real estate tax since property is not being assessed at 100% of fair market
value.
14. ISSUE: Proposed changes to mechanic's lien law.
Position: BRHBA supports a lien law that is fair and balanced both for owners, contractors, subcontractors,
and materialmen.
Rationale: Under present law, many title companies are refusing to write mechanic's lien coverage which
is necessary to obtain both construction and permanent lending for housing.
3
15. ISSUE: Abuse of proffer zoning powers.
Position: BRHBA supports a legislative study to reevaluate the proffer system which was recently expanded
to include all high growth areas of the state in addition to Northern Virginia. Experience indicates that
localities are not administering the proffer system fairly or predictably, particularly with respect to the
imposition of cash proffers.
Rationale: Reports of abuses by localities in implementation of proffer system.
16. ISSUE: Real estate assessments-fair market value.
Position: BRHBA supports the current law requiring local real estate assessments to be based upon 100%
of fair market value.
Rationale: Local governments should be required to abide by the law and to assess all real property at 100%
of fair market value in a timely fashion. This practice could be enforced by tying state aid to local
compliance with assessment laws.
17. ISSUE: Regional cooperation by localities.
Position: BRHBA supports increased regional cooperation of local governments in the provision of public
services including water, wastewater, transportation, jails, parks, and schools.
Rationale: The state can no longer afford the luxury of allowing localities to provide independent and
competing systems for furnishing public services. Additional incentives should be developed at the state
level to encourage regional cooperation.
18. ISSUE: Regulation of nontidal wetlands.
Position: BRHBA opposes increased or additional regulation of nontidal wetlands by the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the State Water Control Board. BRHBA supports the continued use of the Corps of
Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual for the delineation of "wetlands." Compensation should be
paid to landowners in cases where property is "taken" by regulatory actions.
Rationale: The major battle over regulation of nontidal wetlands is taking place at the federal level. At the
state level, no further controls on wetlands should be implemented by the State Water Control Board unless
they are completely consistent with the Federal Guidelines and the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual.
19. ISSUE: Virginia Housing Partnership Fund.
Position: BRHBA supports increased funding for the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund.
Rationale: The state government should recognize the increasing need for programs such as a Virginia
Housing Partnership Fund, particularly since the federal government and private sector funding for housing
needs has dramatically declined. Funding must remain available to finance the critically important housing
needs of the Commonwealth. The Partnership Fund is critical to the preservation, rehabilitation, and
construction of housing for low and moderate income families in the Commonwealth.
4
Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce
Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
December, 1991
Dear Community Leader:
In June, 1991, the Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters, working with the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, surveyed a random sample of area businesses to
ascertain the knowledge of and interest and participation in traffic and waste reduction activities.
The completion rate of the sur/ey indicates the business community's interest in solving these two
major community problems.
The information provided should be very helpful to you and other decision makers in our
community as you address these important problems.
Copies of the final reports are enclosed. The reports are also being sent to the other elected and
key staff persons in the City and County.
If you have further questions or comments, please call Nancy O'Brien at the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (972-1720; 413 E. Market St., Suite 102, 22902).
Thank you again.
~
~
,~ 16,~*-
Helen B. Snook, President
League of Women Voters
Mary Elwood, President
Chamber of Commerce
1
Traffic Congestion
in
Charlottesville and Albemarle
A Survey of Local Businesses
A Joint Project of:
The Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters
The Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce
The Metropolitan Planning Organization
September 13, 1991
Funds for this project were provided through local contributions, the Urban Mass Tranportation Adminstration and the
Virgininia Department of Transportation. This report does not reflect the opinions of the government agencies.
This Report is Printed on Recycled Paper
1
Traffic Congestion:
What Business Thinks and Is Doing About It
The Business Community and Traffic Congestion
Introduction
In June, 1991, the Charlottesville Albemarle League of Women Voters and Chamber of Commerce
joined together to plumb the opinions of the business community concerning traffic problems and
trash reduction or recycling." For reasons of time and cost, a mail survey method was chosen. A
random sample of all businesses with more than fifteen (15) employees was chosen from a Virginia
Employment Commission list. A follow-up phone call was made by League members to those who did
not respond initially. Thirty percent of the surveys were returned. The distribution of employer sizes
among surveys returned was very similar to the distribution of the original sample. Analysis of the data
was conducted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Findings
75% of the area businesses believe that traffic congestion is a problem in the Charlottesville/
Albemarle area. 64% of all city businesses and 87% of all county businesses are in this group. Only
20% of the businesses do not think traffic a problem here; the remaining 6% are evenly divided
among those who did not know or who have no opinion. Clearly, this indicates a need for the
community to address this problem.
Traffic congestion can affect a business in many ways. The chart below depicts the effects described by
local businesses in the survey.
Effects of Congestion on Business
35'"
3O'llo
25'"
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Key
Emp Cmp' Employee complaints
ut.Cst: Lost customers
EC&LC: Employee complaints and lost
customers
EO&thr: Employee complaints and other
effects
W/Prob
~ ~ . Enl:>.QJp. ~ Lst Cst. . other
.EC & LC ~ED & thr
All
~ D1't knw 'fJfJJJJ n/a
Business Responds to Problem
64% of the area businesses are making some effort to make getting to work easier on their employees.
Most (43%) of those who are trying to address the problem have staggered the hours employees are
expected to be at work. This represents 25% of all businesses. One third of the businesses who are
responding to the traffic problem use employee flextime. This represents 21 % of all businesses. The
frequency with which various strategies are being used and indications of interest in using strategies is
shown below.
Strategies Business Willing to Consider
All
~ Free bus . Bus Spac ~ Sp Pk CP . Enc a>s
. stag Hrs ~ Flex Tim h\I Co Vanpl ~ Stuttle
&I Stnlers
W/TRS
~ Org a>s WI!JJ Use RlS
. Nooo Bus ~ Bik Rcks
Key
Free bus: providing free bus
passes to employees
Bus Spac: Providing room
for buses to use parking lot
Sp Pk Cp: Providing special
parking for carpoolers
Enc CPs: Encouraging
employee carpools
Org CPs: Organizing
employee carpools
Use R/S: Use the local
RideShare program
Stag Rrs: Stagger
opening/closing hours wI
nearby businesses
Flex Tim: Offer flex time
programs to employees
Co Vanpl: Sponsoring
company vanpool
Shuttle' Use shuttle service
Noon Bus: Use a noontime
bus for lunch trips
BikRck: Provide bike racks
for people cycling to work
Showers: Provide showers
for employees who cycle or
walk to work.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
~ Free bus . Bus Spac ~ Sp Pk a> . Enc a>s ~ Org a>s UI Use RIS
. stag Hrs ~ Flex Tim h\I Co Vanpl ~ Stuttle . Nooo Bus ~ Bik Rcks
. Stnlers
Strategies Used
By &.lsinesses with Traffic RedJctioo Efforts
Business Suggestions to Solve Traffic Problems
Slightly over half of the businesses do not have specific suggestions for improving traffic congestion in
the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Of the suggestions made, road improvements, including the
proposed bypass, are most frequently mentioned. The suggestions are depicted in the chart below.
Solutions to Traffic Congestion
Suggested by Area ~siness
None (50.7%)
ByPass ('Z1.0%)
29N I~ (1 .6%)
Road I~ (4.8%)
SlOloGra.rt.h (3.2%)
other (12.7%)
Key
29N Imp: Widening/improvements to Rt 29 north
Road Imp: General road improvements
Slow Growth: Limit population growth
Businesses Working Together
Solving the problem of traffic congestion is best done with team work. In most cases no one business
can solve the problem alone. In the case of a very large employer, such as the University, a unilateral
response may be appropriate. Businesses in this area have a mixed response to working together on
traffic issues---about 50/50. The chart below illustrates three possible team strategies and business
response to participation.
Strategies
~siness Interest in Working Together
60%
50%
4O'lIo
Summary
0%
~ Park&Ride
I'<<l
. stagr Hrs
Most businesses agree there is a traffic problem in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Some have
initiated a response through support of employee carpools, vanpooling, staggered work hours, and flex
time. There are a number of avenues business is interested in examining, both on an individual basis
and in conjunction with others in their area. The willingness to consider many of these strategies
bodes well for development of a Traffic Reduction Strategy in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area.
'f
The Three R's of Waste Management:
Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling
A Survey of Local Businesses
A Joint Project of:
The Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Vote~
The CharlottesvilIelAlbemarle Chamber of Commerce
The Thomas Jeffe~on Planning District Commission
November 1991
This project was funded by the participating organizations
This report is printed on recycled paper
r
Introduction
In June 1991, the Charlottesville Albemarle League of Women Voters and the Chamber of
Commerce joined together to plumb the opinions of the business community concerning traffic
problems and trash reduction, reuse, and recycling. For reasons of time and cost, a mail survey
method was chosen. A random sample of all businesses with more than fifteen (15) employees
was chosen from a Virginia Employment Commission list. A follow-up phone call was made by
League members to those who did not respond initially. Thirty percent of the surveys were
returned. The distribution of employer sizes among surveys returned was very similar to the dis-
tribution of the original sample. Analysis of the data was conducted by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission. The results have a 5% margin of error.
Findings
Employee Attitudes. One third of the area business find their employees are enthusiastic about
recycling; 65% find their employees cooperative. 43% have recycling training programs for
their employees.
Recycling Programs. 65% of area business report having a recycling program. As the chart
below indicates, aluminum is recycled by all businesses who recycle. Slightly more than one third
of area businesses are recycling office paper. The least frequently recycled material is plastic.
Non-traditional Items. Additional items are recycled by many area businesses. For example,
motor oil is recycled by 27% of area businesses; batteries by 18%.
Interest in Additional Recycling. Plastic leads the list of items in which area businesses are inter-
ested in recycling---39% of area businesses are interested in recycling plastic. Interest in office
and computer paper and cardboard recycling follows closely. The chart below indicates interest
in recycling various materials.
Business Recycling
QJrrent and Interest
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
00
Key:
Offc ppr' Officer Paper
Newsoaor: Newspaper
Cmotr 00: Computer Paper
Cardbord: Cardboard
~ plastic
Aluminum: aluminum
GIAu;. glass
Nonferus: Non-ferrous metala
Q.trrently Doing Interested In Doing
~ offc ppr . newspapr ~ aq>tr pp . cardbord ~ plastic 'lI aluminum
. glass ~ nooferus
1
problems With Recycling
In Businesses Not Currently Recycling. 77% of the businesses not currently recycling are not
doing so because they are unsure of what to do. The next most frequently cited problem is lack
of space (50%). Reasons given for not recycling at present are shown in the chart below.
Pro blems with Recycling
%
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0'Il
~ unsure . diffsepa ~ no time . incnvnnt ~ dff t mr UI no space
. mks n df ~ to ~sv ~ no cprtn
Key:
~ Unsure how to Implement a program
Dlffsepa' Difficulty In separating the types of recyclables
No time: Concerned recycling will take too much time
Incnvnnt: Recycling Is too Inconvenient
~ Difficult to market recycfables
No space: Inadequate on-site apcce for collection
Mks n df: Recycling makes no difference
To xonsv' Too expensive to do
No cprtn: No cooperation from employees
In Businesses Currently Recycling. 46% of the businesses currently recycling report having some
problem with doing so. The most frequently cited problem is lack of storage space. 59% of
those who had encountered problems cite limited storage space as a problem for their business.
35% cite lack of education as a problem; 24% report unreliable pickup, odor, or lack of
employee cooperation as problems. 17% of the businesses are concerned about the time in-
volved in recycling. 10% perceive the cost of recycling to be a problem; 4% are concerned that
littering will occur.
Overcoming the Problems. 12% of the businesses citing lack of storage space as a problem have
done something to resolve the issue. 22% of those citing the need for education have also
resolved the problem. Exactly how these issues were resolved was not part of the survey.
However, that information could be gathered in the future and would be particularly useful for
business to share.
H ow business recycles
11 % of the firms currently recycling have a paid coordinator; 62% use employee volunteers to
run their program and 27% use some unspecified other way to coordinate their recycling. 70%
of these business have atiequate space for their programs. Materials are collected in both
centralized (73%) and scattered (66%) bins. Most firms are paying less than $9.00 per month
for their recycling program.
Most area businesses do not receive revenue for recycled materials; only 13% report receiving
any revenue. 29% are using one or more haulers to remove recyclables; 43% are taking recycl-
abIes to a recycling center.
T
Effect of Fees on Recycling
43% of area businesses would be more likely to recycle if they were charged by weight or
volume for their trash pickup. 24% do not feel that would make a difference; 22% did not know.
Waste Reduction and Reuse
Presently 92% of area businesses practice some method of source reduction. Bulk purchasing is
the most frequently mentioned practice (78%). 60% use double sided copying; 60% route
memos. 59% use reusable containers; 55% use recycled paper and 50% use washable dishes.
25% of area businesses reuse some items. These include shredding paper for packaging (25% of
businesses reusing materials); and recharging laser printer cartridges (50%). 25% reuse paint
thinner.
Suggestions from business
40% of the businesses have suggestions for increasing recycling, reuse or source reduction prac-
tices in the area. The most frequent suggestions are implement a recycling program (50%),
make recycling easier (15%) and share information (15%).
72% of the businesses named a contact person for waste management in their firm.
Businesses Working Together
Who. 62% of area businesses are interested in working together in a cooperative business recy-
cling program. 29% were unsure; only 6% were not interested. Most of the businesses cite
Charlottesville Albemarle Recycles Together (CARl) as the best choice to coordinate coopera-
tive efforts.
What. Business would like help with information sharing, employee training, recycling program
implementation, and coordination of hauling. Minimal interest was expressed in cooperative
purchasing.
How. 10% of the businesses are willing to pay a consultant to develop and implement a recy-
cling program; 32% were not sure; 54% were not willing to fund this activity.
Summary
Business is recycling, wants to recycle, needs information to do so, and is willing to work
cooperatively to reduce waste, reuse materials, and to recycle. The challenge will be translating
this interest into action to lengthen the life of the landfill. Recycling is a public concern which
may best be solved by business and government working together in a public-private partnership.
& ...
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
UQ/.~1~} (f~~O\ r Dl rV7"
, " i 1 / \
~ LJ Ll
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested
to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road in Lowell Pines Subdivision:
Stanley Drive:
Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the center-
line of Stanley Drive and the edge of pavement of State
Route 743, thence in a southeasterly direction 756.82
feet to Station 17+81.82, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition
as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 987, pages 453-455.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on January 8, l~. 0~f..-/
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
DUPLICATE
..
Distributed to Board: I / 31 C;l~
Apnda Item No. C?,~ .l)/ G~)
COlJNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.',\ 1 ~ ~, ~
....: ",; ) '\
",', [')\ ["
._ I ,< ',~ '\ ....
,
1:' :'
\ I lr
II !'
'lll
Wi
MEMORANDUM
D, (' ,",' (' LJ' \' r: I.." \1 ') 1."),H '~,
, ll!, ~ i ...i\~,,' <..::.., ."C...
TO: Lettie E. Neher, Board of Supervisors Clerk
FROM: Hoyt B. Alford III, civil Engineer
DATE: 19 December 1991-4C*3
RE: Lowell pines Subdivision - Stanley Drive
The following is a description of Stanley Drive located in the
Lowell pines subdivision.
stanley Drive
Beginning at station 10+25, a point common to the centerline of
Stanley Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 743,
thence in a southeasterly direction 756.82 feet to station
17+81.82, the end of the cuI de sac.
This road has a fifty foot right-of-way and has been built in
accordance with the approved road plans. The deed book
reference for right-of-way dedication and drainage easements is
deed book 987, pages 453-455.
If you have any questions, please advise.
HBA/ps
.
....
~;..i.~\1'~'~''''~.. \T'''';'1''''''l,\'.~:'\\ ,::,;"":~'
fn!';n~~;" 1\V/
UDDDlfu
Edward H Bam, Jr
Samuel Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229014596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
Charlotte Y HumphTls
Jack Jouett
David P Bowerman
Charlottesville
Walter F. Perkins
Whit'! Hall
F, R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T Way
Scottsvilloi:'
October 25, 1991
Mr. Charlie A. Gray
Route 1, Box 327
Afton, VA 22920
Dear Mr. Gray:
Your request to have Stanley Drive in Lowell Pines Subdivi-
sion, taken into the State Secondary System of Highways has been
received and referred to the County Engineer. When she has certi-
fied that all work has been completed in accordance with approved
plans, this request will be placed before the Board of Supervisors
for adoption of the necessary resolution.
4al~
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
LEN:ec
cc: Jo Higgins, County Engineer
to
F' ;';'1, c; e--- l
COU~JTY OF AL!:WMAF?LE:
r:::;> ('-::1 (;:''''\ r:J 'i -'\ ".~ {'""
I l! I ~! ,- L:. I. \ l I; I 1.::1 r
',1 I.""I! r (.,."".""..,...,".".,..,,'~....<<~..... rnl./-'
'!~./ "'I: II
~ ; } \: \ I
! {I OCT f)" 1991 ) I II
~ !: \ .. j ~\..i I I ~ I
1; i \ t'" J! 1'1:
, ! ~ ' ! ; '-";'-("""~,~,r"'~"4"" h'~"~""t-....;..../ I, ,
I,i L, i.":::~ \,::::'.1 L!:',:', u U : L.j I L:)
BOA}'?I) OF SLll:'!~PV;~~;-()~~~
l\:: t c)bet- 10 y 1 ':3'31
Ch,3.'(1 iF: A. Gray
F.'t. 1Bo>~ 327
i~ f t or"! Vi 'r' f~ in i Ei,
:2 ::~ I::,! ::.::~ ()
Cl ~?t- k
Board Of Supervisers
County Of Albemarle
401 McIntire F.'oad
!:~Ilaylottesville Va"
22'301
D (':, ,:ot j" ~3 i Y' ~:;:'
As owner of Lowell Pines Subdivision located in
Albemarle County Virginia I request a resolution be adopted
to accept Stanley Drive into the Virginia Department of
Transportation secondary road system. All design criteria
has been inspected and approved by county engineering
dept.and VDOT englneers. If you have any questions olease
l:ontact me at the above addyess CIY caJ,l 456-5()57u
~3inc(~.:'r-el )/~}
Cha'tr 1 i eA. :::iY' <::Iv
dld'dJ ~
Distributed to Board: J J.3 /0 )-
Agenda Item No. 9:J.,~fJg(5))
VIO(j
f'.',' '
, ,
" ,
. .r\ i r' ,.. ~ ,~ ,q, ~...., J:'
, 1 ,.,t.....
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
r
I': ,
I '
: ~
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
p, 0, BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
December 31, 1991
,
I; j ..~ '-"-'-;'--. "-"~-;~~''','H.- .- ;. 11
l),: <rD-::~. ;1J09S~"EJlL:;)
j' "/'). ,0 D' 0 C' Jl,E!S)P$~T ~NGINEER
V 'III I .;Urt.,fvISORS
Route 656 Georgetown/Hydraulic Road
Intersection
Ms. Lettie E. Neher
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Ms. Neher:
At the November Board of Supervisors meeting Mrs. Humphris requested an
accident history review of the Georgetown Road/Hydraulic Road intersection. This is
my report concerning this review:
The District Traffic Engineer has advised me that an examination of all
accidents at this intersection between January 1, 1989 and June 30, 1991 indicates
that only two involved rear-end collisions. Neither of these were as a result of
traffic backing up behind left turning vehicles. The accident data did indicate
some accidents due to left turning motorists failing to yield to southbound through
traffic on Hydraulic Road. Vhile accidents of this nature were prevalent in 1989
and 1990, no accidents of this type have occurred through June 30, 1991. Based upon
his review of the accident data, he recommends no changes in traffic patterns at
this time. Ve will, however, review accident data again through December 1991 when
it is available to assure that the left turn through traffic conflict has corrected
itself.
I request that you advise the Board of this finding.
Yours Truly,
~'J 1'~O~~UjLJ 'V---
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR/ldw
cc: J. C. DuFresne
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
Distributed to Board: 1/.31.2.:2.-
Allend.ltem No. Cf.AIOr)~'f)I})
111 Sou~h Calvert Street
Suite 1540
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
301-659-7500
"j;~ :;.. .~
1 i"~ l:~~,
December 17, 1991
'CeJtJ,;
(l r /~ r. ,:.,...", (r.".'I~ ..
,e;f t
Mr. Bob Richardson
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Post Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
~~)
'(
, r
\\;CAii)
.} ~
'''':..'j,
1..'; l.l 3,
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Enclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
of November 1991.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 301-659-7500.
Sincerely,
ciJlQ.JR.1l,,/yytCtlylt)V)/A--..,
Sheila H. Moyniha~
Project Monitor
jshm
enclosures
cc: ,..~~_~.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
BONO fl'ROGRAM Rf.PORT
Monlh
November
VNr ~
P .. . Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
rope..y.
loc.,ion: Charlottesville, VA
SubmlUtd by: Loretta Wyatt
MIN~r
051-35371
Project .:
Number of Unit.
December 5, 1991 Effective 11/30/91
O,T.
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
66
I. LOWfR INCOME
66
15
The lollowlng unlls hive ~n d~slgnAled as "1o~I Income" un.ls
1 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 41
61.
2 4 Arbor Crest Dr. 22 Margaret Q. Sandford42
62,
3 5 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43 63.
4_ 6 Arbor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett, S;u ~.
~ 9 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton 4~
65.
6 12 Arbor Crest Dr. 26 , G. Robert Stone ~
6e,
7 . 15 Arbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 41 e7.
a 20 Arbor Crest Dr. 2a Evelyn Mandeville "8 6a
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69.
10 ..2:2 Arbor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50
70.
\1 84 Arbor Crest Dr. 3t Juanita Boliek 51
71.
12, 86 Arbor Crest Dr. 32 Mary A. Hoxie 52. 72,
13 90 Arbor Crest Dr. 33 Florence Wheeler 53 73,
,.. 94 Arbor Crest Dr. 34 Sarah E. Fischer ~ 74.
15 106 Arbor Crest Dr. 35 Katherine T. Nowlen 55 75,
.
16 36 ~ 7e.
11 37 57, 77,
II! 38 !>e. . 78.
19 39 - 59 78.
~JO 40 60 eo,
T t\e cnan~s "0m prevIous r~p()ft 'f'''~cled in the abOve hShng .,.
O.'.llon. Add 111 one
.t ... 1.' 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3, 13,
.. 14 4, 14.
S 15 5 15.
6 t6 6 le,
7 17 7 17.
, 18 e. 18..
I 19 9 ".
\0 20 10. 20.
t
Effective November 30, 1991
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 Apart:rnents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restr ictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April I, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 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 WHEREOF, the unde,~~ed has signed this Report as of
December 5, 1991
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: l~~-Z;- pf~,,~
Authorized Representative
Oistributed to Board: JJ.5Iq,~
Agenda Item No. lj,,1. 0 j uJ (5,4)
?\' n ~ , }\1""\} t"t r' ~ ~ I"'. ;"" '; '. : 'j i' ~.'"'
~J \J U I \ I j ,,' " .... ,.. :." ' '.': \.. :~
, I~' .f"'. .~
,
Hugh C, Miller, Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINJA:.,
Department of Historic Resources ...:~ I D
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
.."l'DI:l:, (804{.itaa;.1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
December 12, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: BELLAIR, A~bemarle County (DHR 02-02)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
On behalf of the Commonwealth, it gives me great pleasure to inform you
that the state Board of Historic Resources has placed Bellair on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and has endorsed its being nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places. We will be forwarding the nomination to the
National Park Service following final review by Department staff.
The Virginia Landmarks Register was established by an act of the General
Assembly in 1966 and includes "the buildings, structures, and sites which are
of statewide or national significance." It is our judgment that Bellair
richly deserves this official recognition as one of the Commonwealth's
historic resources.
The National Register of Historic Places is maintained by the National
Park Service of the Department of the Interior. I am hopeful that the Keeper
of the National Register will approve our nomination and place Bellair on this
official list of the nation's historic places.
The protection of registered virginia landmarks is of immediate concern
to this office. It is our hope that you will let us know if we can be of any
assistance in the preservation of this property. Many times our staff can
offer advice to owners who contemplate alterations or renovations of their
properties, and we welcome the opportunity to serve.
Sincerely,
HU~h- ~MfJfdt~
DiEtor
Oistributed to Board: //l)/qJ.
Agenda Item No. tJ), () I (j Ii t5 s-)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Hugh C, Miller. Director
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
TOO: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX (804) 225-4261
December 13, 1991
'ce;: . -"."
~ e(
:-..h'
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
r~
I;'
I'
i
!
c [,.~'~~: ::,- '4'
~Oi\!W
l~.'~ C \\ l ~) t." :__:. ~',r ; (\ ", pc'.
ii '-, v' 1".\ \ ''''~; '\bate of Listing
11-07-91
RE: The Rectory, Albemarle County (DHR 02-1831)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
This is to inform you officially that the above property has been entered in the National
Register of Historic Places. I am sure that this news is gratifying to you, and we share in your
pleasure.
If you have any questions about the National Register, we would like to hear from you.
Sincerely,
)~L c 1/ l:ILv
HuglY C. Miller
State Historic Preservation Officer
'/ I.
Distributed to Board: I 0 / C; J. -'
Agenda Item No. q~, '{;/(j/r(G; GJ
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
IN REPLY REFER TO
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Shenandoah National Park
Route 4, Box 348
Luray, Virginia 22835-9051
C,..,p,
'\ \:,;
'.:.....,..'\.,
'"\~. r~ r ~'l ". I' :: II, P L E:
L14
December 20, 1991
~, '~:~ /, L lJ l., i
;"f ;\....~
Mr. Stuart A. Waymack
State Right-of-Way Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Waymack:
This letter is a follow-up to your telephone conversation with Sandy Rives of
my staff in which you discussed ways to correct the misunderstandings regard-
ing the transfer of lands for road purposes. The information being proved by
the Virginia Department of Transportation to persons who are concerned about
the issues, in some cases, has been incomplete and inaccurate. In part, this
probably is due to the staff changes experienced at the district level and
that new personnel may not be familiar with the background. Because our
motives have been questioned due to the lack of understanding, we are
compelled to provide the following:
1. The lands given by the Commonwealth to the Federal Government to establish
Shenandoah National Park specifically voided all rights-of-way for road pur-
poses except for U. S. Highways 211 and 33.
According to the deeds, the Commonwealth transferred ownership of all other
roads and road rights-of-way on those lands to the Federal Government. Absol-
utely no reservations were retained by the Commonwealth for such roads in the
deeds.
2. In 1987-1988, the Virginia Department of Transportation requested specific
additional land from the National Park Service to widen and improve State
Routes 611, 662, and 682 in Page County.
3. Since 1935, the National Park Service at Shenandoah National Park has
allowed the Commonwealth to continue to maintain existing secondary roads on
the fringes of the park that it wished to maintain through documents called
Special Use Permits. The Department of the Interior Solicitor has recently
reviewed the applicable statutes in 16 United States Code and 23 United States
Code and has determined that continuation of such permits is not appropriate.
Special Use Permits may be used only to grant a temporary use of lands in
National Parks. Established roads are not a temporary use and require com-
plete ownership and control of the lands by the user.
4. We asked our Solicitors, our Regional office, and our Washington office
for authorities available to allow these uses requested by the Virginia
Department of Transportation to continue. We have been informed that no
authority exists for the National Park Service to give away dedicated park
land for secondary road purposes. Further, Federal law applicable to lands in
and around Shenandoah National Park does not allow any entity to acquire or
obtain rights-of-way on Federal lands by prescription or historic use. Thus,
no de facto rights-of-way exist simply because the roads were in existence
prior to the establishment of the Park. The only applicable way to transfer
2
land to the Commonwealth for such road purposes is an equal value land
exchange authorized under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 USC
4601-22(b)).
5. In meetings and correspondence with you and your staff, we have informed
the Department that we could only provide the needed land through an equal
value exchange and that an environmental assessment of the impacts of these
projects on the park would also be required by law. The National Environ-
mental Policy Act requires at least an environmental assessment on projects
that may be controversial or in cases where property will be transferred from
a National Park. We must ensure to the public that no significant park values
will be derogated through any actions we take.
6. The Virginia Department of Transportation subsequently suggested that
other secondary roads in other counties should be addressed to solve the issue
region-wide around Shenandoah National Park. We agreed with this approach and
suggested that all proposed actions be consolidated and dealt with under one
EIS and one land exchange.
7. The transfer of lands for secondary road purposes is solely for the
benefit of the citizens of the counties. The transfer does not expand the
park boundaries or park ownership. It is the only legal method prescribed by
the Congress to continue such use.
8. The decision about how the land transfer is to be paid for is one solely
for the Virginia Department of Transportation to make.
9. Some individuals have suggested that Congress could pass a law to solve
the road issue. This certainly could resolve the problem, although in the
past Congressional committees generally have not supported actions that could
be precedent-setting or that could lead to the derogation of existing park
values.
9. You have verified that the Virginia Department of Transportation is in the
process of acquiring similar highway rights-of-way throughout the state
involving several other National Park Service areas. As at Shenandoah, the
Virginia Department of Transportation is using equal value exchange authority
with these other areas, since this is the only legal means available.
10. When asked for suggestions for land that would contribute to park
purposes at Shenandoah National Park that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation might acquire for exchange purposes, we recommended the land in
Greene County already purchased by The Conservation Fund from a willing
seller. We had already indicated to The Conservation Fund that we would
accept a donation of this land to the park. We were not a party in the
negotiation for this land between the Virginia Department of Transportation
and The Conservation Fund and have no knowledge of the terms of the contract.
11. At the time of the earlier discussions, four involved Virginia Department
of Transportation District Engineers seemed to be aware of your plans and of
the actions as they occurred. However, changes in district staffing occurred
in 1991, and the new staffs apparently have not been fully informed of those
plans and actions. As stated earlier, criticisms and misunderstandings have
resulted from the district Virginia Department of Transportation offices not
providing complete and accurate information to the parties interested in this
issue.
12. You have indicated that the Greene County parcel also will be used to
compensate for the loss of park lands to the Commonwealth for widening U. S.
Highway 340 at the northern entrance to the park in Warren County. The
requirement for this equal value exchange is commonly understood by interested
3
parties in Warren County. It has been supported strongly by the Congressional
delegation who assisted in developing the agreements related to this project.
This information is provided to set the record straight and to assist you and
others in explaining to the public the statutory requirements for the equal
value exchange to authorize continuation of secondary road use of park lands,
and the rationale for why the proposed exchange should proceed. If you have
any questions, contact me or Sandy Rives at 703/999-3400.
cc:
Hon. James Olin, Attn.: Reed Franklin
Hon. George Allen, Attn.: Rick Richardson
Hon. John Warner, Attn.: H. Christine Vaughan
Hon. Charles S. Robb, Attn.: Rick Kahlenberg
Hon. Edgar S. Robb
Hon. John J. Davies
Fred Wagner, Virginia Department of Transportation
Chairman, Boards of Supervisors
Greene County Record
Madison Eagle
Daily News Record
Bill Gimbel
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Ct-tiAUUAAA ~ / 9 q i~
T (J j
~ Cf)(tJoo~G4-d-~)
I '~
AGENDA ITEM NAME - G -0 5 (J;m 1/ 'I,~ 15
~ t" A r;~" 5, &, t~ (W f1I!J-. tD. ~144 (J1t.1!:VKil WL '1fl&UlLt fltYiLJ
~ () ~ (/
OF J) 19(}:~
DEFERRED UNTIL
DATE
Form. 3
7/25/86
DATE ~t1WJ1;U~ g) (q 9,~
AGENDA ITEM NO. 38. J ,;). J I " t.~ 15 ,
'-Puvl tc H e_{Lrcvr~
AGENDA ITEM NAME S p, q J -39 \V f I J j ~ ~la~, Hco v~p-
DEFERRED UNTIL
A- (2&11
)5, \CjQ'6
I
Form. 3
7/25/86
DATE 'f-WiJJUi '/\ /0 '1 ~
u j
AGENDA ITEM NO. q I. 0 7D.:.5 '" 134-
AGENDA ITEM HAIlE 0"P-q'L -it 4Wc-wI ,fk.Ll 8!1{JIL~t
DEFERRED UNTIL UfW L S; J qq J-
Form. 3
7/25/86
.
~
DATE
-T.~ ~ /99)-
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9:;!., ?J / cJ F: I
AGENDA ITEM NAME 1:P~~ ~~ - 5d/.,; /
~~ ~~~
----c:;;r-~~_7 / ~ /~9 /
DEFERRED UNTIL
Form. 3
7/25/86
.
"-
.
REIAll- .. DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENT
): The Daily Progress
""'\0 Road
.",larlottesvillel VA 22901
Bill: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesvillel VA 22901-4596
Telephone 296-5843
_EASE RUN ON THE FOllOWING DATE(S)
December 24, 1991
Dprpmnpr 11. 1991
::lEC I Al I NSTRUCTI ONS: JAMES DEAN - Please run in a box 3" wide by whatever length
is needed to get the words in. Please use the County seal.
) the person who receives this ad for the Daily Progress. Please see that this
j gets to the person who is in charge of Legal Display Advertising for Albemarle
)unty. RECEIVED BY TIME DATE
NOT ICE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CITIZENS
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 22.1-29.1, this will give notice
that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will receive the
views of citizens within the school district (Albemarle County) on
the appointment of members to represent the Rivanna, Scottsville
and White Hall Districts, and to serve as the member at-large on
the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD at its meeting on January 8,
1992. The Code provides that no nominee or applicant whose name
has not been considered at a public hearing shall be appointed as
a school board member. The meeting begins at 7:00 P.M., and will
be held in Room 7 of the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Applications for these positions were solicited through separate
advertisements.
Further information may be obtained by calling the Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors at 296-5843.
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
.""llJ
.".. "
The Below Named Individual Wished To
Express Their Support For Julian Bivins
As He Seeks The At Large Seat On
Albemarle School Board
Laura Coleman
501 Fauloner Drive
Tom Boeke
501 Fauloner Drive
El~sa Brown
501 Fauloner Drive
Elva Hollands
927 Manchester Court
Carol L~ndsey
1620 Maiden Lane
Jacqueline Diggs
1880 Lambs Road
Rev. Threadis Jones
2403 Peyton Drive
L~ndley Dupree
530 B Stage Coach Rd
Mr. & Mrs. Cornelious Palmer
2413 Commonwealth Drive
Mr & Mrs. Charlie Anderson
Rt 14, Box 10
Mr. & Mrs. Brian LaFontaine
Woodland Farms
Mr. & Mrs. steven Golden
Rt 640 Boy. 526
A. Scott Williams
Rte. 250, Shadwell
Michael Cordell
91 Mill Creek Court
Mary Peterson
Lake Forest Estates
Dan Tilley
2603 Hydraulic Road
Susan Frantz
2435 Earlysville Road
Janet Hurst
Rt. 641, Barboursville
Helen Plaisance
SR 720
Rev. Beverly A. Walker
North Garden
Beverly Bivins
1880 Lambs Road
Hannah Twaddell
Charlottesville
Mildred and Armstead Robinson
540 Arrowhead Court
Thomas and Dayna Matthew
Rt. 678
Laura Yergan
Rte. 250, Kesw~ck
Ann Friend Clark
1584 Garden Court
t:IfJN/?/? c/ IZ6 &O(.D~J
\/:rfo ~c;xc:' ;;?c/'
<!M/y<;iv/ J /e- ;;;
.,---~ 'T;>
JGI?J, fo"/Z
Rf </ j!3cx C) y~ 8
C~,u-/u (6 eSI/ ,II€-
,.
/
/ I /,
l.-./\J,
, t.c, ! / ./; '..~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -4596
(804) 2965823
February 13, 1992
'-
,
Minor W. Eager
Rt. I, Box 550
Troy, VA 22974
RE:' SP-91-61 Minor W. Eager
Tax Map 7, Parcels 39, 40, and 40A
Dear Mr. Eager:
At Mr. Walter Perkins request, I am writing in response to
your letter to Mr. Perkins of January 26, 1992. In that
letter, you raise concern regarding the condition of approval
for your stream crossing special use permit referenced
above. You state your objection "to such a random removal
of my legal division rights." You ask "if there is any way
to retrieve my legal subdivision rights?"
The condition as unanimously approved by the Board of
Supervisors on January 8, 1992 states:
1. No further subdivision of parcels 39, 40, and 40A,
without approval bv the Board of Supervisors (emphasis
added).
The Board imposed this condition to retain the opportunity
to review any SUbdivision as to its relationship to the
bridge and the increased trips created by the SUbdivision.
The condition does not, however, remove any subdivision
rights. It does subject the exercise of these rights to the
Board's review and approval. Therefore, there have been no
division rights removed by this condition.
.k~ K /Y/7~
LEAGUE OF
WOMEN
VOTERS
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
TO: Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County
RE: Minor Eager Creek Crossing - Buck Nt. Creek
HEARING: January 8, 1992
For some time we have been concerned about the increase in the
number of applications for special permits for a flood plain stream
crossing. We note that the staff has tried to discourage crossings
where other access is possible.
However, the case before you tonight is different: fi ve
corrugated metal culverts are already in place - in violation of
the zoning ordinance requirement of a special permit for
construction of a stream crossing. The staff recommends approval
of the crossing only because removal would cause more harm than
allowing it to remain.
There was no opportunity to review the impact of the
construction on the floodway, or to consider the cumulative effect
of a number of crossings along a particular stream segment. There
is at least one other crossing downstream.
What makes this violation more serious is that it occurs
within the watershed of the planned Buck Mt. Reservoir. We wish
to echo the concern of the Water Resources Manager, who stated in
his Nov. 19, 1991 memo, "Numerous stream crossings along Buck Mt.
Creek are not supportive of watershed protection for the future
Buck Nt. Reservoir". strategies for the protection of water
quality in the Buck Nt. watershed included the tributaries of not
only Buck Mt. Creek but also of Piney Creek.
When the reservoir was planned, the consultants, Camp,
Dresser, and McKee, estimated the water quality status for the
impoundment. They "assumed that no further development will occur
in the watershed upstream from the impoundment" and warned that
development in the Piney Creek watershed would cause water quality
in that watershed to deteriorate below that of the Rivanna
Reservoir. Development is occurring upstream from the reservoir
site, as requests for stream crossings attest.
In order to be consistent in the enforcement of the zoning
ordinance for stream crossings not only in the sensitive watershed
of Buck Nt. Creek but also for the protection of water quality and
habitat preservation in other county streams, we urge the Board to
develop the kind of policy Peyton Robertson recommends in his
November memo.
League of Women Voters li8/92
Minor Eager Creek Crossing - Buck Mt. Creek
(cont'd) 2
He proposed that "The County should consider developing a
policy on stream crossings that includes coordination with the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Virginia Water Control Board,
and Army Corps of Engineers."
It seems to us that such a policy could require not only
compliance with federal and state laws but also with the Water
Resources Preservation Ordinance. (We know that such compliance
is often included in the "Recommended Conditions for Approval but
we are not certain that the applicant is aware of it when he first
petitions.) other criteria could include, for example, design of
bridges and culverts to provide access during a 100-year flood and
to support fire trucks.
A stream crossing can change forever the nature of the flood
plain it crosses. We need to stress that its construction should
not be taken lightly. A statement of policy would emphasize the
importance of keeping flood plain lands free from activity that is
a threat to life and property and degrades water resources.
Therefore, we urge the Board to develop a statement and adopt
a policy for stream crossings.
Thank you.
Distributed to Board: I /3/:; )-
.~ I 1 q
Agenda Item No. Cl: r (J/ (' I '
f
~OUNrY OF AtBE~MRle
-~" ---.. '--'- r-'C. ,.'. r-- r-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296.5823
i , )..,:....,:.,.-. ; ,__~:.L,..L'~~:1~ ! r1
J!I !,~""', 1992 iii I
., t\ \..",.:'1 U '::, :~j
II \ \ h,......._, """.,....-,..""'.....) I '
U \J L~: ~:~:') L~~~ U \) iJ::J '..vi
jQAR1LQL.S~PERVISORS
December 4, 1991
Minor Eager
Route 1, Box 550
Troy, VA 22974
RE: SP-91-61 Minor Eager
Dear Mr. Eager:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
December 3, 1991, by a vote of 5:0:1, recommended approval
of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on January 8, 1991. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
V/L~f7;7k-.
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/mem
cc: Lettie E. Neher
,
-----:-__ I
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
DECEMBER 3, 1991
JANUARY 8, 1992
SP-91-61 MINOR EAGER
Petition: Minor Eager petitions the Board of Supervisors to
permit a stream crossing in the floodplain of a tributary of
Buck Mountain Creek [30.3.5.2.1]. Property, described as
Tax Map 7, Parcels 39, 40, and 40A, is located on the west
side of Rt. 601 approximately 0.6 miles north of the
intersection of Routes 671 and 601 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area I).
Character of the Area: The crossing proposed by this
application is currently in place. The crossing was
constructed in the spring of 1991 in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. A photograph showing the
crossing is included as Attachment C. The crossing serves
an existing dwelling located on Parcel 40. A previously
approved bridge is located on this same stream near Route
601. That crossing was approved with SP-90-50 Donnie Dunn.
A map showing the location of these two bridges is included
as Attachment D. The road which access the existing
dwelling crosses both the Dunn bridge and the crossing
currently under review.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The crossing consists of five
corrugated metal culverts which are 36 inches in diameter.
There are no visible signs of deterioration to the crossing.
The road that this crossing serves is in place.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: The existing crossing was
constructed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The
Zoning Department has provided a history of the violation
(Attachment E). No other history is available for the site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan states a number
of concerns for activity in the floodplain including
"Encroachment into floodplain lands by development and other
inappropriate uses can result in increased danger to life,
health and property; public costs for flood control
measures, rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion,
sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources,
and general degradation of the natural and man-made
1
environment." (1989-2010 Comprehensive Plan, page 61). The
Comprehensive Plan states as a strategy to preserve water
quality "Restrict all clearing, grading and construction
activities to the minimum required for the proposed
development." (page 67).
STAFF COMMENT:
The applicant owns three parcels in this area, Parcels 39,
40 and 40A. There is one existing dwelling which is located
on Parcel 40. Parcels 39 and 40A have access off of Route
601 by a private road that crosses a previously approved
stream ,crossing near Route 601 (SP~90-50 Donnie Dunn). In
lieu of the requested stream crossing, Parcel 40 and its
dwelling have access off of Route 687. This access road is
more rugged than the access with the stream crossing to
Route 601, but does provide access by passenger vehicles.
The entrance to Route 687 is, poor. However, this access
does not involve the crossing of any streams.
The applicant has submitted data on the bridge which has
been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department
(Attachment F). This data indicates that the crossing
complies with the technical requirements 'of the Zoning
Ordinance. Comments by the Water Resource Manager are
included as Attachment G. Staff does not recommend that the
existing crossing be removed' due to the amount of damage
that would result during its removal. However, it is
unlikely that staff would have originally supported a
request to construct this crossing due to the existence of
an access road that does not require the crossing of a
stream. This crossing does not provide access to any
parcels which do not otherwise have access.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff generally discourages stream crossings where they can
be avoided. As previously noted, it appears this stream
crossing was not the only alternative for access to the
subject properties. Staff is recommending that the crossing
be approved due only to the fact that the crossing is in
place and its removal would likely result in more
degradation than permitting the crossing to remain. No
conditions are required to assure that the crossing is
constructed properly as the crossing is in place and the
Engineering Department has already approved the hydrologic
study. t
2
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Photo of Crossing
D - Map Showing Bridge Locations
E - Letter from the- Zoning Department Detailing the
Violation History
F Engineering Department Comment
G - Water Resource Manager Comment
,
3
~
c::: Cl ~ ~
... Z :D
0 ~ )>
... " < 1II
." m m c:::
)> :D 0 r-'f :II
... 0 i
11: < tP 1II ~ ~
0 ,.
;= IS 0 ." :II
m :D F m '"
)> ~ m m !I:
Cl ... 0 i"
m 0
~ .. .. .. co "
. ..
... w .. .. ... -
.. 8 co :\:013 :::
... ...
co ..
~ w .. .. "
j t -
... .. w
~ s ? Cl ..
.. .
co z: . E ...
i!l ~ :::
.. :: ~ w ~ ~
.. w
c: ... ~ :J:
Z i5 ,.
... 1II :J: ~~
c:::
0 :D ...
... ." 1II
,.
... ,. c::: ~~ ~
0 :D
11: m ." ffi~
;= 0 ,. ."
0 :DO m
m m ;!!m
)>
Cl
m :D
."
~
i .. .. ..
~ ... .. g ~
co co
:s co ~ .. U; ~
.. co
.. - - '" ;;;
... .. " 0 '"
... N ... !" " S
:.., N :.., Cl <0
'" " .. "
JO .. ... ..
'~ .. ~
.. .. ..
.. .. <; ... ~ .;.
... 0 .. 0
... 5 ..
. 0 ... ... ~
.. . w
a; ~ 2 S i!l ...
0
... ;:;
.. .. i ~
~ 0 .. ...
... :s ~ Ii :: ~
.
- .. ;;;
" -
uo - '" ... ~
!" 0 !lD ~ 01
g '" ill 01
0 '" - en en
~ ... ~ 2
... 0 ~ ... ...
~ <> " u; ...
0 ... 0 ..
...
o
;:
...
"
...
't
.
"l
IATTACHMENT A
m
,.
g
m
Z
...
:J:
m
(')
o
c
z
...
'"
,.
II>
o
...
Cl
m
(')
...
..
..
,~
~
~
V
o
V
G
~
601
Ii
~
.
..
..
..
i:
i"
m
II>
~
~"t"
~~
*-'
c.,
o
~
~
/...
~
.::,
o
u
<:r
/...
c.,
.::,
(:}
t .::,
<:r
'i'''''
",,'"
0"
,.!'
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
,
I,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
,J
IATTACHMENT B\
/~
, 4 ['
\ "
/-
." '
'j'-.L..
6
--r--, I
I --,;
I "'
\
. Denotes location of stream
crossing
16
I.~..
WHITE HALL DISTRICT
SECTION, 7 ~ - -'
SCA~E tN FEET
.00 II.. '.00 t."
- .
.
.
.
IATTACHMENT cl
! .)... -I
~ I .;
N "'I Q::.
',- "~' 'j':';~:;L;;:;~.~~'~:~~P\~~;~~;:::;1;:;t~t~1f~~:~2.t~~:Z:~;~:~7:i':::~~~:~~~';:'::'>'~~:"~,-;::::,.~
-...:.-
~
t
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
.I~
:t:~
ci~
~
I
LW
o
'to
~
~
-
I -
- ~
~}:\..
\ , q;:,
o..~ o.
\J~ _
?=I
"- .,; .
\ .
'\ ~
\ .' '-
"':Y~/l.t>G~ t-I~/O~
. - -~..-~ ~.'. ........'
(, .
~/~)
......... ~ /1
~ ... .._/-;~ ,1 ~
-:OJ ~, /I (
-"~~ )
" ~""-" .../]
'----'
-~ ....../"
---..-...--.... '",.....--'-
,--~, ')
'- '---- ( I~--:J
"'~~'~'/-<~':/
...-~..-..-.'
\.
-'~ ~ \.
../ '
, ~r:':-.,
<'
,;?~
"~~'
~r
IATTACHMENT D:
,3 '. ,un " '
(" "
. '.' --- ''"--, .,.-
. -~ 'alO:
; .~ l ~,~
: ~-=-.r? )
Mo~n~~~0?\
... \ r)
", \ ~/ _:~
..,,\~~) ~) I )
~~--l~'-/ ) "\
'---'/ ( -~ ..
i:'-
'~I
- 1\..
-.......
A .:-
~",,-~
A
t. ....
'. .'....
-_._-~
~
-::-
~
- --
'-,
. ~......
-~\_:=
r'"'='C'
I,
\I
'.
\I
,...c \\
o II
..~ ,,:-,: -;.:-:-~..I,<'---
----'~-- .
-. -' -
, J..t ---
~ ~_~o_ ~ .___:
.:--:.... -~---- I~-
,~
/ .<...... ')
i,/ '-~-'---...,
)~'-")
\ -'
"/
\\) 1,1 'i",,'i'/' _
~/"!:ll\'" '
, / ">, <:
".'-/ - ""'''''''>-A'~
I _~.-/:
C'....e .-:;....,1.,' .,',~~~~, ~\"
'.,e{- I F '-~
'-":":"'~~ ' ,// 11 _
-"t, ",: -~./ V '
;;.>.~.'
IATTACHMENT EI
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Thomas N. Eaton, zoning Inspector~
November 25, 1991
RE: Status Report on V-91-53 Minor Eager
Mr. Minor W. Eager has been informed that he is in violation of
Sections 30.3.3.2, 30.3.5.2.1, and 31.2.4 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance by his failing to obtain the required special
permits for construction of a stream crossing in the flood plain
and water course of Buck Mountain Creek.
Since receiving Notice of Violation, Mr. Eager has retained a
certified engineer and presented a hydrologic report of his
crossing. Mr. Eager has also applied for a special permit as
required. SP-91-61 is still pending review by appropriate agents
of the County.
TE/sp
......- .
.-.::.:-:,,~ ;.:'~.':"
\~,Q;'~\?>: \,
'\'" ~ '"
~, .. <...
..'/;"::.;;::1&
-) ~~\
'I pJ .- ".;
",("\\
>~. ~~:F ~:\,\;::,,"
~,
i; "
IATTACHMENT E,IPage 21
CHRONOLOGY OF MINOR EAGER - STREAM CROSSING
August 8, 1991
August 13, 1991
August 15, 1991
August 19, 1991
August 21, 1991
August 30, 1991
During the
period of
september 01 to
september 10, 1991
september 10, 1991
september 16, 1991
COMPLAINT
CP-91-121
This inspector received "rumor" that 'a stream
crossing on Buck Mountain Creek has been built
without permits. It was alleged "...to be
visible from state Route 687 or state Route
601.
This Inspector carefully patrolled both state
Route 687 and 601 for signs of a new stream
crossing. None were found to be visible from
state roads.
Further consultation with Deputy Zoning
Administrator relays "rumor" that "new" bridge
is plainly visible from the deck of Donnie
Dunn's stream crossing.
Zoning Inspectors stop atop Dunn's bridge, but
no other crossing construction is visible.
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Dunn and is directed to the
the "new" stream crossing.
confirmed.
speaks with Donnie
internal site of
Location is
Zoning Inspectors visit site of stream
crossing to determine if violator lives in the
area. Tenant confirms that the violator, Mr.
Minor Eager, lives at Route 1, Troy, VA.
This Inspector discusses violation with
Robert Shaw, Soil Erosion Officer, Wayne
Smith, from Engineering Dept., Planning
Dept. personnel and Ms. Amelia Patterson
Zoning Administrator. All of these officials
will become involved in resolving this
this violation.
Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner, returns
from vacation.
This Inspector returns from a brief Holiday.
september 18, 1991 Formal Notice of Violation is prepared and
clerical staff is requested to prepare and,
post inspector's certified violation letter to
Mr. Eager.
.. .
IATTACHMENT E, Page 3\
November 25, 1991
Minor Eager, SP-91-61
Page 2
september 26, 1991 certified violation notice is picked up from
postal authorities by agent for Mr. Eager.
september 27, 1991 Mr. Minor Eager telephones this inspector to
set up a meeting with Planning and Engineering
Departments. To complete application for
special permit for existing stream crossing.
October 01, 1991 A meeting is held between Mr. Eager, Mr. Wayne
smith of Engineering, Mr. William Fritz of
Planning Dept. and this inspector to prepare
Mr. Eager's application for SP-91-61. At this
meeting Mr. Eager is informed that he will be
required to submit a hydrologic report from a
certified engineer on the already constructed
crossing.
October 17, 1991 Engineering Dept. receives hydrologic report
on Mr. Eager's site from W. Thomas Muncaster,
Jr., P . E .
October 18, 1991 Completed "SP" application pending staff
reports and review by appropriate agents of
the County.
Respectfully submitted at request of william Fritz, senior
Planner.
(ATTACHMENT F\
I~' m,\,:",."~l1~.[1q~' ~
... ,." '-';. . ,Ii! \~
, ' .....'.'-"' "'J ~,
,:OV 19 1991
PLANNING DIVISION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
-
TO: Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM: Wayne A. Smith, Sr., Civil Engineer II J/J
DATE: November 20, 1991
RE: Minor Eager Creek Crossing - Buck Mountain Creek
(SP-91-61)
Mr. Eager constructed a creek crossing and was advised by his
adjacent property owner that a special use permit was required.
He then had drawings made and applied for his permit. Muncaster
Engineering submitted hydrologic calculations. The crossing will
raise the 100 year flood plan approximately 0.34 ft. which is
less than the one (1) ft. maximum which meets the Zoning
Ordinance 30.3.2.1.a. Therefore, this department supports the
above referenced special use request.
WAS/vlh
It
IATTACHMENT GI
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
40 1 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-41596
<8041 296.15841
MEMORANDUM
TO:
william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM:
J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Water Resources Manager
A~L.
November 19, 1991 -~ - ~'
DATE:
RE:
SP91-61 - Minor Eager stream Crossing of Buck
Mountain Creek
Based on our site visit
feel that the removal of the
promote water quality goals.
was constructed without prior
of November 14, 1991, I do not
existing crossing would serve to
I understand that this crossing
approval of the County.
What concerns me most is that this crossing was
constructed without prior issuance of a special use permit. It
is my understanding that one of the purposes of reviewing
stream crossings (in addition to Engineering Department review
for impact on the floodway) is to consider the cumulative impact
of a number of crossings along a particular stream segment.
This crossing is in close proximity to the Dunn crossing
downstream. Proliferation of numerous crossings could pose
problems to trout and other aquatic life in terms of habitat
and migration.
The County should consider developing a policy on stream
crossings that includes coordination with the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, Virginia Water Control Board and Army
Corps of Engineers. Local approval of crossings does not
necessarily mean that the applicant is in compliance with state
and federal law.
Numerous stream crossings along Buck Mountain Creek are
not supportive of watershed protection for the future Buck
Mountain Creek Reservoir. Future crossings should be reviewed
with water quality and habitat preservation goals in mind.
ws91-180
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
REQUEST FOR AGENDA OF
Agenda Item No. Cld,{)/D8..IO (Note: This number does
not change if this item is deferred to some future date.
This sheet is moved forward with all aperwork.)
dt;~J
a~
d!U;/~ #lUt/~;y~
,
Item Name
presentor
(For County Executive's information, please note name of
person who will be making presentation to the Board.)
Request Made By ./cf/e:-n 5c4/Y/~:5~t/J
On (Date) 9'7,;;'-7/ #9
/
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE: / c:; /l1 //1/ ,~
This form is to be used when scheduling an item for a Board
of Supervisors' agenda. This form will NOT be distributed
to anyone, but is intended only for use by the Clerk in
scheduling the agenda. Please fill out one copy of this
work sheet (it may be handwritten) and return with the orig-
inal of any paperwork you wish to have forwarded to the Board.
For Clerk's Use:
Appointment Confirmed with (name)
On (Date)
By (Name)
Telephone? Mail?
Materials Received with Requ~st? (Yes)
Materials Photocopied?
(No)
Note: On appeal of site plans or subdivision plats, be sure
to include Planning Commission minutes with paperwork.
Form. 2
7/')n/o~
lP
~,
Citizens for Albemarle, Inc~OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Box 3751 . Univ~rs~~ Station fJ .[J.:~~,~I\~~~
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 ,I~ JAN 1 ~) !:'':!~ -rd
'\G I
, I
, -:::'7-CS Lr1J-- it
STATEMENT TO BE MADE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERtlt~DOFSUPERVISO'iS
BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
This evening I'd like to report briefly on a grassroots effort to preserve
the outstanding historic resources in Albemarle County, and to request that you
direct the Department of Planning and Community Development to begin formal
consideration of an Historic Preservation Ordinance for Albemarle County.
As a result of continuing growth and development in the County, the
preservation of our community's historic resources has become a critical concern
for many. Our committee was formed to expedite the objectives of the Comprehen-
sive Plan, which recommends the establishment of an historic preservation
committee "to devise a preservation plan for the county, encourage community
interest, advise property owners, gather and maintain information, and promote
voluntary measures." The Comprehensive Plan further notes that, "Regulatory
measures are necessary to insure an effective historic preservation program."
A survey was sent to all owners of properties listed on the Virginia Historic
Landmarks register in Albemarle County in the Fall of 1990; of the 22 owners
responding, 21 supported the concept of an historic preservation ordinance for
Albemarle County.
Our committee has addressed each of the above objectives. Our most
tangible product is a draft historic preservation ordinance, which is the result
of 18 months of committee work, consultation and research, and which has been
reviewed by representatives of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Preservation Alliance of Virginiap the
UVA School of Architecture and University administrators, the Albemarle County
Department of Planning and Community Development, area attorneys interested and
experienced in historic preservation issues, owners of properties listed on the
Virginia Historic Landmarks Register, and several other persons whom we know to
be vitally interested in the preservation of Albemarle County's historic
resources.
I'd like to direct your attention to the Highlights Summary which presents
several special elements in our draft. These result from a full consideration
of what we have come to understand the community would like to see in a
comprehensive historic preservation plan for the Co~ty.
We believe this draft ordinance responds with sensitivity to community
concerns. We urge you to make consideration of the accompanying draft ordinance
a top priority on the staff's work agenda as soon as possible. Thank you.
Helen Schwiesow, Chairperson
Sara Lee Barnes
Paul Burke
Melinda Frierson
Geoffrey Henry
Jared Loewenstein
Steven Meeks
o recycled paper
.
~ t..
DRAFT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Prepared by the
Historic Preservation Committee
of Citizens for Albemarle
Helen Schwiesow, Chairperson
Sara Lee Barnes
Paul Burke
Melinda Frierson
Geoffrey Henry
Jared Loewenstein
Steven Meeks
November 1991
0'
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Highlights Summary
............. II.... II............ II... II.. II.... II..
A. General purpose and intent ........................................
B. App 1 icab i 1 i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . .
C. Historic Preservation Architectural Review Board created ..........
D. Historic Preservation Committee created ...........................
E. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. The Board of Supervisors ......................................
2. The Planning Commission .......................................
3. The Zoning Administrator ......................................
4. The Historic Preservation Architectural Review Board ..........
5. The Historic Preservation Committee ...........................
F. Designation of historic landmarks and historic districts ..........
1. Criteria for designation as an historic landmark ..............
2. Criteria for designation as an historic district ..............
3. Application and approval process including nomination report
G. Financial incentives to encourage designation .....................
1. Tax abatement program .........................................
2. Classification for property tax assessment ....................
3. Federal tax credits for rehabilitation ........................
H. Awards and plaques ................................................
I. Effect of historic designation on existing zoning
classifications and regulations ...................................
J. Certificate of appropriateness required ...........................
1. Substantial alteration...requires certificate of
appropria tenes s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. [Certain minor actions] exempted from review..................
3. Exceptions ere agricultural, horticultural or forestal uses] ...
4. Certificate of appropriateness required from only one ARB .....
5. Application review procedures .................................
K. Alternate procedure: offer to sell................................
L. Inspection by Building Inspector ..................................
M. Undue hardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · . . . .
N. Appeals provision .................................................
O. Enforcement provisions ............................................
P. Penalty provisions ................................................
Q. Separability . . . . . . . . .... .. . ... ..... . . ... . . ... .... . ...... ..... .....
APPENDIX
Defini t ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · . . . . . . . · . . . . .
Criteria for boundary determinations ..............................
Guidelines for review of certificate of appropriateness
app 1 ica t ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · . . . . . · · . . .
Stabilization of historic landmarks and contributing structures ....
Awards and plaques ................................................
Charts
1.
2.
Procedure for historic landark/district designation ......
Procedure for certificate of appropriateness .............
i
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
11
11
11
12
12
13
Al
A3
A4
A8
A9
AI0
All
,.
.
~
i
HIGHLIGHTS SUMMARY
The Comprehensive Plan notes that, "Regulatory measures may address two distinct
aspects of preservation: (1) protecting the historic structure for the public
benefit from neglect, inappropriate exterior alteration, or demolition, and (2)
protecting the setting of the historic structures from incongruous uses for the
benefit of the historic property owner as well as the public. Related benefits
of regulatory measures may include appreciation of property value and increased
state or federal funds for assistance for preservation activities."
While adhering to the relevant enabling legislation and drawing from a number of
ordinances which were reviewed for this project, we are proud to have developed
an ordinance which we believe responds creatively and comprehensively to
Albemarle County's unique character.
As an overview to your reading of the ordinance, we would like to highlight the
following elements:
1) ~ ordinance attempts !2 accomplish its preservation objectives without
onerous regulation of minutiae or overly rigid adherence to historic
authenticity which WOuld preclude comtemporary use of historic sites and
structures. (See Section J.2. and Appendix, page A6; 3.j.) Following the
example of Loudoun County, we have allowed for the Zoning Administrator to waive
the requirement for Certificates of Appropriateness in certain cases where
alteration is primarily for agricultural, horticultural or forestal purposes.
(See Section J.3.) The ordinance also seeks to balance any burden of regulation
such that preservation activities carried out by property owners which benefit
the general welfare of the community-at-large not only result in personal
property enhancement for the owners, but are in some real measure supported by
community resources. (See Incentives, Section G.)
2) No properties ~ automatically designated ~ historic landmarks or
districts along with adoption of ~ ordinance. We considered automatic or
initial designation of those properties within the county which are already
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or on the Virginia Landmarks
Register, but chose rather to draft the ordinance so that these properties would
go through the same designation process as all other eligible properties. This
seemed wisest, .particularly in light of the recent registry of the Southwest
Mountains Rural Historic District. To subsume such a large district within the
county's Historic Preservation Ordinance applicability would be unwieldy, and we
felt that, for local purposes, several discrete areas within the larger
boundaries might rather be nominated for historic district designation.
3) Functions of various regulatory and advisory bodies and personnel were
divided !2 balance ~ work involved in carrying ~ the-pllrposes of the
ordinance without unduly complicating the review process. Specifically, all
applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for properties within
designated historic overlay zones are routed through the Historic Preservation
Architectural Review Board (HPARB) only. Other functions related to inventory,
des,ignation, public education and consultation are given to the Historic
Preservation Committee. The composition of both the HPARB and the Historic
Preservation Committee satisfies the requirements of the Certified Local
..
ii
Government program, as strongly recommended by our committee. Certain functions
are also given to the Zoning Administrator to streamline administration of the
ordinance. We join many others in supporting the allocation of funds to support
staff time called for to carry out appropriately the objectives of this
ordinance.
4) We include a mechanism to support documentation of historic structures if
they-are to be demolished, and ~ emphasis ~ heritage education. These are-
amplifications on the standard historic preservation ordinance.
5) We include guidelines for determinations regarding designation, boundaries,
new construction, alteration; relocation, demolition, signs, parking areas,
landscaping and accessory structures to avoid adoption and implementation of the
ordinance in the absence of such guidelines.
6) Lastly, ~ ~ suggestions related ~ the stabilization ~ maintenance,
versus demolition-by-neglect, ~ historic structures ~ contributing
properties. These suggestions realistically reflect the fact that the owner of
an historic property which falls into disrepair likely does not choose this
course willingly and cannot be forced to spend money he/she doesn't have. We
propose intervention in such cases which may be effective in preserving the
historic resource but which stops short of the often futile regulation found in
most ordinances, and the yet more zealous "takings clause" found in some.
~
1
DRAFT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY - November 1991
A. General Purpose and Intent
Albemarle County contains some of the most historically significant structures and
countryside in the state and nation. It is distinguished by over fifty National
Register properties, three National Historic Landmarks, two properties included on
the World Heritage List, and numerous other structures and sites important to the
general understanding of history in our county.
Therefore:
Whereas, Albemarle's historic resources contribute immeasurably to the county's
heritage and culture, quality of life, land values and tourism economy, and
Whereas, it is to the benefit and welfare of the general public for these resources
to be identified and preserved as a heritage for future generations,
It is therefore the purpose of this ordinance to foster the identification,
stabilization, preservation and restoration of these historic resources; and to
provide for the protection against destruction of, or encroachment upon,
designated county historic landmarks and districts which contribute to the
cultural, social, economic, political, artistic or architectural heritage of
Albemarle County and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
It is also the stated purpose of this ordinance to preserve the surroundings of the
landmark or district within a reasonable distance from destruction, damage,
defacement and obviously incongruous development or uses of land, and to insure that
structures, roadways, bridges, waterways, walkways and signs shall be erected,
reconstructed, altered or restored so as to be architecturally compatible with the
designated historic landmarks or districts.
This ordinance, with its provisions for preservation of historic landmarks and
districts, shall also at all times seek to protect cemetaries and gravesites,
archaeological sites, historic natural and manmade landscape features, and
distinctive rural villages.
2
B. Applicability
The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to historic landmarks and districts
together with adjacent and/or visually relevant land parcels which are
reasonably related to the essential historic character of the landmark or
district, as designated on the county zoning map by the Board of Supervisors.
Such landmarks and districts shall be comprised of:
1. Historically, architecturally or culturally significant structures at least
fifty (50) years old at the time application for designation is made, and/or
2. Sites associated with an historically or architecturally significant event,
natural feature, activity, or work of art which is at least fifty (50)
years old, or sites associated with an historically or culturally
significant person who has been deceased for at least fifty (50) years at
the time application for designation is made, and/or
3. Other structures or sites of truly exceptional cultural or architectural
significance.
C. Historic Preservation Architectural Review Board Created
A Historic Preservation Architectural Review Board (hereinafter follows HPARB)
is hereby created, consisting of five (5) qualified residents of Albemarle
County, with a demonstrated interest, competence or knowledge in historic
preservation. Of the members appointed, one (1) shall be a licensed
architect or an arhitectural historian; at least two (2) members shall have
professional training or equivalent experience in one of the following
disciplines: architecture, history, architectural history, archaeology,
landscape architecture, or planning; and one (1) shall have significant
knowledge in local history.
1. Terms and procedures: Members shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years
and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. Initial
appointments shall be for three (3) members for four (4) years and two (2)
members for two (2) years. The meetings of the HPARB shall be held at
the call of its chairman or at such times as a quorum of its members
shall determine. All records of official actions shall become part of the
permanent records of the HPARB.
D. Historic Preservation Committee Created
A Historic Preservation Committee (hereinafter follows HPC) is hereby created,
consisting of five (5) qualified residents of Albemarle County, with a
3
demonstrated interest, competence or knowledge in historic preservation.
Of the members appointed, one (1) shall be a licensed architect or an
architectural historian; two (2) members shall have professional training or
equivalent experience in one of the following disciplines: architecture,
history, architectural history, archaeology, landscape architecture, or planning;
one (1) shall have significant knowledge in local history; and one (1) shall
demonstrate interest in heritage education.
1. Terms and procedures: Members shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years
and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. Initial
appointments shall be for three (3) members for four (4) years and two (2)
members for two (2) years. The meetings of the committee shall be held at
the call of its chairman or at such times as a quorum of the committee
shall determine. All records of official actions shall become part of the
permanent records of the committee.
E. Administration
Responsibilities related to achieving the purposes of this ordinance are divided
as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors:
a. Create and make appointments to the HPARB and to the HPC.
b. Designate historic landmarks and historic districts together with
their specified boundaries of applicability.
c. Designate historic landmarks and specific structures within historic
districts to receive award status by virtue of the property's level
of maintenance and historic integrity. (See Appendix.)
2. The Planning Commission:
a. Propose and recommend designation of historic landmarks and
districts, following the procedures for amending local zoning codes,
as established in the VA Code 15.1-493.
3. The Zoning Administrator:
a. Receive applications for certificates of appropriateness, forward such
applications to the HPARB, and notify adjoining property owners.
b. May grant a waiver of the need for a certificate of appropriateness
when the proposed alteration or new construction relates to forestal,
agricultural or horticultural purposes. (See Section J.3.)
4
4. The HPARB:
a. Act on applications for certificates of appropriateness as required
for major alteration, new construction, demolition or relocation of
historic landmarks, or within historic districts and their environments
subject to the provisions of this ordinance.
5. The HPC:
a. Conduct and maintain an inventory of local historic resources having
the potential for designation as historic landmarks or districts.
b. Recommend to the Planning Commission (with supporting data) structures,
sites and environments for designation as historic landmarks or
districts.
c. Recommend to the Board of Supervisors historic landmarks and specific
structures within historic districts which merit award status by virtue
of the property's level of maintenance and historic integrity.
d. Conduct an educational program on historic properties subject to the
provisions of this ordinance.
e. Seek out funds for historic preservation and recommend to the Board of
Supervisors the most appropriate uses of any funds acquired (surveys,
award plaques, restoration grants, etc.).
f. Provide expert advice when called upon by the Board of Supervisors,
the Planning Commission, or the HPARB.
g. Advise property owners regarding stabilization of historic landmarks
and contributing structures. (See Appendix.)
F. Designation of historic landmarks and historic districts
1. Criteria for designation as historic landmark: An historic landmark is a
structure or site, including the environment necessary for the proper
appreciation or use thereof, deemed worthy of preservation by reason of
value to its immediate locale, to Albemarle County or to the State of
Virginia for one or more of the following reasons:
a. It is an outstanding example of a structure representative of its era.
b. It is one of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style.
c. It is a structure or site associated with an event, person, natural
feature, activity, or work of art which is of historic or cultural
significance.
5
2. Criteria for designation as an historic district: An historic district
is a geographically definable area which contains structures, sites, or a
combination thereof, which:
a. Have special character or special historic/aesthetic value or interest;
or
b. Represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one
or more eras in the history of the county or state; and
c. Cause such area, by reason of such factors, to constitute a visibly
distinctive section of the county.
An historic district may include either individual historic landmarks of
such character, and a reasonable distance beyond, or it may include areas
or groupings of structures and sites which have significance relative to
their pattern of development or social and economic or architectural
interrelationships even though some elements in the area might not possess
significant merit when considered alone. In any case the location of the
district shall be based on careful studies which describe the characteris-
tics of the area and support the purposes of conservation and preservation.
3. Application and approval process, including nomination report:
a. Application for designation as historic landmark or district may be
recommended by the HPC, or eligible properties may be brought to the
attention of this committee by an historical society, neighborhood
association, interested citizen(s), or property owner(s).
b. The HPC, or the committee in cooperation with other submitting party or
parties, will prepare a nomination report to be forwarded to the
Planning Commission for its recommendation. Such report shall also be
used to educate the community and to provide a permanent record of
designation or denial, and shall include:
(1) A graphic representation of the location of landmarks, structures
or sites of particular historic value as well as the boundaries
of the total proposed area to be included within the designation.
(2) A written statement documenting the particular historic attributes
of the area proposed for designation, and describing the historic
and/or architectural significance of the structures or sites to be
protected.
"
r
6
G.
(3) The report may also include recommendations concerning land near
and visually related to the proposed historic landmark or district
but only for the express purpose of minimizing change which would
be architecturally incompatible with the structures or sites to be
be preserved or which would destroy natural features which
currently enhance the area to be protected.
c. The Planning Commission shall respond to nomination for designation to
historic landmark or district status fOllowing the procedures for
amending local zoning codes, as established in the VA Code 15.1-493,
and shall forward its comments, with the application, to the Board of
Supervisors.
d. The Board of Supervisors, taking into consideration data from the
foregoing (F.3.b. and F.3.c.), will approve or deny designation. If
approved, the property shall be added to the county's historic landmark
register and assigned a number.
e. Moratorium on applications for alteration or demolition while considera-
tion of designation is pending: once a nomination report has been
submitted to the Planning Commission for its recommendation, the
Commission shall freeze the status of the involved property until a
determination as to designation has been made by the Board of
Supervisors.
Financial incentives to encourage designation
1. Tax abatement program: Structures designated as historic landmarks or as
contributing properties may qualify for a property tax abatement when the
property owner rehabilitates the structure for residential or commercial
use at a cost of 40% or greater of the pre-rehabilitation value. In such
cases, the partial tax exemption shall equal the increase in assessed value
resulting from the rehabilitation, shall commence on January 1st of the
year following completion of the rehabilitation, and shall remain in effect
for eight (8) years provided that:
a. Application for such tax abatement is made prior to beginning the
rehabilitation activity; and
b. The appropriate building permits and certificate of appropriateness
have been acquired, and completion of the rehabilitation indicated ii
the initial application is verified; and
7
c. The property remains in the ownership of the party initially applying
for such tax abatement, or his/her heirs; and
d. The structure having been rehabilitated is at least 25 years of age.
e. The abatement shall not apply in any case where rehabilitation is
achieved through demolition and replacement of a previously designated
historic landmark or contributing structure.
2. Classification for property tax assessment: Real estate used to preserve or
provide for an historic landmark is hereby added to the list of special land
use classifications (forestal, agricultural, and open space) for county tax
assessment purposes.
3. Federal tax credits for rehabilitation: With the adoption of this ordinance,
property owners of locally-designated historic landmarks used for income-
producing purposes can qualify for available federal tax credits, currently
up to 20% of rehabilitation expenditures.
H. Awards and plaques
Designated historic landmarks are eligible for award status based on their level
of maintenance and historic integrity. (See Appendix.)
I. Effect of historic designation on existing zoning classifications and
regulations
1. Designation as historic landmark or historic district shall constitute an
overlay zone and as such shall be in addition to existing zoning designa-
tions and the regulations appropriate thereto.
2. Permitted uses: Uses permitted by right and by special use permit shall
include all uses permitted by right and by special use permit respectively
in the underlying districts, except that uses involving outdoor storage,
display and/or sales shall be by special use permit. This provision shall
not apply to residential, agricultural, horticultural or forestal uses.
3. Notification of historic designation: Hritten notification of designation
as an historic landmark or district shall be sent within thirty (30) days
to the owners and occupants of the properties so designated, apprising them
of the need to obtain a certificate of appropriateness prior to any
substantial alteration in the appearance of the landmark or within the
historic district. Guidelines specifying what constitutes "substantial
alteration" (as defined in Sections J.1. through J.3. below) shall be
included with such notification.
8
J. Certificate of appropriateness required
1. Substantial alteration of the existent character of the designated
historic landmark or district such as the following requires a
certificate of appropriateness (hereinafter follows CA):
a. Demolition or relocation of an historic landmark or of a contributing
structure within an historic district overlay zone.
b. New construction, excepting that described in Sec. J.2. below.
c. Reconstruction, alteration or restoration of a structure's character-
defining features, including removal or rebuilding of porches,
columns, openings, dormers, chimneys, stairways, cupolas, etc.
d. Any addition to or alteration of a structure which increases its square
footage or otherwise alters substantially its size, height, roofline,
contour or outline.
e. Landscaping which involves major changes of grade, walls and fences over
three-and-one-half feet in height, or destruction/elimination of
significant natural features.
2. Actions exempted from review: Certain minor actions such as the following,
which will not permanently affect the character of the historic landmark or
district, are exempted from review for architectural compatibility.
a. Any interior alterations having no effect on exterior architectural
features.
b. General maintenance/stabilization activities to correct deterioration,
damage or decay, such as replacement of window panes, roofing slates or
shingles, outside doors, window frames or shutters, fencing posts or
pickets, where no substantial change in design or material is proposed.
c. Repainting resulting in the same or different color. (Original painting
of masonry surfaces is not exempted from review.)
d. Addition or deletion of storm windows and doors, window gardens,
awnings, temporary canopies or similar appurtenances, and window air
conditioners.
e. Addition or deletion of television or radio antennas, solar collectors,
or skylights in areas not visible from a public right-of-way.
f. Planting of grass, trees and shrubs, and landscaping involving minor
grading, walks, low retaining walls, temporary fencing, small fountains,
ponds and the like, which will not substantially alter the contour or
9
affect the character of the property and its surroundings.
g. The addition of satellite dishes and swimming pools not visible from a
public right-of-way.
h. Minor additions or deletions to a structure which do not alter the
structure's square footage or substantially change the architectural
character of the structure, or which are generally hidden from public
view.
i. Creation of outside storage in a business or industrial district which
does not require structural changes or major grading and is not visible
from a public right-of-way.
The Zoning Administrator may, however, order that work be stopped and an
appropriate application be filed for review by the HPARB when in his/her
opinion such action appears likely to lead to a result clearly inconsistent
with the character of the existing historic landmark or district.
3. Exceptions: In cases of structures used or to be used primarily for
agricultural, horticultural or forestal purposes, the Zoning Administrator
may waive the requirement for a CA upon his/her determination that the
proposed alteration or construction would not have a clear and substantial
detrimental impact on the character of the historic landmark or district.
4. A CA shall be in addition to any other permits required. In cases where
a property lies ~ithin both the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and
within an historic landmark or district overlay zone, a CA will be required
from the HPARB only. Any action by applicants following issuance of a CA
shall be in accord with the application and materials approved and any
conditions appended thereto.
5. Application review procedures:
a. Application for a CA shall be filed by the owner or contract purchaser
of the subject property with the Zoning Administrator. Materials
submitted with the application or on subsequent request by the HPARB
shall include all plans, maps, photos, studies and reports which may
be reasonably required to make the determinations called for. The
Zoning Administrator shall forward the application together with all
accompanying materials to the HPARB within five (5) calendar days of
the date of application.
10
b. Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first class mail to
the last known address of all owners of property adjacent to the
proposed alteration. In any case in which the adjacent property is
owned by the applicant, notice shall be given to the owners of the next
adjoining property not owned by the applicant. Mailing to the address
shown on the current real estate tax assessment books of Albemarle
County shall be deemed adequate compliance with this requirement.
No CA shall be issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use
proposed, specific location of proposed alteration, the county office
where the application may be reviewed, and the date of the HPARB
meeting at which the proposal will be considered.
c. The HPARB shall confer with the applicant and shall approve or
disapprove such application. In rejecting an application, the HPARB
shall provide the applicant with a written statement of its reasons
for doing so and may suggest modifications to the proposed alteration
to be incorporated into a revised application which may be submitted
at any time.
d. Failure of the HPARB to approve or disapprove such application within
sixty (60) days from the date of application shall constitute approval
of the application.
e. A CA shall expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance if the
work authorized thereby is not commenced and diligently and substantially
pursued by the end of such twelve-month period; any such CA shall also
expire if the authorized work is suspended or abandoned for a period of
twelve (12) months after being commenced.
K. Alternate procedure: offer to sell
In reviewing an application for the demolition of an historic or contributing
structure, the HPARB may determine that the public interest would best be served
by requiring the owner to postpone such demolition until a bona fide offer to
sell such structure (with or without the land pertaining thereto) has been made,
at a price reasonably related to its fair market value. If such bona fide offer
is not accepted within the time frame outlined below, the owner shall receive
a CA to demolish the structure as a matter of right. Prior to beginning
demolition, however, the owner shall discuss with a member of the HPC available
11
means to document the structure and to salvage significant and valuable elements
of the structure for future use by the owner or for sale/donation to interested
parties.
Property Valued At Offer to Sell Shall Remain Open
less than $25,000 3 months
$25,000 - $39,999 4 months
$40,000 - $54,999 5 months
,
$55,000 - $74,999 6 months
$75,000 - $89,999 7 months
$90,000 or more 12 months
L. Inspection by Building Inspector
When a CA has been issued, the Building Inspector may from time to time inspect
the alteration or construction approved by such CA and shall give prompt notice
to the applicant of any work not in accordance with such CA, and may revoke the
CA if violations are not corrected by the applicant in a timely manner.
M. Undue hardship
Where it is demonstrated that the strict application of any provision of this
ordinance would result in exceptional practical difficulty or undue financial
hardship upon an owner of a specific property, the HPARB (with proof of such
hardship as the HPARB may require) may vary or modify strict adherence to the
provisions of this ordinance so as to alleviate such difficulty or hardship,
provided that such variances or modifications shall remain in harmony with the
general purposes stated herein, and that the architectural and historic
integrity or character of the property is preserved and substantial justice done.
In granting variances, the Board may include such reasonable and additional
stipulations and conditions as will, in its judgement, best fulfill the purposes
of this ordinance. An undue hardship is a situation not of the person's own
making, which is a problem unique to a specific property, or which arises when
compliance with this ordinance would be in conflict with another ordinance of
the County.
N. Appeals provision
Any decision of the HPARB may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by a
qualified resident of Albemarle County, provided that such appeal is initiated
by the filing of a written request therefor with the clerk of the Board of
Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The
12
Board of Supervisors may affirm, reverse or mOdify, in whole or in part, the
decision of the HPARB. In so doing, the Board of Supervisors shall give due
consideration to the recommendations of the HPARB together with such other
evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application.
A qualified resident of Albemarle County may appeal such decision to the circuit
court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the
illegality of the action of the Board of Supervisors, provided such petition is
filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered. The filing
of any appeal petition shall stay the decision of the initial governing body,
except that the filing of such petition shall not stay a decision denying the
right to demolish a designated historic landmark or contributing structure.
O. Enforcement provisions
1. Injunctions: Any activity in violation of the provisions of this ordinance
may be restrained, corrected or abated as the case may be by injunction
or other appropriate proceeding. In addition, the Zoning Administrator may
bring legal action to insure compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance, including injunction, abatement or any other appropriate action
or proceeding. These powers may be exercised in addition to imposing a
civil penalty.
2. Revocation of permits; stop-work orders: In the event of a violation of the
provisions of this ordinance, the Building Inspector shall freeze or revoke
building, subdivision or special use permits and shall issue a stop-work
order pursuant to the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC), halting
all activity governed by permit or approval until the proposed activity is
brought into conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. '
P. Penalty provisions
1. Criminal penalties: Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not
more than $1000 and not less than $100. Each day during which the violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense.
2. Civil penalties: Fines for violation of the provisions of this ordinance
shall be as established in the Albemarle County uniform schedule of civil
penalties for zoning violations. In addition to the penalties so provided,
any person who alters a structure or site, or who builds a structure in
13
violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall be required to restore
said structure or site to its appearance prior to the violation.
3. Demolition of a designated historic property or destruction of significant
natural features without a CA therefor shall result in a fine equal to
twice the fair market value of the structure and/or twice the insurable
value of the featureCs).
4. All fines collected under the provisions of this ordinance shall be
deposited in a fund dedicated to preservation of historic resources in
Albemarle County.
Q. Separability
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the
application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.
APPENDIX
Al
DEFINITIONS
Alteration - Modification, removal from or addition to the exterior of a
structure or site.
Certificate of Appropriateness - The approval statement signed by the Chairman
of the HPARB which certifies the appropriateness of plans for construction,
alteration, reconstruction, restoration, relocation, or demolition of a
structure, site or part thereof within an historic overlay zone.
Contributing Property - A property so designated on the county zoning map,
within an historic overlay zone, being generally a property which by reason of
form, materials, architectural details and relation to surrounding properties
contributes favorably to the general character of the historic overlay zone in
which it is located, but which by reason of recent age or other factors may
lack historic significance and is not designated as an historic landmark under
the criteria of this ordinance.
Demolition - The permanent destruction of any structure.
Exterior Architectural Features - The architectural style, general design and
general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the color, the
kind and texture of the building materials, and the type and style of windows,
doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures.
Heritage Education - the pedagogical field related to transmitting knowledge
of history to the public.
Historic District - An area so designated on the county zoning map containing
structures, sites or a combination thereof in which historic events occurred or
having special public value because of notable architectural or other features
relating to the cultural or artistic heritage of the community of such
significance as to warrant conservation and preservation. (See Section F.2.)
Historic Landmark - A property so designated on the county zoning map
following the determination that it is of particular historic significance and
thereby warrants conservation and preservation. (See Section F.l.)
New Construction - Any construction within an historic overlay zone which is
independent and exclusive of an existing structure or part thereof.
Overlay Zone - A specialized zoning district wherein the regulations,
requirements and limitations of the overlay district are in addition to or
supercede, as the case may be, those of the underlying district; established
A2
for the purpose of imposing special regulations in certain aeras which are
intended to acomplish the stated purpose of the particular overlay district.
Reconstruction - Any work needed to remake or rebuild all or a part of a
structure to a sound condition, but not necessarily with original materials.
Relocation - Removal of a structure from its existing site to another site.
Repairs - Work involving the replacement of existing work with equivalent
material for the purpose of maintenance, but not including any addition or
modification in construction.
Restoration - Work connected with the returning to or restoring of a structure
or part thereof to its original condition through the use of original or nearly
original materials.
Structure - Anything manmade, including but not limited to: main buildings,
outbuildings, certain landscape features, fences, walls, lamp posts, light
fixtures, signs, signposts, billboards, and paving.
A3
CRITERIA FOR BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
As noted in Section E.l.b., site-specific boundaries encompassing the area
of historic significance, and including the environment necessary for the proper
appreciation or use ther~of, shall be clearly defined. The following may be
used to arrive at boundary determination:
1. Current legal boundaries of a single property or group of properties,
when they coincide with the area retaining historic significance today.
2. Historic legal boundaries, when the historic property possesses
continuity of historic landscape characteristics throughout, even
though the ownership or division of land may have changed.
3. Boundary demarcations that are relatively permanent, such as stone
fences, irrigation or drainage ditches, and mature hedgerows, when such
elements encompass the concentration of related historic
characteristics.
4. Rights-of-way such as roads, established paths, and highways, when they
separate areas of land that are historically significant from those that
are either unrelated, insignificant, or not historic.
5. Natural features such as waterways, ridges, and contour elevations, when
such features limited the historic development of the land or currently
define the area of historic significance.
6. Edges of new development, such as modern housing, limited access
highways, or industrial parks.
7. Lines drawn along or between fixed points, such as stone walls,
shorelines, or the intersection of two roads, when they contain the area
of historic significance.
A4
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIONS
In applying the guidelines outlined below, it should be recognized that there
is considerable diversity in Albemarle County's historic and cultural heritage,
as tangibly represented by its historic landmarks and districts, and that
therefore a variety of architectural styles and site-specific characteristics
call for preservation.
1. General guidelines for all decisions:
a. The public necessity of the proposed construction, use or demolition.
b. The public purpose or interest in land or structures to be protected.
c. The historic or architectural value and significance of the particular
structure or site and its relationship to the historic value of the
surrounding area.
d. The age and character of the historic structure or site, its condition
and its probable life expectancy, and the appropriateness of the
proposed change to the period(s) of its construction.
e. The general compatibility of the site plan and the exterior design
arrangement, scale, textures and materials proposed.
f. The view of the structure or area from a public right-of-way, present or
anticipated future.
g. The present character of the setting of the structure or site and its
surroundings.
h. The extent to which denial of a CA would constitute a deprivation to
the owner of a reasonable use of his/her property.
i. Every reasonable effort should be made to protect and preserve
archaeological resources affected by or adjacent to any project.
j. Matters related to public health and safety as defined by the Planning
Commission shall prevail over the considerations herein presented.
2. Guidelines for new construction:
The design of new construction should take into consideration the visual
and spatial qualities that the historic overlay zone is established to
protect, including structural height, scale, spacing and orientation;
facade proportions and window patterns; size, shape and proportions of
entrance and porch projections; materials, textures, color; architectural
details; roof forms; horizontal or vertical emphases; landscaping, walls
AS
and fences. Application of architectural guidelines for new construction
should respond to relationships among buildings in the immediate setting
rather than specific styles or details.
3. Guidelines for reconstruction, alteration or restoration (see also the
"Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings"):
a. A property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a
new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics
of the structure and its site and environment.
b. The distinguishing historic qualities or character of a structure or
site and its environment should be retained and preserved. The removal
of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property should be avoided.
c. All structures and sites should be recognized as a physical record of
their time, place, and use. Alterations which create a false sense of
historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
architectural elements from other buildings, should not be undertaken.
d. Changes over time illustrate the history and development of a structure
or site. Those changes that have acquired bistoric significance in
their own right should be retained and preserved.
e. Distinctive stylistic features, finishes, and construction techniques,
or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property,
especially hardware, woodwork and masonry details, should be treated
with special care and preserved.
f. Deteriorated historic features should be repaired rather than replaced.
IVhere the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature should match the old in size,
shape, design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where
possible, in materials. Repair or replacement of missing architectural
features should be based on accurate duplications of features
substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than
on conjectural designs or availability.
g. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, which cause
damage to historic materials, should not be used. The surface cleaning
of structures, if appropriate, should be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible.
.
A6
4.
h. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project should be
protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed,
mitigation measures should be undertaken.
i. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction should
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible
with the original massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
preserve the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
j. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing
properties should not be discouraged when such alterations and
additions do not destroy significant historic, architectural or
cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale,
color, material and character of the property and its surroundings.
k. New additions or alterations to structures should be designed such that
if they were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity
of the historic structure would be unimpaired.
Guidelines for relocation of an historic structure consider:
a. Whether the proposed relocation would have a deleterious effect on
the structural soundness of the structure.
b. Whether the proposed relocation would have a detrimental effect on
the historic character of its original setting.
c. Whether the proposed relocation would provide new surroundings which
would be compatible with the historic and architectural character
of the structure.
d. Whether plans for future use of the site after relocation are
compatible with the character of the area.
e. Whether the proposed relocation is the only feasible means of saving
the structure from demolition or demolition by neglect.
f. Whether the proposed new location is within Albemarle County.
Guidelines for demolition consider:
a. Whether the structure qualifies as a National, State or local historic
landmark.
b. Whether the structure is of such architectural or historic interest
that its destruction would be detrimental to the public interest.
5.
,
A7
c. Whether retention of the structure would help to preserve and protect
an historic place or an area of historic interest to the public.
d. Whether plans for future use of the site after demolition are
appropriate at this location.
6. Guidelines for signs:
Generally, signs should relate to, rather than obscure and disrupt, the
design elements of the structure(s) or site with which they are associated
and should be compatible with other signs and structures along the roadway.
Considerations for compatibility include dimensions, subject matter,
materials, color, lettering styles, legibility, lighting, overall effect
and placement on the property or structure. Specific guidelines for signs
shall follow those adopted for the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
7. Guidelines for parking areas:
Parking areas should be inconspicuously located and appropriately landscaped
or screened by fences, walls, screen planting or other such elements, so as
to minimize disruption to the general historic character of the property.
8. Guidelines for landscaping and screening:
Plantings, fencing, walls, walkways, gazebos and other outbuildings should
be retained or designed to reflect the property's history and development.
Existing trees, wooded areas, and natural features should be preserved
whenever possible. Improvements should be located so as to maximize the
use of existing features in screening such improvements from designated
historic structures.
9. Guidelines for accessory structures:
Underground utilities should be encouraged at all locations. Mechanical
equipment should be placed in inconspicuous locations. Utility
appurtenances should be selected to harmonize with the character of the
historic site or be placed in inconspicuous locations.
f
A8
STABILIZATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES
As noted in Section E.5.g., the HPC is charged with advising property owners
regarding stabilization of historic landmarks and contributing structures.
The purpose of this provision is not to impose a specific standard of preser-
vation, but rather to encourage basic stabilization and exterior maintenance of
designated historic landmarks and contributing structures such that they will
be preserved against decay and deterioration and remain free from structural
defects which would result in irreparable deterioration of exterior
architectural features or produce a detrimental effect upon the life and
character of the structure itself or upon the character of the historic
district as a whole. When such conditions as the following are brought to its
attention, the HPC will advise property owners in order to facilitate
preservation of irreplaceable historic resources:
1. Deterioration of vertical and horizontal structural supports or of the
foundation
2. Deterioration of distinctive exterior architectural features
3. Deterioration of exterior chimneys or masonry
4. Deterioration of exterior walls, roofs and foundations (including broken
windows or doors) which allow water to penetrate, causing deterioration
of the structure-
5. Deterioration of any element so as to create or permit the creation of
any hazardous or unsafe condition.
6. Maintenance of the surrounding environment such as fences, gates,
sidewalks, steps, signs, accessory structures and landscaping shall also
be encouraged.
The committee may, for example, suggest priorities within a stabilization
program designed to maximize the cost-effectiveness of preservation efforts;
it may assist the owner in seeking funds for preservation activities; or it
may advise the owner regarding a possible sale and relocation of the historic
landmark if such appears to be the most feasible means of saving the structure
from demolition by neglect.
~
A9
AWARDS AND PLAQUES
As noted in Section G., designated historic landmarks are eligible for award
status based on their level of maintenance and historic integrity. The owners
of properties granted such an award status shall receive an official bronze
plaque with the notation, "Albemarle County Historic Landmark Register Number
----," as well as a certificate suitable for framing. The plaque may be
mounted only on the exterior of a structure, or at a site, in an appropriate
location as determined by a representative of the HPC, and shall remain as
placed unless the property ceases to meet the criteria for eligibility as
determined by the committee. Applications shall be made by the property owner
to the HPC, together with an application fee of $100, which shall be deposited
in a fund dedicated to the preservation of historic resources in Albemarle County.
If an application is disapproved for any reason, the fee will be refunded to
the applicant. Guidelines for approval are further specified below:
1. For the purposes of this section, to possess historic integrity:
a. A structure or site must retain the essential physical characteristics
which have generally defined its appearance through the years and which
enable it to convey its past identity or character and therefore its
historic significance;
b. Any additions and restorations must not have overwhelmed its original
character;
c. A structure must remain in the location in which it was built, or in
a similar and suitable location;
d. A structure must be original, however altered, and not a copy.
2. Structures shall be considered in their entirety. No wing, facade, or other
part of a structure may, by itself, qualify for such award status.
Generally, one award shall be made to the primary structure in cases where
a primary structure of historic significance is surrounded by outbuildings,
etc., notwithstanding the historic significance of these smaller structures
in their own right. Exceptions to this policy may be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors at the discretion of the HPC.
3. To achieve award status, the exterior maintenance of the structure must be
such that the structure is preserved against decay and deterioration and
remains free from structural defects which would threaten its existence.
A10
PROCEDURE FOR COUNTY LANDMARK/HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION*
*please refer to full ordinance for specifics
* property
owner(s)
Historic
Preservation
Committee (HPC)
prepares
nomination
report
Suggestions and
assistance from
* interested
citizen(s)
Albemarle County
Planning
Commission (PC)
responds to
nomination
Board of Su ervisors
Denies desi nation
HPC adds landmark/district
to official County
Historic
Landmark Register and
assi ns it a number.
Property now
eligible under
Award and
Financial
incentive
provisions of
this ordinance.
Substantial exterior
alteration or demolition
now requires a Certificate
of Appropriateness from
the County Historic
Preservation Architectural
Review Board.
"
All
PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (CA)
Application by Owner/Contract
Purchaser
of County Landmark Property
or Property within County
Historic District
Zoning Administrator (ZA)
waiver of CA on
Agricultural, Forestal or
Horticultural grounds
CA because of proposed
substantial exterior
alteration or demolition
ZA forwards application
to Historic Preservation
Architectural Review
Board (HPARB) within 5
days
ZA notifies
adjoining
property
owners by
mail
HPARB grants
CA
HPARB reviews application and confers
with applicant within 60 days (if ARB
misses deadline, application
automatically approved)
HPARB temporarily
denies CA pending
purchase offer from
another party (3-12
months, depending
on property value)
HPARB denies CA for
alteration or
demolition
Property
owner
executes work
per plans
presented
Property
owner appeals
decision*
Property
owner accepts
decision or
modifies
proposal and
resubmits
* see ordinance for details
of appeals procedure
No offer received
CA granted by right
and demolition
proceeds
Property
sold
Edward H, Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
January 9, 1992
Mrs. Betty Starke
P. O. Box 206
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mrs. Starke:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 8, 1992,
you were reappointed to the Board of Social Services with said term
to expire on December 31, 1995.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to contin-
ue serving the County in this capacity.
Bowerman
DPB:bwh
cc: Bruce Woodzell
James L. Camblos, III,
Commonwealth's Attorney
Edward H, Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
January 9, 1992
Mr. Joseph Basil Young
Route 1, Box 208-S
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Mr. Young:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 8, 1992,
you were reappointed to the Board of Social Services with said term
to expire on December 31, 1995.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to contin-
ue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
42~~
Chairman
DPB:bwh
cc: Karen Morris
James L. Camblos, III,
Commonwealth's Attorney
,..1, r7
f'. ......... M
'; "'{"
:. ", !
\ l
U
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
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
Edward H, Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
January 9, 1992
Mr. Thomas Blue
100 Chestnut Ridge Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Blue:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 8, 1992,
you were appointed to the Albemarle County Planning Commission with
said term to expire on December 31, 1995.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to contin-
ue serving the County in this capacity.
&~
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DPB:bwh
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
James L. Camblos, III,
Commonwealth's Attorney
@@~\1
Edward H, Bain, Jr,
Samuel Miller
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.
Scottsvil1e
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
January 9, 1992
Mr. Kevin Cox Ms. Virginia M. Greenwood
Mr. Forrest D. Kerns Ms. Karen V. Lilleleht
Mr. Burton M. Webb
Dear Members:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 8, 1992,
you were reappointed to the Housing Advisory Committee with said
term to expire on June 30, 1992.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to contin-
ue serving the County in this capacity.
~~
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DPB:bwh
cc: James L. Camblos, III,
Commonwealth's Attorney
,""dV">>... t-., I".,"
t ,'" ~ \ ~ I
", ''') ," '"'
; .' . i . \'~,' ~'
\ ;,) \ ~ i
~ \ i
",'" \.
lJ' II
i. U
Edward H, Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
While Hail
January 9, 1992
Mr. Thomas H. Jenkins
P. O. Box 122
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 8, 1992,
you were reappointed to the Albemarle County Planning Commission
with said term to expire on December 31, 1995.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to
continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
V~R-
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DPB:bwh
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
James L. Camblos, III,
Commonwealth's Attorney
'.,
cout.!:
n:,:;\ \-\- .'"""
,11 ~n.'"
1 ,{ j r'. :..1 ,......~~~~ '~'.. 00:;_ I
j' " , __..l.L,."..j" 1~91
. ,,'. .jr l.;~ij / i \
l!i.{'{..,....,.......,/ ", ',\
I' \ '" . NOV C::T j \J \ 1..., i,,)
I...} L.\\~\: ," .~~ ."+~.r , .;.~;...,j" ,~..,~
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 8.Cl}"'!i:~r\S::Eipt,)rl:,RV ",/\_,
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING .n, "
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print)
Board/Commission/Committee
Albemarle County Planninq Commission
Applicant's Name
THOMAS H. JENKINS
Home Address
P. O. Box 122, Crozet, VA 22932
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Whitehall
Employer
Same (retired)
Not Applicable
Phone 804 823-4733
Business Address
Date of EmploymentNot Applicable
Occupation/Title Not Appl icable
Middleburg, VA
Birthdate/Place 1-22-27
Years Resident of Albemarle County 36 yrs Previous Residence Arl ington County VA
Spouse's Name Gae B. Jenkins
Number of Children One son
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dat es) B. A. Bri dqewater Co 11 eqe - 1950 (Chemi stry)
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
Crozet United Methodist Church
Public, Civic and Charitable Offices and/or Other Activities or Interests
Member Albemarle County Planning Commission
{Jffo/b 1,1/.-f:
Member Albemarle Coun~ ~ Housing Committee
Albemarle County Representative-Shenandoah National Park Related Lands Study
!
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on This Board/Commission/Committee
As a lonq-time Albemarle resident, I feel that I have a civic and moral duty to
support the County. Being retired, I have the time to devote to this responsi-
bility.
The information provided on this application will be released to the
public upon request.
~-
November 19, 1991
DATE
Return to: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Phone: 296-5843
Edward H, Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
January 9, 1992
Mr. William J. Nitchmann
P. O. Box 2378
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Nitchmann:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 8, 1992,
you were appointed to the Albemarle County Planning Commission with
said term to expire on December 31, 1995.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to contin-
ue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
O~~
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DPB:bwh
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
James L. Camblos, III,
Commonwealth's Attorney
~"'{~
OV
c;
OF ALec^,
o A ~~(~
tn1iNry Or-"lI Bt"~)!IIRi..,
v'. ,. . I f..l~."i. Lj':'L~ \1...11
r{::;", ;"(:::..c2~i''', " '7 ;;.:~.- '
II': V'-'-"-'.-""-:, In
f If! / .>!~ ! I I
i "',-'(:~' JAN n ~ rqo2 ) /I i
f ; : : ....1, " ..' I I ~ t
"" , I.
II \'\ 1 j'-..~-,...._.._,.. , ./ ,'I' I
I 1 \ l.-- ....'"' I t t :-'.'Y"r-'''~'''''''''- J
U d _._.' _'::") Loo::':' 1,,/ ij LS:l
iOARD Of SUPEHVISORS I
/
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print)
Board/Commission/Committee
PLANNING COMMISION
Applicant's Name
WTI I TAM
NTTr.HMANN
Home Address
RT 7?~ P n Rnx ?~7A r.HARI nTTFS\fTI IF, \fA ??qn?
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
Mnl\ITTr.FI I n
Business Address
7 1 5 ~ F ~I c y 1\ \/ E r u ^ 0 I n T T E c::: \I 11 I I=" I \I tJ.
~~Qn1 Phone ~Qh_A1AA
Employer VA. ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS INC
Occupation/Title OWNER
Date of Employment
1986
Birthdate/Place10/23/42 DETROIT
Years Resident of Albemarle County
5
Previous Residence FLUVANNA
Spouse's Name
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates)
MARY ANN
Number of Children
ARIZONA STATE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
ISHM, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NEDA, MOOSE
Public, Civic and Charitable Offices and/or Other Activities or Interests
BOARD MEMBER BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB,
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on This 'Board/Commission/Committee
SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY
The information provided on this application will be released to the
public upon request.
11-23-91
DATE
Return to: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Phone: 296-5841
~
Edward H. Bain, Jr
Samuel Miller
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
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
January 9, 1992
Mr. Walter F. Johnson
Bucks Elbow, Route 12, Box 113
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Johnson:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 8, 1992,
you were reappointed to the Albemarle County Planning Commission
with said term to expire on December 31, 1993.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to
continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
{[)~/~p.
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DPB:bwh
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
James L. Camblos, III,
Commonwealth's Attorney
~~~ OF
VOV
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print)
Board/Commission/Commi ttee tUb~ Couni:.L; ~)l.anni.nt; COITIIlIi..Mi.on - COImIi..Mi.ont!JC.
Ii! - (j...L~_ ~
Applicant's Name watf.e;r. 1-. (r-Innoon
H Add I3u.ck.6 {..t.bow f<i 10 Box 113 CiuvcLoi.:f.eovi..Ue., ViJtt;i.nia 22903
orne ress
Magisterial District in which your home residence is
l<ei:i.Iuu1
Business Address
Spouse's Name
Occupation/Title
. . / 9-24-24 C('I;/.
Blrthdate Place ~
Ohi.o, HaJJXJil.., CaliI.
Previous Residence/~ bolA ~
Number of Childre~ & M ~
_. pwm ~ u.ru..V~4
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) .
f3S, tiS Naval Acade.rm; 1946,. SLU, frl.9.7. 1949; B5{t, ti.S. Naval If>odg>carllfn:fe .!>CfwoL 1954;
~ tLS. Navn.L f>nA:f<Jl'nrllffli-p Sdwo.L 19..5.5
/VA
Employer
Date of Employment
/VA
Years Resident of Albemarle County 15
I..o~
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or S6cia~ Groups
/fJe:fJwdi..d. (}UJltch., tiS /VavV- (e4~)le, Keo~ flun:t CLub, BiJuImood /HA,
f3au1.'Ilbci:. 1'fL..oeum. V iJtt;i.nia ~Ju.6e.wn 01- I- i.ne 1br.:t4. Smi..t.JwoniAn. 9rtd:li:.uh!
Public, Civic and Charitable Offices and/or Other Activities or Interests
~7:c~~:'dS;)::Z::c:::u1:::::n, O~
fPlembeA., I3oaM. of. fJi.Jr.ed.tJJu, Am2Jri.can CanJ:2Jl. 50ci..e:b;, CiuvcLoi.:f.eoVLl&., (Jn1.;t
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on This Board/Commission/Committee
~ le-64ional. ~.i.nc.t.ude.IJ 15 ~ C~ned ~,
,nay; 14 !f2'VUJ 5aI.RA /'Jaruu;eA, rnaj>>Jt ~ cornpCUo/-.. 12
!fe.alL6 owneIC. arid adi..ve o~-~ l.i..veoiock I.aMl riJ.h~ Ch;,
2 ~~a'tol C0J7lflLi..66{onPh n:f I nh~p, AlhpmnJd.e (purdg. <j)l.anni.nt; (:-.nmi />oMnn..
I3ei.nJ; CtJ}f,,~ J<<!i.i.'Wd, J he.~'4!. i:Jua t.i.ms and Q1Il Q/,.lJ2. to b.~
The information provided on this application will be released to the
public upon request.
S
,2 ..7 ///~ / 9~ /
DATE
Return to: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Phone: 296-5843
, exp~ :to the deLi.b~ of. & rp l.anni.nt; C0fI1I1IiA4i..on. At,:1
/uive de.motUd:Jc.ai:.ed in :t:he pad. ;to :t:he C~n, :7 am. ahl..e ;to app.l1J
~:ri ~j:j: ~ ~:;:Z:'/'~:J all
not. beho. :1:.0 aru; o~yd!-on, and i:li.u4 "am. ahl..e i:.o \condu.ci:. IIl!f
co~no pr.ie piom .tJl#-.6e/tvi.nJ;.~. :7 .tJuhmLt i:Iud.,
dwWu; i:he. imo !f2-'1It.O a6 a C~nt!JC., "9 have de.l.i..veA.e.d a ~ of.
J..t:x;U:., obfedJ-V.i.4J., empai:Jzv. and peMonal. ~ :1:.0 IIl!f
de1i.beNJi:i..oMe :J have urUlI~.t.y. ~ .tJeveJud. i.ni..tio::ti..veo of.
opeN:di.on uiUdL have been. Odopud. 9 v.i.ew i:he. C~n a6 1ROIU!.
ihoi:. a puu;, ~ on app-U ca:J:WM and ~M, uiUdL .Mould
bet:DflN!. adi..ve in i:JU!. tidal i.mp;wvemeni:. of. Court!1f qoveJrn/RlZJ'd:. in
4Up~ of. i:he. I30mrd of. SupeAViAo/UJe hJoi.n:,:1 0f.Pvt IIl!f .tJeJtVU:2.6
on 'i:he. 'Pl.anni.Jr; COIIII1liA.tJi.on :to :the Couni:1j of. AlhernaJd.Je..
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Forrest R, Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
Edward H, Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hali
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk,
CMC~
DATE:
January 3, 1992
SUBJECT:
Reading List for January 8, 1992
August 7, 1991 - page 1 - 14 (end #7) - Mr. Bain
page 14 (#7) - end - Mr. Bowerman
LEN:ec
RES 0 L UTI 0 N 0 FIN TEN T
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan for land located on Route 29
North in the vicinity of the General Electric plant to show land as
Industrial based on statements made by the owner, Wendell W. Wood,
at a meeting of the Board of County Supervisors on January 8, 1992.
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
and does request that the Planning Commission send its
recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible moment.
* * * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, ~~ ~~~arY 8, 1992.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors