HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-08-07
:F I N A L
August 7>> 1991
7:00 P.M.
Room 7>> County Office Building
1) Call ta Order.
2) Pledge .of Allegiance.
3) Mament .of Silence.
4) Other Matters Nat Listed an the Agenda fram the PUBLIC.
5) *Cansent Agenda (starts an battam .of this sheet).
6) SP-90-99. Rappahannack Electric Caap. To canstruct an electrical pawer
substatian & transmissian line an praperties between Rt 29 & Rt 763
(near Piney Mtn) gaing in an eastern and sauthern directian ta the
Praffit area. TM21.P12,12A.12D.14C; TM33.P1.2,4,4B,4C,10,12,12E,20,
21,36; TM46,P33B,33F; TM47,P2.3A. Rivanna Dist.
7) SP-91-23. Charlattesville Quality Cable Carparatian. Ta lacate a 190, ft
transmissian tawer an part .of 234.2 ac zaned RA. Praperty an S side
.of Rt 53 an Carter's Mtn. TM91,P28(part). Scattsville Dist.
8) SP-91-24. Jean Baum. Far a cammercial' stable an 25.1 ac zaned RA & EC.
Praperty an E side .of Rt 20 apprax 4/10 mi S .of Rt 641. TM35,P43C.
Rivanna Dist.
9) An .ordinance ta amend and reenact Sectian 2-52 .of the Cade .of Albemarle ta
increase the number .of band issuances .of the Industrial Develapment
Autharity fram twelve ta thirteen.
10) Band Inducement Resalutian: Our Lady .of Peace, Inc.
11) An .ordinance ta amend and reenact Sectian 2-2.1 .of the Cade .of Albemarle
setting the campensatian .of the Baard .of Supervisars far Fiscal Year
1992 at $8,820.00, an increase .of faur percent.
12) SP-91-36. Verulam Farm Limited Partnership. Ta amend SP-90-119 and
SP-90-120 (a 43 lat rural preservatian develapment & a bridge in flaad
plain .of Ivy Creek) ta allaw pvt rds instead .of public rds. Praperty
in SE quadrant .of 1-64 & Rt 637. TM74,P's18,18A,18B&23. Samuel
Miller Dist.
13) Appraval .of Minutes: March 20(N), March 25, March 27, April 3(N), 1991.
14) Other Matters Nat Listed an the Agenda fram the BOARD.
15) Adjaurn.
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
:FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Ratify Caunty Executive's signature an a Right-af-way Agreement-Carparate
Undergraund Easement far Virginia Pawer.
5.2 Request ta have raads in Mill Creek Sectian 4, taken inta the State System
.of Secandary Highways.
5.3 Appraval .of Maving Expenses - Richard E. Huff, II.
5.3a Letter dated August 1>> 1991>> from :F. R. Bowie>> Chairman>> addressed to
Secretary John G. Milliken>> Chairman>> COJmlOnwealth Transporation Board>> re:
Sequence of the Route 29 Corridor Improvements.
r
;FtW. IRroRMAnOR:
5.4 Letter dated July 23, 1991. addressed to F. R. Bowie, from W. Douglas Armstrong, President,
IIMC, announcing that Lettie E. Neher, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, has been awarded the
designation of Certified Municipal Clerk.
5.5 Copy of letter dated July 16, 1991, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, to Mrs. Carnice
Berti, concerning the speed limit on Route 648.
5.6 Letter dated July 22, 1991, from H. W. Mills, Maintenance Manager, Virginia Department of
Transportation, stating that the existing superstructure over Doyles River (Route 668) will be
repaired between August 5 and August 16, 1991. The bridge will be closed during that time.
5.7 Letter dated July 25, 1991, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia Department of
Transportation, noting that roads in Wynridge and Quintfield were accepted into the State
Secondary System of Highways effective July 25, 1991.
5.8 Letter dated August 1, 1991, from Roderic H. Slayton, Mayor, Town of Orange, concerning use of
Route 15 as an Eastern bypass, either in lieu of the Western bypass around Charlottesville, or
as a much needed improvement.
5.9 Copy of letter dated July 15, 1991, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, to R. L. Hundley, Environmental Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, re:
Route 29 Bypass.
5.10 Letter dated June 25, 1991, from Peter Drenan, Race Director, concerning triathlon to be held
on public roads on September 29, 1991, in and near Lake Monticello.
5.11 Monthly Bond Program Report of Arbor Crest Apartments for the Month of June, 1991.
5.12 Notices from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy Director, Department of Historic Resources, stating that
the Department has been requested to make a preliminary evaluation of the following properties
to determine eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the
Virginia Landmarks Register: East Bet.ont Fu. and Batton Grange Fu..
5.13 Notice from James Christian Hill, National Register Assistant, State Historic Preservation
Office, stating that the State Review Board will consider on August 20, 1991, placement of The
Rectory and the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District>> Aloo.arle Comlty>> on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and nominating it to the National Register of Historic Places.
5.14 Notice from Margaret T. Peters, Information Director, Department of Historic Resources, dated
July 31, 1991, noting that a public hearing for the S(JJ'JBWES"l !DJKl"AINS RURAL HIS'l'ORIC DISIRIC'r
will be held on Thursday, August 8, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., at the Albemarle County Office
Building.
5.11ta tte.orandua dated August 6, 1991, f~ Mary Joy Scala, Senior p1aJmer, addressed to the Board
of Supervisors re: Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District.
5.15 Letter dated July 18, 1991, from Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to
William Gail Pickford, Esq., entitled "Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section
10.3.1, Tax Map 94, Parcel 21."
5.16 Letter dated July 29, 1991, from Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to
Carroll Hensley, entitled "Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax
Map 79.A24, Block F, Parcel 7."
5.17 Copy of the Minutes of the Planning Commission for July 2, July 16, July 23 and July 30, 1991.
5.18 1991 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
5.19 Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's adopted FY-92 Budget.
5.20 Copy of "1991 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Solid Waste Management Plan" received and on
file.
5. ?1 Copy of "Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for the Year Ended
June 30, 1990" from the Auditor of Public Accounts.
5.22 Letter dated July 25, 1991, from Robert J. Walters, Jr., g1v1ng a six-month report on
activities of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council.
.
\
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AUGUST 7, 1991
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman
to approve Item 5.1 on the consent agenda to ratify the County
Executive's signature on a Right-of-Way Agreement - Corporate
Underground Easement with Virginia Power. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins
and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing, is a true, correct copy of an extract from the minutes,
of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on August 7, ~.~
Clerk, Board of Supervis s
'\
Distributed to Board' e. 2. c) I
. -~~
Agenda Item No. q" I /:)fiJ1.( -:;-~ I)
VIRGINIA POWER
Right of Way Agreement -
Corporate Underground Easecnent
COR 16-10-04
.
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 19th
day of
July
,19 91
, between
THE COUN'IY OF ALBEMARLE, acting by and through its
Board of Supervisors
a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Owner" and Virginia Electric and Power
Company, a Virginia corporation, hereinafter called "Company."
WITNESSETH:
That for the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, Owner grants unto Company, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege
and easement of right of way fifteen (15) feet in width to lay, construct, operate and
maintain one or more lines of underground conduits and cables and one or more lighting supports and lighting
fixtures, as Company may from time to time deem expedient or advisable, located on the right of way
hereinafter described, for the purpose of transmitting and distributing electric power by one or more circuits;
fortelephone, television and other communication purposes; and for lighting purposes; together with all wires,
conduits, cables, transformers, transformer enclosures, concrete pads, manholes, hand holes, connection
boxes, ground connections, meters, attachments, equipment, accessories and appurtenances desirable in
connection therewith [hereinafter referred to as "facilities"].
The Company shall have the right to assign or transfer, without limitation, all or any part of the
perpetual rights, privilege and easement of right of way granted herein. The said perpetual right, privilege
and easeme,nt of right of way extend;3 over, under, through and across certain lands of Owner situated in
C1.ty of Charlottesville , Virginia, as shown on Plat No. 81910145
hereto attached and made a part of this agreement, the location of boundary of said right of way being shown
in broken lines on said plat.
The facilities constructed hereunder shall remain the property of Company. Company shall have
the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve, relocate on the right .of way described above, and make
such changes, alterations, substitutions, additions to or extensions of its facilities as Company may from time
to time deem advisable.
Company shall at all times have the right to keep the right of way clear of all buildings, structures and
other obstructions [except fences], trees, roots and undergrowth. All trees and limbs cut by Company at any
time shall remain the property of the Owner.
For the purpose of constructing, inspecting, maintaining or operating its facilities on the right of way
on the property of Owner or on its right of way on any other property, the Company shall have the right of
ingress and egress over, upon and along such right of way. If the Company is unable reasonably to exercise
the right of ingress and egress over, upon or along the right of way on the property of Owner, the Company
shall have such right of ingress and egress over the property of the Owner adjacent to the right of
we.y. Company shall have the further right of irlgress to and egress from the rights of way over such private
roads as may now or hereafter exist on the property of Owner. The right, however, is reserved to Owner to
shift, relocate, close or abandon such private roads at any time. If there are no public or private roads
Form No. 720512(Jan 891
(Formerly 9755681 O)
2
(page 1 of
10
VIRGINIA POWER
Right of Way Agreement -
Corporate Underground Easement
COR 16-10-04
.
reasonably convenient to the rights of way, Company shall have such right of ingress and egress over the
lands of Owner adjacent to the rights of way and lying between public or private roads and the rights of way in
such manner as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to Owner. Company shall be
liable for all damages resulting from its exercise of the right of ingress and egress.
Owner, its successors and assigns, may use the right of way for any purpose not inconsistent with
the rights hereby granted, provided such use does not interfere with or endanger the construction, operation
and maintenance of Company's facilities and provided that no buildings, structures or other obstructions
[except fences] may be constructed on the right of way.
Owner covenants that it is seised of and has the right to convey the said easement of right of way,
rights and privileges; that Company shall have quiet and peaceable possession, use and enjoyment of the
aforesaid easement of right of way, rights and privileges; and that Owner shall execute such further
assurances thereof as may be required. . .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has caused its name to be signed hereto by its Chairm:m Cou-n1v
as of the day and year above written. 6xw.Jhi,c
/3-,~
~pl.(~ Clerk, Board of
STATE OF VIRGINIA
By
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
// fit! J~L ~
~'~J&-'
Attest:
City
OF Charlottesville
} To-wit:
City aforesaid,
-<\ ,,\ \ 1 -\--\-- County aforesaid,
I, ~()...~x.~'o.-. '(\'\" S \, l1)b l\.)'''\ , a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia at Large,
whose commission expires on the ?\ \ ~ day of \\\1~Li)\ ,19 a..t..\ ,do hereby certify that
~D ~ U"\ ~ \)..) 0 " \). r ).{ t J\ \ ~ f\ .
whose name is signed to the foregoing writing dated the 19th
19 91
, as Ch::Iinmn, BC:lrd of Cuporviooro
day of July
. ...-
~~7J t::r..R~...rh~--e- ,of
( 4ft--
'.I I ..1)(
, acknowledged the same before me
County of Albemarle
in the
City
aforesaid this 19th day of July ,19 91 .
rv~~ \<\~ S~\\ \ ~-tl
iJl3 Notary PubliC.
Form No. 720512(Jan 89)
(Formerly 9755681 0)
(Page 2 of 2
..
-'------'-\
/
/
N
~1>-).
.'):
~y
0~
.y
Cj>'>
In ./'J
."/)
,f
~
Q:}'
~.~
f\i
.
<J
<Q;-
l?
#
(l)
.f;'
-t..J
,t::'
.f
~0
~t.
01)
4k
~?
1,I0
l>:1:oDe
'1'h.e :t'ty O~
COI.lr1 ty eo 617
Of ~
4l~.t'le
Plat to Accompany
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16
Virginia Electric and Power Company
District
Legend
O1a=lottesville
District- Township-Borough
rIo v'-
County-City
State
Form No. 720489(Jan 89)
(Formerty 97556030)
OlarIottesville
Estimate Number
81-107-00418
Dan19/91 ~R..:-"/
~
- - - Location of Boundary Lines of Right of Way Office
15 feet in width
, .~
--
. .
/
/
N
,
..;..'0'"'>
.y
'Oy
~
~
0"
~
(Sf>
~.~/'
I C:)'
~'l.~
"i
.
~
.<}.{)
~t.
01)
4k
{)" t.;.
{)
Plat to Accompany
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16
Virginia Electric and Power Company
District
Legend
- _ _ Location of Boundary Lines of Right of Way
15 feet in width
Cha:::"10ttesvil18
District -Township-Borough
rlott~svi-
County-City
State
Form No. 720489(Jan 89)
(Formerly 97556030)
DliJ719/91
Office
Charlottesville
Estimate Number
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE RaAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Hoyt B. Alford, III, Civil Engineer
Engineering Department
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk ~
DATE: August 8, 1991
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Roads into the State System of Secondary
Highways
At its meeting on August 7, the Board of Supervisors adopted
the attached resolution to have roads in Mill Creek Section 4,
taken into the State System of Secondary Highways.
LEN:ec
Attachments: Original and 3 copies
~~7~~
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 Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following roads in Mill Creek, Section 4:
Gristmill Drive:
Beginning at Station 21+55, a point common to the centerline
of State Route 1157 (Gristmill Drive) at the end of state
maintenance, thence in a southerwesterly direction 1405.21
feet to Station 35+60.21, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Alpine Court:
Beginning at Station 10+27, a point common to the centerline
of Alpine Court and the edge of pavement of Gristmill Drive,
thence in a southeasterly direction 158 feet to Station 11+85,
the end of the cul-de-sac.
Flagstone Terrace:
Beginning at Station 10+10, a point common to the centerline
of Flagstone Terrace and the edge of pavement of Gristmill
Drive, thence in a northwesterly direction 431.7 feet to
Station 14+41.70, the edge of pavement of Station 10+00 on
Timberbranch Court.
Timberbranch Court:
Beginning at Station 5+01.97, the edge of the cul-de-sac,
thence in a northeasterly direction 1056.67 feet to Station
15+58.64, the end of the other cul-de-sac on Timberbranch
Court.
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 these requested additions as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1042, pages 413 - 422; Deed Book
1074, page 480; Deed Book 1098, page 309; Deed Book 1160, page 490;
and Deed Book 1116, page 222.
* * * * *
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 August 7, 1991. :_~~ ~
Cler~.~~~~ors
CRAIG BUILDERS
OF ALBEMARLE, INC.
l.' r'~ r \" () ';- .i\ i \ ;:.- :',,~~- ';:; j ,_ :_'
r---'. r''''.. (-"', ' .
,-, j 1 ..-,1 ! ,"-..J ~ ,.
\ I ; \y~_,_\_.J...
Ii)) J'"
I 1\ ... j'JI__
i '.\
II ' 1:~:'T':_-,,::":'j ",
.' .-.... ...
, . ",.... .~. ' '. ,
. ,.~'""-~ !: '!
July 29, 1991
l ;.'. L'
Estelle Neher
Clerk of The Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Mill Creek Section 4
Dear Estelle:
We hereby request that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors adopt a resolution to accept the following roads into
V.D.O.T.'s system:
1. Gristmill Drive
2. Flagstone Terrace
3. Alpine Court
4. Timberbranch Court
Please call me at 973-3362 if you have any questions.
Thank you.
sincerely,
f.k,1v 6 ~
Hunter Craig;t;-
HClkc
c.c. Pam Shifflett - Albemarle County Engineering Dept.
338 Rio Road . Post Office Box 6156 . Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 · (804) 973-3362
,
;.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.,
\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Lettie E. Neher, Board of Supervisors Clerk
FROM:
Hoyt B. Alford III, Civil Engineer1-(rYi:-"\
<'
DATE:
July 26, 1991
RE:
Mill Creek, Section 4
Road Descriptions
On behalf of Craig Builders, we request the Board of Supervisors
adopt a resolution for acceptance of Gristmill Drive, Alpine
Court, Flagstone Terrace, and Timberbranch Court in Section 4 of
Mill Creek Subdivision based on the following descriptions:
Gristmill Drive
Beginning at Station 2l+55 of Gristmill Drive, a point common to
the centerline of State Route 1157 (Gristmill Drive) at the end
of State maintenance, thence in a southwesterly direction
1405.21 feet to Station 35+60.21, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Alpine Court
Beginning at Station 10+27, a point common to the centerline of
Alpine Court and the edge of pavement of Gristmill Drive, thence
in southeasterly direction 158 feet to Station 11+85, the end of
the cul-de-sac.
Flagstone Terrace
Beginning at Station 10+10, a point common to the centerline of
Flagstone Terrace and the edge of pavement of Gristmill Drive,
thence in a northwesterly direction 431.7 feet to Station
14+41.70, the edge of pavement at Station lO+OO on Timberbranch
Caur t .
Timberbranch Court
Beginning at Station 5+01.97, the edge of the cul-de-sac, thence
in a nartheasterly direction '1056.67 feet ta Station 15+58.64,
the end of the other cul-de-sac on Timberbranch Court.
~
.
MEMO RE: Mill Creek, Section 4
July 26, 1991
Page Two
The abave described ,-oads have a fifty (50) foot right-of-way
and drainage easements included with the dedication. Deed book
references are as follows: 1) D.B. l074, page 480; 2) D.B.
1160, page 490; 3) D.B. 1116, page 222, 4) D.B. 1098, page 309,
and 5) D.B. 1042, pages 413 through 422.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
HBA/ps
Di~trjbt!t",d to OO?:rd: 8.2.... '1/.......
.' C' ' CJ!:J2f.!J-1 (~.3 )
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE rr,':::~
:\ ~) 1 ::-
- ~-~-.~~
;/ l:
;,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ~
FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive~1
DATE: August 2, 1991
RE: Moving Expenses - Richard E. Huff, II
At the time Mr. Huff was hired as Deputy County Executive, you also
authorized the payment of his moving expenses. Mr. Huff was able
to move much of his family's belongings himself which kept his
moving expenses well below the transfer company's original
estimate. I am, therefore, requesting payment of his moving
expenses from your contingency account in the amount of $1,536.86.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
RWT,Jr/dbm
91.104
'vI I~ -I' d ~_L"" -4 J
~'-1 ~1I ~{i::-:: .:7- :;;;;J~~
Agcl1dJ !'3rrl ;~a, {?.J'P'7 2..1- ~ ~ "7
"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 McINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Members, Board of Supervisors
F. R. Bowie, Chairma~
August 5, 1991
TO:
DATE:
As authorized by the Board, David Bowerman, Bob Tucker and I
met with Secretary Milliken and some of his staff on July 31. It
was a productive meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the letter I sent
to Secretary Milliken on Friday, August 2. When we receive his
response, we can discuss further actions at a future Board meeting.
This letter will be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval
on August 7.
FRB:ec
Enclosure
..
David P Bowerman
Charlollesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
Charlotte Y Humphris
J<lck Joueu
Edward H Barn. Jr
Samuel Miller
Walter F. Perkrns
Whlle Hall
F. R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T. Way
Scoltsville
August 1, 1991
The Honorable John G. Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Secretary Milliken:
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors, I want to thank you for meeting with Mr. Bowerman,
Mr. Tucker and me on Wednesday. The purpose of our
meeting was to share with you our thoughts on how we can
mutually and amicably resolve some of the transportation
issues in our area. We felt the meeting was extremely
productive.
My letter of June 25, 1991, stated that the Board of
Supervisors was inclined to accept the designation of
Alternative 10 if we could obtain a positive commitment to
carry out the CATS Plan.
Enclosure I to this letter provides a brief history
of the reasons for our concern as we discussed in our
meeting. We feel the sequence of events since the Common-
wealth Transportation Board (CTB) meeting at Natural
Bridge in October, 1990, clearly shows a change in VDoT
priori ties. There is a shift from completing CATS to
building the Bypass.
While we recognize that local and state transporta-
tion interests priorities differ at times, it is our
feeling that both intra-state needs and local needs can be
met through a cooperative long-range implementation plan,
outlined on Enclosure III.
The Honorable John G. Milliken
August I, 1991
Page 2
The purpose of this letter is to thank you, Mrs.
Kincheloe, Mr. Pethtel and Mr. Hodge for meeting with us
on July 31 and to obtain a firm agreement between the
Cormnonwealth Transportation Board, VDoT and the County
that the sequence of the Route 29 corridor improvements
will be as specifically recormnended by VDoT and adopted by
the Cormnonweal th Transportation Board, with the addition
of Route 29-related CATS projects.
Sincerely,
~J2&c~
F. R. Bowie
Chairman
FRB:ec
Enclosures (3)
ENCLOSURE I
If and when a Bypass is constructed, the Sverdrup Study, as
acknowledged by VDoT, states that no Bypass will work unless
the CATS plan and the Meadowcreek Parkway are built.
o This position was stated no less than three times by
Mr. Hodge in his presentation to the CTB on October
24, 1990, at Natural Bridge.
o Subsequently at Manassas, on November 15, 1990, Mr.
Hodge reiterated that no Bypass will work unless CATS
is part of the plan.
o At this meeting on November 15, 1990, VDoT recom-
mended, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board
approved, a specific three-phased plan for Route 29
corridor improvements as set forth in Enclosure II.
Nonetheless, it was at this same meeting that the emphasis
apparently began shifting away from the CATS, other than the
widening of Route 29 North.
The County is concerned that the Bypass
other CTB approved Phase I recommendations.
strengthened this concern.
is moving ahead of
Recent events have
First, at Natural Bridge the VDoT position was that CATS
was required before any Bypass;
Second, at Manassas the final VDoT position as approved
by the CTB recognized the importance of the relevant
portions of CATS;
1-1
Third, there was a shift in focus at Manassas in that Mr.
Hodge made numerous references to needing the Bypass
before 2010 because CATS funding is falling short and
CATS won't be complete for another 30 to 40 years.
Subsequent to the Commonwealth Transportation Board approval in
November, the following has taken place:
First, VDoT is moving ahead on funding hardship right of
way in the Alternative 10 corridor;
Second, VDoT figures show that the project to widen 250
East to I-64 came in under projection as did the Route 29
right-of-way planning figures. It appears that these
funds were not reallocated to any local road project;
Third, the City of Charlottesville's funding for the
Meadowcreek Parkway has been delayed for three years.
In summary, while the Commonwealth Transportation Board
approved the phased plan for the Route 29 corridor per
Enclosure II, actions taken to date are the cause for our
ser ious concern. VDoT actions, as noted above, appear to be
supporting the Bypass at the expense of CATS.
1-2
~
ENCLOSURE II
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S APPROVED
ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS
NOVEMBER 15, 1990
Phase I - Short Range Recommendations
o Construct Route 29 Base Case;
o Reserve right-of-way for the three interchanges;
o Encourage the County and City to restrict further development
in the right-of-way;
o If necessary, VDoT acquire right-of-way;
o Develop the North Grounds access facility;
o Alternative 10 be approved as the future corridor;
o Refine preliminary plan for Alternative 10;
o Restrict access to Alternative 10 to preserve the watershed.
Phase II - Medium Range Recommendations
o Build the three grade-separated interchanges when needed;
o Continue to preserve and acquire the right-of-way for
Alternative 10.
Phase III - Long Range Recommendation
o Construct Alternative 10 when traffic on Route 29 is unaccept-
able and economic conditions permit.
ENCLOSURE III
If VDoT commits to the phasing of projects listed below and
assures us of this, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County may be inclined to accept Alternative 10, move to
preserve the necessary rights of way and do the things neces-
sary within its power to advance these priorities.
Prioritized Phased Projects
o Widening of U. S. Route 29 to six lanes with continuous
right turn lanes from the Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork
of the Rivanna River, etc;
o Remainder of CTB Phase I recommendation of November 15,
1990;
o Completion of Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass
to U. S. Route 29 North;
o Construction of grade-separated interchanges at U. S. Route
29 North and Rio Road (Route 631), Hydraulic Road (Route
743), and Greenbrier Drive (Route 866).
o Remainder of CTB Phase II recommendation of November 15,
1990; and
o Construction of Alternative 10 concurrent with remainder of
1985 CATS, if and when needed after completion of the above
projects;
')
S/'7 h
1///
-'
/(t.:;,j/
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
fln\iI'ctlllg The Ellvironment b EUt'n/!)(jdy'~ Business
August 7) 1991
The Chairman's August 1) 1991 letter to Secretary Milliken enclasure #3 gives
the Piedmont Environmental Caunci1 concern for twa reasans:
firstly, PEC is hopeful that the Baard .of Supervisars will in no way diminish
its suppart far the creatian and pratectian .of Agricultural and Faresta1
Districts in all rural areas of the County;
secandly) we wauld like ta express our concern that this Board take caution
nat ta tie the hands of a future Baard in its necessary decisions pertaining
to the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act .of the Virginia Code. Virginia
Cade Section 15.1-1512(D) states that a lacal governing bady, upan receipt .of
natice fram an agency .of the Cammanwealth, "!Bf!!l review the prapased actian
ta determine the effect such action wauld have . .
"
[Emphasis added.]
A
future Baard should have the freedom and ability ta perform that review
independent of the actian of earlier Boards.
28-C Main Street, Box 460, Warrenton, Virginia 22186/703-347-2334/Fax 349-9003
1010 Harris Street Suite 1, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901/804-977-2033
.
~/ ~
. 1'1(' U,<-"-~ "~-i
~/~/
Citizens for Albemarle, Inc.
Box 3751 University Station
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
August 7, 1991
To the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has a long history
of vigorously opposing Route 29 bypasses, through both the
eastern and the western sections of our county. The people
of Albemarle have strongly supported that position. For
instance, Citizens for Albemarle collected 5,000 signatures
of county voters who were against any bypass.
The Board of Supervisors also has a history of protecting
Agricultural and Forestal Districts and the watershed.
Citizens for Albemarle applauds the Board's efforts to secure
funding for the Meadowcreek parkway and improvements to Route
29, as well as efforts to ensure building of the three
overpasses on Route 29. However, we strongly oppose any
weakening of opposition to bypasses and consequent weakening
of support for Agricultural and Forestal Districts and the
watershed. Such a demonstration of weakness now would harm
the credibility of future Boards of Supervisors and limit
their ability to act on these issues.
The Board's unanimous position on these issues in the past
has reflected community sentiment. It is therefore
essential that the Board remain united in opposition to
bypasses, now and in the future.
Dictributed tc Goard: '6.2. ell
f\gt.;~d: ~~'::;;~ r--~o.
'1/. O'{d [.$,: 'f )
. /
The International Institute of Municipal Clerks
BOARD OF DIRECTORS-1991-1992
W. DOUGLAS ARMSTRONG, CMC
President
Administrator Clerk Treasurer
Peterborough County Courthouse
Peterborough. Ontario K9H 3M3
CHRISTINA N. WILDER, CMC/AAE
1st Vice President
Township Clerk, Hamilton Township
CNOO/50. Hamilton, New Jersey 08650
NORMA S. RODRIGUEZ, CMC
2nd Vice President
City Clerk, City Hall
San Antonio, Texas 78285
DIRECTORS-1992 Expiration
MARJE N. BEITERLEY, CMC/AAE
Town ClerklTreasurer, Town Hall
Stowe, Vermont 05672
ADELINE BROWN, CMC/AAE
Borough Manager-Secretary, City Hall
Oakmont, Pennsylvania 15139
MARY R. WRJXON, CMC/AAE
Clerk of Council, City Hall
Charleston, South Carolina 29401
MARY T. ZANDER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk, City Hall
Sterling Heights, Michigan 48078
EILEEN M. MARIINEZ, CMC/AAE
City Clerk, City Hall
Grants, New Mexico lJl020
MARIE K. O'CONNELL, CMC/AAE
City Clerk, City Hall
Bellevue, Washington 98W
THOMAS P. O'CONNOR, CMC
Town Clerk/Manager, Pan Hedland
Box 41, Port Hedland, West. Austrolia 6721
DIRECTORS-1993 Expiration
ELAINE M. WALLACE, CMC/AAE
Municipal Clerk, Delaware Township Hall
Sergeantsville, NelV Jersey 08557
A.J. LAICH~ CMC/AAE
Town Clerk, Town Hall
Gramercy, Louisiana 70052
FRANCENE CLARK-LEISINGER, CMC
City Clerk. City Hall
Mound, Minnesota 55364
roM G. ROBEKlS, CMC
City Clerk, City Hall
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
GWEN GRABOUSKI, CMC/AAE
City Clerk. City Hall
Beatrice, Nebraska 68310
J. W. (JACK) COPLAND, CMC/AAE
Municipal Clerk, Corporation of Delta
Delta. British Columbia V4K 3E2
roM McLEAN, CMC
Chief Executive Off, District Council
Papakura, Auck., Nerv Zealand
DIRECTORS-1994 Expiration
BEVERLY M. BROWN, CMC/AAE
City/Town Clerk. City Hall
Shelton, Connecticut 06484
GAIL BUSBEY, CMC/AAE
City Clerk/Treasurer, City Hall
Decatur, Alabama 35602
CINDY REMLER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk. City Hall
Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902
MARILYN S. SWING, CMC
Clerk/Nashville-Davidson County
Metropolitan Court House
Nashville, Jennessee 37201
BERNARD W. KAHL, CMC/AAE
Village Clerk/Treasurer, Village Hall
Mukwonago, Wisconsin 53/49
LINDA E. MEDLOCK, CMC/AAE
City Clerk, City Hall
Saint Charles, Missouri 6330/
VIRGINIA MORRISON, CMC
City Recorder, City Hall
Metolius, Oregon 97742
C JOSIE KAn. CMC
Town Clerk, Town Hall
Mount Royal. Quebec H3R 1Z5
MARGERY PRICE, CMC/AAE
lmmediate Past President
City Clerk. City Hall
Kennewick, Washington 99336
160 N. ALTADENA DRIVE · PASADENA, CALIF. 91107 · PHONE (818) 795-6153 . FAX (818) 795-3615
Jul Y 23, 19.-9-1 '
Francis L. Adshead, Ph.D.
Director ?f Ffluca!ipn. , r
I ,'_ .
"
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman of the Board
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
!)~
.. I';
I i\;
, jll
,
.': 'I
;;; r
/ 1 i I
: 'r..,~. ~ L;
'.. ..~,~. l,~._~..J
q<)
~'.~'
V'-"": '
. ,,:' ~ -~ \.~
('} ;:: r.: ~ J r:?' f~- ;,~' ~< ~..:
Dear Mr. Bowie:
On behalf of the International Institute of
Municipal Clerks, it gives me great pleasure
to announce that Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Board
of Supervisors, of County of Albemarle,
Virginia, has been awarded the designation of
Certified Municipal Clerk.
This prestigious award recognizes the
professional competency of Lettie E. Neher in
fulfilling the responsibilities and duties of
her office. It is granted only after a person
has met the high educational, experience, and
service requirements established by the IIMC.
Such requirements are regularly updated to
keep pace with the changing local government
scene.
We are pleased to have a person of Ms. Neher's
professional capabilities as a member of the
International Institute of Municipal Clerks.
;~~
W. Douglas Armstrong, CMC/AAE
Pres i dent, IIMC
WDA/ch
May 17-21, 1992 . . . 46th AnnualllMC international Conference. . . Salt Lake City, Utah (Academy May 16)
. :r.:'~~;;';:; ,', G....itu. 8. z.. Cf C
Agenda Item No. 91. o~o 7 ( s; 5-)
..
f ~
:,: ..
.JUt 18 IS;)l
. .
.'
, ."
. ~r'
July 16, 1991
Route 648
Albemarle County
Mrs. Carnice Berti
Route 1, Box 1324
Keswick, VA 22947
Dear Mrs. Berti:
Your letter of July 2, 1991, requesting a reduced speed limit on Route 648 has
been forwarded to me by Mr. F. R. Bowie.
Upon receipt of a telephone request in mid June I, in turn, requested our
Traffic Engineer to review Route 648 for a reduced speed limit. I did not recard
the name of the party who made the telephane request and you may have been that
party. If so, I apolagize far failing ta record your name and respond to you.
Based upon his review, the District Traffic Engineer has recommended that the
speed limit on Route 648 be reduced to 35 mph. The Code of Virginia designates the
State Transportation Commissioner as the party with authority to set speed limits
in Virginia. The District Traffic Engineer's request has gone to him for review.
Normally this review takes a month or so. If the Commissioner approves the
District Traffic Engineer's recommendation, we will install the signs for the
reduced speed limit. If his recommendation is rejected, I will so advise you at
that time. I recammend yau laak far signs ta be installed araund mid August .of
this year. If they are not in place at that time, you might cantact my .office for
an update.
Yaurs truly,
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR/smk
cc: F. R. Bowie
f)1:~:~ljbL~::/';('1 f~... , " .
,,~ ....., Lr,.,,"w..I. f~ 2 C'
AfJt:'l " ~'".". ---- . II
",,~rd.'] "~f11 ~': 91 --
'J, _.~ 0 Po 7 (s: /)
--_-....!.. .b
.....
I ',-,~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA:~..
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0, BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
j t"
C..~";~ Oil '-..'
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
July 22, 1991
Route 668
Albemarle County
Ms. Lettie Neher, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Caunty Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Ms. Neher:
The Virginia Department of Transportatian intends to repair the existing
superstructure over Doyles River during the period of August 5, 1991 thraugh August
16, 1991.
Attached is a sketch indicating the location of the bridge. Signs will be up
to assist traffic while the structure is clased.
Should yau have any questions, please cantact this office at 804-296-5102.
Yours Truly,
@IJM.
H. V. Mills
Maintenance Manager
HVM/ldw
Attachments
cc: T. F. Farley; R. H. Connack, Jr.
D. B. Sprinkel; F. L. Edens
R. V. Tucker, Jr.
Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville Post Office
Ch'ville./Alb. Rescue Squad
Vestern Alb. Rescue Squad
Crozet Fire Dept.
VA. State Police
Alb. Caunty Palice
School Transportation Officer
Alb. County Schools
J. E. Shifflett, Jr.
J. R. Howe; S. C. Dean
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
'" '" w ;::;
~ ~ g: ~
<5 ~ '"
~ ~
0
.. ;::;
~ ~
~
g ..
0
~ ;::; .. ~
<D W
'" ~ ..
iil 5l = ..
..
J> N
~ ~ ~ ~
~ = ~ ~
'"
~
...
.
o
....
>
....
"
:II
~
>
:II
-<
;::
r=
m
>
(;l
m
Z
....
I
m
n
o
c
z
::;!
>
(fl
~
o
m
n
" .
II
G
~
"
..;)~
o
c..
I?
<D
'"
..
~
J>
Ol
'"
J>
;::
~
(fl
~
~
~'lt-
~0
~'
c,
o
~
'"
~
~
~
~
o
u
<r
"
'"
~
I
I
I
I
I Charlottesville
I ReserVOIr
I
I
I
; .J7ii2l.702
~'1~
, P'2.91
l ~.~
-..."-.".--........"'....-,-..,..".....
. __ cl/.p /10 7 (s-..., 7 )
,"', I'" 1
I:, t:\. \ ..:\:.._E~.:~~rA>/.l,~.~
-, t....'.-.. ,.,
. I;'
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA.
!' '" ' ~ ; "I
~ ;" i
\ ,
.Jtil..
- J lS,~l
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
\ ~ ~"
\. '
i I .' ~
'..._"':'.../
::>(.;
,-.' \.
l,~ l~ '~,.- f
July 25, 1991
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolutions dated May 8, 1991 and June
19, 1991, the following additions to the Secondary System of
Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective July 25, 1991.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
WYNRIDGE
Route 1452 (Westfield Road) - From 0.03 mile Northwest
Route 1499 to 0.21 mile Northwest Route 1499 0.18 Mi
QUINTFIELD
Route 1551 (Quintfield Drive) - From Route 664 to 0.09
mile South Route 664 0.09 Mi
Sincerely,
('c'
lbe# ft,,,('"
~J\f\ J\;\-', \ h..-
~"G-~"'~j
~"t~~~~
~~~.
D. Peth'Eel
ommissioner
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
DATE ~ '}L'-1 ) c I ~\ "l I
AGENDA ITEM NO. c~ \ . oS? 01 <- ') I (~)
AGENDA ITEM NAME L \--1'2 ,,~~ J \; \ \ \. '\ \ {~V~ (!\c,- '1 V e 0
DEFERRED UNTIL
A.j '\/J.. '.5 t
" 0
\,--\ ,<::..'"
\ ,,,,,-\
Farm. 3
7/25/86
DATE
~
I ". ~ c
/,( ~H..>,,\ "a \ \ ') I I
I 0
AGENDA ITEM NO.
c\ \ '. C~ U\ ( <; l "'\ ')
I I. . ~' 2
AGENDA ITEM NAME . I-..~ l2.. J ~ d '1 \ 1'S \ '\ I. VIr. f n~\l.~
~\ \c\.--d\..., Cc,,- \2_~ ;:)C\ \~L'\V~ ''.:.'~ J
DEFERRED UNTIL .' ) ~"- "if ';" \; \ '-\.' '. \ "\ ~ \
Farm.3
7/25/86
-Ols'tri!)I ,f.c-; i~ 4-" "-, ' (j
. "-... d b.~<;rc;: (P2,' C) I
Agenda ltsm I'io. ~() )
f.::.!. u(-:.:'rn.;:\ r"
l'i l..l.t I
j..;[n, ":\1'- C!
('","",.
::::;! [ f";!,.'-' r
L H' ..., ...
r:"! 1'" ,;
:::!.; ,m:.'
C: h .:';\ i ", fP ::, n
/~. () 1 !"i! c J n t. :i. 1'" ('::' h~ () .;':\ d
C: h .:';'1,1'" J () 1~ t. c.:1 ';::. 1..,/ i J .i. c.:' :~
, I.
......:;'. !:
'"
r- , :'~., I I
,;;. C, ~-{ "1 I
r\, ...:
1)1'::''::' v' 1"i1!-""
.i:3c)v.} :L
! nc.:' Jj(.:.:, iJ.:':\ I" TJiH.:.:'n'r. (:o""r Ii" .:':'i.n ';::. PC) j'" 't.;':... -l..:, ()n h ':"I. ';;;. U(.:.:,(.:.:ln in c,n '1.'.-:':\ C t.('. u 'j' C'; \"j; ,i-'./ U i::'
P(,:,::!"'rn:i. ":::,":::.:!.()n
'(- C', .::i..J.:1. CH.'.) l..1.":::- tJ::; he) 1 (j .:':\ t. j" :L .;':\ t. h 1 Cl!", ':In
pU.n.!. 'j, C
j", (.-'!l,<".
'1"01'"
-i:.hc:'
i:)(.:.::j"j(.:.::"j:::i. '1:.
(:)'f t.h(.:.:' i. .::Il,,:(::,
!"'lc.n t.:i. c(.:.:' J 1 () r:':i. 1"'(.:.:, .;';'I.n d
l'l.:(.:-: ...
u..:':',JJ "
; n(.:.:'
!." .;';'t C c.:' (j .:':\ 'r. (.:.:,
.1. :::.
..... 1 ,
:::::(':':'PT.i::.:'fHD(.:.:,j'"
CC)I'i'i P !." :i. ';::. (.:':' c!
.! ,''',,'':.!
.... . .."
, . .
D(':':'(J :1. n n :1. i j I"J
". 'i'
;...;:: '.J;.)
.::! .. if;
1 rH':':'
, . ,:.,
T. i'" :L .;':'1. T. n .J. () n
()"(
t.h;'''(,.",::c-:'
"i .:';\ j'" T. ':::. ~l
':::.1..:..1 ill (:',:1. n (j ~i
u
cJ 'i.n .j
,;';'l.n c!
!'''u.n n :i. n Cj "
'r h(.::' .;::.I....,1:L frllT! i r',
..
,"'u.n n:i. n (J
!"Ii"! i" 'j' :I. C)!"! ':::. ...
r -::t. '..... ,,:i.:l 1
\.}I::.:
!"l;'::', .
(':':'i"i '1.'.:1. j'''(':':'.L}-' i/.J:!. 'i:.! ; :1.1 i
.;. !
, ; I':::
L...;':', !.,:.(,:,:, 'Ie)!"! 'r.:L ::: i:::.1. ,L i",i
CC)(D(!'~i..:.r) :1. '..
'j:. \." "
'f;"!(.::,
D:1. ' :>., c: in (1
pc, j'" t 1 c)n 1.."./:I..i.
b(.:.:'(.l ]. n ';';". !:)()i..i. 'I: 'j ;; ,,)
.:;~ :. ;Ti"
.:';"i.nu
I}.} : ~ . ..
U. '::.:1..1.:1. i:(':':'
!."'().;':'i,(:j '::;.
:!.!"i
hCJt.h
i" i I i\/,.':, nn .:::
. ." .... ...,......
';':".n d (:'1 J be.:. i"'iTI.;':'1. I,":L .::,:'
:CH,l.i'! 'C. :;'(':':":::.
:"':1
r .:;1.1...1::.'
iT!,:';". r.'1
"i'("iV'
t.hc:'
b :i. C)." c J :i. j"j (J
';::,(':':'(!l!"!::'.'-:'I"! t.
:t ';::.
., 1 ,
.:':\ T. T. .:':":. C n (.:.:, G
! ....
-;.... C) ,..1.
ir(.:':;--;"(.:.:'1'''(.:.:'n c::-:-:' "
'fhi':;:
U.i. ~ :,(.:.:,
!". .;;1. ! : c.:' .:':\ C -1:. U. .:':', 1 :1. '-;...'
.::: +.,
.:':'!.n (]
(.:.:'n'i';;:. V..1:1. 'i:.hi
... ';;".!" ...
I';;::)!"! <I.". :i. c(~.::J J C';i
C)'!'.h(.:.:'!'"
'().::".U':::.
T. n.;.:'!. T.
l..'.,i :1. .1. .t
D(':':' U.'::'
..h.. 1
...! ," I,.;
; '.'("'I j ! 'i,I:::':;:.
, ....... .......
:.:.:;,1....;
..;'..; C'
(';. :::':'~ () .:':'f. n d (:';. J :3 ::
'r I'H':':' i':'1 i.........i ; I".'. '(':::. i,.:..l J. ,:.
F'e:,., .(':'!"i t. -:':',' 1....::\ i,'.'J.:.:: i""ICil"'i -i. :I. C
i (",
:i. '1:..:::. i,!"!.;':'t:i.n (.:J.:;'I. t.(':':: ,.
,1"1(':':'
j';'! C';,"l
t.n-:-:',.T
1;..1:.. 1
!:)(-'.:
, '.1,
.....' c;
'j:.
'(:Ln :1
'!'.he:.:,
'i:. ;." :1. ':':". T. h :L () n i..=.,i :L 1 'L
U(.:-:, (I' :,n(.:.::
1..1..1 :L
1..n
;. J. l""I(j
C) !."
;...i.i...,! i
.L J () () .;';1.., iT! "
i nc,:' l' i::.'
JJ
L.I':'.'
... ,',C::U. 'j'
:,r: )( ).
'1..;. ;..)1..)
.;':'1. -I:.hJ;:.:.:,.j:.(.:.:,.;::
I, "
... \1
.:":\ ("I (.:.:, ',',.
U"~ (1
.::'.U
(':"::"
p .::l. ( t.! c: :!. n .:;";. t. :i. n c.:
:Ln
'l.".n:;.':::. i'.--II .,
! (j c.:'n :.':.l..i.!'''(-'':' -1:. hi..L I'"
';::..:'"I.Y'(.'"
'i:.,"j(':':'l"
V.,! 1 .1. .L
U(.:.:' .:::.i..l,;) PC) (t. .::j n d .:':\il"! hU.l-:':u') ce.:' .......c:' n:i. C.1. (':':":::. J (.:.::.:';-,.CI n (i
..,. 'j Cl
'r.;"
.f. 'j,!'j i)
'::.n(.:.::
,.... ...... ......
.. .' . ....
; .: ;'. '.. - ':::! : ::. ~,
... ... i,.:.,i(.:.:' J.
.:':'i. '::;. b (.:.:, :i. n (J .....: ,--' T. :1. () n .::,:' d () u. t.
C'ln
i:.n,:.:.:'
:::():.J !....::;.( . "
i....C)I..i. i....;::.{-'::
fl"i,;';"!. I"" .::;. ,"t.::, i
i".i'j 'j .1.
.:';'1,.1
r'li::'
.;;:. t..:';'" t.:i. C)i"! (.:.:.d
. , ,
'i:, n !'''C) Li. (.:J nCiU. I,
.... ,
';:'.1 i'..:
'(j"l(':':: i.. ,.
. ,. 'f
:1. \'.:L c: ~';\ .I.
'j, !"'! -1:.(':':' j'" ';;:.C':' C 'r.:1. ()n ':::.
J1
(.:.:
:C)i"'! 'i:.V
(J .L .L (.:. ,'~
;""! j
c)--j"'f":!'!' j.."
f.i.i;":,':
.,:;.1.......
c:c n T.~';\C 1:.1 ,"j(:.! .:':"I.'.I..L j:){').i. :;. ::::(.:.:. .:;'I,(..'J(':-:'!"; c. i I
'1 I''',.':,
':':".nc:
I:::! : '::.' r ',j =:..
.;;'I.(J(':':'n
C :1.(.:-::':::, 'i
.::\ !", (:1
(.:,'f'f(.:.:, c: -l:.(.:.;I.j (,:.1 ()\/(.:. !"'n :1. n :::.1
bc)d :j,(.:..i
'." :i
':,j';;:.
(':';'qU.:L j'"
(::,;"j
;:i::.'
))(.:.!p.;':", /." -l:.~Ti(.:.:'j!'r.
C)"f'
'r !....:.;...n ';;:. PC) (' t..:':'!. t. i C)i"! ,.
.() .'-:j.;::. Ti'",
p j" () '../ :1. G (.:.:,
.;::.pL'!"
:1. !"!C,
(.:.:,'.....'(.:.:.1..; 's:.
P(:).~::..;:;. :!.1::;:I. (.:.:, "
::.)(.:.:, .:';'1.,"'(':"
(..'.1(.:.:: I'"'
""::.:.:, C(.:.:,:i. ~./(.':
.ii ';.'"
>... C) I.,!.
;TI.;';":.:>'"'
n.:':':.'../(.:.:,
C) 1'"
, ;::.' (':' cl I.,;.;:!. '... [.'. .( j'''CHI"i .1. .:') '::;. T. ';"'l.::'.:;,. r
(.'.:' 1,'::", .
1.1,;"::'
'. '.:.'
~. C)C) j... :i. n (:i
'f\:)j"i,.'..l.;':'!.l'''d
T[".
I I !) j__I(J r '1..:1. n q .:':\ '1:. h:L c.:' t. ... I.. .... .;';U"! c(
(::1,((':':'
...:;;.;:!
C,j'" iTI';'I.!
.;... ;:__ .:;1. I' . .t.J"; C()!!:(....:'"
!",'! .....
j" .1.1::.'.:::.:::.(.:.:'
.!. '"r j"
;:.:.;,(.:.;,
=..1...;
CC)i"~ 'i.'..:':'!. ;.....
In>:.:.:;
,.
.1.
i...; ;
.... :.:.:.:'
.,';...
;, ";t'
Peter Drenan & Stuart HarDer-Directors I (804) 979-24<16 & 971-&245
P.o. Box 5612. Charlottesville. Va. 22905
The Charlottesville Triathlon
Distributed to Board: _ ? z ' C; I
3CA~e~~ff!Ul:'f\}~ba:H! J>~relf-
Suite l~O'O._d, ~7 S-'Ij)
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
301-659-7500
..
"
!l"''<!C~
',_ '. ."'i
,
:'~ ,\,/ i:\ ;"f! ~,
July 17, 1991
, i 1, ~'
>-f
)!Ii
. (J,' ,,--:11 i:"::: ,r "-..-,
'--',1 ,r I,
"\ I! I ~
. I \ : t i I
! ,I l;J~1l ~:::/
,/ 1 ~ i!
./ ~; I :
~~ : J: L t:~!j
; : I "r i:,>'/; ~:!(..
Mr. Bob Richardson
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Post Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Enclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
of June 1991.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 301-659-7500.
Sincerely,
~A-vU~
Sheila A. Hannah
Project Monitor
/sah
enclosures
...:~tii""'_:l".U:I"
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
'i
'l
BONO PROGRAM REPORT
Month
June
V.., 1991
Pro~r1y: Arbar Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Raad Apts.) Pro;.ct.:
loc.tion: Charlattesville, VA Number of Unitt
SubmtUed Cy: Loretta Wyatt Jul y 5, 1991 Effective June 30, 1991
Manager OaT.
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
051-35371
66
66
I. LOW'fR INCOME
15
The 101lo""Ing units h.~ ~n d~s'gnated as "tower ,ncome" unIts
1 Arbar Crest Dr. 21 Eleanar Blair 41 el.
'2 4 Arbor Crest Dr. 2'2 Margaret Q. Sandford42
e2,
3 5 Arbar Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43
63.
4 6 Arbar Crest Dr. 24 Gearge C. Barnett 44 84.
5 9 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burtan 45 65.
6 12 Arbar Crest Dr. '26 G. Rabert Stane 46
ee.
7 . 15 Arbar Crest Dr. 27 Jane Waad 47 e1.
a 20 Arbar Crest Dr. 28 Evelyn Mandeville 48 ea
9 24 Arbar Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49
69.
10 78 Arbar Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50 70.
11 84 Arbar Crest Dr. 3t Juanita Boliek ~1
71.
12. 86 Arbor Crest Dr. 32 Mary A. Haxie 52. 72
13 90 Arbar Crest Dr. 33 Flarence Wheeler 53
73.
14 94 Arbar Crest Dr. 34 Sarah E. Fischer 54
74.
1~ 106 Arbar Crest Dr. 3~ Katherine T. Nawlen ~5
- 7S.
16 36 ~ 7e
17 37 57. 77.
III J8 50.. 78,
19 39 - 59 78.
:'0 40 60 80.
T ~ c"an~s from PI~VIOllS r~pOrl 'f'H~cted in the Abov. lisilng are
O.'ellon. Addttlone
.t Katherine M. Barman .., 42 Arbar Crest Dr.
1- 11.
'1 12 2 12,
3 13 3 13.
.. 14 4. 14.
5 IS S 15.
6 16 6 '6.
7 \1 7 17.
e 18 8. la..
, '9 9 '8.
lO 20 10. 20.
.... ~
Effective June 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:ments
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Apr ill, 1983, between the Industr ial Development Author i ty of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned author ized 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,
Charlottesvi lle, Virg inia (the "proj ect"), 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 unders!~ned has signed this Report as of
July 5, 1 91 ,HiHt
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~~2ZZ ;:$-'S,v_:ZZ;-
Authorized Representative
...
1
"", . <;/.2.. Ci(
Agen:l;; I,-;Iil Nt-. ~?/;;;-1{~7//x-
t .1Pgl
\ :.;
:1 i ,
.; : i
, II
; i:'
Hugh C. Miller, Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219
TOO: (804) 786.1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
July 16, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
RE: East Belmont Farm, Albemarle County (DHR 02-23)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Recently the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Commonwealth's agency
responsible for administering historic preservation programs, received information regarding
the history and significance of East Belmont Farm. This information was submitted by
Geoffrey B. Henry for the owners, Mr. & Mrs. Archibald Craige along with a request that
the department conduct a preliminary evaluation of the property to determine whether it is
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks
Register. I must emphasize that this evaluation does not constitute a formal action to add this
property to those registers.
The National Register and Virginia Landmarks Register are lists of properties important for
their prehistoric and/or historical associations. Only those properties found to be significant
for their associations with events or persons or determined to be good examples of an
architectural style or method of construction are eligible for inclusion on the registers.
Additionally, properties must meet age and integrity standards. I have enclosed information
explaining in more detail the factors that make a property eligible for the registers.
Inclusion on the registers applies no restrictions regarding what the owner may do with his
property. Registration makes a property eligible for protection and financial incentives such
as easement donations, tax credits for rehabilitation and grant funds, not available to
unregistered properties. More importantly, registration is a way of honoring the significance
of a historic property and recording its history and appearance by collecting information that
becomes a permanent record in the Department's archives.
...
1.
The information submitted about this property has been considered by the department's
National Register Evaluation Team, a group of staff representing a variety of disciplines and
agency programs, at one of its semi-monthly meetings. It is the staff's opinion that East
Belmont Farm is an eligible historic resource. While this review is not dependent upon an
owner's consent, we are notifying the owner and you of the department's evaluation so that
you can participate in this process should you so desire, and so that you may know to contact
us should you have any questions.
We will make a recommendation that this property is an eligible historic resource to the State
Review Board, an advisory group consisting of preservation professionals from throughout
the state. We anticipate that the board will consider the staff recommendation regarding the
eligibility at its upcoming meeting. Meetings of the board are open to the public. The
meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 20th, 1991, in Senate Room A of the General
Assembly Building at the comer of Ninth and Broad streets, Richmond, beginning at
W:ooam. As with the staff's evaluation, the Review Board's conclusion does not constitute
any formal action to nominate this property to the registers.
(
\
If the Review Board concludes that this property is eligible for registration, the applicant or
any other interested party may wish to prepare and submit the more extensive formal register
nomination. Prior to any action to register the property, federal regulations require the
department to notify the owner, as well as local officials, and give both the opportunity to
express opinions on the nomination before any formal action is taken. Though the formal
notification requirements come into effect only when a formal nomination is being
considered, we want to call your attention to the fact that the historical significance of this
property is being considered and we would welcome any additional information you may
wish to share with us.
The enclosed materials should explain in more detail the register process and the implications
of listing. However, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
H. Bry
Deputy
Enclosures
Hugh C Miller, Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219
TOO: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS IN VIRGINIA
Preliminary Information Porm (PIP) ----- Department of Historic Resources
received and reviewed, additional (DHR) archives checked for property
information requested if necessary me and any additional information
PIP reviewed and rated by National ------Owner and consultant informed of
Register Evaluation Team at monthly team recommendation, additional
meeting information requested if necessary
PIF goes to State Review Board for ------Owner and consultant notified of
review and recommendation (Board Board's decision
meets every other month)
IF STATE REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDS NOMINATION:
Preparer of nomination consults with Department staff regarding criteria,
areas of significance, period of significance and boundaries.
DeI>artment staff reviews nomination ----COMPLETE nomination due to DHR
drafts upon request and provides seven weeks prior to meeting of
technical assistance State Review Board and Virginia
Board of Historic Resources
Department staff reviews completed -----Owner, consultant and local
nomination officials notified no less than
30 days prior to State Review
Board meeting
Copies of nomination sent to members --Nomination presented at State
of both Boards two weeks prior to Review Board meeting. If approved,
meeting State Review Board recommends that
nomination be forwarded to Keeper
of the National Register, Virginia
Board of Historic Resources lists
proQerty on the Virginia Landmarks
Reglster
Owner and consultant notified of ---------Nomination is forwarded to the
Boards' decisions Keeper of the National Register
in Washington, D.C.
Property is logged in at National ---------Following 45 day review period,
Register office Department is notified of decision
Owner, consultant and local officials
notified of Keeper's decision
.
_t.1~"
~::;'L;:~~.
.r;:- ., r\ .. Th..
,'" !-4: .;,.1
~ .~, ~,
,~. ~..r t...,.:,;. J::
~~...tl~'7 ",.~
'~""Zl~
CONIMrONvVEJA.LT1-1 of VIRGINt~\
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virgln.a 23;
Telephonet80417R6-31
TOO: 804-786-4276
RESULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Eliqibility for Federal tax orovisions: If a property is listed
in the National Register, certain federal tax provisions may
apply. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 revises the historic
oreservation tax incentives authorized by Conqress in the Tax
Reform Act of 1976. the Revenue Act of 197~. the Tax Treatment
Extension Act of 1980. the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. and
Tax Reform Act of 1984 and as of January 1. 1987. provides for a
20 oercent investment tax credit with a full adiustment to basis
for rehabilitatinq historic. commercial. industrial. and
residential rental buildinqs. The former 15 oercent and 20
percent investment tax credits (ITCs) for rehabilitation of older
commercial buildinqs are combined into a sinqle 10 oercent ITC
for commercial or industrial buildinqs built before 1936. The
Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides federal tax
deductions for charitable contributions for conservation purposes
of partial interests in historically important land areas or
structures. Whether these provisions are advantageous to a
property owner is dependent upon the particular circumstances of
the property and the owner. Because tax aspects outlined above
are complex, individuals should consult legal counselor
appropriate local Internal Revenue Service office for assistance
in determining the tax consequences of the above provisions. For
further information on certification requirements, please refer
to 36 CFR 67.
. Consideration in planninq for Federal. FederallY licensed. and
FederallY assisted oroiects: Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that Federal agencies
allow for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to have
an opportunity to comment on all projects affecting historic
properties listed in the National Register. For further
information, please refer to 36 CPR 800.
Consideration in issuinq a surface coal mininq oermit: In
accordance with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977, there
must be consideration of historic values in the decision to issue
a surface coal mining permit where coal is located. For further
information, please refer to 30 CFR 700 et seq.
Oualification for Federal drants for historic oreservation when
funds are available: Presently funding is unavailable.
.
ADDENDUM
Please note that following consideration by the State Review Board on August 20, the Historic
Resources Board will meet to consider the nomination of this property/historic district on
Wednesday, August 21, 1991 at:
Hunton & Williams (Board Room)
East Tower Riverfront Plaza
20th Floor
951 E. Byrd Street
Richmond, VA 23219
The Historic Resources Board meeting is also open to the public, and you are welcome to attend.
Hugh C. Miller, Director
. ~.
, , · .! I i!
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN~4\. '
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
S>.2 ''/1
""I';, l~,' "...1.!:~)~<J 7 (S', 12 )
...
r i ~ {
.~-\ .~. >.l L:. r /i i~, ,I, .::1 i(.~.
....-i"' '.
;.,,' ..L.~- '::,1 r i:':,';
'\ f:, i
;k " J S-,gl . , I I
,: {: ; i
. ; ~ ( ~
I' _ I . 1
TDI):(804)78s~1~34
Teiepho~e (004;:786-3143
FAX (804) 225-4261
"
I j'
,: .:"
July 16, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
RE: Hatton Grange Farm, Albemarle County (DHR 02-105)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Recently the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Commonwealth's agency
responsible for administering historic preservation programs, received information regarding
the history and significance of Hatton Grange Farm. This information was submitted by
Geoffrey B. Henry for the owner, Mr. Guenther Hawrancke along with a request that the
department conduct a preliminary evaluation of the property to determine whether it is
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks
Register. I must emphasize that this evaluation does not constitute a formal action to add this
property to those registers.
The National Register and Virginia Landmarks Register are lists of properties important for
their prehistoric and/or historical associations. Only those properties found to be significant
for their associations with events or persons or determined to be good examples of an
architectural style or method of construction are eligible for inclusion on the registers.
Additionally, properties must meet age and integrity standards. I have enclosed information
explaining in more detail the factors that make a property eligible for the registers.
Inclusion on the registers applies no restrictions regarding what the owner may do with his
property. Registration makes a property eligible for protection and financial incentives such
as easement donations, tax. credits for rehabilitation and grant funds, not available to
unregistered properties. More importantly, registration is a way of honoring the significance
of a historic property and recording its history and appearance by collecting information that
becomes a permanent record in the Department's archives.
-.
The information submitted about this property has been considered by the department's
National Register Evaluation Team, a group of staff representing a variety of disciplines and
agency programs, at one of its semi-monthly meetings. It is the staff's opinion that Hatton
Grange Farm is an eligible historic resource. While this review is not dependent upon an
owner's consent, we are notifying the owner and you of the department's evaluation so that
you can participate in this process should you so desire, and so that you may know to contact
us should you have any questions.
We will make a recommendation that this property is an eligible historic resource to the State
Review Board, an advisory group consisting of preservation professionals from throughout
the state. We anticipate that the board will consider the staff recommendation regarding the
eligibility at its upcoming meeting. Meetings of the board are open to the public. The
meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 20th, 1991, in Senate Room A of the General
Assembly Building at the comer of Ninth and Broad streets, Richmond, beginning at
W:OOam. As with the staff's evaluation, the Review Board's conclusion does not constitute
any formal action to nominate this property to the registers.
If the Review Board concludes that this property is eligible for registration, the applicant or
any other interested party may wish to prepare and submit the more extensive formal register
nomination. Prior to any action to register the property, federal regulations require the
department to notify the owner, as well as local officials, and give both the opportunity to
express opinions on the nomination before any formal action is taken. Though the formal
notification requirements come into effect only when a formal nomination is being
considered, we want to call your attention to the fact that the historical significance of this
property is being considered and we would welcome any additional information you may
wish to share with us.
The enclosed materials should explain in more detail the register process and the implications
of listing. However, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
~'
H. B~he
Deputy Director
Enclosures
,.
ADDENDUM
Please note that following consideration by the State Review Board on August 20, the Historic
Resources Board will meet to consider the nomination of this property/historic district on
Wednesday, August 21, 1991 at:
Hunton & Williams (Board Room)
East Tower Riverfront Plaza
20th Floor
951 E. Byrd Street
Richmond, VA 23219
The Historic Resources Board meeting is also open to the public, and you are welcome to attend.
r.
~
.".
l '~ ' , ~
,1:- "" . \
f, '~II~> ~.
~V. *-
~ ~~) -=:7~.
i L'~L,': ' ~'2". elf
[,;, "C)/,(j&':'7{S.13)
COMMONWEALT1-'l of VIRGINIA
,"ugh C Miller. Director
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219
" 1 (' c>':
. ".:,
.. ,. . TDD: (804) 786-1934
/\ '.. f, t. !'JI :fei&Pbbne (804) 786-3143
rf~X:,~804) 225-4261
-..' ! I . I
"'\'\ ! II
.; '" "c\ \ : 1
I (i J'- 01\ II.'
I "J" . .1
. . .tI 1,1)
........_......., ! I 1
1 \ ~ \ l . ~ L._, 11)
. , . \._...... 1...-....
July 19, 1991
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ranlet
The Rectory
Keene, VA 22946
, .~"\~ . J 1:-\' ,--,'. ::.?~""
RE: THE RECTORY, Albemarle county (DHR 02-1831)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ranlet:
For some time the Department of Historic Resources has been
interested in including the above property on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and nominating it to the National Register of
Historic Places. Before this action is taken, I would like to
clarify for you the nature of these designations.
The Virginia Landmarks Register is an official listing of
places in the Commonwealth judged to have state or national
archaeological, architectural, and/or historical significance. At
its next meeting on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, the state Review
Board will have the opportunity to consider the inclusion of The
Rectory on this register. Should the board determine the prepared
nomination for The Rectory is acceptable, it will automatically
nominate it to the National Register of Historic Places maintained
by the Department of the Interior.
Listing in the National Register provides recognition and
assists in preserving our Nation's heritage. Listing of a resource
recognizes its historic importance and assures protective review of
Federal projects that might adversely affect the character of the
resource. If The Rectory is listed in the National Register,
certain Federal investment tax credits for rehabilitation and other
provisions may apply.
Listing in the National Register does not mean that
limi tat ions will be placed on the properties by the Federal
Government. Public Visitation rights are not required of owners.
The Federal Government will not attach restrictive covenants to the
properties or seek to acquire them.
You are invited to attend the state Review Board meeting at
which the nomination will be considered. The Board will meet at
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, in Senate Room A of the
..,' ,.,
~
Re: THE RECTORY, Albemarle county (DRa 02-1831)
July 19, 1991
Page 2
General Assembly Building, Richmond, virginia. We hope that you
can come.
Enclosed, please find a notice that explains, in greater
detail, the results of listing in the National Register and that
describes the rights and procedures by which an owner may comment
on or object to listing in the National Register.
Should you have any questions about this nomination before the
Department of Historic Resources' State Review Board meeting,
please contact me at (804) 371-0821
sincerely,
~~
James Christian Hill, National Register Assistant
State Historic Preservation Office
JCH/sdm
Enclosures
cc: Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Executive
Albemarle County
Keith Rittenhouse, Planning Chairman
Albemarle County
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District commission
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Geoffrey B. Henry, Consultant
Distributed to BOard: ~. 2. t::j I
Agenda Item No. 91.(j.l:,i'16~i.J3)
~~ ':\ L:~:LJ;:~~.i r ~{~~~i
\!Iii
.~ f'\ ~ 0.'~ \: i : t
t, ," .\",,1 " : ! I'
.. \
./ \ I j!
~"~\""'''Tt \" 1
" ,I..:':;:.) t~:~)
....
Hugh C. Miller, Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
:;' ~:' ;::; '..... ,~~ () ~.( S
TOO: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
July 19, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SOUTHWEST MOUNTAINS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, Albemarle county
(DHR 02-1832)
Owner by public notice
Dear Mr. Bowie:
For some time the Department of Historic Resources has been
interested in including the above district on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and nominating it to the National Register of
Historic Places. Before this action is taken, I would like to
clarify for you the nature of these designations.
The Virginia Landmarks Register is an official listing of
places in the Commonwealth judged to have state or national
archaeological, architectural, and/or historical significance. At
its next meeting on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, the State Review
Board will have the opportunity to consider the inclusion of
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District on this register.
Should the board determine the prepared nomination for this
historic district is acceptable, it will automatically nominate it
to the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the
Department of the Interior.
Listing in the National Register provides recognition and
assists in preserving our Nation's heritage. Listing of a resource
recognizes its historic importance and assures protective review of
Federal projects that might adversely affect the character of the
resource. If Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District is listed
in the National Register, certain Federal investment tax credits
for rehabilitation and other provisions may apply.
Listing in the National Register does not mean that
limitations will be placed on the properties by the Federal
Government. Public Visitation rights are not required of owners.
The Federal Government will not attach restrictive covenants to the
..
Re: SOUTHWEST MOUNTAINS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, Albemarle County
(DHR 02-1832)
Owner by public notice
July 19, 1991
Page 2
properties or seek to acquire them.
You are invited to attend the state Review Board meeting at
which the nomination will be considered. The Board will meet at
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, in Senate Room A of the
General Assembly Building, Richmond, Virginia. We hope that you
can come.
Enclosed, please find a notice that explains, in greater
detail, the results of listing in the National Register and that
describes the rights and procedures by which an owner may comment
on or object to listing in the National Register.
Should you have any questions about this nomination before the
Department of Historic Resources' State Review Board meeting,
please contact me at (804) 371-0821
Sincerely,
~ ~1JJL
James Christian Hill, National Register Assistant
State Historic Preservation Office
JCH/sdm
Enclosures
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Executive
Albemarle County
Keith Rittenhouse, Planning Chairman
Albemarle County
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Land and Community Associates, Consultants
Charlottesville
~ ..
.. . ' - , ~
(' ;2',9/
91. ()J'q 7(611<1 )
,If ,:~
~
\
Hugh C. Miller, Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
!
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
;
:i
TOO: (804i 781l~1934
Telephone' (80,fj 786-3143
FAX (8Q4) ,2g~-4261
...~. '.~r""
, . 'i ,~ !~t) ("
July 31, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: SOUTHWEST MOUNTAINS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Bowie:
A public hearing for the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic
District will be held on Thursday, August 8, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., at
the Albemarle County Government Building.
Sincerely,
. ,(</;/ ~/
,'I .
! ,f )
~~.
Margaret T. Peters
Information Director
Attachment
, ....
Orange Co.
Albemarle Co.
c
I
;;./
&'t--
gIg
~ ~.
..,/~
;"/n
pp
. J
I
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District
Distributed to Boa"d:L~ L .
i\(;;;;nda item No. 2Y'e:??,?, s-./~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
<.)i"J I: -'/ \')F /\LE:,~~
m\>"--,f<C~lC~_m~:lr~:. ' .
;f\j,1 ~'hJ".J lI,v.1__",l it,
I \\.._._/;;
: \ . I . ...."......,~"''".....-Q.....r''..-'....-.r-1.., 1 t '
:1 L~ :._:_:'.'~ ~.~;!~; ~,~'~:.1 tJ .: L.:".'.:J '.. "~~j
MEMORANDUM
r:~ ( ) }'" ;<~) c) 1: :.~ \ ) t"'; r::' ~;~ ',' -' ! ~_'\ l,-' ~~~. ~t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mary Joy Scala, Senior PlannerJn~
August 6, 1991
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District
The purpose of this memo is to explain the current status of
the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. A National
Register nomination report has been prepared by local
consultants, Land and Community Associates. We are awaiting
a copy of the report from the State. A public hearing by the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources is scheduled for
Thursday, August 8, 1991, 7:30 p.m., AUditorium, County
Office Building. On Tuesday, August 20, 1991 the State
Review Board and Historic Resources Board will consider the
inclusion of the district on the Virginia Landmarks Register
and, if acceptable, will automatically nominate it to the
National Register of Historic Places maintained by the
Department of the Interior. It is anticipated that the
district will be listed on the National Register by October.
The boundaries are roughly described on the attached map.
It appears that most of the Agricultural/Forestal Districts
in the area have been included, as well as both sides of the
mountain range, as staff recommended to the State. An
attempt was made to extend the district to include the
Shadwell site on the Rivanna River but there are not any
contributing properties between Rt. 250/I=64 needed to make a
connection.
Also attached is a fact sheet regarding National Register
designation.
MJS/jcw
ATTACHMENT
.~
l' .,~"-
. , .
,
I
-~~ ~
/~ :''-, l,.
- -, '-.., "I).
',f- . '-, 0"
_, 0" "'-'::! f!,
9k ;,., ~/I).
~~~,~)
~~',
,
.~...y~
"
'"
. "
-'.i
,
"Ii ''',
" "
. "",
\
,
,
,
''',
,-I
"
,f'
I',>,
! f ""-
'-.,1
'-,
,
f
-" .~
~/',J'..J
~;:~~, ~
~-I'~~,.:;r"
. -, ;....
"',
N.., I'
\. ',::J...,""
,.-
O'
~.
,,,1
/
r.~
".,~
"
,.'
I'
I
J
I
~I
: '\
I ~(
"
I \, ~
.....,J...
,
\',
"
,
,
t)
'C
~
.!!l
C
CJ
'C
o
~
.!!l
J:
, r \'!:
'.1;
'~.,
"
~ I
! '
....!
~
:J
a::
III
c:
'iij
~
c:
:J
o
~
.A _,
,-
,~
,
.
:./
Ii,
i '
-~
; ~ r
t' \
~~ Jr'
'";,:;,~ i
f~' ,...'
"
;01
"
J
u
,
~
III
Q)
~
~
'5
o
(fJ
?!!..
'1~~~..
.l-~,
'I ,:,'~.<.~'~'~;;;')! ~ /T
1 . x-'
'iy\' ,;t~\,)!
,,:J-L-~J ! j ~: J \~. ',>)~~ 1 :!~:,\'
," ..;tt 0 J.\\'; ,( j' ~/
'~;:~il:'~ u! ~'I~~;'.r'{~::;P;' '.f',
. ': ' L ,!,/ /! .! II' \
. ./ I . ,I' I, '"
........ ,I'"/
\-~
r ~'
,
,
..
II
L:
00
.
r
,
I
,
I
-- _.0;) ;:)[.lf1ll1;:)Qrv
----
.0;) f1SfOfYJ - _
> 0
t ;: ~
.... a =
~ ~
.,
;- n
::0 n ?
.... Q
. .
..
Page 2
6. Any restrictions on private property owners using private
funds within an historic district can only be enacted by the
local governing body - i.e. the city or town councilor the
county board of supervisors. Imposition of such restrictions
does not necessarilv follow from National Reaister desianation.
Often, historic district designation spurs communities to enact
measures limiting demolition or alterations to historic
properties. Such protective zoning may be applied to any part of
an historic district and may also include areas not officially
designated to the National Register.
SUlUlARY
National Register designation:
1. Increases public awareness of a community's historic
resources and encourages preservation
2. Mitigates the negative impact of government-funded projects
on the district.
3. Does not restrict the private property owner using private
funds in any way.
4. Provides financial benefits, mainly in the form of tax
incentives for rehabilitation of income-producing
buildings.
5. May guide and encourage, but does not dictate, local
historic district zoning.
REV. 4-87
. ~
Distributed to 8eard: .p. 2. 7 L
Agenda Item No. 91, () J' C) 7 ( ~.1 s)
')
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
,,\ ,,; ;;', i -' "./ C" I ~ ;\ l~ ~-~'.~: L ~-): f~\ ~ ,i
CI ~,'t,.)7,
; ,"
.\~ : \ \'
; ['
I'
, .
"
\
'; Ii
'\ () _~~.~~)l
~ - . - :-"'~'r
, ~ ,.~. . -.
July 18, 1991
~.) ,.\(':I~~"
william Gale Pickford, Esquire
230 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1
Tax Map 94, Parcel 21
Dear Mr. Pickford:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the chain of title you
have submitted for the above-noted property. It is the County
Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination, that
this property consisted of two (2) separate parcels on the date of
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Each of these lawfully separate
parcels is entitled to associated development rights.
This determination considered the fact that the property east of
Route 623 and the property west of Route 623 were separately
deeded on December 10, 1980. No deeds or plats were found to
combine the property. Subdivision of the property after 1980
maintained their separate status.
The most recent deeds of record as of the date of adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance are found in Deed Book 469, Pages 565 and 566.
These deeds describe the following parcels:
1. Parcell (west of Route 623) Deed Book 469/page 565 of 386.44
acres (previously 519.42 acres) and with 5 development rights. It
is currently owned by William H. Burruss and consists of 364.12
acres, with 5 development rights. The only subdivision since 1980
was the off conveyance of 22.32 acres with no development rights.
2. Parcel 2 (east of Route 623) Deed Book 638/page 301 of.150.97
acres (previously 340.46 acres) and with 5 development rights. It
is currently owned by Charles Kincannon and consists of 143.91
acres in two non-contiguous pieces, with 4 development rights
remaining. The only subdivision since 1980 was the off conveyance
of 7.06 acres with 1 development right.
.,.,
July 18, 1991
william Gale pickford, Esquire
Page 2
Anyone aggrieved by this decision may file a written appeal within
thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
sincerely,
~,O-.- '-'\rn. '?(D1..Q)\~.--B1v /-5;1.
Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Administrator
AMP/st
cc: Bill Roudabush
Jan sprinkle
Gay Carver
vBstelle Neher
Reading Files IITM94/P2111 & IIDETERMINATION OF PARCEL #11
\
" ..':': -j;:_?:-~5j_
'g-"';" " '-:::'(,-n'7'-- 1_)
i'\ t:li~~D !.,2rf; I\:J. _~~ .~~~-=- .(_~ IV?
'~, 1"-'
\!,
"1"1 :".'" ," ," 1
-:--:', ~". ':<':
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
July 29, 1991
Mr. Carroll Hensley
Route 2, Box 42
Keswick, Virginia 22947
RE: Official Determination of Number of Parcels
section 10.3.1; Tax Map 79A2, Block F, Parcel 7
Dear Mr. Hensley,
We have reviewed the documents you submitted. It is my official
determination that Tax Map 79A2, Block F, Parcel 7 consists of
three (3) separate parcels. Except for the acquisition of
property by the Virginia Department of Transportation, the most
recent deed of record is found in Deed Book 369, Page 82, dated
June 15, 1961, from Hensley to Minor and Gilmer. In accordance
with Faison V. Union Camp (224 VA 54), this determination is
based on the descriptive clause of the deed, which delineates
three (3) lots: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block F.
Therefore, Lot 9 is a parcel of record, entitled to a building
site in accordance with section 6.5.1 of the Albemarle County
zoning Ordinance, provided that the required setbacks and Health
Department regulations can be met, and the use does not
constitute a danger to the public health, safety and general
welfare. Since each of these lots is less than two acres, they
cannot be further subdivided.
It appears that a house was built on the property line separating
Lots 7 and 8. section 10.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires
that houses be at least 25 feet from side property lines. This
property line should be vacated so that the house no longer.
stands in violation of section 10.4.1.
I.
July 29, 1991
Page 2
Anyone aggrieved by this decision may file a written appeal
within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
sincerely,
~fY\,V~
Amelia M. Patterson
zoning Inspector
AMP/bt
cc: ~stelle Neher, Clerk to the Board of supervisors
Jan Sprinkle
Gay Carver
Reading Files
.,'
"
Distributed to Board' e,;: ,ill
"---
Agenda Hem No. ell. cf,t'.; 7 (S' f.) )
, /
1991
SECOND QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
7'V ()~.- /\t.-Ei[~-!~./i/.\l\i. ;
.llIl s,,~!JJ!Q~'[Z~\ ii:;
.. fl.,....... .J.'...\.7.1 rr I
',' ;~~;-::T'r'-n< i U
I, \
,'>1
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823 .
INDEX
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A - B)
II. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by "TYpe (Charts C - D)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E)
I'l Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F - H)
Key to "TYpes of Housing Used in this Report
SF Single Family (Includes Modular)
SFA Single Family Attached
SF/TH Single Family Townhouse
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family Residence
MHC MobileHomes in County
-2-
During the second quarter .of 1991, 160 permits were issued far
160 dwelling units. In additian, 12 permits were issued for mabi1e
hames in existing parks at an average exchange value .of $2,500 far a
tata1 of $30,000.
I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH
Chart A. Nine Year Camparison of New Residential Dwelling
Uni ts by Month
YEAR 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
JAN 37 86 46 37 38 22 93 56 64
FEB 29 39 29 43 35 40 172 68 31
MAR 86 78 94 37 62 91 61 92 57
APR 131 60 48 78 70 71 49 82 62
MAY 65 78 121 -73 73 83 89 75 44
JUN 100 66 60 92 56 83 220 85 54
JUL 113 63 57 159 80 30 67 42
AUG 57 47 86 32 46 49 74 87
SEP 73 52 35 49 45 46 72 90
OCT 59 41 40 52 60 52 56 48
NOV 72 33 45 50 49 60 301 37
DEC 241 82 53 35 40 46 55 42
TOTAL 1063 725 714 737 654 673 1309 804 312
Chart B. Three Year Camparisan of New Residential Dwelling
Units by Month
40
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
20
o
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
IZZl 1989
[:s:sJ 1990
f22Z1 1991
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development
-3-
SECOND QUARTER 1991
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
Chart C. Breakdawn .of New Residential Dwelling Units by
Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC D.U. D.U.
CHARLOTTESVILLE 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 3%
JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
RIVANNA 39 6 9 0 0 0 54 34%
SAMUEL MILLER 24 0 0 0 0 0 24 15%
SCOTTSVILLE 37 12 5 0 0 3 57 36%
WHITE HALL 15 0 0 0 0 3 18 11%
TOTAL 122 18 14 0 0 6 160 100%
Chart D. Breakdown .of New Residential Dwelling Units by
Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL UNITS
COMP PlAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC URBAN RURAL
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 5 0 5 0 0 0 10
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 20 12 5 0 0 0 37
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 7
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CROZET COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 22 0 4 0 0 0 26
SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNITY 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
EARLYSVILLE VILlAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NORTH GARDEN VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PINEY MOUNTAIN VILlAGE 0 6 0 0 0 0 6
RIVANNA VILlAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 56 18 14 0 0 1 89
RURAL AREA 1 14 0 0 0 0 2 16
RURAL AREA 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 14
RURAL AREA 3 19 0 0 0 0 1 20
RURAL AREA 4 19 0 0 0 0 2 21
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 66 0 0 0 0 5 71
TOTAL 122 18 14 0 0 6 160
Prepared by Albemarle Caunty Planning and Community Development
-4-
SECOND QUARTER 1991
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Chart E. Estimated Cost .of Constructian by Magisterial District and Constructian Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. ~~EW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTlTUT. & ALTER. COMM. ,TOTAL
No. Amount-$ Na. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ Na. Amaunt-$ Na. Amaunt-$
CHVILLE 5 775,000 22 310,735 3 5,087,712 14 456,103 44 6,629,550
JOUETT 2 470,000 16 393,847 1 1,800,000 3 19,500 22 2,683,347
RIVANNA 54 3,872,059 48 482,535 4 880,400 14 609,400 120 5,844,394
S. MILLER 24 3,420,195 51 540,409 4 1,650,000 10 241,755 89 5,852,359
SCOTTSVILLE 57 3,808,410 53 588,970 2 65,000 4 80,000 116 4,542,380
WHITE HALL 18 2,064,600 44 715,297 3 159,000 13 544,100 78 3,482,997
TOTAL 160 14,410,264 234 3,031,793 17 9,642,112 58 1,950,858 469 29,035,027
* Additianal value of mabi1e homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential
Alteration category.
IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
Chart F. Breakdawn .of CO's far Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary
Schoal District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC D.U. TOTAL D.U.
Broadus Woad/Henley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Braadus Waod/Jauett 5 0 O' 0 0 0 5 3.18%
Brawnsvi1le 6 0 0 0 0 2 8 5.10%
Crazet 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.91%
Greer 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 3.82%
Ha1lymead 24 6 1 0 0 0 31 19.75%
Meriwether Lewis 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 5.10%
Murray 5 2 0 0 0 0 7 4.46%
Red Hill/Wa1tan 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.82%
Ca1e/Burley 3 0 11 0 0 0 14 8.92%
Ca1e/Wa1ton 23 6 0 0 0 2 31 19.75%
Scattsvi11e 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.91%
Stane Robinson/Burley 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.18%
Stone Robinson/Wa1tan 10 0 0 0 0 1 II 7.01%
Stany Paint 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.46%
Woodbraok 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 3.18%
Yancey 6 0 0 0 0 1 7 4.46%
TOTAL 122 14 15 0 0 6 157 100.00%
Prepared by Albemarle Caunty Planning and Community Development
.. ... .,
-5-
SECOND QUARTER 1991
IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued)
Chart G. Breakdawn .of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by
Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC TOTAL
CHARLOTTESVILLE 5 0 3 0 0 0 8
JACK JOUETT 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
RIVANNA 40 6 12 0 0 0 58
SAMUEL MILLER 15 2 0 0 0 3 20
SCOTTSVILLE 45 6 0 0 0 2 53
WHITE HALL 13 0 0 0 0 1 14
TOTAL 122 14 15 0 0 6 157
Chart H. Breakdown .of CO's far Residential Dwelling Units by
Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL UNITS
COMP PLAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC URBAN RURAL
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 6 0 13 0 0 0 19
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 22 6 0 0 0 0 28
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
CROZET COMMUNITY 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 22 0 1 0 0 0 23
SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNITY 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
EARLYSVILLE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PINEY MIN. VILLAGE 1 6 0 0 0 0 7
NORTH GARDEN VILLAGE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
RIVANNA VILLAGE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 56 14 15 0 0 0 85
RURAL AREA 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 12
RURAL AREA 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 12
RURAL AREA 3 20 0 0 0 0 2 22
RURAL AREA 4 22 0 0 0 0 4 26
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 66 0 0 0 0 6 0 72
TOTAL 122 14 15 0 0 6 157
Prepared by Albemarle Caunty Planning and Community Deve1apment
!)!$tilouted to Board: y, 2. <:'1/
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERV(C='E'mf\~ITY
P,O Box l009 40l MciNTIRE RD, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-58l0
; j .
I' .
I .
: " /.\ I ~ \
;", \ ).1\ :..;
July 23, 1991
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, virginia
Dear Mrs. Humphris and Gentlemen:
Attached for your information is a copy of the
Authority's FY-92 Budget, adopted June 28, 1991. Please let
me know if you have any questions.
veryrU1Y yours, ____
.()/. L5~
J . . Brent
Executive Director
JWB:kst
'_ . r
"'"
-
...
-
-
-
..
...
~1iII
-
..
-
..
-
...
-
...
-
....
-
....
-
,,,,.,..
-
...
-
..
-
.-
..
.-
-
..
-
.-
..
..
FY -92
BUDGET
ADOPTED JUNE 20. 1991
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
FY - 92 BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rates Effective July 1, 1991
i
Revenue and Expense Summary
1
Departmental Staffing
. . . . . . . . .
3
4
RWSA Expenses
Administration Department Budget .
5
Accounting Department Budget:
Customer Service . . . . . .
Meter Reading . . . . . . . .
7
9
Engineering Department Budget
. 11
Maintenance Department Budget
. 13
ALBEM1UU.E COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
WATER AND SEWER RATE SCHEDULE
Effective September 1, 1990
SERVICE C~GE
$4.1'0 per account, per month.
VOLUME CHARGES
In addition to the fixed service charge, a volume charge based upon
monthly metered water use will be assessed as follows:
Water
0-1,500,000 gallons
Over 1,500,000 gallons
$2.04 per thousand gallons
$1.80 per thousand gallons
Wastewater
Metered Consumption
$2.04 per thousand gallons
CONNECTION CHARGES
Payment for the applicable connection charges will be accepted only
after the issuance of a building permit.
Connection Charges for metered services larger than 5/8" shall be
equated to equivalent residential connections (ERC) according to the
following ratios:
5/8"
1"
1 1/2"
2"
meter =
meter =
meter =
meter =
1 ERC
2.5 ERCs
5 ERCs
8 ERCs
3" meter
4" meter
6" meter
=
15 ERCs
25 ERCs
50 ERCs
=
=
Service Connection (Tap) Charge - To defray the cost of installa-
tion of a service connection from the water and/or wastewater main in
the public right-of-way to the curb or property line and/or the
installation of meters, all new services will be charged according to
the following schedule:
Water
5/8" meter and connection
1" meter and connection
Over 1" meter and connection
$500
$575
Actual Cost
Service Connection (Tap) Charge (Cont'd)
5/8" meter only
1" meter only
Over 1" meter only
$ 35
$ 75
Actual Cost
1
Wastewater
All Taps
Actual Cost
Local Facilities Charge - To defray, in part, the cost of local
facilities (mains, valves, hydrants, etc.) provided by someone other
than the customer, the Authority charges each new connection $1,300 for
water and $1,400 for sewer. If a developer or customer applying for
service installs and funds the local facilities, this charge is not
assessed. The Local Facilities Charge will apply only to water and
sewer mains placed in service after July 1, 1983. [See Sections 6-01
and 12-04]
System Development Charge - In order to defray, in part, the cost
to Albemarle County Service Authority of providing maj or transmis-
sion/distribution mains, collection lines, pumping stations and storage
facilities necessary to provide water and wastewater service to new
customers, a system development charge based on meter size will be
assessed to all new customers as follows:
Water
Wastewater
$475 per ERC
$625 per ERC
RWSA Capacity Charge - To defray, in part, the Authority's share of
annual debt service on excess capacity in the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority facilities, all new water and sewer connections to the
Authority systems shall be assessed the following, based on equivalent
residential connections (ERC):
Water
Wastewater
$615 per ERC
$615 per ERC
Buck Mountain Surcharge - In accordance with the joint resolution
signed by the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority and the Authority, all new Authority water
connections in the urban service area will be assessed a surcharge in
accordance with the following table to pay a portion of the Buck
Mountain land acquisition costs:
Meter Size
5/8"
1"
1 1/2"
2"
3"
Surcharge
$ 200
$ 500
$ 1,000
$ 1,600
$ 2,500
Meter Size
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Surcharge
$ 6,000
$12,000
$18,000
$29,000
$43,000
Miscellaneous Charges:
(1) Account Charge - $6.00 per each new account
(2) Delinquent Cut Off/On Fee - $15.00/trip during normal work
hours
$20.00 after work hours & wkends
ii
(3) Reconnection Fee
5/8" - 1 1/2" meter
2" - 4" meter
Larger than 4" meter
(4) Special Service Fee
(5) Meter Size Change Fee
1" to smaller size
Larger than 1" down
(6) Returned Check Charge
(Amended June 20, 1991)
(7) Late Payment Charge
(8) Meter Reread Fee
(9) Hydrant Use Fee
(10) Temporary Water Service
$15.00
$20.00
Actual Cost
$15.00/trip during normal work
hours
$20.00 after work hours & wkends
$25.00
Actual cost
$15.00 (Cash)
1 1/2% per month
$15.00
$15.00 + water used, min. $20.00
$25.00 + water used, Deposit req'd
Construction Plan Review Charge:
Total Length of Water and Sewer Lines
0-1000 linear feet
1000-2000 linear feet
2000-3000 linear feet
3000-4000 linear feet
4000-5000 linear feet
Over 5000 linear feet
Construction Inspection Fee:
Water and/or Sewer
Fee
$50
75
100
125
150
175
$.50/linear foot
iii
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
REVENUE AND EXPENSE SUMMARY
FY 1992
OPERATING REVENUE
Total Volume Charges
Total Service Charges
Subtotal
NON-OPERATING REVENUE
System Connection Charges
Rental Income
Interest Income
Buck Mountain Surcharge
Misc. Utility Charges
Inspection Fees
Plan Review Fees
Subtotal
TOTAL REVENUE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
Purchase of Water/Wastewater
Administration Department
Accounting Department-
Customer Service
Meter Reading
Engineering Department
Maintenance Department
Transfer To Equipment Replacement
Subtotal
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND DEBT SERVICE
800 Code Equipment Expenses
Annual Maintenance & Replacement
Buck Mountain Surcharge Payment
Existing Debt Service Payments
Engineering Department
Subtotal
1
APPROVED
BUDGET
$4,826,314
436,847
$5,263,161
$863,025
35,000
298,553
69,000
70,000
17,000
3,000
$1,355,578
$6,618,739
$2,989,895
338,417
258,857
124,592
335,230
523,402
62,400
$4,632,793
$35,295
393,702
69,000
555,850
35,000
$1,088,847
DEPRECIATION
TOTAL EXPENSES
ANNUAL BALANCE (DEEICIENCY)
613,675
$6,335,315
$283,424
2
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: RWSA EXPENSES
PAYMENTS TO RWSA
960 BUCK MOUNTAIN SURCHARGE EXPENSE
965 PURCHASE OF BULK WATER
970 SEWER TREATMENT EXPENSE
$69,000
1,682,804
1,307,091
SUBTOTAL:
$3,058,895
TOTAL RWSA EXPENSES
$3,058,895
RWSA EXPENSES BY SERVICE AREA:
Water
Total
$1,262,060
295,584
125,160
69,000
$1,751,804
Urban
Crozet
scottsville
Buck Mtn. Surcharge
Wastewater
Total
$1,261,011
38,712
7,368
$1,307,091
Urban
Scottsville
Stone-Robinson School
3
DEPARTMENT STAFFING
ADMINISTRATION
Number
of Positions
Executive Director
Administrative Assistant
Secretary 1
1
1
1
ACCOUNTING
Customer Service
Manager of Accounting
Accounting Supervisor
Account Clerk III
Customer Service Clerk
Meter Reading
Meter Reading Supervisor
Meter Reader
1
1
1
3
1
2
ENGINEERING
Director of Engineering
Civil Engineer II
Civil Engineer I
Engineering Technician III
Construction Inspector
Engineering Technician II
Secretary II
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance Superintendent 1
Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1
Utility Electronics Technician 1
Crew Supervisor 3
Hydrant and Valve Mechanic 1
Maintenance Worker 6
4
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION
PERSONAL SERVICES
205 COMPENSATION OF BOARD MEMBERS
210 SALARIES AND WAGES
220 OVERTIME PAY
230 SOCIAL SECURITY
240 RETIREMENT
250 HOSPITALIZATION
260 LIFE INSURANCE
270 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
280 MERIT INCREASE PACKAGE
$ 5,400
111,904
150
7,875
9,244
4,932
958
277
22,000
SUBTOTAL:
$162,740
OPERATING SUPPLIES
300 OFFICE SUPPLIES
305 COPIER SUPPLIES
360 FUEL, OIL AND GREASE
$2,305
275
200
SUBTOTAL:
$2,780
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
400 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
$
25
25
SUBTOTAL:
PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
SUBTOTAL:
$10,000
18,020
5,000
2,000
2,367
37,675
950
1,720
300
$78,032
500 LEGAL
510 AUDIT
520 FISCAL AGENT
550 CONSULTANTS' FEES
560 SERVICE CONTRACTS
570 OFFICE RENT
575 TELEPHONE
585 PRINTING AND DUPLICATING
590 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
600 EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
650 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
$300
50
SUBTOTAL:
$350
OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
SUBTOTAL:
$90,000
795
120
1,325
1,550
700
$94,490
710 INSURANCE
720 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS
730 BOOKS AND PERIODICALS
740 EDUCATION AND TRAINING
745 TRAVEL
750 ADVERTISING
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
800 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
810 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
830 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL:
2,000
o
4,650
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
$6,650
$345,067
6
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: ACCOUNTING - CUSTOMER SERVICE
PERSONAL SERVICES
210 SALARIES AND WAGES
220 OVERTIME PAY
230 SOCIAL SECURITY
240 RETIREMENT
250 HOSPITALIZATION
260 LIFE INSURANCE
270 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
$154,913
500
12,185
13,076
9,864
1,355
410
SUBTOTAL:
$192,303
OPERATING SUPPLIES
300 OFFICE SUPPLIES
305 COPIER SUPPLIES
360 FUEL, OIL, AND GREASE
$10,042
240
200
SUBTOTAL:
$10,482
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
SUBTOTAL:
$
$
25
25
400 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
560 SERVICE CONTRACTS
575 TELEPHONE
580 POSTAGE
585 PRINTING AND DUPLICATING
590 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$11,120
1,380
31,000
4,505
2,772
SUBTOTAL:
$50,777
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
600 EQUIPMENT REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
650 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
$ 500
50
SUBTOTAL:
$ 550
7
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
700 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT
720 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS
730 BOOKS AND PERIODICALS
740 EDUCATION AND TRAINING
745 TRAVEL
750 ADVERTISING
$ 200
215
660
1,635
1,850
160
SUBTOTAL:
$4,720
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
800 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
830 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL:
$2,900
4,650
TOTAL ACCOUNTING - CUSTOMER SERVICE
$7,550
$266,407
8
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: ACCOUNTING - METER READING
PERSONAL SERVICES
210 SALARIES AND WAGES
220 OVERTIME PAY
230 SOCIAL SECURITY
240 RETIREMENT
250 HOSPITALIZATION
260 LIFE INSURANCE
270 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
$61,944
1,000
5,332
5,400
4,932
559
1,910
SUBTOTAL:
$81,077
OPERATING SUPPLIES
300 OFFICE SUPPLIES
320 SHOP SUPPLIES
330 UNIFORMS AND CLOTHING
360 FUEL, OIL AND GREASE
380 SMALL TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL:
$430
60
350
2,200
375
$3,415
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
400 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
410 MATERIALS - WATER
425 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS
$1,000
35,325
1,800
SUBTOTAL:
$38,125
$675
$675
SUBTOTAL:
560 SERVICE CONTRACTS
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
SUBTOTAL:
$700
$700
650 VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
9
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: ACCOUNTING - METER READING
OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
740 EDUCATION AND TRAINING
745 TRAVEL
$300
300
SUBTOTAL:
$600
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
830 MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL:
1,800
TOTAL ACCOUNTING - METER READING
$1,800
$126,392
10
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING
PERSONAL SERVICES
210 SALARIES AND WAGES
220 OVERTIME PAY
230 SOCIAL SECURITY
240 RETIREMENT
250 HOSPITALIZATION
260 LIFE INSURANCE
270 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
$276,631
1,000
22,323
23,306
14,796
2,414
5,541
SUBTOTAL:
$346,011
OPERATING SUPPLIES
300 OFFICE SUPPLIES
305 COPIER SUPPLIES
330 UNIFORMS AND CLOTHING
360 FUEL, OIL AND GREASE
380 SMALL TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL:
$2,650
944
150
2,345
1,000
$7,089
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
SUBTOTAL:
$800
$800
400 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
540 ENGINEERING SERVICES
560 SERVICE CONTRACTS
575 TELEPHONE
585 PRINTING AND DUPLICATING
590 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$2,000
1,025
2,800
600
2,000
SUBTOTAL:
$8,425
11
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
600 EQUIPMENT REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
650 VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
$1,100
1,525
SUBTOTAL:
$2,625
OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
700 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT
720 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS
730 BOOKS AND PERIODICALS
740 EDUCATION AND TRAINING
745 TRAVEL
750 ADVERTISING
790 HIGHWAY PERMITS
$350
300
800
1,200
1,080
200
1,350
SUBTOTAL:
$5,280
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
800 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
810 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
830 MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL:
$0
2,700
o
TOTAL ENGINEERING
$2,700
$372,930
12
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE
PERSONAL SERVICES
210 SALARIES AND WAGES
220 OVERTIME PAY
225 STANDBY PAY
230 SOCIAL SECURITY
240 RETIREMENT
250 HOSPITALIZATION
260 LIFE INSURANCE
270 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
$286,651
7,245
5,500
26,567
25,292
21,372
2,620
9,548
SUBTOTAL:
$384,795
OPERATING SUPPLIES
300 OFFICE SUPPLIES
310 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
320 SHOP SUPPLIES
330 UNIFORMS AND CLOTHING
360 FUEL, OIL AND GREASE
370 HEATING OIL
380 SMALL TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL:
$150
700
500
1,000
16,900
800
6,691
$26,741
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
400 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
410 MATERIALS - WATER
420 MATERIALS - SEWER
430 EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES
460 WATER PUMP STATION SUPPLIES
480' SEWER PUMP STATION SUPPLIES
$6,500
34,930
3,641
2,295
3,000
4,450
SUBTOTAL:
$54,816
PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
530 LABOR - OUTSIDE CONTRACT
560 SERVICE CONTRACTS
575 TELEPHONE
590 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$5,000
2,345
5,045
100
SUBTOTAL:
$12,490
13
APPROVED
BUDGET
CODE DESCRIPTION
DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
600 EQUIPMENT REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
650 VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
$3,000
4,000
SUBTOTAL:
$7,000
OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
700 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT
720 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS
730 BOOKS AND PERIODICALS
740 EDUCATION AND TRAINING
745 TRAVEL
750 ADVERTISING
760 ELECTRICITY - WATER PUMP STA.
770 ELECTRICITY - SEWER PUMP STA.
777 SHOP (CROZET)
$500
100
50
1,815
1,000
200
26,425
5,470
2,000
SUBTOTAL:
$37,560
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
830 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
SUBTOTAL
16,595
16,595
TOTAL
MAINTENANCE
$539,997
14
..'
~
.""
L'.~
. ~j:.,L_'!L_
_ C, ,:-!..f~ L~S"' LO )
Ager.d~ LCrl"; f\:").
~ ~~ ~rlN~ tf)~
-tj~ f~ m.ukf/ kJ-. ~/jtJ.z
(~-&_., t~XM..-- ,.1.;<:'Oj-5.2/3
:kIc.j?knl/ YHI ~-'p-j720
/1
l Ctl?vrnl.4:UtJn.. .
C:() U f'~TY 0 F ;\ L f3F.: i\.~ .L\!'~ L i
r;-;) rr:.1 (:;J Ii \' n r-;::','j ;',:
! i II 1 I.. --'- ...- '. ,,_..I."_'-"''-q Ii'
II \ ,I I') \. \ I
, ; I. '"
I L ~ llll c; ,,\11;':'1
: , I ,_ JI,...) .., '-'
, ,
,/
July 24, 1991
TO: Parties Interested in Solid Waste Management
FROM: Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director ~
SUBJ: Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Solid Waste Management Plan
I am pleased to enclose the 1991 Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Solid Waste Management Plan for your review. You will
find it a valuable resource for gaining a better understanding
of the solid waste picture in our Planning District and as a
guide to future solid waste planning.
I want to express my particular gratitude to Mr. William
Middleton, Chairman of the Regional Solid Waste Task Force, and
to all the Task Force members who made invaluable contributions
to this plan. Solid Waste planning for our region will
continue beyond this plan and I trust we can count on our Task
Force members to provide continued guidance and leadership.
Enclosure
-'//'
./IA.-:')UL->;.t
'. ..:~ ~.IPi~:d en rftvr;l~.~d p:!?t!r
1j," , .
I.t'U"l~"1 J '.' :{(.1:/:~"J."11.1.
J
..
,
, J~-~-"<"/'l!~':~'
)
..... ,'~( '{It,' , L../H~:1f \. v'c.(..-.';I:.tl ".
v
y. ,',
/ Ira..;" i ".......'-'-'1
~ .,. '- ,; ,
/V.t.I..:,i; l,):'."t..,
to [h;"';d: f: 2. I '7 I
~'!o. __'11'~~()7{--:~~2)
July 25, 1991
,J" ~-- .>, _. E:~ F r-~ /\~' ~~; ;
Frederick R. Bowie
Rivanna District Supervisor
3201 Shannon Drive
Keswick, VA 22947
, "'::..f~7F~:; i ! .
_, . ~_... \ I ,
... '0 I':,.of 1 ~ j ; I
". '..: :"",,~::.).
. "~',!..'. .' (-
RE: Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council
Dear Mr. Bowie:
I would like to summarize the activities of the Advisory Council
for the last six months.
We are currently meeting at the offices of State Farm on the
third Tuesday of each month. We formerly met at Virginia Power
but moved after the relocation of Council member Deb Burnley.
We have conducted three Public Forums at the Carver Recreation
Center in Charlottesville, the Rising Sun Community Center in
Louisa and the Green Mountain Church in Esmont. Each of these
sites are nutrition centers offering lunch and activities
(minimal) for the elderly. The field visits have allowed us to
meet with the participants and discuss services. Senior JABA
staff members have participated. We have all received a new
awareness of the problems the elderly face with poverty, health,
accessibility and lack of transportation.
The Council has also participated in a review of the agency
Budget, fund raising activities, the series of seminars on Caring
for Older Adults, Adult Day Care Center and the transition by
JABA to a Care Management approach to services.
The Council is mandated by the Older Americans Act.
was passive in its approach to its mandate. Today,
a stronger and more active role in carrying out its
responsibilities.
Formerly, it
it is taking
_~iC/~Y~;.I ~
Rot~~~lters, Jr.
1645 Ravens Place
Charlottesville, VA 22901-7527
804-978-4874
".'
Distributed to Board: r'2' 7 I
Ag8fld9. n;:;rf! No, q /, ~~ (17, 'I -'i:.J.:-
"
,
...... -' ,-2/..~i>'i: in v
-" .<g;P~(i..t~~-
~-' tj i _
- :? :1"-,-..
..) /7,;/ J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
.t2C'/J?iL
L','
"
July 3, 1991
Rappahannock Electric Cooperative
Attention: John Dalton
P. O. Box 7388
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
RE: SP-90-99 Rappahannock Electric Cooperative
Dear Mr. Dalton:
/
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
July 2, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The granting of this permit does not guarantee the
availability of electric power to the applicant and
shall not be construed as approving the modification,
construction or reconstruction of any facility not
specifically approved herein;
2. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to
impair or otherwise affect the rights of the applicant
or any other person concerning the acquisition of any
right-of-way or other interest in property for such
line or the compensation to be paid therefor. Except
for angle structures as described in Attachment G,
right-of-way width shall not exceed one hundred feet
(lOa');
3. Suspension structures shall be in general accordance
with Attachment G, provided that structures shall not
exceed height or width dimensions described in
Attachment G. A maximum height limit of 100 feet shall
apply where height limits shown on the attachments must
be exceeded due to topography;
Rappahannock Electric Cooperative
Page 2
July 3, 1991
4. outside of the right-of-way, the applicant shall have
the right to cut danger trees only. A danger tree is
defined as any tree which, if felled, would fall within
ten feet of a conductor;
within the right-of-way, the applicant shall preserve
vegetation and trees within fifteen feet of stream
crossings and public roads to the maximum extent
practicable allowing for the safe operation and
maintenance of the line;
5. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to
minimize the adverse impact of such line on adjacent
properties, on the neighborhood and on the County,
consistent with good engineering practice;
6. Department of Engineering approval of stream crossings;
7. Staff approval of site plans for substations;
8. Centerline of transmission shall not be located closer
than 250 feet to any dwelling and shall be in accord
with the routing indicated in Attachment A;
9. Rappahannock Electric will negotiate other means of
maintenance with individual property owners objecting to
herbicide usage.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on Auqust 7. 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.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
t7v';/L-I2~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
'J?eLLi'_d t/? /<1 I
. Charles T. Lebo
2171 Viburnum Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804) 973-7249
August 6, 1991
MR. F.R. Bowie, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Dear Mr. Bowie,
This letter is in reference to Rappahannock Electric's
request to increase the size of their substation on Rt 29,
next to GE.
As a resident of the North Pines subdivision I drive by
their existing facility daily. I am not opposed to their in-
crea3ing their activity at this site, however, I would ask
that it only be done with the following conditions:
-increase the screening of the site with additional
planting. It has some screening now but it is not
adequate.
-maintain weed and grass by cutting on a regular
basis. It is neat in appearance now (perhaps due
to this expansion request?) but it is not always
maintained.
I am not able to attend the meeting scheduled August 7,
1991, but I hope this letter will suffice.
Thank you.
~~-
Charles T. Lebo
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
JULY 2, 1991
AUGUST 7, 1991
SP-90-99 RAPPAHANNOCK ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (REVISED)
This report is a revision to the report presented to the
Planning Commission on December 18, 1990. At that meeting
the Planning Commission requested additional information
from the applicant.
Petition: Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC)
petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit to construct an electrical power substation and
transmission line [10.2.2(6)]. The properties crossed by
this line are between Route 29 and Route 763 (near Piney
Mtn.) in an easterly and southerly direction to the Proffit
area. The properties are Tax Map 21, Parcels 12, 12A, 12D
and 14C; Tax Map 33, Parcels 1, 2, 4, 4B, 4C, 10, 12, 12E,
20, 21, and 36; Tax Map 46, Parcel 33B and 33F and Tax Map
47, Parcels 2 and 3A. They are all in the Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: The area crossed by the transmission
line is varied in topography. The line crosses rolling
terrain and cleared and wooded areas. The nearest residence
to the proposed line is 250 feet. The areas crossed are
mostly wooded. However, significant cleared areas are also
crossed.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
A complete description of the request is found in Attachment
B. Further description of the line and a response to the
concerns of the Planning commission is included in
Attachment C. The need for these improvements is addressed
in Attachment D. The new line will be a 115kv line which
will be served by a new substation near the Better Living
Home Center Truss Plant adjacent to the existing 230kv
Virginia Power transmission line. These improvements will
improve service in the Rappahannock Electric and Potomac
Edison service areas (Attachment E).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
staff has reviewed this request for compliance with section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
SP-90-99 subject to conditions.
1
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This request represents the sixth special use permit by
Rappahannock Electric Cooperative for a power substation in
this area. Prior approved permits either expired or were
abandoned due to the site location changes. The existing
substation near General Electric was approved with SP-82-30.
This is a 34.5kv substation which will be upgraded to 115kv.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The primary goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to "discourage
rural residential development other than dwellings related
to a bona fide agricultural/forestal use" (page 203.) While
this use is not residential development, it does represent
development, which is generally discouraged. A stated
objective of the Comprehensive Plan is "maintain cooperative
planning efforts between the County and other non-public
utilities which provide essential services, such as
telephone, electric, and natural gas utilities, to ensure
the adequate provision of these services to support existing
and anticipated development in the County. Private
utilities provide essential services to the County. The
most important of these are electric, telephone, and natural
gas services" p.153. The applicant's proposal is intended
to improve electric service in Albemarle County.
A stated design standard is "design public utility corridors
to fit the topography. Corridors should be shared by
utilities, when possible. Distribution lines should be
placed underground" (p. 88). This issue will be discussed
later in this report. The applicant has stated that they
will "work with and allow other utilities access to, and use
of the right-of-way provided that REC can be assured that it
will be able to operate and maintain its facilities in a
safe and efficient manner. REC recognizes that joint use of
a right-of-way can minimize environmental impacts and can
result in a sharing of maintenance costs." The applicant
states in Attachment C, Page 7 that the route may include
provisions for communications.
STAFF COMMENT:
Currently power is provided to Rappahannock Electric
Cooperative's Rivanna, Dunnes and Quinque Substations from a
34.5kv subtransmission line emanating from Virginia Power's
Hollymead Substation. Energy flows in this line currently
exceed the conductor's rated thermal capacity. The proposed
substation and transmission line are the first steps in an
effort to increase capacity in the area. The applicant
proposes to complete a loop in the future that would connect
to the 115kv Pratts substation in Madison County. Approval
of this request in no way implies approval of any future
proposals.
2
The applicant has revised the application and has revised
the plan in order to address the commen~d the commission
made at its December 18, 1990 meeting. A detailed response
to those comments is included as Attachment C. The revised
route will follow the existing rail corridor south of the
Rivanna River. other revisions to the route have been made
in response to public concerns (Attachment E and F). This
revised routing may result in the use of taller towers as
well as concrete or steel poles. In addition, the revised
route may be more visible than the original route as the
line will cross more open land and will not be located
adjacent to wooded areas.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this special
with the Comprehensive Plan and
special use permit (31.2.4.1).
comments:
use permit for consistency
criteria for issuance of a
Staff offers the following
a. The transmission line and substation would not be of
substantial detriment to properties: the character of
the district would not be chanqed.
The applicant has reviewed other potential corridor
routes and has chosen the proposed alignment so as to
reduce the impact on properties. The proposed
alignment results in one road crossing (Route 29) and
limits crossing of the Rivanna River to a single point.
The closest dwelling to the line would be approximately
250 feet away. No listed historic sites are in the
area. Distance to dwellings should minimize visual
impact.
b. The use would be in harmony with the intent of the
Zoninq Ordinance and other uses located in the area and
with the ~ublic health, safety and welfare.
The location of the substations would be adjacent to
existing industrial uses (General Electric and Better
Living Truss Plant) and will not conflict with those
uses. The alignment of the transmission line crosses
both forested and cleared land and would be respective
of the existing uses. Once established, maintenance of
the right-of-way becomes a concern. Staff will
recommend that Rappahannock Electric Cooperative
negotiate other means of maintenance with individual
property owners objecting to herbicide usage. Staff
has reviewed documents including a document prepared by
the Virginia Department of Health in order to determine
if adverse health effects will result from the proposed
power line. Information reviewed by staff indicates
that the potential health risks posed by the power line
3
are, at best, unclear. The applicant has included
information indicating that the proposed power line
would meet the guidelines set by Florida, New York and
other states which are the only states that the
Virginia Department of Health has identified as having
regulations (Attachment C, page 5).
Staff has identified the following factors which are
unfavorable to this request:
1) The transmission line will cross Rural areas.
Development in the Rural Areas is generally
discouraged by the Comprehensive Plan;
2) The use of tall towers and the crossing of
significant open areas will increase the
visibility of the transmission line. It should be
noted that more open space areas are crossed and
taller towers are being used in response to
Planning Commission concerns over the original
alignment.
Staff has identified the following factors which are
favorable to this request:
1) The proposed line will increase electricity
availability in the County which is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan;
2) The applicant is utilizing the existing rail
corridor and has stated that the transmission
corridor may be used for communications. This
sharing of corridor's is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3) The distance to dwellings, a minimum of 250 feet,
will reduce the potential impact of the corridor.
While not listed as a favorable or unfavorable factor staff
noes that the potential risks are unclear. Staff notes that
the applicant has stated that this transmission line will
comply with the regulations of oier states.
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The granting of this permit does not guarantee the
availability of electric power to the applicant and
shall not be construed as approving the modification,
construction or reconstruction of any facility not
specifically approved herein;
4
2. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to
impair or otherwise affect the rights of the
applicant or any other person concerning the
acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest
in property for such line or the compensation to
be paid therefor. Except for angle structures as
described in Attachment G, right-of-way width
shall not exceed one hundred feet (100');
3. Suspension structures shall be in general accordance
with Attachment G, provided that structures shall not
exceed height or width dimensions described in
Attachment G. A maximum height limit of 100 feet shall
apply where height limits shown on the attachments must
be exceeded due to topography;
4. Outside of the right-of-way, the applicant shall have
the right to cut danger trees only. A danger tree is
defined as any tree which, if felled, would fall within
ten feet of a conductor;
Within the right-of-way, the applicant shall preserve
vegetation and trees within fifteen feet of stream
crossings and public roads to the maximum extent
practicable allowing for the safe operation and
maintenance of the line;
5. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to
minimize the adverse impact of such line on adjacent
properties, on the neighborhood and on the County,
consistent with good engineering practice;
6. Department of Engineering approval of stream crossings;
7. Staff approval of site plans for substations;
8. Centerline of transmission line shall not be located
closer than 250 feet to any dwelling and shall be in
accord with the routing indicated in Attachment A;
9. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative will negotiate other
means of maintenance with individual property owners
objecting to herbicide usage
Attachments
A - Tax Map
B - Description of Request
C - Applicant's response to comments of the Planning
Commission
D - Justification for Request
E - Electrical Service Areas Map
F - Letter from adjacent owner
G - Structure Diagrams
5
IATTACHMENT AI
. I
!
~
~ '
~~ zo~
I=~~ -r T
, ~ _..L -------
~.a.--_.--
'-
~
"'
<
'" I
!l. t
; 'u
~ ~i
j; h
<J . !=
:i! I ~i
g ~ ,~
~ = ill
~ gj~' IS
~ ~ Ii i
!!
IATTACHMENT 81
Exhibit 413
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
This request is for a Special Use Pemit fc;- :en electric power substation located near Profitt,
Virginia, and an associated transmission line from this substatian to Rappahannock Electric
Cooperative's Rivanna Substation on Virginia Route 763. The substation shall consist ot low
profile steel structures and rigid aluminum canductors to the greatest extent practical. The
substa!ion site will encompass appraximately three and .one-half acres of land as shown an the
accompanying tax maps. A tentative site plan of the proposed substation also accompanies this
application (see Exhibit 415). The transmissian line will entail a 100 foot wide right-ot-way
corridor and will be built with wood pole H-frame structures. The method of clearing and
maintaining the right of way is described in the attached exhibit * 9. Typical structures are
depicted in the attached drawings (Exhibits 416 and 417). The structures shall generally be
spaced 300 to 700 feet apart, however, certain spacings may be either longer or shorter
depending upon the topography along the line's right of way. These structures will suppart three
conductors made of aluminum with steel reinforcing. These conductors will be attached to the
structure with insulators. Additionally, two lightning shield wires will be carried from structure
to structure and attached at the top of each pole.
While studying possible substation sites and transmission line corridors, several criteria were
utilized:
1 . If possible, the substation site should hot be located in an area of high density residential
development.
2. The site chosen should be as compaible as practical with adjacent land use.
3. The substation site should be as close as possible to Virginia Power's 230kV Hollymead
transmission line.
4. A site should be selected that is reasanably level and will not require extensive cut and
fill.
.-
,.
IATTACHMENT B, Page 21
..
5. The transmission line routing should avoid residential structures, to the greatest extent
possible.
6. Neither the substation nor the transmission line should destroy any significant natural or
cultural resources.
7. The line routing should be as direct as passible while cansidering other criteria mentioned
above.
8. The line and substation shall be designed and sited using prudent engineering practices.
Under these criteria, a substation location was selected. This location is immediately adjacent
to the existing Virginia Power 230kV transmission line at the point where it passes the Better
Living Home Center Truss Plant. The area initially selected is currently wooded. To the south
and east of the site are the existing transmission line, the truss plant, and the Southern Railroad
single rail line through Profitt, Virginia. To the north and west is more woodlands followed by
light residential development.
From this site, the transmission line would head northeast through woodlands for approximately
7300 feet, folawed by 350 feet of non-production fields and 550 feet of production fields. The
line would then reenter existing woodlands for approximately 600 feet where it would then cross
the North Fork - Rivanna River. After crossing the river, the line would reenter woodlands for
approximately 2900 feet at which point it would turn and head in a northwesterly direction
towards the Rivanna Substation. The transmission line would continue in woodlands for
approximately 2100 feet followed by 4100 feet .of pastureland. After crossing the pastureland,
the line would turn west and reenter woodlands far a distance of 2600 feet until reaching U.S.
route 29 opposite and just south of the Rivanna Substation. The line would cross route 29 at
this point, turn, and enter the Rivanna station from the south. A site plan showing the changes
to the Rivanna station has been included as Exhibit 41 10. Because the steep sloping grade
away from the Rivanna station and because of the proximity .of the property line to the substation
.-
..
IATTACHMENT B, Page '31 -
..
fence, visual screening by installing two rows of evergreen trees on fifteen foot centers is not
practical, nor would it be effective. The revised site plan indicates additional screening trees
which will be planted to effectively block the view of the substation.
The location of the proposed Piney Mountain substation and transmission line have been
indicated an the attached aerial phatographs (Exhibit * 11) as well as tax maps * 46, 47, 33,
and 21 (Exhibits * 8).
.~
RAPPAHANNOCK ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
jATTACHMENT cl
P.O. Box 7388
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404-7388
Telephone (703) 898-8500
BOWLING GREEN DISTRICT
P.O. Box 308
Bowling Green, Virginia 22427-0308
Telephone (804) 633-5011
~
/;r
CULPEPER DISTRICT
P.O. Box 392
Culpeper, Virginia 22701-0392
Telephone (703) 825-8373
May 21, 1991
fY~ I [:;~'(?~ F','.',T,-;'} :-;:'70~I' ~,,'7l
V if I ~~ \':""";': "-,.. "',,' ':. .": ; ~! ,~
~'':1, )~/"1 .".,=""' :,:1' :,",~'" ;;'ill",
~ j\ ~ \j';;>': t.! . '
J!1 ~ "~" - .
" \\ '.,~ t ! ~
... ' ~~\.
VAY 21 1991
Mr. william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
PLANNING DIViSION
RE: SP-90-99; Rappahannock Electric Cooperative
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Since the occasion of the previous public hearing
before the Planning commission in December, the engineering staff
and engineering consultants of Rappahannock Electric Cooperative
have been diligently engaged both in seeking answers to certain
questions raised by the Commission and in exploring potential
alternatives to the routing of a portion of the proposed
transmission line, taking into account certain suggested criteria
set forth by the commission.
This letter addresses in detail each of the questions
raised by the Commission. In addition, it proposes modification
to the routing of a portion of the proposed transmission line,
requests amendment to the application of Rappahannock Electric
Cooperative to include additional items, and formally requests
that a date certain be set for a second hearing before the
Commission at the earliest possible date.
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION
Q1: Can a route be found which is a minimum of five hundred feet
from any dwelling?
A1: Such a route is not possible. For the vast majority of
properties along the line, it is possible to maintain a
distance of five hundred feet to the edge of the ROW (550
feet to the centerline of the transmission line); however,
the dwelling on Parcel #12A, Map #21 is located less than
five hundred feet from the existing Rivanna Substation which
was constructed for a specific transmission line entrance
corridor. This is also the location where the line will -
IATTACHMENT CllPage 2\
Mr. william o. Fritz, Senior Planner
May 21, 1991
Page Two
cross u.S. Route 29, as the topography along Route 29
dictates the location for a line crossing. While the
suggested separation is not possible at this particular
location, a distance of two hundred feet (250 feet to
centerline) can be maintained.
Although a route can be achieved which is at least five
hundred feet from all other dwellings, such a route would
involve crossing through the proposed residential
development approved in ZMA-77-19. This line routing
through the PRO, while not passing within five hundred feet
of any existing dwellings, would impact approximately 133
potential dwellings and would reduce the potential for
proposed improvements on the approved PRO. Additionally,
such a line routing would cross through the middle of more
properties. The line routing modification proposed later in
this letter attempts to stay close to property lines
wherever engineering considerations permit. The proposed
line route lessens the impact upon the approved PRO and
maintains a distance of three hundred feet (350' to
centerline) from the residence on Parcel #4, Map #33. This
alignment is also in accordance with the changes sought by
the owner of Parcel #4, Ms. Amy B. Safley, in her December
17, 1990, letter to the Planning Commission, as discussed
below in response to the Commission's Question #2.
The Cooperative has been unable to locate any governmental,
environmental or aesthetic regulations which require a
minimum distance limitation of five hundred feet between a
residence and a transmission line. It is the Cooperative's
position that such a limitation is not appropriate, nor is
it possible, in this instance. The proposed line was
originally routed in such a manner that most dwellings were
more than five hundred feet from the physical components of
the transmission line. It is also quite conceivable that
individual property owners may prefer a routing of the line
through one section of their property, although it may be
less than five hundred feet from a dwelling, rather than a
more distant route, which may have a greater impact upon
their property. Because of these facts, REC requests that
such a minimum distance not be imposed. In return, REC will
work with property owners, whose dwellings are less than
five hundred feet from the electrical facilities, to the
lATTACHMENT C1IPage 31
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
May 21, 1991
Page Three
greatest extent possible. It has been and will continue to
be, one of REC's objectives to work in a cooperative spirit
with all property owners affected by its transmission
projects.
Q2: Two alternative routes have been presented by the public.
Can the line be relocated in accordance with these proposed
alignments?
A2: The line can be rerouted as proposed by the public with
slight modifications as follows:
Routinq Proposed bv Boyd Peery and Rachel Peery:
The line routing as indicated in the Peery sketch can be
followed except in the northernmost portion of the Peery
property where, due to environmental considerations such as
steep grades and potential flood plain areas, etc., prudent
engineering practice dictates that placement of a
transmission line be avoided. REC proposes a line route
which parallels the right of way of Norfolk Southern
Railway, as requested by Mr. and Mrs. Peery. This route
would be as far to the northeast as can be readily
accessible by maintenance vehicles. From this point, the
line would turn back to the northwest at a slightly sharper
angle than indicated by the Peery's. This line routing is
indicated in the attached exhibit #14. As can be seen, the
difference in REC's proposed alignment and the requested
alignment is minimal.
It should be noted that the terrain which this route crosses
requires that the transmission line be built with taller and
stronger structures than those which REC had earlier
contemplated. For this reason, REC requests amendment to
this application so as to include additional items which
shall be discussed later in this letter.
Routing Proposed by Amy Saflev:
The alignment proposed by Ms. Safley involves crossing a
small pond on Parcel #13, Map #33 (not shown on tax maps).
Prudent engineering practices dictate that water crossings
be avoided if at all possible. With a slight adjustment,
the pond crossing may be avoided while still maintaining the
IATTACHMENT CllPage 4
Mr. william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
May 21, 1991
Page Four
requested route near the Safley property. The proposed
alignment is indicated in exhibit #16, attached.
Q3: What are the health effects of the proposed line and
substation?
A3: Effects upon health from transmission lines and substations
are unknown at this time; however, research has been and is
being undertaken to determine what effects, if any, such
facilities may have on health. The Virginia Department of
Health publishes an annual report monitoring ongoing
research into this matter. The latest issue of this report
(copy enclosed) concluded that research studies so far
"provide only contradictory results." The report further
concludes that basic questions concerning health effects
that can be attributed to long-term exposure to electric or
magnetic fields have yet to be answered. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency published in December 1990,
a review draft report on the potential carcinogenicity of
electromagnetic fields (EMF). In the report, EPA summarizes
that electromagnetic fields are a possible, but not proven,
cause of cancer in humans. EMF emanates from a variety of
sources, including appliances within homes. Electrical
World Magazine, in its November 1988 issue provided the
following figures for magnetic strengths of certain common
household appliances:
Appliance
Field Strenqth
Color Television
200 - 800 milligauss
2,000 - 7,000 milligauss
Vacuum Cleaner
Electric Range
175 - 625 milligauss
By contrast, the calculated fields at the edge of the right
of way (ROW) from REC's proposed transmission line will be
less than half that of a color television set. Outside the
ROW, these fields rapidly decrease to values less than that
of the earth's magnetic field.
IATTACHMENT C, Page 5\
Mr. william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
May 21, 1991
Page Five
The state of Florida, which has set commonly referenced
standards for magnetic field levels near transmission lines,
requires that the field level at the edge of a ROW not
exceed 150 milligauss.. The fields surrounding REC's
proposed transmission line will be significantly less than
that level. Additionally, seven states have established
levels for electric fields associated with transmission
lines. These levels are as follows:
State
Field Limit
Montana
1 kV/meter at ROW edge in residential
areas
Oregon
3 kV/meter at ROW edge
1.6 kV/meter at ROW edge
2 kV/meter at ROW edge
8 kV/meter within ROW
9 kV/meter within ROW
9 kV/meter within ROW
New Jersey
New York
Florida
Minnesota
North Dakota
As with magnetic fields, the calculated electric field
strength associated with REC's proposed line is less than
half that permitted by even the most stringent
jurisdictions.
In summary, the possible health effects, if any, of
electrical facilities are unknown at this time. However,
EMF levels outside the ROW which are created by the proposed
transmission line shall be lower than those created by
common appliances within most homes and shall be
significantly below the most stringent requirements of those
jurisdictions which regulate this type of activity. The
Cooperative has staff members available to measure electric
and magnetic field levels associated with its facilities and
will perform such measurements as may be reasonably reqested
by the public.
IATTACHMENT C, Page 6\
Mr. william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
May 21, 1991
Page Six
Q4: Do any corridors exist other than the rail corridor, which
could be used or followed?
A4: The only apparent corridors other than the railroad would be
highway corridors including State Routes 649 and 600, and
u.S. Route 29. Use of these corridors would have a
significantly greater impact upon the citizens of Albemarle
County and upon existing land use and residences than the
proposed route.
Q5: Prepare a map indicating the results of a straight corridor
between the VEPCO 230 kV line and the existing Rivanna
(G.E.) Substation.
A5: Such a map is attached to this letter as Exhibit #15. This
corridor would pass close to approximately twenty homes,
would involve crossing over parts of two large ponds, and
would be visible from Route 649. Furthermore, this type of
alignment would not be in accordance with Federal guidelines
for transmission line corridors. REC does not consider this
alignment to be a viable alternative.
PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO ROUTING OF A PORTION
OF THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE
REC requests that application SP-90-99 be modified to
substitute the alignment as indicated on the attached Exhibit
#16. Although a five hundred foot distance between the edge of
the ROWand dwellings is not maintained throughout the length of
the line, the modification does increase separation from
dwellings. Under this alignment, the dwellings on Parcel #12A,
Map #21 and Parcel #4, Map #33 are less than five hundred feet to
the ROW. However, sufficient distance is maintained from these
dwellings to minimize the impact of the line.
REC would also like to reserve the right to modify the
exact alignment of the transmission line upon any particular
property. While the general alignment would be as shown on the
maps, REC recognizes that actual property lines do not always
agree with property lines indicated on tax maps. REC would like
to be able to shift the exact location of the line by small
amounts, if such a shift in placement is necessitated by actual
property line locations as determined during surveying for the
IATTACHMENT C, Page 7\
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
May 21, 1991
Page Seven
line, or if such a shift in the line is mutually agreeable to the
affected property owner and REC. The alignment presented in
Exhibit #16 does not affect any property owners not previously
REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION
In view of the above proposed modification to location
of the transmission line, REC requests to further amend the
application so as to include the following.
1. In areas where topography places heavy design tensions on
the structures, or unusually high structures are required,
the use of concrete or steel poles may be substituted. The
basic structure arrangement will be unchanged. No steel
lattice towers will be utilized.
2. In areas where topography places heavy design tensions on
the structures, or unusually high structures are required,
cross braced H-frame structures may be utilized (see exhibit
#17) .
3. The maximum height of any structure will be 100 feet above
grade level, the typical structure height on level ground
will be 65 feet.
4. One of the two shield wires (connected at the top of each
pole) may include such conductors or light carrying fibers
to provide communication facilities. This will not affect
the appearance of the transmission project.
5. Engineering design considerations may require the use of
paired conductors. This would mean that two smaller wires
placed close together would be used instead of the larger
conductors originally proposed. The determination of the
number of conductors required would be made during the
design of the transmission line. REC requests that the
permit include the ability to use either single or paired
conductors.
IATTACHMENT C, Page 8\
Mr. william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
May 21, 1991
Page Eight
REQUEST FOR HEARING DATE
Having fully addressed the questions posed to it by the
Commission and having fully explored potential alternatives to
the routing of a portion of its proposed transmission line, REC
hereby requests that a date certain be set for further hearing
before the Commission and that any and all notice which may be
required in conjunction with said hearing be given to all
appropriate parties.
If you should have any other questions or need
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I
will be calling the Planning Commission in the next few days to
see if a date has been established for a second Planning
Commission hearing.
Sincerely yours,
~ /I ~~
John N. Dalton, P.E.
Enclosures
.
\ ""1&
r... ~
J
1"--.,.... .........
. -"
-'<. '
~
F=
-<
~ ;1
~ I~
(.) !=
d 1 ~i
~ ~ li~
~ : i! t
-< iD I.
~ ~ ~i iI
~ ..., a
SEE
,....1&
~
.'
I
'-.
"-
\
~
F=
<
Q: .
~ ;1
~ la
~ !;
~ ~ i~
~ ..~! (
~ =~! ~
Q.. CD gj S
~ 8 li ~
, ?
IATTACHMENT 0\
Exhibit *4 ,.
-
JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST
Currently, Rappahannock Electric Cooperative's (REC's) Rivanna, Dunnes, and Qui~que
Substations in Albemarle and Greene Counties are supplied from a 34.5kV subtransmission line
eminating from Virginia Power's Hollymead Substation. This line roughly parallels U.S. Route 29
in Albemarle County.
Energy flows on this line in December 1989 exceeded the conductor's rated thermal capacity
by 25 percent. It is projected that by 1992 loads on this line will exceed conductor limits by
more than 40 percent. Energy requirements in this rapidly growing area are expected to
increase approximately 6 percent per year. Emergency measures are currently being undertaken
to provide continued service, however, this is only a short term improvement. A reliable, high
capacity source of electricity must be brought into the area as soon as possible. The failure
of the Cooperative to provide a new high capacity source to this area will result in the
Cooperative not being able to provide continuous service to its consumers. Additionally, without
a new source, the Cooperative will not be able to connect the new homes and businesses it
anticipates being built in northern Albemarle and Greene Counties.
The Piney Mountain substation and the Rivanna transmission line are the first steps of this
economical long term plan to provide adequate and reliable electric service to coonsumers of both
REC and Potomac Edison (PE). In addition to REC's need for greater capacity into the area,
Potomac Edison has also been seeking to strengthen its transmission system' in the area.
Because the service areas of REC and PE are contiguous and intertwined, it is believed that the
.-
IATTACHMENT D, Page 21
,. ..
solution to each utility's problems can best be found by joint planning. This one-utility approach
to planning should result in fewer miles of transmission line beng constructed and lower costs
for both utilities.
Power supply problems in Albemarle, Greene, and Orange counties, and various solutions, have
been analyzed. A multiyear plan has been devised to provide adequate and reliable service to
four REC substations and three PE substations. This project includes a 230kV - 115kV
transformation from Virginia Power's 230kV Hollymead transmission line plus a 115kV
transmission loop to REC's and PE's substations. This loop would connect to PE's Pratts
substation in Madison County which is currently supplied via a 115kV transmission line from
Virginia Power's 230kV - 115kV substation at Gordonsville in Orange County. A 115kV supply
can provide a strong source of electricity into this area of Virginia. The use of a loop system
provides high reliability which results in fewer nuisance outages and a continuation of service
even in the event of a major component failure. The Piney Mountain substation and Rivanna
transmission line will be an integral part of this long term, reliable supply system.
.-
j
IATTACHMENT EI
Q
c:
I-
Q
w
..J
W
.)."
Jo..
~
.;:)
o
(.)
tI-,so
I/)
(
..
0/
....z
o
en
c
w
c(
l&.I
a:
c(
'.:::c:
Q
o
Z
z
<(
J:
<(
a.
a.
<(
c:
Q
<(
~
o
I-
o
...
~
:1.
:; ..
'" .
l&.I .
t: ~
9
a:
c(
J:
U
.)."
Jo..
~
.;:)
o
(.)
,.
IATTACHM-ENT FI
....
.,
RFD ;14, Bo;\: 116,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Decernber 5, 1990
Attention: William D. Fritz
RE: Tax Hap 47, Parcel 2
ID. ~W{~Sp~n~..
n; , . 1__ .;:.;;f 1 \"\.f~ J"
.I . ~ \~q-} ,-.: il \ r/. I~,. I ~.ln .
f\\l;J "'-'" .; ~WI
DEe 6 1990 .....
PLANNiNG DiYIS10~
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Sir:
This letter concerns the location and construction of the
Rappahannock Electric Cooperative transmission line.
We, as property owners, feel the current location of the
line which crosses our property is not the best possible
route.
We '\olould like to he.ve the Plannins Gorro."rlission study the
possibility of locating the line parallel and adjacent to
the Norfolk Southern Railroad to a point SW of the Rivanna
River, then turn left to intercept the existing proposed
right of Hay.
We feel this route would be less d~naging enviromentally as
there is less rieht of way to clear, as approximately 3000
feet is mostly open pasture and would require little right
of way preparation. The land through out this area is gently
rolling with no steep grade.
We feel that locating this right of way parallel and adjacent
to the railroad right of way Hould certainly be less dc.unaging
to our property.
\O/e '\olould like to thank you for your time and consideration.
If 'He can be of any help, please call 973-3857.
Sincerely,
~
Rachel P. Peery
Ene: Map with our proposed rieht of way relocation
.-
d I J ' I'''''' -..\. I
,.._t:A
! 1..
I
I
I.
1
..
I
/1
I
\ATTACHMENT F, Pag-e 3\
t:
Rt. 4, Box 265
Ch~rlattesville, VA 22901
December 17,1990
Mr. Williem O. Fritz, SEnior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Ra: SP-90-S9, Rappah~nnock Electric Cooperative proposed routing
of high-power transmission line
Dear Mr. Fritz:
. Please present to your board on the 18th my request to reconsider
the proposed leg of this transmission line designated "C" on the
enclosed map, for the following reasons:
1. Impact on the health of the dwellers on parcels 2, 4, and 4b.
There is even now an investigation underway to study the potential
link between the electromagnetic fields surrounding such lines and
childhood leukemia, as well as other types of cancer. There are
also innumerable reports of debilitating headaches in farmers who
spent long hours tilling the soil under such lines. The proposed
aasement comes virtually to the doorstep of two of the homes on
the ;::...bove properties, precluding ;;'inY protective intervening shrubbery
whatsoever.
2. The devaluating of parcels 4, 4b, 4c, 12, and 12e due to the
manner in which the proposed easement limits future use (building).
(In my own case, this would make the third electric easament around
my dwelling.)
3. The ecological impact of clear-cutting the stee~est part of
a w~tarshed. It seems redundant to point out that the soil we wi~h
to prevent being washed away would also be most UNwelcome to persons,
livestock, and wildlife from the Rivanna to the Atlantic.
. I therefore request that the easement be relocated to the ~est-
southwest of thet originally proposed by a distance approximately
equal to its own width.
It has been explained that the policy in the past has been to use
forested areas to diminish the visual annoyanca of such power lines,
however, in clear-cutting the forest immediately adjacent to open
fields, this guideline becomes self-defeating. Especially where the
woodland is narrow, as in this case, the visibility is merely opened
up to more angles of sight.
May I also suggest that my alternative would be cost-effective
to REC?
encl:
1
Ipi1~'11.l'''\~5?; li'i\. r.~. .
1,1 ~jiS. \~! l~..~ 1111
\d ~ I ;J~ .. ~
~t.~~~ ~
! K,) >> ~:
. t~
DEe 1 7 1990
ResPa:;llr~t/~d.., .
Amy B. (Siel~:Zley
.-
PLANNING DIViSION
:"/ ",':' '\",,~.' .: "/ ",.. -' '~'>'" ..\')-----.-- "" IATTACHME I
:~:-._( I .:~' I': ' > ....>/ / ". ,;' i~,- ," '(. - NT F; Page 4
,,(1).\)...-<: ~r"..,\,\,. / L,'J /\
I :)~ -. '-. " ~. . ... .,/ ~ ", :., w ,.' "-. .---..... ; -:;,,;..) , I ~
11,\) \ '-.~ \~: ,.f;;)"--c'.'~' I :/J -,----....: I ~ / ;\ ' ':, \ / / 1
"1/ , ~ ~ ~-.~.:..,'( /.--.-- -/ /' . - / ~.t ,I j: /' :: I: . / '/ "
i !. ""'" . Ie:- ' .. "J- J - -. / ,,'" J_I~
i \ i~"~,:'~:\\~\~~'" !~--.:-..__ /:' I'-} ../,:: Y I ( \1 040C
i-""-:t ")(' /:/("':$'<:\"t::..,\~~.>~- ~~~]\' ! ,,/,.\~,~-;~_.-l.<' ---;~--li ~\l~J / ~.-)-"
;'. 11_11 \~/ r ._-/'<<'.' "">:",'~:;;"\ G ! _.,<'-' ~ ,'/' /' ---- /1\ "'1~-<;-
!. '\:::" //v-/--- . "." \ : 0" jlJ" /. ,- \. /'\' " r. '(1 !i,\ 1
~..I j~. . //.1 / .:;' '., '. '. .,./ 'v" "1/' _1 / ;1 ()7' .\
I-;:::r'-~~/Ir ........- .~, \ 'i: I C'''~./D; /
':;Cj:'~:::f~I/, / ,1;-\ \ \ ~ \ J/ I --.::..::;:;? !\"c
(-"--:-.:;./"./.'11 "'". I " ," 0/\ . \ ..~ : 11";];1. ", ..
1__"--;:':" '.,.' f'( I ." .'" /'., '. /\ \" I (i\0~\...../;)'" ~ ; :!'
..:::~ "; ":::;_/. / " pln\';" _ \ "'\f'~=:JI' \ . . v
',_~ _~"~' ~..:; ID . . '#.:_'.....~,~ / > ,I I ll\~,;' "1 !I
!, .... 't' \~ f," .? / '. ,. I ~\....' -<\ ......., , I I~- ;-- 4ZA
f.-;:''''~r ~'-! ,- __ I,:~ I.../~. ./ .,1':: f 1'\\"
:.. :,:;.1 XI j' . / ;--- -<: .:.;--1..:::0: C . /"\.) f,'.! '-\1'>- .(. ')'0 r'
,"/f. .' '''','','. /' \ ./, '). _j'/';<.! . 'Z .
t/) /' \, .~'i_~f ,_ '~:~'..'::~"C )'\ .,../".' '" ,'i:L"7,,,-'~::J;'::,::):0" \-', Ii
. / \ ,,/.., '. '. :..., , ': /'/./' '" / ,\ \ "j SEE
'I' /' ) . /1 I . ./:,~~/\1~.1 \. ....... J" .....
iJ' I' .\ , Ii _"~I. '::--,i / /. ~/\"" II :::>)<>. . ~.II.1.
I "\ - :' I (:': \',,~.:-J /',./>' )..> /") "'" "">- J
I'. j' t., .....-,.._.....-:,1..../ l/ ,/ /(1',,:5) /,-'.:; " .-/-: jC, .
, , " / v: '. ' . " . / \ I ,.' .. .. \
I '-, ;" '. n'" / " . I ! / V'" . I \ \ .
1,\, ,,/"'. " " I' '" /1 /'1 ,. /'. "".'\ \ 3CA /' /
I \ I /:'t \ "<.:. .: -..~ . . '\ ~, }, ,/, r", f
i \, \'/"Ir. \ / I,. " "-'" V, : ,!\./ '- ,.. \ ) ;"-;::)/1 .. \ '
1-;-' ; h 11 ,)( / /:,' c.~'. /'. / / .......(~,'\../ \"/(:.<r) ~'/I i _.~-~
I' I !~/{;;:~ .~'Y-!/'~:!/ i /t'" / IZE >~.>;"'., /\",,",\..-(:,Il)..... :' /
....... \ 1/( .J /" ,I I-.J..' " I .I . /\ ""'" ,. '\~. '-, . / J 45
ll'\\ ~\~'~.. ~t>-\111 ,1./ \Vi :'~.)( ,/~{y1<~:..~^:),:.":~~':, / <-
I \ \/.:( JI J/JI \. ,f / / 'yir ":. \ I~D /;f-~1S/ \ II' ;":'.,~'\'"5.-' \, '.. II~'- ~_/
i J\ .\" I' ' />~ >,/ /1, ;" , i]) '-;;':'y, II" I" .......~,..
i t l /,/!I / . .... /........~, I I ;', oOc 0',
! i 4~4)) It> _'::: ,/ ',.;',;;:';", / ,~~';(..::-- / .;) t.tj' \,', tA -45 . H"
lJ ,. -ifj;J/f/. /1/ /" I, / i:"!""!:I? / \/\.' ../" /'\)0/) \ \ r..:,""'.. 0
~.. '~/;.(rt!i'./0 // . -'5' ~\ '~/:I/l/11 1\ /fJ.-/'. /1'.. /y.' t\ ...~:::fl 04701 ::~ 70 ~ <
I ~t 1 \// (iY / /I \, (;ij!;/'i!lJ;/~') :,.+ 3G.\.IJ /....<1' .)" / ~( '-; ~ :: .: ...
~ )'~II, j'/ ,.' ,I. "!/i':J\/ I?' ~ ..:.",.,.,:-~~, 0::"
I . )/ If / //), ''If/iA.:, /\ iJ~C .) } ...:::..... .,.,
I t v ~ ' 'f . ,/""1.# A ~ I J"
I /\J:; 1/"', . ..,. -,' .! "'IJiI~ "V-:~ \ -~--' 4l~'
I. / ,-=9' .'-..... ! . (' / E:!:i:/iilil. ----- /;'" ~-f.ii~ . j j ~ "
(___.j'\ ...... ," / /' 'i(,'{i/:/:.,\ .r \( '-'~~ i I: ~ ~.)
, : ~=--- '.....:' /, ..!.!jt!i.'~:\~/ ~....!..______~~\ . '7~1 .
~~ Ni,,/h ~--"----"""" /' I I,'~\\'\{\' ~ ~ f
I'~I\ -r_fO'.1 'v ".I.JI" r---___ t ~l I
\ J .J --". I' ,f,\,'IVI' ~---._'j'lA----' J
,~ ' 17 ~..".,_ \....___,/ ___ ...- ) /: ,1'::;:'( 1-. :"'1"-' ."::"'t" , ........~. .
__ \. ^\ \ ----r ___\.-, ) . ,\\;.:.\';'/ I '-.. ....G2..a I
\\~""~ ;""1,'/ ~'.." ,." Ii 'c ,l\\i{:\;::!. !__J-'c ---; \
'I"'~" 'V,~.::'l,/ /5:'''' '-..'\----,~(-7/ /) ..A~~j;~.. ( JM;: :-:'-j .\k~~~U5'E \' ./.
(r,'--:'''/C.,--:' I tIC 'i : / .\\\'.\,\' I
~y .fi;,':~~;--.r--. I /" \ '.\ I ,;:\~:~':;/ (' -/ '.
<, .;r.'o~Ph-..../" .._ f \.. '\ \\1) .-lo. L J \
. '-/............ ~,. ' ""'_. . ...-/ /,,\"}'''- J'~ "E
........'.,,>-.. \? / (....'\~~ ht::;~;:,\y \ j' ~~"' )"/~ \\ ,.-< I
k.. "~,:"';< '-.); \~> ..... . ,{~~~~y ) .-:.." ::-\'f:i Y ./
I '\ ....-,/,..... y.. '" ':;--- '-" ,,'~'.....'j / ----... \ :~.. ~J . ;I~i:?, ... .....---
>//~~~~~.~I '. ""'/'- ...~.>....:\.',:;:/ // ! ><c t-.L--\ )..~:"f/ /
I "c' / r............... /' 't ;:. ,~;:\' =::::s..~ l...... /..-r::r<'\ ,." \ ;j(~:,,';7\(_.--../ r- .-.../............
.... Y.. ' /... _ .<,,\\:<:: ''-0.. ....:::. ./ '.... .' ~ i '......
V .......... / . ',- ( ',:1\\' '-.. '..idY\\r,'--.... /~ \ \ . ......
I /....., ;/,.... ,",,' ........";;n~ .< f J -' ;;'7... .--_\) .........
/ \ 'l \ . 'J'~ ,;, /';; ~" /' -...J ..
; J '_--''''-'--'---' .;.''o",,'' '-, 1 / ~/ ~~ ,JY..... .
l--J ,/;::::~-___' 1::;,~:::'i: t/--'7':~\'v///' /r I" "",---/ .\-
I ",,/' ~ 'I" /\ W',\'.' '... I "~')/ ....t,...........~
I /v \ '. /' ;,\\\'., ~,,1 I IT\' . ~ ~ JI
I /' ~' )< ;:'~\\\\' ~I \VATTe; ,/~ .. / ""\
I ~.l )"..... ,,\\\\.:,~t ~. J~ i '\
, r "",","'1,..,.. ~4 1 Y
!~ 'k /~,?~ ~ "j{~':~~~~'!.~ r . \\. . .
t~~~' ,~~ \ .....,,,/\,.::\:/--...\ '. '~tf.f%'Z0\\ \,.:,~ Z~ \i\-,1 .j '---- ......~./
~'i'~. ....0 '/' "'\\''/ \ \ . /': y,.", .., \, \ - ---.../ 3~ '.
/~..........: \'. \ ..........-"'1'., nil I \\ ':-::(f r.~' ow ..... "
~.....-:. \./ \,'" \ '''U ,,~( y \ '201; l .. _ ...0/, ..
1":'(~1: ~~:r? /--; "'>." \ l' .. . <,:i-j/ .....-:c.! \)) \ ''r';..]' ',T"- .\
~~/~ t/ -~~ )'.!>,.' ",.I ,~;~','i N~"" ).':~ I ':'-....,;
1~3" ~~r-- ---I \ j\'.\ ," " ,," \ 5:7 I Z'L tt' \" . 'j~
t% ~I/~ ~....~" ,: . /,/ \ (/ \ II . "/'" '" "y '-'" \ 20 ........~
!~:m\ ,"". .:,: /. \\ ,} \ IJ" /' .,,, ! \
!/",'-":.-I//;;':;,.-, ,t'\" ..: __/ \.~ .,....~') '- J.
1:/:/"~/."~l . ..:.---....'.".. \ . . /' . _...J' ---.{__ " . " 1__
,,':>;;J';,-':/~:.c.--- "'),;.'.'.' \\/ )_;r-1[ , ~21 \ '-..... ~ -......
lc.r'~' ,;{i'o'iY: .1\\ ( \...-J. 1-UQ i ~-~/..;..~._._':'
[ .Y;;,,:;:,; ~. \ \.- /'\ 2~ ..J.' !
t ..J,.._-A::;V"- \ > ~;~ q\~,~,:i!~;OL\(' t=U'OK\L " /~)' '~-1:cf'
(/ '/ ~~n
It
,\
'\
II
11
ui
, i
T
~
~
:T
to
~T
J~
~ 1
l"'I
.....
1
(IDO!d{l)
,,0 - ,99
~
l/)
E
...
o
en
l/)
o
v '-
... 0
::l
.,..., -0
U 0
::l 0
.;; 3:
U)
..c
~ ~
to 0'1
~ ~ ~
I- I- 0
OJ lL
I
X
W
o
U "0
a.. 0
~~
IATTACHMENT G, Page 1\
L-
V
..c
.~
::r:
l/)
v C
.0 0
>.::::
0-0
~c
o
_0
..c
Ole
'v'o
It:
v
el-
:J 0
u......
:J Q)
.t::J
(/)0
.
o
I
'0
...
II
.
...
q;
'0
o
tI)
.,
IATTACHMENT G, Page 31
1--12' - 6" I 12' - 6~
1--12' - 6"---1
EXHIBIT # 17
-;/
r
I:
o '""'
c
o
in ~
to t:,
Typical Cross-braced Tangent Structure
Wood Poles with Wood Crossarms
Structure Height May be Higher
Due to Terrain Conditions
Scale: ,. - , 0'-0.
~
.
.
..
.
IATTACHMENT G, Page 41
15' - 6" 15" - 6"
~ ~I" ~
15' - 6"
~ ~
EXHIBIT # 18
Typical Cross-braced Tangent Structure
Wood Poles with Wood Crossarms
Structure Height May be Higher
Due to Terrain Conditions
Scale: 1. - 10"-0.
1:
o .-..
o
.~
'in ~
to t:.
~
, ,
.
.
o.
~
u
5
11'I
.
a
c
<
E
a1~
-'i
"'::1
!::a
lIlu
8!
.
CD
I
r.
-
.
CD
I
r.
...
IATTACHMENT G, Page 5/
lri
.&.
DO
:i:
II
':j
>.=
cOO
::18
_CJ
-a..s
~g
.
et-
o.
~.s
2 ·
u;6
~
.
-
//
//
/
/
J
J
//
/
/
,/
/
//
,/
.....
a
. u
.,,-
CD~
t:.
,-
/
. :"", ,{ ; J:.:.l::..fLL,,;,;;;..
D:'~~r~but;;~j ~D bvaru. -
I", ',"'. q{,o~(J 7. <I't..1
~genda Item NQ, -
~
'-'/
(:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
",
.:..:/
July 3, 1991
Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation
ATTN: Dean Johnson
Rt. 3, Box 661
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP-91-23 Charlottesville Quality Cable Corp.
Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 (part)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
July 2, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tower height not to exceed 200 feet. Tower, ground
equipment and satellite dishes to be located and
configured as described by applicant in Attachment C
adn sketch initialled W.D.F., dated July 2, 1991.
2. Administrative approval of site plan to include:
a. Staff approval of equipment building and satellite
receiving dishes sites and, if appropriate,
screening measures;
3. As to future tower users, staff may administratively
approve additional antennae installation under the
following circumstances:
a. continued compliance with 'section 5.1.12
(Attachment D) of the Zoning Ordinance including
safety measures related to cumulative RF radiation
such as fencing of areas where ANSI standards
would be exceeded;
f
Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation
Page 2
July 3, 1991
b. If such installation is an element or segment of a
network or system which requires Board approval,
such installation shall not be authorized until
Board approval has been obtained for the entire
network or system.
4. Department of Engineering approval of tower design to
insure that in the event of collapse the tower falls
within the lease area.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on August 7, 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.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
..,l ..i'
0/</.'
<jdZ(;,~
a~
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Crown Orchard Company
.-
't'
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSIC:;:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
JULY 2, 1991
AUGUST 7, 1991
SP-91-23 - CHARLvTTESVILLE QUALITY CABLE CORPORATION
Petition: Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation
petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit for an approximately 190 foot transmission tower
[10.2.2(6)] on a portion of 234.2 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 (part)
is 10cated on the south side of Route 53 in the scottsville
Magisterial District. This property, on Carter's Mountain,
is not 10cated within a designated growth area. Rural Area
IV.
Character of the Area: This property is at the top of
Carter's Mountain, with approximately seven towers 10cated
in proximity to the proposed tower site. The two adjacent
towers were approved by the Board of Supervisors for
Motorola (200 feet) and CVET (293 feet).
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct a transmission tower
of approximately 190 feet. The tower will be used for
"wireless cable television". Two to three ground satellite
receiving dishes are also proposed as well as any equipment
building. The tower design will accommodate additional
users. The signal is received by the customer through a,
smaIl antenna. This antennae is approximately 1/10 the size
of a standard VHF antenna.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed the request for compliance with section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
SP-91-23.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
October 4, 1978 - The Board of Supervisors approved
SP-78-42, a request for a 200 foot communication tower.
January 18, 1980 - The Board of Supervisors approved
SP-79-76, a request for a five meter satellite receiving
dish.
1
'I'
March 19, 1980 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-80-22,
a request to r€.~..uve an existing 230 foot tower and replace
it with a 186 foot television tower.
May 41. 1988 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-88-14, a
request for 2~3 foot television tower.
September 19, 1990 - The Board of Supervisors approved
SP-90-74, a request for a 150 foot cellular telephone tower.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
A stated design standard of the Comprehensive PIan is
"design public utility corridors to fit the topography.
Corridors should be shared by utilities, when possible.
Distribution lines should be placed underground". The
intent of this statement is to consolidate 10cationsi
therefore, since the tower is 10cated in an area with many
other towers, the application is consistent with this
standard. The opportunity to cluster towers is limited by
topography. Staff has encouraged consolidation of new
towers in existing tower farms such as on Carter's Mountain.
STAFF COMMENT:
Attachment C is the applicant's submittal entitled "SUMMARY
OF INFORMATION" which is presented in the form of a planning
staff report and analysis. Staff is in basic agreement with
opinions stated by the applicant and recommends that the
proposal satisfies criteria for issuance of a special use
permit as setforth in 31.2.4.1:
"Special use permits for uses as provided in this
ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of
the district will not be changed thereby and that such
use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the
district, with additional regulations provided in
Section 5.0 of this Ordinance, and with the public
health, safety and general welfare.
The following summary comments are offered:
1) Location: The applicant attempted to 10cate on
existing towers on Carter's Mountain. These attempts
were unsuccessful due to a lack of available capacity
on existing towers or technical incompatibility with
other users. The proposed tower will be located within
2
"
500 feet of three existing towers and will be of equal
or less ~leight than existing towers. The nearest
dwelling is 10cated approximately 3,000 feet distant.
2) Capacitv: As stated by the applicant in Attachment C,
the tower will be designed to accommodate additional
users. Further information from the applicant
indicates that the applicant will use approximately 1/3
of the total capacity of the tower and has already been
in contact with prospective users. This approach,
providing excess capacity, is consistent with the
County efforts.
3) Visibilitv: The tower will be visible from large areas
of the county. However, the towers proximity to
existing towers will result in a minimal change in the
appearance of the mountain. The ground equipment for
the existing towers 10cated adjacent to this site have
limited visibility. Staff is recommending
administrative approval of the site pIan for the
10cation of all ground equipment. In review of -the
site pIan staff will require screening measures if
necessary. Therefore, based on the towers proximity to
existing towers and a condition allowing staff to
require screening of the ground equipment this use will
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties
, and the character of the district will be changed.
To further enhance shared usage of the tower, staff will
recommend that no separate special use permits be required
for future users on this tower, provided that certain
conditions are satisfied. Staff recommends approval of
SP-91-23 Charlottesville Cable Corporation subject to the
following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Tower height not to exceed 200 feet. Tower to be
located as described by applicant.
2. Administrative approval of site pIan to include:
a. Staff approval of equipment building and satellite
receiving dishes sites and, if appropriate,
screening measures;
3. As to future tower users, staff may administratively
approve additional antennae installation under the
following circumstances:
a. continued compliance with section 5.1.12
(Attachment D) of the Zoning Ordinance including
safety measures related to cumulative RF radiation
such as fencing of areas where ANSI standards
would be exceeded;
3
. ~'
b. If such installation is an element or segment of a
network or system which requires Board approval,
such installation shall not be authorized until
board approval has been obtained for the entire
network or system.
4. Department of Engineering approval of tower design to
insure that in the event of collapse the tower falls
within the lease area.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B Tax Map
C Applicant's Summary of Information
D section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance
4
IATTACHMENT AI
.,
~v
(,(5
~I"
'"
.,.,
g-..f~
.-of
\.<1'
\S "
_.::9'
~-0
o~
t'
.,0,. /.//:-
i. ~ ,..t
~~
~(('"
\
,( \
.;
,/
~
, /
L'
~~ [ill) /
~
"
~
"'~
~
s
~
-.)
\
(
1.-,
"!.'
0..,
'J.'
~""~-'''\..,
o
"
~
{
.~
~
...~
.~
cl
-'~~
'.\<'''-~.~
.. -~~.
\,
:)) .:~
< '.
'"
""oj
,
'?'
~
,
'"
""
.,
17 (ill]618_
v-~ .
ilx',! ..
SP-91-23
CH'VILLE QUALITY CABLE CORP.
.
COUNTY
ALBEMARLE
77
, , . . .IATTACHMENT 81
/~-
/k,~.
'\.,..-
29
I
\~
'\ ~
'\
+
~ ~-J-
'" ../
""--
. '",
"-- \ '------....
'"", X~ '--'\"-",,, \
" ~ ') ) '~/'''\
" \ I I 'i 92
\ ~"" ( :} / ," \.
\ "'" '\
\ \ -\- J- /
\VY)__~-L.____ \ \\ ( 24
'--~ ,,~ \
)0~~
>
27
/ ~'--..,~, ..
. ""'" ~,~~ .
.--\. X
' 'J
6::' _ _
SCALE IN ~t~~T 1.00 1;00
( '" x:
'~-------};;L----L. " SP-91-2~ QUALITY
\ /"' I CHARlOllEOSX~~RA liON
~\ (- CABLE C
~, \..{ ~ - SECTION 91
103
SCOTTSVILLE OiSTRICT
--
IATTACHMENT cl
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
May 13, 1991
rCHARLOTTESVILLE QUALITY CABLE CORP., APPLICANT AND CROWN ORCHARD
COMPANY, OWNERl
Reauep~. Microwave Television Transmission Tower
Acreaqe: [234 +\- acres]
Zoninq: RA
Location:
Property, described as Tax Map 91, parcel 28, is located off of
Route 20, approximately 3 miles south of Charlottesville and is
located on Carter's Mountain. Plat map showing approximate
location of tower is attached along with a drawing showing the
relation of the proposed tower to existing towers.
Character of the Area:
The site will be accessed over the existing fire tower road
through the property owned by the Crown Orchard Company. The
property is developed with orchards and with other towers. There
are no dwelling units located in the area. Other lands in the
area consist of agricultural and forested tracts.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Charlottesville Quality Cable Corp. (CQC) is petitioning the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for approval to
construct a tower approximately 190 feet high for transmission of
microwave radio frequencies and possibly for one or more than one
FM radio stations. The tower would be located at an elevation of
1440 AMSL, North Latitude: 38-58-57, West Longitude 78-28-58.
Construction would involve installation of a concrete foundation,
tower, related building of approximately 20'x 20', and two to
three satellite receiving dishes at the base of the tower. The
tower will be designed to accommodate six top-mounted antennae of
approximately seven feet in length (total height 197 feet), one
four bay FM antenna at approximately 170 feet. The tower is also
being designed to accommodate two way communications uses at 135'
and 110'. The transmitter building will be similar in appearance
to existing buildings near other towers on Carter's Mountain.
The applicant has attempted to obtain space on existing towers on
Carter's Mountain but was unsuccessful because of existing
loading or refusal of owners to accept new users.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTORS:
IATTACHMENT C, Page 21
1. The tower will not be of substantial detriment to adjoininq
properties: There are no dwellings located in the area,
therefore proximity to dwellings is not a factor. Due to the
close proximity to the existing transmitter sites, property
val'''-Qs would not be affected. The property in question would not
be appropriate for future residential or commercial development.
2. The tower would not chanqe the character of the district
(aesthetics and visibility; industrial appearances): The tower
would be located in close proximity to the existing cluster of
towers on Carter's Mountain and would not create any different
visual appearance from any point in Albemarle County from which
the tower may be seen. The tower itself will be a 24 inch faced
guyed tower. A preliminary design drawing depicting the tower is
attached. The tower and antennae will be very similar in
structure and appearance to those already existing on Carter's
Mountain and, thus, the overall visual effect will not be
changed.
The tower would not change the character of the district, but
would merely be adding one tower to an existing field of towers
and the new tower will be no more visible than any of the
existing towers.
The tower will be solid steel and will be in accordance with the
current Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation
Administration requirements. The character of the area will not
be affected by the color due to the existing nearby tower
facilities.
The height of the proposed tower (190') will be lower relative to
the height of the nearest existing tower (Motorola) and thus the
skyline intrusion will not be changed by the addition of one new
tower.
3. The tower would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the Zoninq Ordinance includinq provisions of 5.0 sup~lementary
requlations: As stated, the tower will be located in proximity to
existing towers and will therefore not be located in a random
location.
Should the
the radius
property.
tower are
tower collapse, it will be designed to do so within
of its guy wires which will not cross into adjacent
The possibility of a collapse of a new solid steel
remote.
The tower and related antennae will not endanger the health and
safety of workers and/or residents in the community and will not
impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the
development of same for the reasons previously stated.
, '
IATTACHMENT C, Page 31
The radiation from the microwave antennae will fall within ANSI
guide1.tnes. Frequencies used for this service are 2.15-2.69 Ghz
as defined by the Federal Communications Commission for use in
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS),
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) and Multipoint
Dis~ribution Service (MDS).
The transmitters themselves will initially operate at 20 watts
and will not exceed 100 watts. These power levels are well below
those for radio or television transmissions and will comply with
any changes in Federal Communications Commission guidelines for
microwave services.
Any FM antennae located on the tower will also follow all
regulatory and environmental standards.
4. The tower would be consistent with the public health safety
and welfare (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation; signal
interference, safety of tower): Several aspects of this petition
are addressed under this criteria:
a) Access: Access will be over the existing fire tower road.
Access is not particularly important except during the initial
construction of the tower in order to transport the tower, crane
and construction equipment.
Once the tower is constructed, access will be required on an
infrequent basis. This is an unmanned facility and the only time
access will be required is for periodic maintenance.
There will be no mixing of residential and commercial uses since
most of the traffic would be for servicing other broadcast
facilities.
b) Safety of the tower. The tower will be engineered and
constructed to appropriate wind and ice loads. Copies of the
final plans and calculations relative the collapse area as
mentioned above will be submitted with application for the
building permit.
c) Siqnal Interference. The proposed tower will not interfere
with any existing broadcasts.
6. Benefits to the Public: The applicant desires to construct
the tower to provide the public with "wireless cable" television
service. Wireless cable, which has been well received in other
markets, operates similarly to traditional cable except that the
signal is received by a small antenna on the subscriber's roof
instead of through coaxial cable.
The applicant will provide this service to homes in Albemarle and
other surrounding counties. This will afford households without
access to wired cable the opportunity to receive programming such
as Cable News Network, the Discovery Channel, HBO, and other
IATTACHMENT C, Page 41
cable programming services. These homes only current recourse is
the ~cquisition of a satellite dish for receipt of such
programming.
The applicant is discussing relationships with several local
e~hools whereby the applicant will provide the schools with
~~uipment and free programming in return for leasing excess air
time on their educational frequencies. This relationship will
provide these schools with educational benefits and the ability
to broadcast their programming for continuing education and other
uses.
The applicant has been in discussions with a local radio station
to sublease space on its tower and will entertain similar
proposals in an attempt to minimize the need for construction of
new towers in the area.
5.J,..12.
PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES
IATTACHMENT 01
a. The proposed ~se at the location selected will not
endanger the health and safety of workers .and/or
residents in the community and will not impair or prove
detrimental to neighboring properties or the devel-
opment of same;
b. Public utility buildings and structures in any resi-
dential zone shall, wherever practical, have the
exterior appearance of residential buildings and shall
have landscaping, screen planting and/or fencing,
whenever these are deemed necessary by the commission;
In addition, trespass fencing and other safety measures
may be required as deemed necessary to reasonably
protect the public welfare;
In cases of earth-disturbing activity, immediate
erosion control and reseeding shall be required to the
satisfaction of the zoning administrator;
c.
Such structures as towers, transmission lines, trans-
formers, etc., which are abandoned, damaged or other-
wise in a state of disrepair, which in the opinion of
the zoning administrator pose a hazard to the public
safety, shall be repaired/removed to the satisfaction
of the zoning administrator within a r~asonable time
prescribed by the zoning administrator';
In. approva~ of a public utility use, the commission
shall be m~ndful of the desirability of use by more
than one utility company of such features as utility
e~seme~ts ~nd river crossings, particularly in areas
h~stor~c,v~sual or scenic value, and it shall insofar
as practical, condition such'approvals so as to mini-
mize the.proliferation of such easements or crossings,
as descr~bed by the comprehensive plan.
d.
. ,"
LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT M. GOTTSCHALK
ROBIN HILL
ROUTE 2 BOX 14
CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 22901
ADMITTED VA. AND N. Y. BARS
(804) 977-4110
\ I":'
TELEX 6730473 I LAW UW
FAX 8049774113
July 5, 1991
Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Bowie:
I understand that the Board of Supervisors will be considering
the matter of Quality Cable transmission towers.
This letter is to recommend to you that maximum help be given
to Quality Cable.
We live directly across from Green Croft Country Club on Route
250 West and have been quoted over the years $1,500.00 or more for
Adelphia Cable to connect our house to their services.
On each occasion, we were made to feel that this was a great
favor done for us and a "take it or leave it" option. In the last
couple of years, we have found them to be surly if not rude. This
was an easy position for them to take since there was no
competition.
It is to Albemarle Counties' benefit to bring in Quality Cable
and its antenna system for all those who would otherwise face
enormous charges from Adelphia Cable or no service at all.
Please accept our thanks for your kind consideration.
-)
B;z:;~rd".: L~. .:'......""........, .,'...
/r:fa:-eui-~1t, J~e(/
/ ..."".---".
/ Robert Gottschalk
f/
RMG : vwz
,
,
1
i -2.(1/
, ,-~.~ - ,-~. ,. ....-.....
,1":. :, ;, t,.m,' ,-' 1flfi
,'''~' . '" q/.og;,;.,,__
. ,.",j~ It,,!'1' I'.J. ---
,1,1t;:;",,,, \ ..' "
" ,:~-) 4 ,_..
" I,
-
I
: .'~, r"i
;.J1
) "
I /;.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
"
July 3, 1991
Jean B. Baum
9828 West 121st street
Overland Park, Kansas 66213
RE: SP-91-24 Jean Baum
Tax Map 35, Parcel 43C
Dear Ms. Baum:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
July 2, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of this
petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be covered and
maintained with a material such as pine bark to
minimize dust and erosion;
2. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall
be maintained at all times;
3. Not more than three (3) employees;
4. Not more than fourteen (14) horses shall be boarded
on-site;
5. Hours of operation for outdoor activities shall be
during daylight hours only; indoor facilities may
operate between 6 a.m. and 10:p.m.;
6. Facilities shall be limited to that shown on Attachment
C, provided that the existing stables may be expanded
in order to achieve an Olympic size ring;
7. Upgrading of entrance in accordance with Virginia
Department of Transportation comments of June 10, 1991.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on Auqust 7. 1991. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
.
Jean B. Baum
Page 2
July 3, 1991
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~ /J~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Sabrina Gussin
John J. McGrath, Jr
.
, .
WI LLIAM D. FR'L'.n'0 :']
JULY 2, 1991 rr'.-~_-.- ,'_"'~.,M .'~
AUGUST 7, 199~ ii U.
I' f , .'
SP-91-24 JEAN BAUM i 1:1 \ \h"':",~, "t:" '.._.".,_,_' :. i;
Petition: Jean Baum petitions the BO~~:c);::'pii:~~p~,8?,j,~6t$'; to
issue a special use permit for a comme'r'C/la.! \~:tal:)ter-, v ~L. '\,:;
[10.2.2(16)] on 25.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 35, parcel 43C, is 10cated on the east
side of Rt. 20 approximately 4/10 miles south of Rt. 641 in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located
within a designated growth area., This site is within the
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Character of the Area: This site is mostly wooded with
evergreen trees and is developed with a single family
dwelling, stables and riding ring (Attachment C indicates
the 10cation of existing structures. The riding ring
location has been added by staff and is approximate). A
single family dwelling is 10cated on property to the south.
The stables and riding ring are not visible from the state
road or dwellings.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to operate
a commercial stable housing up to 14 horses. The applicant
will train the horses in the art of dressage. A maximum of
three employees is proposed, two full time employees and one
student intern. The applicant anticipates a maximum of
eight horses being trained and boarded at a time. The
applicant has provided a description of this request
(Attachment D).
Summary and Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this request
for compliance with section 31.2.4.1 and 5.1.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
Planninq and Zoninq History: April 30, 1984 the plat
creating this parcel was approved.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is 10cated in Rural Area II.
An adjacent property, Tax Map 35, Parcel 26, is in the Blue
Run Agricultural/Forestal District. This use should have no
impact on the district due to the distance of the stables
from the district and the wooded nature of the area. The
Comprehensive Plan states as a goal "promote the continuation
of a viable agricultural and forestal industry and resource
base" page 40. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed
use is in accord with this goal.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The facilities needed for the proposed use currently exist
and only minor maintenance/improvements are necessary. The
applicant has stated that this site was used as a commercial
stable in the past. However, staff is unable to locate any
County records indicating approval for a commercial stable
(This site is not being used at this time). VDOT has stated
that the existing entrance does not have the minimum
necessary sight distance (Attachment E). Only limited
trimming and clearing of vegetation is needed to improve the
entrance in accordance with VDOT comments.
No dwellings are visible from the site. A maximum of three
employees is proposed and a maximum of 14 horses will be
boarded. Conditions limiting activity to the above levels
will limit the maximum activity on-site to a level that will
not affect adjacent properties. Staff notes that this use
wil1 increase traffic volumes. Staff calculations indicate
this use may generate between 22 to 34 vehicle trips per
day which is equal to two to three dwellings. This
property does not retain any development rights. Therefore,
this use will increase traffic over that normally expected.
Staff opinion is that the proposed use is supportive of the
Rural Areas and that the limited activity on-site will not
effect other properties or change the character of the
district. Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.3
wil1 protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Based on the above comments, staff recommends approval of
SP-91-24 Jean Baum subject to the following conditions:
1. Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be covered and
maintained with a material such as pine bark to
minimize dust and erosion;
2. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall
be maintained at all times;
3. Not more than three (3) employees;
4. Not more than fourteen (14) horses shall be boarded
on-site;
5. Hours of operation for outdoor activities shall be
during daylight hours only, indoor facilities may
operate between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.;
6. Facilities shall be limited to that shown on Attachment
C provided that the existing stables may be expanded in
order to achieve an olympic sized ring;
7. Upgrading of entrance in accordance with Virginia
Department of Transportation comments of June 10, 1991
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Tax Map
C. Sketch Plan
D. Applicant's Description
E. VDOT Comment.
IATTACHMENT AI
o
l.J
~
FOUR TIMES MAP ~n''''''h
0-9
-<l~
G~
~~
:><
~:............-............
( 0JS
<>
?>~
t-
OV
~
\-
/0..,
tJ.
I
~
SP.91-24
JEAN BAUM
...
.
.
':'
ALBEMARLE COUh,'Y
IATTACHMENT 81
34
. 14
\,
\
'\.
\
>01
21
/
..
SP-91-24
JEAN BAUM
.,
49
SCAU IN 'EET
.~ _ _ 0 I" 111I' IICUI ~OO
--.eLlJE IlUI AGIlIClA.n.M a FORESTAL D1S1IICT
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION 35
~
lATTACHMENT 01
BOBY G, JANNEY
BOBBJlT S, JANNEY
JOHN 07, MCGElATH, JB,-
JANNEY, JANNEY 8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1.2 SOUTB.:JURT STREET
P. O. BOX 166
LURAY, VIRGINIA 228315 - 0166
,. ".
MAY SO 1991
~
PI..ANNING Dt't-j5+ef+93
FAX 703-743-4042
..A.LSO ADMITTED IN DISTlUCT
OF COLUKBIA. AND NEW YOBK
'fJf~y 28, 1991
-,
.."' ,..~-""it"l-.f- .........~-...-'" ,.-fiI
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, virginia 22901-4596
RE: SP-91-24-BAUM
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I am responding to the five questions you raised in your
letter of May 23, 1991.
1. Parcel 43C does have a recorded easement over Parcel
26D. The Deed from Teresa Ismond to Sabrina Gussin (Deed Book
1067 at Page 541) provides, that Lot 43C shall have a perpetual
nonexclusive easement 25 feet in width over Lot 26D for ingress
and egress from State Route 20 to the referenced property. We
have also forwarded to the owners of Lot 26D (Tony Blanc and ~{nn
Brubaker) a copy of Mrs. Baum's application for a Special Use
Permit.
2. My cover letter of May l3, 1991 may have contained an
ambiguity. What was meant was that although at any given point
in time there may be as many as eight horses being boarded at -the
facility for the purposes of receiving training, only one (or at
the maximum, two) horse is undergoing training at a given time.
It is difficult t~ say at this time how many training sessions
will be held during a day, but it would most likely be two or
three sessions per day consisting of one or two horses per
session.
3. It is proposed to have two full-time riding instructors
and a student intern who will assist with the training and
general handling of the horses.
4. The operations would normally take place between
9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
, ~.
IATTACHMENT I~ IPage 21
5. The training that: will be conducted at the facility will
be done at two locations. First, most of the training will be
conducted in the indoor ring which is adjacent to the stable and
is part of the building marked "stables" on the survey attached
to the Special Use Permit application. A second area that will
be used on occasion is the outdoor ring, which is located
directly behind the stables and is enclosed by a wooden horse
fence. All fencing and riding surfaces are and will continue t:o
be in compliance with zoning Regulation 5.1.3.
I will be contacting you immediately after June 3, 1991 for
the purposes of arranging a site visit. If there is anything
further we can provide to you, do not hesitate to either drop a
line or give us a call.
JJM,jr./smb
. ~, . ,
{ATTACt-!MENT El
Page 2
June 10, 1991
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Special Use Permits & Rezonings
4. SP-91-21 Schuyler Enterprises, Route 602 - This section of Route 602 is
currently tolerable. This request would generate more traffic than would be allowed
by right in the RA zoning. Also, this request would have larger vehicles, such as
tractor trailers associated with it. A permit for a commercial entrance was issued
last year for the access to this property on Route 602 and attached is a copy. Also
attached is a copy of the accident data for a three-year period on Route 800 from
Route 6 to the Nelson County Line. There were no accidents recorded on Route 602
from Route 800 to Route 613 during this same time period. There are no statistics
available for secondary roads to compare Route 800 accident data to a state-wide
average. From past experience, the Department feels that this accident rate is
relatively 10w since the average daily traffic on Route 800 is 1,382 VPD.
5. SP-91-23 Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation, Route 53 - The existing
access off of Route 53 that serves Carter's Mountain is adequate.
6. SP-91-24 Jean Baum, Route 20 N. - This request for a commercial stable could
result in a traffic generation of 30 to 50 VPD based on information provided by the
applicant for the number of students and employees. There is an existing gravel
entrance that serves this property. The Department recommends that the access be
upgraded to a paved commercial entrance with a minimum of 550 feet of sight distance
in each direction. To obtain adequate sight distance to the north would requirl~ the
removal and/or cutting of trees and vegetation in that direction.
Sincerely,
~.a.~
J. A. Echols
Ass't. Resident Engineer
JAE/ldw
Attachments
'.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2-52 OF ARTICLE IX
CODE OF ALBEMARLE
ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and
reenacted in Section 2-52 of Article IX, Industrial Development
Authority, as follows:
Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than thirteen bond issuances of the
industrial development authority of the county in existence at any
one time.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopt:ed
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on August 7'~.~
Clerk, Board of nty
__--.-:-'iB~~~:~~J;~1:~~:,ll ~~~'~'<r~.:" ~~1(~~~'~ ~~. i '~'. ~i~~~:-;~
, '" "~',~, -. " ,~,I).',.' I,
'-.-.0..------ _
"
"
1
I
I
j
i
i
\
\
I
. 'I
;
I
.i
.1
.!
I
l
. .J
I
I
I
i
I
. .1
j
. I
TIlE DAlLY PROGRESS
685 WEST RIO ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22906
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION
TO:
C\.~~. ~,
~~\J~
I hereby certify that the attached notice was published in "The Daily Pro-
gress", a newspaPxr in Charlottesville, Virginia, and appeared in the
issue(s) dated ~0\ ~ ,23 / ,1tl , 19"\\ .
". :};lW:;';~ .:.{;:.! .
". '1
Given Under My Hand This
,.'~' A I.I.(S' , 19 en
~ aJ-....rJ\ ~Q..J-0"'c.rL.
\
Credi t Manager
The Daily Progre~ . .
\ 5 ~ ~O THE DAIl.)'PROGRES~'~~~~~~~~/T'
. .{i1'!~gals:o~ . "1!';'~~ls'l~>,.tt:*," 'j.'
, .,f"'a~"SJ~Ji.~~; ;...
,..., "~tIc"~1s' rli.fl.. l., ""'''..",;,c<.''Lelliit.''FNeher.'~' ....;.,. .,..:
- ...I'IU e'~ "'lhatlhe"';':;' ',,">,~,.~.,... . ,'.,', .','"
:.1 ~'8J~~:.~."rg~.:~~~.:.~~.~~.,.....~r~~";~o.h"l "
, . ductC3f:Ei:~'on'AugUst,~'~'~:~~on" ;.
:: ~,1i.~:~~u~:~~=~~~~'~~.,
., Oflice'BUDcing'JrCCJ1rl:Uclntlre'>'iSldo of'ftt.'63bn'~ Mbi. '
. Road CharI tt8Svi . .. I Tax M8b 91'~ce1 28'{part)
, tD.~,~ J~ Vlrglri'!o'ScoIlsVlIIeDiSirt!fl:~":"'';i~ '.' .
"lions::" A'""" . . !:'9j peti- , 3) SP-91~24. Jeari'SaumlFor a "
. ~,.~,eo.QlI ~. '-"'"l:!J .,..,'~ 1 I
:' _~~ . . ~ar\"l1 . " . ..x....['
~' . ~
- ~
. 1
\
Day of
.i
,I
I
. I
i
\
i
!
.1
Publishing Fee $
.
,./
':}}j'\
~ '( "- .
r '~!:(
..,~;:,:,
'!/J)
. <jf:"
. '::k:.
l;
.~i~.
;'l:
,,~!:
'..
"i!.:
;/".
.'"";.1.;
.,'.1
~;~~~.
. ~:(:f.
1.'\0-,''-
:.~i,
~:t:
~.~:
..~~'
.z:.
;...,..
. ,~~f:
,:~:~.
.' ~.
, "
':J,~::'
;~;:; :
~~: .
,~
r'~'
,.' :~j
.~
". i
'. ~ j<~:I','
'.';;,)};r~,..:
.,
"
. r'",
: "!:~~::;'<:':'
<'i,(~:\l:'; ..:,~
....~'Ij..,~ '
;tl~H,'" ;
'.':\:~s' . ::,:.
'::/:~~;~;.<:>; 'f
,...'~.'.,. .
.)(~1t?, . .'. ,
. ...m . .',. . , ' .'
J~/~':>'" ".. . '.
',,','~,':, '., . '. '
'" :;.~~.~ ~~ '.. : . . " .
. "::'~""" t. '. .
\J~f~.~: ',' .',
';~;jk', ...,
~j~1.~f,' .;i."
. ,...~~.{,. ,'.. ..' / "'. ",
::f'r)i!\)~:';.wfJjlH~t. . ,',
.'
i ,:~""
, :i
':t.
"
AN ORDINANCE TO
SECTION 2-52
CODE OF
ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL
~ -. (' ,
DI'c^,(. i}-"""d h t;'I"rO" (!j'.,t.. l/
.J lv....t-l; l''-' 1.-'\..0. . ... .
Agenda Item No, q /, ()S'U7 'I >"9
AMEND AND REENACT
OF ARTICLE IX
ALBEMARLE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and
reenacted in Section 2-52 of Article IX, Industrial Development
Authority, as follows:
Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than ~we%ve thirteen bond issuances of
the industrial development authority of the county in existence at
anyone time.
* * * * *
r
"
\
.J
; \
~ :'
WI
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979-1281
August 8, 1991
Charlotte Y Humphns
Jack Jouett
Edward H Bain. Jr
Samuel Miller
Walter F Perklr15
While Hal:
F R (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T. Way
Scothville
Ms. Alison M. La Mura
Paralegal
Hunton & Williams
Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
951 East Byrd street
Richmond, VA 23219-4074
Dear Ms. La Mura:
At its meeting on August 7, 1991, the Board of Supervisors
adopted the attached ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-52 of
the Code of Albemarle to increase the number of bond issuances o:f
the Industrial Development Authority from twelve to thirteen. The
Board also adopted the attached Bond Inducement Resolution for Our
Lady of Peace, Inc.
As previously requested I am also sending you the original
Certification of publication for notice of advertisement of the
ordinance.
v~~:?~
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
LEN:ec
Enclosures: (3)
cc: Robert McNichols
.. ,..
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
The 7th day of August, 1991
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "Authority"), has considered the
application of Our Lady of Peace, Inc. (the "Corporation"), for
the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $14,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Company in
acquiring, constructing and equipping a facility for the
residence and care of the elderly of approximately 112,780 square~
feet (the "Project"), to be located in Albemarle County,
Virginia, on a site of approximately 7 acres at 751 Hillsdale
Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has held a public hearing on the
issue of the Bonds for the financing on August 1, 1991; and
WHEREAS, section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"), and section 15.1-1378.1 of the~
Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), provide that
the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of
private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility
financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located
must approve the issuance of the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of
Albemarle County, virginia (the "County"); the Project is located
in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board approve thE~
issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, a record of the public hearing and a
"fiscal impact statement" with respect to the financing and the
Project have been filed with the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by
the Authority for the benefit of the Company to the extent
required by Section 147(f) of the Tax Code and Section 15.1-
1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in
the financing of the Project.
,r
2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds as required by
section 147(f} of the Tax Code does not constitute an endorsement
to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds or the creditworthiness
of the Project or the Company, and, as required by section 15.1-
1380 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that neither
the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds
or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except
from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the
faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Adopted by a majority of a quorum of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, on August 11,
1991.
[SEAL]
Clerk, Boar
the County of
rs of
Virginia
2
..,
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2-52 OF ARTICLE IX
CODE OF ALBEMARLE
ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and
reenacted in Section 2-52 of Article IX, Industrial Development
Authority, as follows:
Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than thirteen bond issuances of the
industrial development authority of the county in existence at any
one time.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on August 7'~. ~
Clerk, Board of nty Supervisors
",";;i\:;i~; ~:/'i. '~\ ~,;:..:: ,:.y~ :';;. " :' ;;. ;', J ~'i:;'.' "..~. j'~~":"1 '~ ,: :.. .;' '. ' '_" !:. '
~~~~*~'.1.AA.J:i,~:'t.:4i.,~~"""J.~~~.~_,__., .,.t..... ~.,..~~~....
"
,
1
I
i
)
I
i
i
\
i
I
'1
"j
I
.i
1
.J.
.j
I
I
')
I
I
I
i
-I
,1
. ,
. l'l .
"'!I.'ll
.' ',,\;t':' ""..t,/I':,/.-;, .:
~~---,-
TI-IE DAlLY PROGRESS
685 WEST RIO ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22906
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION
~~\J~
I hereby certify that the attached notice was published in "The Daily Pro-
gress", a news~::r ~n ~harlottesville, Virginia, and appeared in the
issue(s) dated 3 I 3IJ , 19q\ .
Given Under My Hand This
j,~' A U.c; , 19 ct\
Q oJo-....cJ\ ~Q...JJJv.,c.rL
\
Credit Manager
The Daily Progre~ .
\ =5 5: ~ 0 THE DAIl.Y PROGRES,S. ,Charlottesvilie, \I'~:,T'
.,.., 1:ougals' <" ". . 1. "',~.g.J~i, J.~:
:,~:;}.~' - '~'PUBUCNO .'~"'"~,,.~.;.::\\-, ~~\t.~'::"':~;:,;",,",;-.t ,', r
. ),...;r1CE ,.,'..."...,...., '. "'ix. "'" .. '."" '
! :~\, ',a:.,~~nty '''';~~!~~~hOrllceBuiid-
,..f).i!i,'..~.I.:. . ." ~u$tM99;ors ...:illf:l~Ortel~ne~...
.. ...Nollce1s~(livenlhatthe..,:llt~~~;t:'e~f~ .
.;,'~; , Board .of,~rs f Albe- .~! '", "'.,''''- ,4.,...",,, '''.,a;" .'"
. "t,.' marle COUnty. Vlrglrill.wiII.O CCltl:V:"~..mY.~';patIIll... lift.. :;;~.' '- ~cncn '. To
.'!::;' ' . duct lIllbIIC ~'on Aullust~ "!",,,,!,""i~_,.n.qr8rllmission
. " 7,"99';'=J.m.:''Me8ting'i'';=rWt!lrt~f.~ 4lcres
,Room~.. . FIocIt,Counlv", ...,..... .Rt.' _1lIIf(y.~Jloulb
, '.t,:,;,..:,'., ., Office BIlUcil1ll.'..iC01'.Mclnti~.'...- 0,,'0.> tin~ Mtn.
"tD~:..~~Ott8svtIIe. VlI'g1n1a, ,.TScoU. ~.'1e9DE..~ 28.., . (part. ).
"'i" : "",_the followll1ll peti- u'&VIl~ 10111.,.~'.'' '''.'
lr ' lions:,.' \.,:,q t(-l,!JiC"..' ,. . 3) SP-91.24. Jean Baum. Fora
. ','~'~ g .~~~',~Aappahamock"'.:r~,.lI '?So 1
'" ~.... .H>KI:t9_~ct anon"
...~,~.,.~:.:,.. : ~~:bsIation.i~tO
1<, .~ ., . . .. '. ( ,:JS'.'"
t;.; .
:;:QMt
;1.:' I 12,121\,
. .-'i~' . ParceI..1~
.~,b:.~".' '1: 12E'
. ' '"PWcilt
'. {,:\!,':~,:,", ~ '.2. SA. .
-. 2)~
:Jj: ", i .:1..... - .
" . } !heIMl,o
;,;{. 0ffi4I
~'L ' 401. '.
~,~;: ;ft:lOOt~
.~:' ;~
i.......,
. '::~;..
::~:
. ;,~f .
.:t:
i~t .
~:1: .
TO:
C'l~~. ~,
.:::f,Wi:;:,:
,'" 's.' .,' .... .
)i1\ir".,.; '.
,,,;~~!::"'.t" .'. ,,,'
. "'I~'''''' ,
::>\:k(:";:.:..
'E'.... .,
:'ifj~},' '.:,..
,.;.,:~1D;'i" . 'I ..
. \~'::~:,(:~';' . .'. ." ,;..'"....:,.,.:..:.:..:..,..".~.."...:':..,.',....,'.:,'.....!...'.',..:,'..,f..',.'".~.:"...l,..,..~,~I.'.:.;..,..;.....,...~.....,:..,:.('.',..:...,,:.:,''. . .:,'
.j,...'!~.~~1F. ".
,. 1\.'/. '
I..
.i
.1
I
. I
i
.(
.1
,i
\
,'j
Publishing Fee $
, .j
::'.:,'
,"
:' 'it'~,..,~,
,'~ "J"!" ....
",,',1 .
"i".,r
. ~ -: '1
t. .
\
Day of
.'
'.i."
"
':~r
,"l'
.:..;:;.:~;.;
, ,:h~'f.
'~.i
.' :1
;
":i,
1::\;.~ >',
;<:;~;.': .
I.' ,
':',
. ,'l':'-,
..
'"
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
The 7th day of August, 1991
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "Authority"), has considered the
application of Our Lady of Peace, Inc. (the "Corporation"), for
the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $14,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Company in
acquiring, constructing and equipping a facility for the
residence and care of the elderly of approximately 112,780 square
feet (the "Project"), to be 10cated in Albemarle County,
Virginia, on a site of approximately 7 acres at 751 Hillsdale
Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has held a public hearing on the
issue of the Bonds for the financing on August 1, 1991; and
WHEREAS, section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"), and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the
Code of virginia, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), provide that
the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of
private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility
financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located
must approve the issuance of the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is located
in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board approve the
issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, a record of the public hearing and a
"fiscal impact statement" with respect to the financing and the
Project have been filed with the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by
the Authority for the benefit of the Company to the extent
required by section 147(f) of the Tax Code and section 15.1-
1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in
the financing of the Project.
~
2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds as required by
Section 147(f) of the Tax Code does not constitute an endorsement
to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds or the creditworthiness
of the Project or the Company, and, as required by Section 15.1-
1380 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that neither
the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds
or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except
from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the
faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Adopted by a majority of a quorum of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, on August ?"
1991.
[SEAL]
rs of
Virginia
2
"
Distribut:;d to 8eard: g 2.,91
A2t:nd3 It~f1'!' No,' ,C;/( ().f~7; ,'1,;'1,5 _
. ",': ':~",'~h\:_,~,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
19;)1
i i
"
Ii
~ "
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
UE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
~
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
August 2, 1991
Bond Issuance Approval - OUr Lady of Peace, Inc.
On August 1, 1991, the Albemarle County Industrial
Development Authority passed an inducement resolution for
Our Lady of Peace, Inc. to apply to the Board of Supervisors to
approve the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds not to exceed
$14,000,000. The project consists of the construction of
approximately 112,780 square feet on a 7 acre site at Branchlands
to house and care for the elderly.
The Board's approval does not constitute an endorsement of
the project, but does allow them to secure tax-advantaged
financing as permitted by the Code of Virginia and the Internal
Revenue Service Code.
The Board of Supervisors approved the special use permit on
September 5, 1990 for this project and the building permit has
been issued for construction. The applicant will be represented
by J. Franklin williams should there be any questions by the
Board.
RWTJr/REH,II/bat
91-1.3
j
','
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
APPLICATION STATEMENT
1. Applicant
a. Legal name of applicant and state of incorporation
or in which partnership agreement filed:
Our Lady of Peace, Inc.
Virginia
b. Address and 10cation of principal office:
c.
Tremblay & Smith
P. O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Telephone number:
804-977-4455
d. Names and address of officers or partners, as
applicable:
See attached list.
e. To whom correspondence should be directed:
M. E. Gibson, Jr. Esq.
Tremblay & Smith
P. O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
f. Name and address of counsel for applicant:
Augustus C. Epps, Jr., Esq.
Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell
1200 Mutual Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095
g. Indicate name, state of incorporation and relationship
of all direct or indirect parent companies of applicant
or any _related partnerships:
Catholic Virginian
Family Services - Catholic Charities of Richmond, Inc.
Our Lady of Peace, Inc.
Elizabeth Ann Seton Center
Our Lady of the'Valley, Inc.
Marion Manor, Inc.
St. Mary's Woods, Inc.
Holy Angeles
St. Francis Horne
, . '
"
2. Statement of benefits to the County of Albemarle and the
Cornmonwealth of Virginia from the project
a. State what new employment opportunities will be created
as a result of this project, including number, types of
jObs, and estimated payrol1. State number of employees
in terms of full-time equivalents.
41~-Full time equivalent employees including 20~ nurses
and nursing service employees, 15~ service and maintenance
employees, and 5~ administrative personnel when fully
operated
b. Estimate all taxes by type and amount projected to be
paid to the County of Albemarle as a result of this project.
approximately $70,000
c. Specifically state other potential benefits which will
accrue to the inhabitants of the County of Albemarle
and the State of Virginia, including economic, socIal, or
other non-monetary benefi.ts:
The Corporation is intended to provide affordable
housing for the middle-income elderly, a niche often
not filled by other elderly housing organizations.
2
.,
3. Identification and description of proposed project
a. Location of proposed project in the COUllty:
approximately 7 acres at 751 Hillsdale Drive
Charlottesvil1e, Virginia 22901
b. Describe the type of facility for which you are applying
for financing. What manufacturing or other processes
wil1 be conducted at the project?
Construction and maintenance of a residential and health
care facility for the aged, consisting of 64 congregate
care apartments, 36 assisted living units for the,elderly
and a 16 unit (30 bed) intensive personal care center.
c. Are you applying for pol1ution control bonds? If so,
please state the types of pollution generated by your
facility and briefly describe the type of equipment
which you propose to meet your pollution problems:
n/a
d. Describe the proposed arrangement to finance the cost
of construction or acquisition of the project. Briefly
detail a projected time schedule.
UnQerwriting of Authority's revenue bonds by Scott &
Stringfellow Investment Corp. Bonds to be sold in late
August, with closing approximately September 5, 1991.
e. If the Applicant now owns the project site, indicate:
(I) date of purchase
(2) purchase price
$700.000
(3) balance of eXisting mortgage -0-
(4) holder of mortgage -0-
3
.,
"
f. If the Applicant is not n~w the owner of the project
site, does the Applicant have an option to purchase
the site and any buildings on the site? If yes,
indicate: n/a
(I) date option agreement signed with owner
(2) purchase price under option
(3) expiration date of option
g. Has the Applicant entered into a contract to purchase the
site? If yes, indicate: n/a
(1) date signed
(2) purchase price
(3) settlemeut date
h. Present owner of the site of the project, ana the relation-
ship between the present legal owner and ,~he, applicant:
Use of the site has been committed by the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Richmond
i. If pollution control bonds are to be issued, please indicate:
(I) Whether the total project is designed for any
significant purpose other than the control of
pollution, i.e., does the project result in an
increase in production or capacity, or in a material
extension of the useful life of a manufacturing or
production facility or a part thereof.
n/a
(2) Estimated incremental cost of the project if the
project is for the purpose of controlling pollution
and for a significant purpose other than controlling
,pollution.
n/a
4
j .
Status of Plans for the Project. Please indicate
architect, engineer, general contractor and major
subcontractors, if available.
The Architect is Collins & Kronstadt, 1111 Spring Street,
Silver Springs, MD
The Engineer is Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc., 710 East High Street
Charlottesville, Virginia
The General Contractor is Donohe Construction Company, ~4,61 Cm
Road, Suite 150, Glen Allen, Virginia
~he maior Subcontractors are unavailable
Has construcE~on worK on tn~s proJect oegun? If yes,
complete the following:
k.
( 1) site clearance yes ...A.-no % complete
(2) foundation yes ..lLno % complete
(3) footings --yes X no % complete
(4) steel _yes -X..- no % complete
(5 ) masonry work --.:Ie s X no % complete
(6 ) other --yes ..lLno % complete
(describe below)
1.
List principal items or categories of equipment to be
acquired as part of the project:
Furniture
Smallwares
$350,000
$ 50,000
m. Has any of the above equipment been ordered or purchased?
If yes, indicate:
Item
Date Ordered
Delivery Date
Price
No
5
, ,
., ,
n. State the proposed uses of bond proceeds:
Description of Cost
Amount
Land
Buildings
Equipment
Engineering
Architecture
Interest during construction
Bond discount
Costs of financing
Oth~r (please explain)
$ 400,000
6,993,000
400,000
339,000
2,089,00~
Face amount of issue
o.
Have any of the above expenditures already been ma~e by
the applicant? If yes, indicate particulars:
Architect $237,000
Legal 25,000
Engineering 15,824
Consulting 81,000
Feasibility 55,000
County Fees/bld~ permit 18 QOO .
Have any o~ ~ne aoove expend1tures been 1ncurred but not
paid by the applicant? If yes, indicate particulars:
p.
Diocese has paid for all expenditures and expects to be
reimbursed at closing.
q. Are costs of working capital, moving expenses, work in
process, or stock in trade included in the proposed uses
of bond proceeds?
r. Will any of the funds to be borrowed thrQugh the Authority
be used to repay or refinance an existing mortgage or
outstanding 10an?
No
. ,
~
s. If any space in the project is to be leased to third
parties, indicate total square footage of the project,
amount to be leased to each tenant, and proposed use
by each tenant:
No
t. Type and amount of outstanding bonds. State the type and
amount of outstanding bonds or other obligations, if any,
on the present facilities or any other facilities of the
applicant. Include the amount of annual payments required
and the year when the bonds will be paid off.
None
u. Brief description of existing facilities:
None
(1) Describe the location and type of existing facilities
(including, if applicable pollution abatement equip-
ment now provided, its design, capacity, and year
constructed)~ Indicate if the existing facilities
are to be abandon9d or will continue in use as part
of the proposed new facility.
n/a
(2) Annual operation and maintenance cost. The operation
and maintenance cost of any existing facility should
be itemized to show amount per year for labor, utilities,
and supplies. Also the estimated costs of operating
the proposed facility should be itemized.
n/a
7
, , '
(3) Aqe and condition of existing buildings, if any
improvements included within this project are to
be made thereto, and whether owned in fee or leased.
None
v. Will the construction, occupation, operati9n or use of
the project involve the creation of any pollutants or ~ ,
other emissions, or the use or manufacture of any toxic
or hazardous substances? Will operation of the project
involve consumption or use of large amounts of electricity,
water, gas, or other services or products customarily
furnished by utilities? Will construction or operation
of the project have any impact upon 10cal businesses or
residents, such as emission of odors, traffic in and out
of the project, or storage of large amounts of materials
at the project site? Please provide particulars.
generally no. Facility is compatible with
existing apartment complex nearby
4. Financial
a. 'Description of present debt, guaranty, long-term contracts,
prior liens, and other contingent liabilities:
None
b. Proposed immediate and long-term capital expenditures:
None other than Project
c. Commercial banking connections and for how long a period:
None
8
I
d. Attach to application th& following financial statements
for each of the preceding three (3) years:
(I) Statement of financial condition.
(2) Profit and 10ss statement.
(3) Statement of surplus. Attached are copies of the J'years
of audits for the Diocese.
If the applicant is a new or recently formed business
entity, without recent financial statements, the applicant
should furnish the financial i.nformation required by the
application for each principal shareholder, partner or
other principal of the applicant. If the applicant is a
subsidiary corporation without its own financial statements,
financial statements of the parent corporation or consoli-
dated financial statements may be submitted in lieu of
financial statements for the applicant. If the obligations
of the applicant will be guaranteed by any person or busi-
ness entity, then financial statements of such guarantor
should also be included with the application. Pro forma
financial statements, if available, should be submitted
with the application. Since this application will become
a part of the public records of the Authority, in the event
the applicant does,not desire financial records not other-
wise available to the public to be included in the 'public
record, please so indicate so such records may be returned
to the applicant.
e. Has the applicant, any proposed guaranto~ or any of their
partners or principal shareholders ever declared bankruptcy
or been involved in any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding
whether voluntary or involuntary? If so, describe particu-
lars.
No
f. Has any, underwriter, broker or investment ,banker been
retained by applicant in connection with this proposed
bond issue? If so, who?
Scott & Stringfellow Investment Corp.
g. Please indicate the person or institution to whom the
bonds will be sold or any persons or institutions which
have indicated an interest in purchasing the bonds.
A public offering will be made.
9
'" , '
.
.. .
5. Miscellaneous
a. Is the applicant or any major shareholder or partner
presently involved in any litigation, investigation,
or proceeding? If so, please describe.
No
b. Is the applicant or any major shareholder or partner
of the applicant, or any other person working for the
applicant in this proposed financing subject to any
order, decree, or judgment of ar.y court or administrative
or other governmental agency or body? If so, pleas~
describe. '
No
c. is the applicant, or any of its maJor shareholders or
partners, or any guarantor, or any other person repre-
senting applicant in connection with this ,proposed
financing, involved in any investigation, litigation, or
proceeding relating to the issunnce or sale of securities
or any applicable banking laws or regulations? Have any
of the foregoing persons ever been involved in any such
investigation, litigation,or proceeding?' 'If so, please
describe in full.
No
lO
" & .
d.
Is the applicant subject to regulation (other than
regulations generally applicable to all businesses)
by any Federal or State administrative agencies or
bodies? If so, please provide details.
Welfare Department
Does the proposed Project on the site meet Albemarle
County zoning and subdivision requirements?
Yes
e.
f.
Does the proposed Project on the site comply with the
Albemarle County Comprehensive PIan?
Yes
g. State the attorney for the applicant. State the proposed
bond counsel for the applicant.
Applicant attorney: Augustus C. Epps, Esq.
Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell
Bond Counsel: B. Darrell Smelcer. ESQ.
Hunton & Wil1iams
6. Agreement to Pay Authority's Costs and Expenses
To induce the Industrial Development Authority of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia to consider this application and to adopt an
inducement resolution agreeing to assist applicant in the financing
of the project, applicant, by submitting this application to the
Authority agrees: '
a. To pay all costs and expenses of the Authority and the
Authority's administrative agent, the County of Albemarle,
including, but not limited to, costs of transcripts or
preparation of minutes of meetings required by the Code of
Virginia, advertising costs required by the Code of Virginia
and the Internal Revenue Code, office expenses incurred by
the Authority and the Authority's administrative agent, the
County of Albemarle, such as telephone calls and copying,
as a result of the application and the fees and disbursements
of the Authority's counsel in connection with the authoriza-
tion (notwithstanding any later disapproval of the financing
by the Authority or the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County), issuance and sale of the bonds contemplated by
this application. :
b. To comply with the Authority's Rules and Procedures, a copy
of which has been received by the applicant; and
c. TO advise the Authority in writing of any material changes to
the information contained in this application.
Dated: /1: '^\ d Lj I \ 9 C{l
By
Its
'" . '. ~
Attachment 1
section 1. d.
Ruth DePiro
Gene Albro
Mary Elizabeth Smith Courtney
Richard Funk
Reverend Raymond Barton
Rose Chioni, R.N.
Peter Colo
Helen Dorning, M.S.W.
Reverend William Lafratta
James Leitch
James Morrisard
Catherine Russell, Ph.D.
...
~
~...
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND
REENACT ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 2, "ADMINISTRATION"
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
SETTING THE COMPENSATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992
BE IT ORDAINED that Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration" of
the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, be amended and reenacted
to read as follows:
Sec. 2-2.1. compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as
follows: Eight thousand eight hundred twenty dollars and no cents
($8,820.00) for each board member; provided, that in addition to
his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend
of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired;
provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the
chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred
dollars ($1,800.00). (6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88;
6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90)
State law reference-Compensation of board of supervisors,
Code of Va., Sec. 14.1-46.01:1.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on August 7, ~
Clerk, Board ~~nty Su
\-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human
Resources
FROM:
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~ ~
DATE: August 19, 1991
SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors' Salary
At its meeting on August 7, the Board of Supervisors adopted
the attached ordinance which sets the Board's salary for FY
1991-92. Following is a list of the names of the Board members,
social security numbers and respective salaries:
Edward H. Bain, Jr.,
David P. Bowerman
Frederick R. Bowie
Charlotte Y. Humphris
WaIter F. Perkins
Peter T. Way
- 225-52-1699 - $8,820.00
- 273-40-2606 - $8,820.00
- 493-26-4449 - $10,620.00
- 525-74-8156 - $8,820.00
- 229-58-1781 - $8,820.00
- 478-38-3275 - $8,820.00
LEN:ec
....
1.,S.tJ(
(j'I~tr;bl!~'?d to Board:
r '," - , : ;C" __3!~Z~!..~ /
'/-
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND
REENACT ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 2, "ADMINISTRATION"
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
SETTING THE COMPENSATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992
BE IT ORDAINED that Article I, Chapter 2, "Adminsitration" of
the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, be amended and reenacted
to read as follows:
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as
follows: Eight thousand ~e~~ eight hundred ei~ft~y twenty dollars
and ~e~~y-~e~~ no cents +$8,488.44t ($8,820.00) for each board
member; provided; that in addition to his/her regular salary, the
vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars
($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further,
that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall
receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars
($1,800.00). (6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89;
Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90)
State law reference-CQmpensation of board of supervisors,
Code of Va., Sec. 14.1-46.01:1.
Distributed to OGJrd: B' 2. <?L
Agend:l Item No, '11. 1..73' en, <.;SO
...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
August 2, 1991
Verulam Farm Limited Ptrn
1 Village Green, suite 100
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-91-36 Verulam Farm Limited Ptrn
Tax Map 74, Parcel 18, 18A, 18B, and 23
-
,
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
July 30, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in
the preservation tract and shall be located as shown on
the preliminary plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0
acres and no greater than 4.3 acres in size. All
dwellings/lots must qualify as "Family Divisions".
Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approval of
"Family Division";
2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on
the development 10ts in accordance with Section
32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of
providing screening from the public roads, i.e., I-64
and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two
planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the 10ts;
3. Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount
necessary for the construction of access roads and
dwellings;
Verulam Farm Limited Ptrn
Page 2
August 2, 1991
4. New dwellings shall be of earth tones.
5. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following
approvals have been obtained:
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge
design;
c. Department of Engineering approval of
hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure
compliance with section 30.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
d~---Vi~gi"ia-Be~a~~me"~-ef-~~a"~~e~~a~ie"-a~~~eva~-ef
h~idge-a"d-~ead-~~a"~~
6. Department of Enqineerinq approval of private road
plans and drainaqe calculations. Private road shall be
desiqned to Virqinia Department of Transportation
mountainous standards.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on AUQUst 7. 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.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
1/~/~
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDFjjcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Jo Higgins
Amelia Patterson
Pete Bradshaw
..
McKEE/CARSON
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
PLANNERS
12 July 1991
~ '
,
, ,
(
i :'
Ms. Lettie E. Neher
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
!~ ~"
I,il \,
RE: The Rocks (SP-91-36 Verulam Farm Limited Partnership)
Dear Ms. Neher:
Pursuant to my discussion today with your office, I am writing to formally request that the Board
hearing for above referenced project be rescheduled from September 4th to August 7th. Thank you
for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if this change is not acceptable.
Very: truly yours,
././ ~;~p /;: /.', t?'
~/ .... 'f--1!:7r~..'-.
Robert B. McKee, PE, CLA
xc: Bill Fritz
Hi Ewald
CHARLOTTESVILLE 0 NORFOLK
QUEEN CHARLOTTE SQUARE
256 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
804-979-7522
FAX: 804-977-1194
.~~'~':~:~~r '.
'- . t,-,' ~.) I \; I 1 0 f. /\ ~,~~: ;'-,t
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
JULY 30, 1991
AUGUST 7, 1991
i.'\:"'.;~ f-j-:;:':~ l'.~,:-:'!~L::~~~::~~_. ! ,~_.~'
:i\\)/- -- ."
! LJ,K AUC':, J '\;:,1 ),
! f, \ ~ 1".1 J. , : ' i
:! 1\ \tC;di,:t~5c;'Cr U ~,. !.... L:' ,
SP-91-36 VERULAM FARM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
/\ I-~ L) (~I ~_. ~'-, ~'"; .
Petition: Verulum Farm Limited Partnership petitions the
Board of Supervisors to amend SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 (a 43
lot Rural Preservation Development and a bridge in the
floodplain of Ivy Creek) to allow the use of private roads
instead of public roads. Property, described as Tax Map 74,
Parcels 18, 18A, 18B, and 23, is located in the southeast
quadrant of Interstate 64 and State Route 637. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay, in the Samuel
M~ller Magisterial District. The property is not in a
de'signated growth area (Rural Area III).
Character of the Area: The property under review is a
mixture of pasture and woodlands. There are currently three
dwellings and various farm buildings on the site. The lower
portion of the site adjacent to Route 637, is in the
floodplain of Ivy Creek. The property then rises to the top
of Bear Den Mountain and includes land on the eastern slope
of the mountain. The land between the stream and top of the
mountain is rolling with moderate to critical slopes. The
steeper slopes and stream valleys are wooded. The property
parallels I-64 for approximately 1.5 miles. The development
area parallels I-64 for approximately 0.6 miles and is
approximately 0.5 miles deep from I-64. The property
adjacent and to the south is Rosemont which is currently
being developed with single family houses. Other properties
in the area are used for pasture or hay with the steeper
slopes remaining wooded.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to amend SP-90-119 and SP-90-120
in order to allow the use of private roads (designed to
virginia Department of Transportation mountainous standards
instead of public roads designed to Virginia Department of
Transportation rolling standards) to serve a 43 lot Rural
Preservation Development. The use of public roads was
indicated on the previous special use permits. The use of
private roads will permit the applicant to realign the road
in order to avoid areas requiring significant grading and to
use the 10cation of the existing stream crossing. (The
Engineering Department has stated that it is unable to
determine at this time if the existing bridge structure is
adequa te. )
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
SUbdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the approvals for
SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 and recommends approval.
1
"~~;i,,{;.>' ~,~~
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
March 19, 1991 - The Planning Commission approved the
preliminary subdivision of the Rocks subject to approval of
SP-90-119 and SP-90-120.
April 3, 1991 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-119
(a 43 lot rural preservation development) and SP-90-120 (a
bridge in the f100dplain of Ivy Creek).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the applicant's request for a private
road based on the provisions of Section 18-36b(1) of the
Subdivision Ordinance (Attachment C). The applicant has
submitted a letter of justification (Attachment D) as well
as engineering data which has been reviewed by the
Engineering Department and the Water Resource Manager. The
comments of those departments are included as Attachments E
and F.
The applicant has cited that the use of a public road,
designed to Virginia Department of Transportation rolling
standards, will result in an increase of approximately 73%
in the total grading volume when compared to the
construction of private roads designed to Virginia
Department of Transportation mountainous standards. The
Engineering Department has reviewed this information and has
agreed with the applicant's calculations and supports the
applicant's request. The Water Resource Manager has also
reviewed the applicant's information and has stated "To the
extent that use of the existing crossing of Ivy Creek can be
utilized, private roads should provide for, greater overall
protection of water quality, both during construction and
after completion."
It is the opinion of staff that the applicant has
successfully addressed the issues contained in Section
18-36b(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance and that the use of
private roads is consistent with the previous approval of
the Rural Preservation Development and stream crossing for
this site. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to
the following conditions.
The recommended conditions of approval for SP-91-36 are the
same as those for SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 except as noted
below. Staff has restated the previous conditions for
convenience of review. Changes to conditions not directly
related to the issue of public vs. private roads are not
within the scope of the applicant's request.
2
..,~~.. .~"
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Not more than four dwellingsjlots shall be allowed in
the preservation tract and shall be located as shown on
the preliminary plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0
acres and no greater than 4.3 acres in size. All
dwellingsjlots must qualify as "Family Divisions".
Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approval of
"Family Division";
2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on
the development 10ts in accordance with section
32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of
providing screening from the public roads, i.e., I-64
and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within two
planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lots;
3. Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount
necessary for the construction of access roads and
dwellings;
4. New dwellings shall be of earth tones.
5. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following
approvals have been obtained:
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge
design;
c. Department of Engineering approval of
hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure
compliance with section 30.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
d.---Vir~i"ia-Be~ar~me"~-ef-~ra"5~er~a~ie"-a~~reva%-ef
~rid~e-a"d-read-~%a"5.
6. Department of Enqineerinq approval of private road
plans and drainage calculations. Private road shall be
desiqned to Virginia Department of Transportation
mountainous standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - section 18-36b(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance
D - Applicant's letter of justification
E - Department of Engineering comments
F - Water Resource Manager comments
G - Virginia Department of Transportation comments
{/I'
;;
~~!.J-N'
IU1Ul
~ ,,'
While Hall,
,/""',
"!:AtTACHMENT AI
,:/
, '
MOUN' AIN
"
~'...~O'/'J
j' "
c;t..S
<00
~,
::'
.(-
~.
c:;. ~"':/
, iil
ijhite Jf' -
--,~~-.........'
. @B ,[
';..~~ ,
;;
\
I
~:1
[@J\
\
'\
\'\
o
.p
lillJ ..Y
~
HIGH
TOP
~ ~:'
~"',
~~ '\, ~
~ 't
~ @E)--;
\ -;. \
\" \
-z. } Hearu, M'n F T
He.rds .~ "/..-- ..... """ -!,--;.,
\ .~~):-' ~-S--- ".l'\
, ..;; ~J..:!J cotts ~ '" \J
..\~ v'li.... ~.,
-, ~ " ';/"
BOAl Js" <!l/
MOUNT AIN
@if
"
CASTLE
ROCK
:>.......
'\~
. ~"\
16981::
~.\
,
. '
"'I' I
Carl." .,~
!:It'd". \
.y_' '\l
",\
~l
0.-\
'a;-
<>~
(
o
\
c-
\
v. --,
~i
~I
+~: ~,,~'
r
I
69~n, ..,
,<\'-~
\
<\"~
~11
''<'
./,,/
~
f
(}
ALBEMARLE CttUNTY
, "<)'t":';';'I':,.
"'? '
IATTAC~MENT 81 '
58
J
( -A
l.) /
. \ / r-~.
'(-X +
// \. )
X /
(/ '1/
[ /
/,
,
/
I
.
./
'/l
/
/
, .
<^'. ""- (""---'--
./ -"
,/ te ( \_._.....,_.'
...--
('
(
.. -
'==
"ACT
Be
..
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
I
,
SECTION 74. .
-
Ie.lLl II 'EET
Me .. .~. .... .r
!J
0....._....---.. _.. ... .....__~_...-.....~. _, '. ._. . . :__'~_"__"--_' "_
. .. ,,' ,.' .' ',.....- -" ',,- ---,-.- _..,~,.., ..!.,................. --~-, ,-. !__..~..,------~. ---"--..-.......,..--
,;
w..........-. -- ----:J..-- .-.~ -.. '.--
{ATTACHMENT CI
) .
space set aside for both off
facilities, as required by t
ARTICLE III
Division 6. Streets.
Sectidn 18-36. Private Roads.
(a) Any subdivi~ion, any lot of which is served by a
private road shall be subject to a;,Jproval by the commission in
accordance with this chapter. Any further subdivision of land
involving additional use of such road shall be deemed a
subdivision subject to the provisi)ns of this chapter. In order
to insure adequate capacity of suc~ road and equitable
maintenance costs to property owne:s, except as the commission
may provide in a particular case, ~ot more than one dwelling un~
shall be located on any parcel ser-,ed by such road.
Private roads are intended tc be permitted as the exception
to construction and dedication of ?ublic roads in the subdivision
approval process. Granting of pri-,ate road usage shall be
discretionary by the commission ani shall be based on the
circumstances and requirements con~ained herein., Private roads
are intended to promote sensitivit'! toward the natural
characteristics of the site and tc encourage subdivision
consistent and harmonious with sur~ounding development. Except
as otherwise expressly provided he:-ein and permitted in
accordance with procedures of ~ 1E-36(h), no waiver, modification
or variation of standards, and no ~xceptions to the application
of these regulations shall be pern~ i tted.
(b) The commission may apprc1e any subd"ivision served by one
or more private roads under the following circumstances:
(1) For property zonedTh, Rural Areas, the
subdivider, in acccrdance with Section lS-36(h) of
this chapter, demonstrates to the reasonalbe
satisfaction of the commission that:
Approval of such rC3.ds will alleviate a clearly
-demonstrable danger of significant degradation to
the environment of the site or adjacent properties
which would be occasioned by the construction of
public roads in the same alignments. For the
purposes of this provision, in addition to such
other factors as t~a commission may consider,
"significant degrac3.tion" shall mean an increase
of thirty (30%) percent in the total volume of
grading for construction of a public road as
, compared to a pri va te road: and
No alternative public road alignment available to
the ~ubdivider on tne adoption date of this
section would alleviate significant degradation of
the environment; ar. j
No more lots are proposed on such private road
than could be reali.zed on a public road due t~
right-of-way dedicc.tion. (AMENDED 11-16-S9)
I
(2) For property zoned RA, Rural Areas, or VR, Village
Residential, where such subdivision contains only'
two lots and such private road serves only the
lots in such subdivision: and is the sole and
direct means of access to a road in the state
I
.~~~~"- '".~-
(IATTACH~ENT 01 [page ~
McKEE/CARSON
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
PLANNERS
}-r.~I~t.~~T~rrnt.';)'m~.
lJ~'~i' {.;:tJ ~....~.lt ~<t j ~
I..
.
JUl 9 1991
~PLANNING DIVISION
8 July 1991
Mr. William D. Fritz
County of Albemarle Planning Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
~--,
RE:
The Rocks
. ':';'
Dear Bill:
On June 28, 1991 Bob McKee, Hi Ewald, and myself met with Charlie Steinman of the Albemarle County
Engineering Department and presented to him several drawings and calculations illustrating the
differences between the approved public road scenario versus a private road scenario for the above '
referenced project. The purpose of these drawings was to satisfy the county's requirement to determine
the percent of degradation between public and private roads. The vertical alignment and earthwork
quantities were computed for each road and for each scenario using our CADD system. We have
tabulated the resulting earthwork quantities for each road as well as for the project total. We are
forwarding this data along with the horizontal and vertical alignment plots to Charlie Stienman at
his request. As a result of our meeting with Charlie and after further review of the road design, we
anticipate full support of the private roads from the Engineering Department.
Pursuant to our findings, we hereby request support from the planning department and seek
approval for the use of private roads in this subdivision. Our justification is as follows:
1. Earthwork calculations show that construction of public roads would result in an
increase of approximately 73% in the total volume of grading;
2. Private road standards allow the entrance to be shifted approximately 680 feet
eastward along state route 637 and allows much of the existing driveway alignment to be
used which minimizes the work required within the floodplain;
3. The environmental impact caused by public roads can be substantially reduced by
preserving a larger portion of the existing vegetation and reducing the amount of disturbed
area. As you may know, sediment trapping facilities are only 80 percent efficient at best.
The remaining 20 percent of sediment usually finds it's way downstream and, in this case,
fnto Ivy Creek. The final grading for a private road will substantially reduce the amount
of surface area disturbed which will significantly t:educe the volume of material
discharged into Ivy Creek.
CHARI..OITISVILLE 0 NORFOLK
QUEEN CHARlOTIE SQUARE
256 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARI..OITISVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
804.979,7522
FAX: 804.977.1194
o
,'-
(
,/,-,
","4",~,,,
Mr. William D. Fritz
8 July 1991
Page 2 of2
'ATTACHMENT o1!Page 2\
After having prepared horizontal and vertical plots and performed earthwork computations and
having met and briefly reviewed our findings with Charlie Stienman, I trust that the information
presented above is sufficient to justify the use of private roads for this development.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call upon me.
u:::z~ .
Steven L. Drive;~
xc: Charlie Steinman
Hi Ewald
~~WlE111l
/
IATTACHMENT E, Page 1\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5861
- .,-
MI!MJRANIXIo!
TO: Mr. Bill Fritz
PROM: Charlie steinman
Lt~
DA7E: July 11, 1991
HE: The Rocks / / Private Road Justification / / SUB 90-224
cc: Mr. Steven Driver
Bill ,
We have performed a review of the applicant's private road proposal as submitted
in demonstration of compliance with the provisions of SUB.ORD.Sec 18-36.b.(1).
In additicln to mapping the necessary clearing and grading associated with both
a public and private road, the applicant has demonstrated that the use of VDOT
'rolling standards' versus 'mountainous (private) standards' in the design of the
proposed roadways requires an increase in necessary earthwork from 46559 c. Y .
(private) to 80528 c.y. (public), representing a 33969 c.y. increase (or 73%).
It appears therefore that the applicant has demonstrated full satisfaction of
said provisions, and we therefore support approval of the use of Private Roads
within the subdivision, designed in accordance with VDOT r-tmntainous Standards.
The following Cormnents are hereby provided for informational purposes:
1) VDOT approval of sight distances and paving and drainage improvements is
required relative to the revised location of the CcmmIercial Entrance to SR
637;
2) The Conditions of Approval (with the exception of VDOT approval') associated
with SP-90-120 apply to the re-use of any of the existing bridge
components;
(continued)
FAX (804) 979-1281
'I
.
,r",
;
t'
..~,~.L;.t:~. ;,.l
Mr. Bill Fritz
J'UJ.y 11, 1991
Page Two
IATTACHMENT E, Page 2\
3) The applicant must provide a Certification from a qualified professional
engineer, and construction details for approval relative to the re-use of
any of the existing bridge c~ts;
4) Per previous Condition of Approval, the applicant must provide hydrologic
and hydraulic calculations indicating the performance of the existing (or
a modification thereof) bridge structure when subjected to the 100-year
stream flow rates;
5) We recomrrend re-submitting for our records a revised Preliminary Plat
indicating the currently proposed horizontal roadway alignments, and the
currently proposed roadway cross-sections.
Should additional information be required please contact us.
..
/,,-- - '\ ....,~-:~.
,.
IATTACHMENT ~ Page 11
, ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESV lLLE
OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
401 MciNTIRE
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRG
(8041 296-!:
MEMORANUUL"l
TO:
william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM:
J. W. Peyton RObertson,~ Water Resources Manager
July 15, 1991 ~ ~~
DATE:
RE:
The Rocks/Burruss Branch stream Crossing
This memo will serve to provide comments on the above
mentioned items as relates to the recently adopted Water
Resourqe Protection Areas Ordinance.
Item 1: The Rocks
In review of Steve Driver's letter to you dated July 8,
1991, it appears that use of private roads will result in
significantly less earthwork and realignment of existing roads
than would the use of public roads. To the extent that use of
the existing crossing of Ivy Creek can be utilized, private
roads should provide for greater overall protection of water
quality, both during construction and after completion.
I have also reviewed the supporting documentation of
McKee/Carson which was submitted for the Rural Preservation
Development dated February 6, 1991. Under the section on
Potential Environmental Impact, page 6, paragraph 3, the
applicant indicated a willingness to voluntarily comply with
what was then the proposed Water Resource Protection Areas
Ordinance. I don't know if this was made a condition of
approval or not, but if it was, I propose that a water quality
impact assessment be submitted prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. The required items for this assessment are
outlined in the recently adopted Water Resource Protection
Areas Ordinance and have not changed since the draft with which
the applicant agreed to comply.
Item 2: Burruss Branch Stream Crossing
While this proposal will likely result in less impact to
Burruss Branch (during construction) than the building of a
darn, I would recommend that a water quality impact assessment
be submitted for this project. From the description of the
proposed crossing (it sounds as if less than 10,000 square feet
(;
:;
.. ..
.-,..-.....
.--'--
.....~~-;:;.. ,.~
memo to Fritz
page 2
IATTACHMENT F, Page 2\
of area will be disturbed), only a minor water quality impact
assessment would be required. This essentially equates to a
site drawing which shows the location of the crossing, a
delineation of the Resource Protection Area, and any BMP's
which will be used to mitigate the impact.
If you or either of the applicants have any questions on
these items, pI ease fee 1 free to contact me.
ws91-124
'-
,-
.
..
'.~;;.;IATTACHMENT GI
v: o. o. r-'(4,mtnC-Ats
To: ~. Ia:I!./er
No_"': J. {{' &: Jwls
Page 2
July 16, 1991
Mr. Ronald Keeler
Special Use Permits & Rezonings
3. SP-91-36 Verulam Farm Ltd. Partnership, Route 637 - This request is to amend the
previous special use permits on this property to allow for private internal roads
instead of public roads as previously approved. Also the entrance location off
Route 637 is being changed to be at the existing farm entrance area instead of that
previously shown. The Depar~ment does not support the use of private roads. The
sight distance at the location now proposed does have adequate sight distance with
the trimming of vegetation to the northeast. There is only 535 feet to the
northeast and a minimum of 550 feet is needed. The existing farm entrance should be
upgraded to a street entrance. The existing entrance is only approximately 500 feet
from the 1-64 ramp while the previous plan showed the entrance to be 1200 feet from
the ramp. The Comprehensive Plan recommends minimum distances from commercial
entrances to interstate ramps on page 203. The minimum distance is 800-1000 feet
for the interchanges listed. Route 637 is not one of these interchanges, but there
are benefits having commercial entrances. separated from the ramps by certain
distances at all interchanges. A 100 foot long taper lane is still recommended to
serve this subdivision.
Sincerely,
~.C<.~
J. A. Echols
Ass't. Resident Engineer
JAE/ldw
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk,
CMC~
DATE: August 2, 1991
SUBJECT: Reading List for August 7, 1991
March 20 (N), 1991 _paqe 1 - 8 (end at *8) - Mr.~ccJ
- Page 8 (#8) - End - Mrs. Humphris
March 25, 1991 - ....~e 1 16 (end U) - Mr. Buw~Lman~
- Page 16 (#4) - End - Mr. Perkins
March--2--7-,"-1-9-9-l,-,-= "A 11 - Mr. R()~A7i..e \1zJ
April 3 (N). 1991 - .p..ge ~ ("nd *7) - ML. Wd~
LEN:ec
-
I' ','
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen to abandon
sections of an old roads not in the State Highway or Secondary
System; and
WHEREAS, the Board, on September 12 , 1990 , ordered that
this matter be advertised for public hearing in accordance with
virginia Code Section 33.1-157; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on November 28,
1990, the Board finding that the said sections of roads serve no
public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, that certain roads in Rosemont II
and Ragged Mountain Farm (and shown on the attached exhibits) be
abandoned to public use as per the following descriptions:
The public road beginning at the easternmost corner of
Tax Map 74-60; thence in a southwesterly direction as it
crosses Tax Map 74-60 and Tax Map 74-61 and intersects
the preserved road at the southeasternmost corner of Tax
Map 74-61; thence, beginning again and continuing
generally southeasterly along the common border of Tax
Map 74-62, 63, 64, 65 with Tax Map 74-68; thence
continuing generally southeasterly along the common
border of Tax Map 74-66 and 69; thence, continuing
generally southeasterly along the common border of Tax
Map 74-67 and 70 to a point of conveyance with the
southwesterly corners of Tax Map 71, 72, 73 and 74;
continuing generally westerly along the southern border
of Tax Map 74-67, 661 65, 64, 63; thence, generally
westerly as it crosses the southern portion of Tax Map
74-5 to its intersection with State Route 708. Also,
possible expansions of the above roads those running
parallel to the above described roads on Tax Map 74-60
and 61; those bisecting Tax Map 74-62 and 63 from the
above described roads in a westerly direction until it
intersects with the above roads at the western corner of
Tax Map 74-63; those leaving the above described road at
the northeast corner of Tax Map 74-64 and running
southerly to Tax Map 74-65; thence, southwesterly until
it intersects with the above roads at the western corner
of Tax Map 74-65; those leaving the above described road
at the common boundary of Tax Map 74-65, 66, 68 and 69;
thence, a short distance southwest along the common
boundary line of Tax Map 74-65 and 66; thence, westerly
over Tax Map 74-65 until it intersects with the road
described just previously as crossing Tax Map 74-65;
those running parallel to the above described road on Tax
Map 74-69 to the southwestern corner of Tax Map 74-70;
and those running parallel to the above described roads
for a short distance southerly on Tax Map 74-67.
-2-
In addition, a short section of parallel road just south
of the 01d McGeehee Road on Tax Map 7 4-57G, and an
obliterated section just east of the relocated road on
Tax Map 74-57F, and a short section of relocated road
running northeasterly across the southeastern corner of
Tax Map 74-57D.
* * * * *
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 March 6, 1991.
~~ .
Clerk, Board of ounty Supervisors
"
~..-.
.~ ; ,".,
. '.. t t; ;"t, i ~
\.....",.j:
; :1./:: !,." ,Li:: Un,LZJ.,..
'j I
':.'1' ! I" .~, \:
U;: ,
\.
1':' ,
· '";'i~~tT'!,:~~~rr~T'IT''' ( ,
,'_J <' I i"':
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138
JAMES M, BOWLING, IV
DEPUTY COUNTY ATIORNEY
August 1, 1991
GEORGE R. ST,JOHN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Re: Bucks Elbow RMLR Site
Albemarle County
GSA Control No. 4-U-VA-684
(Our File #ACG 91-986)
Dear Bob:
You will find enclosed a copy of the Deed from the Federal
Government to Albemarle County, of the Buck's Elbow Tower Site.
This has been recorded and the transaction is concluded.
This Deed and correspondence should be placed in the minutes
of the Supervisors book"or wherever you keep the deeds to County
property. Wherever ie, is kept, I feel the Supervisors should be
notified that the transaction has been concluded, and some
notation of this should be in their minutes.
Sincerely yours,
~-
George R. St. John
County Attorney
GRStJ/tlh
Enclosure
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTtvE OFFICE '"'\
i
/:--~~';:~~t
("~'..-:- .",\,,"
\f!!!J)"<: '
'-~,--
, .-.._.. ....c.'
" . . ~_''''''h "... . /,.'
~'-~,~'-:A'
I,H..?'IE:: >,1 '-)W 0/' ,< Adrnin:SII,,;,;,')t1, Hf,gion 4
40 1 V.'~.;t Peachtree Street
Atlar ita, GA 30365-25::>0
~.,~
~9' ~"
i ~ ~
~ f~rl
'. I~'~, .
& ~_._- ....
'. .
6il.f.."'.TE.....\.,.~.
July 24, 1991
Mr. George St. John
County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. St. John:
Subject: Bucks Elbow RMLR Site
Albemarle County
GSA Control No. 4-U-VA-684
There is enclosed a properly executed and acknowledged Quitclaim
Deed from the United States of America to Albemarle County,
Virginia.
We have also enclosed a Certificate of Recordation for the Deed.
When it is recorded, please have the Register of Deeds fill in
the certificate and sign it, then please return it yourself to
this office.
Sincerely,
Gabriel N. Steinberg
Regional Counsel
Enclosures
r-
egional Counsel
IV, Atlanta, GA
QUITCLAIM DEED
THIS INDENTURE, made this the 2'f~ day of ~,
1991, between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through
the Administrator of General Services, under and pursuant to the
powers and authority contained in the provision of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-152)
approved June 30, 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 484), and regula-
tions and orders promulgated thereunder, Grantor, and ALBEMARLE
COUNTY VIRGINIA, in Charlottesville, Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That in consideration of the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED AND NO/lOO DOLLARS ($7,500.00) the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, Grantor has remised, released and forever
quitclaimed unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, all of
the right, title, and interest, claim and demand which said
Grantor has or may have had in and to ell that tract, parcel of
plot of land known as the Bucks Elbow RMLR Site, situated in the
Albemarle County, Charlottesville, State of Virginia, said
property being more particularly bounded and described as
follows:
.-
All that tract or parcel of land situated in the
Whi te Hall Magisterial District of Albemarle
County, Virginia, on Buck's Elbow Mountain and more
fully described as follows: from a point being at
the intersection of existing road and RML Drive,
proceed S 390 59' E, 67.26 feet to a point, said
point being the point of beginning, thence N 400
11' E, 16.00 feet to a point, thence S 490 49' W,
100.0 feet to a point, thence S 400 11' W, 100.0
feet to a point, thence S 490 49' E, 100.0 feet to
point, thence N 400 11' E 84.0 feet to the point of
beginning, containing in all 0.23 acre, more or
less.
Permanent non-exclusive right-of-way
From a point being at the northwesterly corner of
the above described plot proceed N 400 11' E, 16.0
feet to a point being the point of beginning and on
the centerline of a 30 foot-wide right-of-way
thence S 390 59' E, 42.26 feet to a point,
containing .029 acre, more or less.
The records disclose that title was vested in the
United States by deed dated February 2, 1976, filed in the
Albermarle County, Virginia Book of Deeds at Liber No. 589, pages
451-453.
SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to all existing easements and rights-
of-way for streets, roads, highways, railroads, pipelines, public
utilities, if any, whether of record or otherwise.
GRANTEE COVENANTS for itself, ~ts successors, and
assigns, and every successor ~n interest to the property hereby
conveyed, or any part thereof, that the said Grantee and such
heirs, successors, and assigns shall not discriminate upon the
basis of race, color, religion, national ~rigi~" C?r se~ in the
use, occupancy, sale, or lease of the property, or in their
employment practices conducted thereon. This covenant shall-not,
apply, however, to the lease or rental of a room or rooms within
a family dwelling unit; nor shall it apply with respect to
- 2 -
religion to premises used primarily for religious purposes. The
Uni ted States of America shall be deemed a beneficiary of this
covenant wi thout regard to whether i 1: remains the owner of any
land or interest therein the looali ty of the property hereby
conveyed and shall have sole right to enforce this covenant in
any court of competent jurisdiction.
GRANTEE FURTHER COVENANTS the following:
( a ) This covenant shall run with the land for a
period of 3 years from the date of conveyance. With respect to
the property described in this deed, if at any time within a 3
year period from the date of transfer of title by the Grantor,
the Grantee, or its successors or assigns, shall sell or enter
into agreements to sell the property, either in a single
transaction or in a series of transactions, it is convenanted and
agreed that all proceeds received or to be received in excess of
the Grantee's or a subsequent seller's actual allowable costs
will be remitted to the Grantor. In the event of a sale of less
than the entire property, actual allowable costs will be
apportioned. to the property based on a fair and reasonable
determination by the Grantor.
(b) For purposes of this covenant, the Grantee's or
a subsequent seller's allowable costs shall include the
fol~owin~:. _
(1) The purchase price of the real property;
(2) -file.direct costs actually incurred and paid
for improvements which serve only the property, including road
construction, storm and sani tary sewer constructions, other
- 3 -
public facilities or utility constructions, building rehabili-
tation and demolition, landscaping, grading, and other site or
public improvements;
(3) The direct costs actually incurred and paid
for design and enginerring services with respect to the improve-
ments described in (b)(2) of this section; and
(4) The finance charges actually incurred and
paid in conj unction with loans obtained to meet any of the
allowable costs enumerated above.
(c) None of the allowable costs described in
paragraph (b) of this section will be deductible if defrayed by
Federal grants or if used as matching funds to secure Federal
grants.
(d) In order to verify compliance with the terms and
conditions of this covenant, the Grantee, or its successors or
assigns, shall submit an annual report for each of the subsequent
3 years to the Grantor on the anniversary date of this deed.
Each report will identify the property involved in this trans-
action and will contain such of the following items of
information as are applicable at the time of subllission:
( 1 ) A description of each portion of the
property that has been resold:
(2) The sale price of each _such ~~S9Id pqrtion:
(3) The identity of each purchaser:
(4) The proposed land use: and
(5) An enumeration of any allowable costs
incurred and paid that would offset any realized profit.
- 4 -
.", .
(e) The Grantor may monitor the property and ins~t
records related thereto to ensure compliance with the terms ~d
condi tions of this covenant and may -take any actions which it
deems reasonable and prudent to recover any excess profits
realized through the resale of the property.
If no resale has been made, the report shall so state.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and
singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in an~se
appertaining, unto the said Grantee, its successors and assi~,
forever.
The property hereby conveyed has heretofore been
declared surplus to the needs of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1s
presently under the jurisdiction of the General Services
Administration, is available for disposal and its disposal has
been heretofore authorized by the Administrator of General
Services, acting pursuant to the above referred to laws,
regulations and orders.
WITNESS the following signature and seal.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Acting by and through
Administrator of General Services
;Z;:S~
~~~7~'
By:'~ - ~..~
PAT-teU B. BAILBY I
Contracting Officer
Office of Real Estate Sales
General Services Administration
Region 4, At-lanta, Georgia
- 5 -
...
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF FULTON
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of
Georgia, whose commission as such expires on the 2nd day of
March, 1992, do hereby certify that this day personally app~
before me in the state and county aforesaid, PATRICIA E. BAI~,
Contracting Officer, Office of Real Estate Sales, GenenU
Services Administration, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, for and ~
behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, whose name is signed ~
the foregoing document dated the ~ day of ..rUI~ ' 1991, end
acknowledged the same.
Given under my hand and seal this ~q~ day of
,tl
< ,
.... ,.. t .._....
.,' -:. :..... ,
.,:/\~ 0 T /. ,', ;'
....~#!!'
"":;::-. ~
- < .",.I'~':: L" .,.
...... ,,-'
4-U-VA-684
Bucks Elbow RMLR Site
Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia
- 6 -
.3"Ll~
~
1991.
CERTIFICATE OF RECORDATION
STATE OF VIRGINIA )
)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE )
day of
This is to certify that Quitclaim Deed, dated the ,;? L(t1'.
JLLLy 1991, from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA of Maywood, Virginia, filed for record
at 3~ o'clock --f2-.m. on the 3tl~day of ~, 1991, and
has been recorded at pages i'~ to 570 , inclusive, of Deed
Book No. 1/ It, ~ of the public records of my office.
This the 9o~day of M ,1991.
-2hJ1~ili-06c.1l C-I~
Register 0 eds I
Albemarle County, Virginia
By: \~O--(ZQ,,", f ~~Uk
Deputy
RETURN TO:
General Services Administration
Office of Regiona1 Counsel (4L)
401 West Peachtree Street
At1anta, GA 30365-2550
4-U-VA-684 . 0< .
:. -"'J,; ~
.
-.. '.','-.'4<.:0.4-'
......-4.bV~,_,__, .
,.
~
.-
COMMO]\'WEALTH OF VIRGI]\'IA (,
"
("
:~~~~w:,~,
.&'fI&t~._
( .~'\
........ ...' l
,.......W\;~
~~~:f..
J:.
c
"
c,
GFF:CIA~ RECtT
A~BENARLE CIRCU:' CDUh'
DEfT RECE 1 PT
DATE: 0/130/91 TIME: 15:12:29 ACCOUNT: 003CLR9i0007095 RECEIPT: Q1000010277
C4SHIER: RHr. REG: AB05 TYPE: DEED PAYMENT: FU~~ PHYMEN;
ItJSTRUI'!EN~ : 910007095 BOOK: 11.80 PASE: 564/0 RECDF:DED: 07/30/91 AT 15:12
6RANTOR NA~E : UNITED STATE DF A~ERICA EA: N LOCALITY: CD
GRANTEE NAME : P.LBE~ARLE COUNTY VIR5INIA EX: N PERCENT: lOO~
AND ADDRESS : N/A
RECEIVED OF: ST. JOHN ETAL DATE 0; DEED: 00100/00
CHECK: $14.00 CASH: $2.00
DESCRIPTION 1: QUITCLAIM DEED
l,.
\
2:
CDNSIDERATION:
CODE DESCRIPTION
301 DEEDS
.00 A5SU!'!PT I ON: .0('
PAID CODE DESCRIPTIO~
15.00 145 VSLF
I'\A P :
PAID
1 Ml
Z._
TOTAL TENDERED :
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID:
TOTAL CHANGE A~T
16.00
16.00
.00
(
CLERK OF COURT: SHELBY J, KAR5HHL~
(
(,
.:-;rc.......,.,.. .
::~:.~-'~..':._'
.-' . r,
-~ -. "'- ..~-- '.~: -.
, ...;..:. . Y'-: ~'~--.'
:;'~~2"
.~'.'
-'.
i:- .,~
'=ltl;~>;
~ J~'., ," - - : ~.' __:' ;:. '.:. >
-...._._.~J ; . . ,
DC-18 (5/86)
c
____...,.- ~.""...,.,.._~ i
-: ..,. '.,-.,. -
, . ~:~~~,~~;i;3;~I
~?>;. :..~t-:::..~-::...:~ ~ --
,...~. .
..~ -: ,.-'-
-:;~'~...;~?- -~;~i~~: