HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-03 (2)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.'
';1.'
...
"
~-r :;.
Edward H Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
'.I':'
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
-'I
, .. __i
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Board of Supervisors
F. R. (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
AGENDA
Peter T. Way
Scottsville
,>
,,1')'
F I iN 'A L
u
.... 't '}
..
.!:~, : ~l..j
_ t'.j ;' ~
~ ,.,~.. .;.
!
. ..3. .;.;
'-'..,0;
Room 7,
April. 3, 1991
7:00 P.M.
County Off~ce!Building
-l:/
~
1)
2)
3)
4.)
5)
6)
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegian~e.
~oIRent of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
*ConsentAgenda (on back of sheet).
SP-90-119. The Rocks. Public Hearing on a request for a 43 lot Rural
Preservation Development (l0.2.2oaS) & SP-90-120, The Rocks, fo'" a
bridge in the flood plain of Ivy'Creek (3jl.3.5.2.1). Pr~perty in SE
quadrant of 1-64 & Rt 637. Zoned Rural Areas & Entrance Corridor
Overlay. TM74,PI8,18A,18B&23. Samuel Miller Dist. (This property
._~_~.;... does not lie within a growth area..)
7) Sr-91-02. Garrett & Eleanor T~9mas. Pub~i~ Hearing on a-request for a
,1. ! permanent sawmill on 5.314 ac ~o'ned Rl\. TM26,P31C,.,..iocated on \.J side
of Rt 673 approx 0.3 mi S of Rt 672 near l:I,pntfai.r. White;-H.all ~ist.
(This property does not lie wi thin a growth areat.) -.,. ,,-
SP-90-07. Winifried Adler (Adwell Info Systems Office). Public Hearing on
a request for an extension of six months on a permit to allow computer
cpnsulting, sales & service in existing single-fa~iiy residence
lc)cated on W'side of Rio Rd l?etwe,~n Hillsdale & ~~d,Br,ook Rds.
TM61,P129A. Charlottesville Dist. (This property; lies within 4
growth area.)
9>- Public Hearing: An Ordinance to 8fI1,e~. the Alb~marle ~~ntp Code, Sections-
_. · 1 19.1-1 through 19.1- 3 to set ,fPfth uniforInf-requir~eqOfl- for direct and
indirect discharges into the wa&t~water collection and treatment systems
of the Albemarle County Service "Authority and the RiM99na Water and
Sewer Authority; to enable the ACSA and RWSA to comply with all
applicable State and Federal laws; and to provide f~r ~he protection
of sewerage systems and their respective receiving ~t.Qsros~,
Ib) Public Hearin~: Resolution entitl~~.J'Resolutio~ Authorizing th~.Issuance
and Sale~of School Bonds of Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Maximum
Amount of $19,070,000, to tlte Virginia Public' Schoo;J.. AuthS'&itytl ~
Adoption of Resolut~~n entitled "Resolution Authorizing the Issuance
and Sale of School BOnds of Albemarle County, Virginia, in the MaxUDum
.~
Amount of $19,070,"000, to the Virginia Public School'.llthoritytf.....
Adoptioh of Resolution entit.ied "Resolution Providing ':for the Issuance
~~, 'Of $3,000,000 School Bonds, Series of 1991A, of Albemarle County, Vir-
ginia, Heretofore Authorized to be Sold to the-Virginia Public School
Authority, and Setting Forth the Form an!! Details Thereof".
Authorize Chairman to Execute Virginia Public School Authority Bond
Sale Agreement.
."'-
).
; l ,,~:i'
t
~!'.:tJ'l-
--"
,.
. {
8)
a)
. ~.
b)
c)
,;
11) Discussion: ZMA-90-18. J. S. and Frances Barnett. Proposal to amend
proffer so as to allow installation of fence and plantings instead of
planting rows of pine trees.
12) Appropriation Request: Agnor-Hurt Elementary School.
13) Approval of Governorls Early Retirement Program.
14) Bi~etts~ion~--Beser~-S~orm-Weleome-Home-Parade~ (Moved to April 10)
15) Statement: Preallocation Hearing on Primary, Interstate, Etc., Highways.
15a) Proclamation Designating the Week of April 7 through April 13, 1991, as
National County Government Week.
15b) Discussion on Procedures for Public Hearing on Budget.
16) Approval of Minutes: February 6, Febtuary 13, February 20 and March 6(N), 1991.
17) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
17a) Executive Session: Sale and/or Lease of County Property.
18) Adjourn.
CON S K N T
A G K N D A
FOR INFORMATION:
5~1 Letter dated March 21, 1991, from Joseph J. Rein, III, Field Division
General Manager/Postmaster, sending notice that the postal facility at 743
Shopping Center, Earlysville, Virginia, is inadequate to efficiently serve
the community and to invite comments on the location of a new facility.
5.2 Letter dated March 25, 1991, from John G. Milliken, Secretary of Transpor-
tation, concerning the Commonwealth Transportation Board and Route 29
North.
5.3 Letter dated March 21, 1991, from Ray D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, concerning a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors
requesting the speed limit on Old Brook Road be reduced. The request has
been rejected by Mr. Roosevelt and the District Traffic Engineer.
, \;
5.4 Letter dated March 21, 1991, from E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E., State Location
and Design Engineer, sending notice that the Commonwealth Transportation
Board rejected all four location alternatives on the proposed Tabor Street
(Route 691) or Park Road (Route 1204) project, and decided that Alternative
5 which was proposed by Albemarle County would be developed and presented
at a Location and Design Public Hearing when funding becomes available.
The Board also decided that in the interim, the two intersections of Tabor
Street (Route 691) at Route 240 and High Street would be improved for
better sight distance and turning radii.
5.5 Letter dated March 18, 1991, from H. W. Mills, Maintenance Manager, Depart-
ment of Transportation, stating that the existing superstructure over
Whiteside Branch, Route 693, will be repaired during the period of April 1
through April 5, 1991.
5.6 Letter dated March 20, 1991, from J. A. Echols, Assistant Resident Engi-
neer, sending notice that the location and design features for the Route
729 project, improvement of the intersection of Routes 250 East and Route
729 at Shadwell, has been approved.
5.7 Letters from the Department of Historic Resources:
a) Letters dated March 8, 1991, stating that KENWOOD and OLD RECTORY will
both be recommended to the State Review Board as being eligible
historic resources.
, ", ..
''<''.'."'..~.'''' . "';..... ~ "'... f"".....,," ......,W.
{ {'; ~ -~,?, .~: ' ~" \ \ ~
[''') q '. '!') "
~. .~'" ~~ ~~ ~ ~ lL~" ~;
.lr;~u-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMORANDUM
TO: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
FROM:
Lettie E. Neher,
cler~AJ
DATE:
April 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Board Actions of April 3, 1991
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 3, 1991, the following
actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.6. SP-90-119. The Rocks. Public Hearing on a request for
a 43 lot Rural Preservation Development (10.2.2.28) & SP-90-120, The Rocks, for
a bridge in the flood plain of Ivy Creek (30.3.5.2.1). Property in SE quadrant
of 1-64 & Rt 637. Zoned Rural Areas & Entrance Corridor Overlay. TM74,PI8,18A,18B&23.
Samuel Miller Dist. APPROVED SP-90-119 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 dwell-
ings/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 lots
in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose
of providing screening from the public roads, i.e., 1-64 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 lot;
3. Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construc-
tion of access roads and dwellings;
4. New dwellings shall be of earth tones.
APPROVED SP-90-120 subject to the following conditions:
1. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been
obtained:
\0 . "
Memo To:
Date:
Page 2
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 4, 1991
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.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of bridge and road
plans.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-91-02. Garrett & Eleanor Thomas. Public Hearing on
a request for a permanent sawmill on 5.314 ac zoned RA. TM26,P31C, located on W
side of Rt 673 approx 0.3 mi S of Rt 672 near Montfair. White Hall Dist.
APPROVED SP-91-02 subject to the following conditions:
1. Existing lumber, logs, chips or timber storage shall not be located closer
than 25 feet to any side lot line nor closer than 75 feet to Route 673.
Any new construction, to include proposed pole barn, or storage areas shall
not be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation
within these setbacks shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining proper-
ties and uses, provided that during the last three months of operation such
trees may be removed. At such time as the trees are removed from within
the buffer, this permit shall expire;
2. Where materials are stored less than 100 feet from a lot line a six foot
high privacy fence shall be installed;
3. The use shall be limited to one saw which shall be located not closer than
600 feet to any dwelling on other properties in the area and not closer
than 100 feet to any lot line;
4. No sawing or operation of other processing machinery shall occur between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall
occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
5. Submittal of a certified engineer's report to the County Engineer verifying
compliance with the noise provisions of Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. Not more than one employee, other than the applicant;
7. Upgrading of the entrance in compliance with the comments of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Agenda Item No.8. SP-90-07. Winifried Adler (Adwell Info Systems
Office). Public Hearing on a request for an extension of six months on a permit
to allow computer consulting, sales & service in existing single-family
residence located on W side of Rio Rd between Hillsdale & Old Brook Rds.
TM61,PI29A. Charlottesville Dist. APPROVED a six-month extension of SP-89-07.
,
- .~ ; &
Memo To:
Date:
Page 3
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 4, 1991
Agenda Item No.9. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend the Albemarle
County Code. Sections 19.1-1 through 19.1-3 to set forth uniform requirements
for direct and indirect discharges into the wastewater collection and treatment
systems of the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority; to enable the ACSA and RWSA to comply with all applicable State
and Federal laws; and to provide for the protection of sewerage systems and
their respective receiving streams. ADOPTED the attached ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: ZMA-90-18. J. S. and Frances Barnett.
Proposal to amend proffer so as to allow installation of fence and plantings
instead of planting rows of pine trees. The Board AFFIRHKD that the plans as
presented are consistent with the proffers originally accepted on November 28,
1990.
Agenda Item No. 15. Statement: Preallocation Hearing on Primary, Inter-
state, Etc., Highways.
The Board suggested that on page 2, Fifth line, the language concerning
Meadow Creek Parkway read as follows: "We would also ask that Meadow Creek
Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North be developed as a primary
road (evaluation proposal attached)." Then continue with the remainder of the
paragraph. Staff is to bring this back to the Board for further discussion on
April 10.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
In response to Secretary Milliken's letter of March 11 asking the Board to
consider projects that could be delayed or deleted, the Board suggested that the
Millington Bridge project (Route 671) be scaled down. The Board asked staff to
make a report at the April 10 meeting.
LEN:ec
Attachment
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Robert Brandenburger
Bruce Woodzell
Amelia Patterson
Richard Moring
J. W. Brent
George R. St. John
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296,5841
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk~
April 1991
DATE: 4,
SUBJECT: Board Actions of April 3, 1991
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 3, 1991, the
following actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.9. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend the
Albemarle County Code, Sections 19.1-1 through 19.1-3 to set forth
uniform requirements for direct and indirect discharges into the
wastewater collection and treatment systems of the Albemarle County
Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; to
enable the ACSA and RWSA to comply with all applicable State and
Federal laws; and to provide for the protection of sewerage systems
and their respective receiving streams. ADOPTED the Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. lOa. Adoption of Resolution entitled "Resolu-
tion Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of School Bonds of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in the Maximum Amount of $19,070,000, to the
Virginia Public School Authority". ADOPTED the Resolution.
Agenda Item No. lOb. Adoption of Resolution entitled "Resolu-
tion Providing for the Issuance of $3,000,000 School Bonds, Series
of 1991A, of Albemarle County, Virginia, Heretofore Authorized to
be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority, and Setting Forth
the Form and Details Thereof". ADOPTED the Resolution.
Agenda Item No. 10c. Authorize Chairman to Execute Virginia
Public School Authority Bond Sale Agreement. AUTHORIZED Chairman
to sign Bond Sale Agreement.
Memo To:
Date:
Page 2.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
April 4, 1991
Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation Request: Agnor-Hurt
Elementary School. APPROVED an appropriation in the amount of
$5,081,000 for construction of the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School.
Original appropriation form sent to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Governor's Early Retirement
Program. ADOPTED a resolution approving the Program.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
from the BOARD.
In response to Secretary Milliken's letter of March 11 asking
the Board to consider projects that could be delayed or deleted,
the Board suggested that the Millington Bridge project (Route 671)
be scaled down. The Board asked staff to make a report at the
April 10 meeting.
LEN:ec
Attachment
cc: Ray B. Jones
Peyton Robertson
Roxanne White
Robert Brandenburger
?>), '}.'J
_L."
C!-;i A ALo-'>( <' I )
~,_,.,.!~~~_,,:. ,~~" L_~_'.-, _~~::" j
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
OFFICE OF SUPPORT SERVICES
RICHMOND DIVISION
1801 BROOK ROAD
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23232-9991
March 21, 1991
Mr. Frederick Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntyre Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Ref: Postal Facility
Earlysville, VA 22936
('( .:'! '
;\'-,'
Dear Mr. Bowie:
i) .',':
The United States Postal Service has determined that the present facility
located at 743 Shopping Center, Earlysville, Virginia, Albemarle County,
is inadequate to efficiently serve the community. In the near future, a
study will be conducted to examine alternate solutions to meet our
facility needs.
Existing conditions justify seeking new quarters, owned or leased. It has
been determined that, ideally, the new facility should contain
approximately 3,054 square feet interior net area. The Postal Service
desires to retain a location within the same general area as the existing
facil ity.
The purpose of this letter is to invite comments from local public
officials representing the community interests. It is requested that a
written reply to this correspondence be received within thirty (30) days.
As the project further develops, the Postal Service will continue to keep
your community informed via normal notification procedures, and, if deemed
necessary, arrange for a meeting.
Please address any questions/correspondence pertaining to this matter to
Mr. Rob E. luning, Acting Director, Support Services, 1801 Brook Road,
Richmond, Virginia 23232-9991, or telephone (804) 775-6288.
Sincerely,
W>
SS/RlB:rsm-9103{0130H-13)
...,. )
i/ ,'i
<:'I.: i
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
John G. Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
Office of the Governor
Richmond 23219
(804) 786-8032
CO! ,,\i": V tiC rTnn~4)7AA-.. 7765
, \t, I \.Jt ,"q"T-l.. If 1,1.\1
; - 1_)_ I 11"' I \ I.
I
,
'... '-: j
March 25, 1991
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Thank you for the copy of the presentation made to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board by Albemarle County on February
21 and the additional points you addressed regarding that meeting
in your letter of February 28. I recognize that this is an issue
of great importance to the Albemarle Board and County citizens
and I appreciate your cooperation with us as the Board conducts
its review.
I am sure that comments made by Transportation Board members
regarding Mr. st. John's reference to the Natural Bridge meeting
in October being unannounced were certainly not meant to be
critical, but instead to clarify the matter in which there seemed
to be some misunderstanding.
The meeting at Natural Bridge was a regular meeting of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) at its regular meeting
time. The Board occasionally meets at locations other than in
Richmond. This meeting was announced in the "Virginia Register"
as are all Board meetings. The CTB does not provide a notice of
meetings to particular jurisdictions or persons since it is an
open public meeting.
Concerning the matter that Albemarle County was not allowed
to provide input before the decision was made, it should be
noted, as indicated in your letter, that you and Mr. Lindstrom
were allowed to speak regarding the Route 29 matter at Natural
Bridge in October. The public hearing on the matter had, of
course, been held the previous summer and the time for comment
kept open after the hearing itself.
Study of the development of the 29 Bypass at Charlottesville
has been ongoing for the past several years. The County, the
City and the University of Virginia had representatives on a task
Honorable F. R. Bowie
March 25, 1991
Page Two
force that was deeply and directly involved as the study
progressed throughout its various stages to completion. The
data, as it was developed and collected, was reviewed with these
task force members to receive their comments and input regarding
the information being considered.
As the study was completed and we were approaching the point
where the information would be presented to the public, the data
was further :teviewed sevel.al times with County representatives on
the task force and also with other County staff members.
I thank you for your continued interest in this important
transportation matter. I assure you that the Department and the
Board will continue to work through the many concerns to provide
the most appropriate method of handling the traffic problems in
the Charlottesville area and Albemar e County, specifically in
the Route 29 corridor.
;/ ~
/ .'.
\, ,,< ( r\~
....,'.... ,."",.'"
~"Jo. n G. Milliken
JGM/cmg
cc: Members, Commonwealth Transportation Board
eniJ.!\,!"'" .'"
..- .,J '.. " ; I . I
. ""
ir) r;: ;~::,:
i I i I I,
/'.j A/
I '''I' :,' [\' MAl" !"'.',. r.!'.." "
\ , ,i...; 1
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA!ii i \....,..,.
r:; (', "\ ;\:',~\ ~'\~. (,
. ;-- t.;
1, 2(1/1 {
,'/"! /) '1'/ f/ I "). ;;;,/)
L- I ,v /.,." {' t ~- J. __/~
I".;
"',
"
. '
'\;;'! J I
\ '
, ;
i :!
1 ; I
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
1. :
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
March 21, 1991
Route 652, Albemarle County
Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Miss Neher:
Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors' resolution passed at their
February 13, 1991, meeting requesting the Department to reduce the speed limit on
Old Brook Road to 25 mph as originally posted. I have reviewed this request with
the District Traffic Engineer and we must reject the Board's request.
For the Board's information the speed of traffic on Route 652 was monitored at
two locations on January 9, 1991. Station #1 was located approximately 500' north
of the intersection of Routes 652 and 1037. Station #2 was located 50' north of
the intersection of Routes 652 and 1439.
At Station #1 105 vehicles were observed. The 85th percentile speed was 39
mph and 50% of the traffic was going 32 mph or faster. At Station #2 45 vehicles
were observed. The 85th percentile speed was 40 mph and 50% of the traffic was
going 34 mph or faster.
Upon receipt of the Board's resolution I discussed the roadside development
and the speed study with the Traffic Engineer. Vhile we are both sympathetic to
the concerns expressed by the Board and the citizens in this area, we feel we would
do those citizens a greater disservice by lowering the speed limit. For the
Board's information I have attached a number of articles and results from research
which confirmed for us that speed limit posting should reflect the motorists'
desires unless accident data confirms a safety problem. Attachment #1 is a
synopsis of the results of a research project conducted by Purdue University which
discusses speeds and speed limit postings. Attachment #2 is information on a
research project conducted by the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Route 652 Albemarle County
Page 2
March 21, 1991
These tables show that the posted speed limit has very little effect upon the
actual speeds of vehicles. Attachment #3 outlines the results of studies conducted
by our District Traffic Office along two routes in Albemarle County. Vhile it is
not my intent to inundate the Board of Supervisors with reams of information
concerning this subject, I also have technical summaries from the Federal Highway
Administration which recommends that speed limits should reflect actual traffic
speeds, particularly if minimizing accidents is a goal; articles from a recent
Public York Magazine which discusses speed limits and the myths surrounding them
and a publication developed by the California Institute of Transportation Engineers
concerning speed limits. All of these confirm that actual speed limit posting has
very little influence upon the speeds traveled by motorists and that speed limits
should be set at or near the 85th percentile speed if keeping traffic accident
rates low is a goal. If the Board desires this information I will be happy to
forward it to them.
I request that you forward a copy of this letter to each Board member. If
they desire further discussion on this matter, I will make myself available as they
reques t .
Yours truly,
~J ~ c-~.:.3 f)J' c_ (~
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR/smk
attachments
cc: J. C. DuFresne
R. V. Tucker, Jr.
MYTHS WITH RESPECT TO SPEED
A Joint Highway Research Project which was sponsored by Purdue University
and the Indiana State Highway Commission studied traffic engineering and
highway planning and developed some interesting conclusions. ~rofessor
Harold L. Michael of Purdue University in an article titled "Safety Myths
That Mess Up Your Driving" maintains that many widely accepted notions -
or myths - actually foul up attempts to improve highway safety since they
keep us from seeing where the real problems of traffic safety lie. Two
of the many myths he outlined in that article are:
Myth:
Speed is the prime cause of accidents.
Reduce speed, this myth tells us, and the accident
problem diminishes. Though speed is a factor, it
is not speed above any given mph. The safest speed
on any highway is the speed at which most drivers
are moving. Studies show that drivers as a group
can be relied upon to determine a safe average speed.
That means that speed limits should be imposed on a
stretch of road only after an engineering study,
including actual speeds used by drivers. Limits
should never be based simply on "roadside opinion".
Myth:
Drivers respond better to regulation than advice.
Purdue researchers found that the opposite is true.
Drivers pay attention to speed advisory signs com-
monly posted at sharp curves because those signs
usually give realistic advice as to the speed at
which the curve can be safely taken. On the other
hand, studies show that speed limit regulations are
often disregarded because they are not realistic.
t.
THE EFFECT OF POSTED SPEED LIMITS ON ACTUAL SPEEDS
Case A:
A study on a rural roadway where the speed limit was changed
over a period of time showed that while the posted sp~ed varied
45 MPH, the actual speeds of motorists at this location at the
90th percentile varied only 4.5 ~~H.
Posted Speed (MPH)
90th '-tile Speed (MPH)
25
35
35
None (65)
None (65)
20
20
42.0
39.3
41.1
38.0
37.5
37.9
40.0
(Source: Traffic Institute, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Ill.)
Case B:
A study on a suburban arterial street showed the same results.
The speed limit was changed and the variation in the 85th percentile
speeds was negligible (1.1 MPH).
Posted Speed (MPH)
85th %-tile Speed (MPH)
None
40
35
30
37.4
38.4
38.4
38.5
(Source: Traffic Institute, Northwestern Univeristy,
Evanston, Ill.)
2..
SPEED LIMITS
A widespread misconception has long been held by the general public regarding
the influence that posted speed limits have upon the actual operating speeds
of motorists. It is generally felt that by simply lowering the posted speed
limit, a corresponding reduction in the actual operating speeds ~f motorists
can be achieved. Conversely, it is felt that by raising the posted speed
limit, an increase in the operating speeds of motorists will automatically
resul t. However, Traffic Engineers generally agree that motorists usually
adjust their speed according to the prevailing roadway conditions (i.e.,
roadway characteristics, adverse weather conditions, etc.) and not necessarily
to a particular posted speed limit. This opinion is based upon research which
has been conducted in many parts of the county over a period of many years.
In order to confirm the results demonstrated by these studies and to determine
their relationship to motorists within the Commonwealth, two case studies are
presented. Speed data was collected on Route 22 in Albemarle County during a
period when the speed limit was posted at 55 MPH. Following that period, the
posted speed limit was reduced to 50 MPH and speed data was again collected.
The 85th percentile speeds are presented below:
Radar Station
III
112
#3
#4
115
#6
BEFORE
55 MPH Posted Speed Limit
54 MPH
55 MPH
56 MPH
52 MPH
55 MPH
57 MPH
AFTER
50 MPH Posted Speed Limit
55 MPH
55 MPH
58 MPH
52 MPH
56 MPH
57 MPH
Speed data was collected on Rio Road (Route 631) in Albemarle County during a
period of time when the speed limit was posted at 35 MPH. Following that
period, the posted speed limit was increased to 40 MPH. The 85th percentile
speeds are presented below:
Radar Station
111
112
113
114
BEFORE
35 MPH Posted Speed Limit
43 MPH
43 MPH
43 MPH
44 MPH
AFTER
40 MPH Posted Speed Limit
40 MPH
44 MPH
47 MPH
44 MPH
This information supports the conclusions reached by researchers in other
parts of the county - namely that a motorist's speed is governed by many
factors, including the condition of the road, the weather, the age, condition
and attitude of the driver, whether it is day or night, the amount of traffic
on the road at the time, etc. The factor which seems to have the least amount
of influence on the speed of a motorist is the posted speed limit.
CULPEPER DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SECTION
3.
i"~ .. :~~.:Jr",j '~S ~t~~~'d:
--;J,jJi, ::/
/ -
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
Co i i ('r'Y' ~. '"
r/7;..... I."',, Ui-' ALBEMARLl'"
;1 ;' i'! ' :....0 j'f-"~:' ~..' r-...., I r. C.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI~rr\ Iv/..".;\ ~ ~ ~,L{7r{;:jl71/
) is,S] · i J J
.~ r i i l
'. /, 1 i /
.. . ,"; ::. .... !,' I r
, . " EARL e:el/1C.t;fRAN. JR.
. "'sT~'ucitA'(I~.~ESIGN ENGINEER
'. /1 Ii) .id' (S; "I )
~~, -...-: . ~, -----'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219
; ..",
I")
C.
\ C,I
March 21, 1991
Tabor Street (Route 691) or
Park Road (Route 1204)
Proj. 0691-002-234, C-501
Albemarle County
Fr: Int. Route 240
To: Int. High Street or Park Road
Mr. Frederick R. (Rick) Bowie
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Bowie:
I would like to take this opportuni ty to advise that the
Commonweal th Transportation Board of V irginia at its meeting
today rejected all four location alternatives of the above
project as proposed and presented at the September 19, 1990,
public hearing and decided that Alternative 5 which was proposed
by Albemarle County would be developed and presented at a
Location and Design Public Hearing when funding becomes avail-
able. The Board also decided that in the interim, the two
intersections of Tabor Street (Route 691) at Route 240 and High
Street would be improved for better sight distance and turning
rad i i.
Sincerely,
~,.c.\
E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E.
State Location and Design Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
)
t!"'~.-
l
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN-lji'i'
i: 1\
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ;: .
P. O. BOX 2013 :: .';
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902 \ '.
I", '.
1 i \ 1, ;' ~ '
'", \
"" ".....,.
h.l"...,!\
, ;::~::! ," ,..:'
_.,..,~ I:
i "
· {} 'c'n "
1,,' JtdO. S. ~bOSEVELT
",R~ciE~T ENGINEER
March 18, 1991
Route 693
Albemarle County
Ms. Lettie Neher, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Ms. Neher:
The Virginia Department of Transportation intends to repair the existing
superstructure over Whiteside Branch during the period of April 1, 1991 through
April 5, 1991.
Attached is a sketch indicating the location of the bridge. Signs will be up
to assist traffic while the structure is closed.
Should you have any questions, please contact this office at 804-296-5102.
Yours truly,
rJ{;~
H. W. Mllls
Maintenance Manager
HWM/ldw
cc: T. F. Farley; R. H. Connock, Jr.
D. B. Sprinkel; F. L. Edens
R. W. Tucker, Jr.
Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville Post Office
Western Alb. Rescue Squad
North Garden Fire Dept.
VA. State Police
Alb. County Police
School Transportation Officer
Alb. County Schools
C. W. Wright
J. R. Howe; S. C. Dean
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
llU r,7~
II!, U
.... at
~
I.J.J
~
'%>
. ;))
j!'
/ ( /
('0
I
'<
J....
'"
~
(:}
~
'<
I
I
I
I
I Charlottesville
I Reservoir
I
I
I
i~
I~~_~~
't-
I'l'
~
cJl
o
"t-
SOAl
('\ MOUNTAIN
\ /" i
/
0 "
~~
\ ~'I'-'"
c.. ~ /
'f,
"'.
.f
~
~~
",'0
.J- R."
~
..
[) d ::{ :;,(i, fl. 'l /
1stributEd tG En2J i: / L_ ( . '_
P(,8;'1d,": t~'::.\:l
9/1 eft.' 3(.>: f:>)
'( l.~"
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
,:-.', ~
r- : ",,:,- "-;.:'~'"
" ,If. '-!, 1'\ i. -l.
March 20, 1991
,.," .......~. i':,:.~
I: I
i j\
, j
i ,I
: : 'I'
, . I
D. S.,ROOSEVELT
RESJ,b,NT ENGINEER
, ,.f.'
RAY D, PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
0729-002-239, C501
Location & Design Approval
Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Miss Neher:
Attached is a copy of the notice that the location and design features for the
above project have been approved by the Department. This project is the
improvement of the intersection of Routes 250 and 729 at Shadwell. I would
appreciate your advising the Board of Supervisors of this approval.
Yours truly, AJ f) ()
~.Q.~
J. A. Echols
Assistant Resident Engineer
JAE/smk
cc: R. W. Tucker, Jr. w/attachment
G. D. Lipscomb
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
,,- ';-. - ,;
..
F-12-91
PUB L I C
NOTICE
PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECT
ROUTE 729 - ALBEMARLE COUNTY
All interested persons are advised that the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation has approved the location and major design
features for Route 729, Project 0729-002-239, C-50 1 from the
intersection of Route 250 to one-tenth mile south of the inter-
section of Route 250, in Albemarle County.
The Federal Highway Administration has also concurred in the
environmental evaluation prepared for this project.
Maps, drawings, an environmental evaluation, and other
information are available in the Department's District Office in
Culpeper and in its Residency Office near Charlottesville for
viewing by interested persons.
Virginia Department of Transportation
March 7, 1991
, .
\ t l.
I '':~ ,
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI~IA
?'ZG;,Cj J
9/ f ~~ oj ( :,'-. ?)
;',"\, i r.
,... .,.-._'
~ ) ,iC:~~l
, "
, :;
Hugh C. Miller, Director
TbO"{804h86.1934
.. ,Tel~pho~{804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
March 8, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
RE: KENWOOD, ALBEMARLE COUNTY (DHR 02-862)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Recently the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the Commonwealth's agency
responsible for administering historic preservation programs, received information regarding
the history and significance of Kenwood. This information was submitted by Mr. C.
Timothy Lindstrom for the owner, Ms. Ellen Virginia Nash 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.
J
'~
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 staffs opinion that Kenwood
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 April 16, 1991 meeting. Meetings of the board are open to the public. The
meeting will be held in Senate Room "A", General Assembly Building, beginning at 10:00
AM. As with the staffs 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.
21Y'
a.B~e
Deputy Director
Enclosures
..-
.II
/l
/. .J. 2. (I'.. .('./
/' 'I
9;,ti/til( s-, 7 )
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Hugh C. Miller. Director
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
TDD: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX: (804) 225-4261
March 8, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
RE: OLD RECTORY, ALBEMARLE COUNTY (DHR 02-1831)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Recently the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the Commonwealth's agency
responsible for administering historic preservation programs, received information regarding
the history and significance of the Old Rectory. This information was submitted by Geoffrey
Henry for the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ranlet, 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 staffs opinion that the Old
Rectory 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 April 16, 1991 meeting. Meetings of the board are open to the public. The
meeting will be held in Senate Room "A", General Assembly Building, beginning at 10:00
AM. As with the staffs 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
~ However, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Enclosures
, ?'21''t;
c}l~iu~{ ~~ 7 )
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Hugh C. Miller, Director
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
TDD: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
FAX (804) 225-4261
March 13, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
RE: SOUTHWEST MOUNTAINS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE
COUNTY (DHR 02-1832)
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 the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. This
information was submitted by Genevieve P. Keller of Land and Community Associates for
the Department of Historic Resources 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 the
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District 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 April 16, 1991 meeting. Meetings of the board are open to the public. The
meeting will be held in Senate Room "A", General Assembly Building, beginning at 10:00
AM. 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.
:zy,
H. BS:e
Deputy Director
Enclosures
, .
;0 -i ~.
-.....-'"
Z "'tI :DC/) !II.
0 a ~ 0
::L '0 S>> c:
~ ::r 0 >-......
en - ::::r
'^ ('() g:r::E
0. "
m 3 -. CD .....
0 Q)(f)C/)
c: ... t-t' ~
~ -0
CD"""
0- o -. s:
< su
-< 0(")0
c: c
. a 0::>
'< - . ......
(f) s:u I)
I ....... -. .
...... ~.~ '\
I 0 C/)
......
.
"-'y~j
'-<:
en
(,
~
~
~
6>
s
~
r ".
3, )..Cj, 'ij
9/,t11d3(.s-,7 )
March 15, 1991
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINI~,c t.' F,E~i!6\\~~tl
Department of Historic Resources' 'j'\\; : I.. ~' >,', .,'. \ ;:r{)~:1~\\786-1934
221 Governor Street .: .. ,_.... ..1F.e~o~~ (~04) 786-3143
. . . FAX (M4~ \ 5-4261
Richmond, VlfglOIa 23219 (c: 1\! \. '
\\iL'.\r\ 1 (3 .. ,) '-.' ~ ,/ --~ \ ;'. \
1 ",; l,
Hugh C. Miller. Director
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
" .
.-\)
Re: WAVERTREE HALL FARM, ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Dear Mr. Bowie:
For some time the Department of Historic Resources has been
interested in including Wavertree Hall Farm 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 the nature of these designations to you. It is the policy
of our department to notify property owners and local city or
county officials prior to such consideration.
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, April 16, 1991, the State Review
Board will have the opportunity to consider Wavertree Hall Farm's
inclusion on this register. Should the board determine the
prepared nomination for this property 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 Wavertree Hall Farm 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
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 Tuesdav. April 16. 1991 in Senate Room "A" of the
General Assembly Building at Ninth and Broad Streets, Richmond,
virginia. We hope you can come.
The Historic Resources Board will consider Wavertree Hall Farm
for inclusion on the virginia Landmarks Register at 10:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, April 17th, 1991, also in Senate Room "A" of the General
Assembly Building. Should the board determine the prepared
nomination for this property is acceptable, it will be placed on
the Virginia Landmarks Register at that time. This meeting is also
open to the public.
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) 225-4255.
Sincerely,
~ ci.itJii
James Christian Hill, National Register Assistant
State Historic Preservation Office
JCH/sdm
enclosures
,:5: zIL:!I_
, .9;, o/.;jZ( ~'.. )
, ......... 7.~z?:..Z
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Hugh C. Miller, Director
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
TDD: (804) 786-1934
Telephone (804) 786-3143
(' ,r: i : ;', '1'\./ .,,) f:. ,', ')'~ ^H\6Jt(..:'. 1~04.). 225-4261
~'\....",l\\, ,'...... In\\._L-"L!Vlr;.:)i_t
.' ~~--[}.ij::::I f"i:::l-l
"! !!: I
21 19r1l \! I ! i
,7 II. I"
I,. II
/ I I ' I
" I
. "1""'"'~'~'-"-' I 'I
,J tl L~=: L~)
March 15, 1991
Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Lj () ,I;'" :~!) () r.:
~', II
.' - :~: "'~-' l :-~, C) ;~ S
Re: ARROWHEAD, ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Dear Mr. Bowie:
For some time the Department of Historic Resources has been
interested in including Arrowhead 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 the
nature of these designations to you. It is the policy of our
department to notify property owners and local city or county
officials prior to such consideration.
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, April 16, 1991, the State Review
Board will have the opportunity to consider Arrowhead's inclusion
on this register. Should the board determine the prepared
nomination for Arrowhead 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 Arrowhead 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
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 Tuesdav. April 16. 1991 in Senate Room "A" of the
,
General Assembly Building at Ninth and Broad streets, Richmond,
Virginia. We hope you can come.
The Historic Resources Board will consider Arrowhead for
inclusion on the Virginia Landmarks Register at 10: 00 a. m. on
Wednesday, April 17th, 1991, also in Senate Room "A" of the General
Assembly Building. Should the board determine the prepared
nomination for Arrowhead is acceptable, it will be placed on the
Virginia Landmarks Register at that time. This meeting is also
open to the public.
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) 225-4255.
Sincerely,
~D^~
~~~~ Christian Hill, National Register Assistant
State Historic Preservation Office
JCH/sdm
enclosures
r
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
FACTS REGARDING HATIOHAL REGIS'l'ER HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
1. National Register designation officially recognizes the
cultural, architectural, and landscape features of an
historically significant area, bringing them to the attention of
the community, state, and nation. Ideally, the increased public
awareness stemming from registration acts as a catalyst in
furthering community efforts to preserve the area's historic and
natural features.
2. National Register historic district designation does not
restrict an owner's use of his or her property in any way as long
as private, non-federal funds are used. It does not, for
example, prohibit any owner from altering or demolishing any
buildings, nor does it restrict subdivision or sale.
3. National Register designation can help lessen the negative
impact on an historic area from government funded projects. By
law, an environmental impact study is required for any federally-
funded projects - such as road building, utility installation,
and public housing. Also, certain state projects are reviewed
for their impact on historic resources. If any project is deemed
to have an adverse effect on historic buildings, archaeological
sites, or landscape features within a historic district, the
project may be redesigned to lessen that effect.
4. National Register designation confers two types of financial
benefits on historic district property owners. First, it allows
the owner of a contributing building within the registered
district to claim investment tax credits for certified
rehabilitations if the building is used for income-producing
purposes. A "contributing" building contributes to the historic
character of the district. It must be at least 50 years old and
retain sufficient architectural integrity.
5. For additional information on the investment tax credit
program, contact the Department of Historic Resources, 221
Governor street, Richmond, VA. 23219 (804)786-3143.
National Register designation also makes properties eligible
for matching federal grants for historic preservation.
Currently, federal funds are not available for preservation
projects.
'I
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 necessarilY 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.
SDIIIIARY
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
COMMONWEALTf-<l of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Telephone (804) 786-3143
TOO: 804-786-4276
RESULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Eliqibilitv 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
oreservatioq tax incentives authorized bv Conqress in the Tax
Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue Act of 1978, the Tax Treatment
Extension Act of 1980, the Economic Recoverv Tax Act of 1981, and
Tax Reform Act of 1984 and as of Januarv 1, 1987, orovides 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
oercent 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 olanninq for Federal, Federallv licensed, and
Federallv assisted oroiects: Section 106 of tQe National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that Federal agencies
allow for the Advisory Conncil 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 CFR 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.
Qualification for Federal qrants for historic oreservation when
funds are available: Presently funding is unavailable.
RIGHTS OF OWNERS TO COMMENT AND/OR OBJECT TO LISTING
IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
Owners of private properties nominated to the National
Register have an opportunity to concur with or object to listing
in accord with the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR
60. Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses
to object to listing may submit, to the state Historic
Preservation Officer, a notarized statement certifying that the
party is the sole or partial owner of the private property and
objects to listing.
Each owner or partial owner has one vote regardless of the
portion of the property that the party owns. If a majority of
private property owners object, a property will not be listed.
However, the state Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the
nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a
determination of eligibility of the property for listing on the
National Register. If the property is then determined eligible
for listing, although not formally listed, Federal agencies will
be required to allow for the Advisory council on Historic
Preservation to have an opportunity to comment before the agency
may fund, license, or assist a project which will affect the
property.
If YOU choose to obiect to the listing of your property, the
notarized objection must be submitted to Hugh C. Miller, 221
Governor street, Richmond, virginia, 23219 before the scheduled
meeting of the state Review Board noted in your letter.
If you wish to comment. on the nomination of the property to
the National Register, please send your comments to the state
Historic Preservation Officer at 221 Governor street, Richmond,
virginia 23219 before the state Review Board considers this
nomination. A copy of the nomination and information on the
National Register and the Federal Tax provisions are available
from the above address upon request.
Rev 1990
'r_', \
i.' ,
1;"'\
L.i.-~,-'~
,;~j/ (Jl/';<?(~ ;:;
~ ...... __,_~C-.,___,..~....;~~-'
IA\
JAUnT X
P <
,
JAUNT, INC.
1138 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22901
Administration: (804) 296-3184 or 296-4980
Operations: (804) 296-6174
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SERVICE PROVIDED 10-1-90 TO 12-31-90
PUBLIC TRIPS
Urban area handicapped
3605
Rural area handicapped
2149
scottsville route
883
TOTAL PUBLIC TRIPS
6637
AGENCY TRIPS
TOTAL AGENCY TRIPS
3191
TOTAL (PUBLIC & AGENCY) TRIPS
9828
Percent of budgeted funds expended (10-1-90 through 12-31-90):
For administrative and ridesharing expenses: 46%
(Please note that this high percentage is
due to paying the annual insurance during
the first two months of the year - expenses
are on target)
For operating costs of public transportation: 23%
Estimated shortfall for year: $14,500, assuming no fare
increases are implemented July 1st.
'. ,J.,", ,~? 7 c", L? L
. . . . !'" ,'" I'CJ' .'" I,
~- ""oJ ;.<" ;_,,_;~1 - . L -- P
':0. _71.dfo3. F>:J
..
t~ -r) !". '~. ',1'- -f"":~:"'bi-
,
r t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development jl{A,~,.~.Q"L .~~tf
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
March 21, 1991
Verulam Farm Limited Partnership
1 Village Green Circle, suite 100
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-90-119 The Rocks
SP-90-120 The Rocks
The Rocks Preliminary Plat
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 19, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note the conditions for approval as outlined below:
o SP-90-119:
1. Not more than 4 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 shall qualify as
"Family Divisions";
2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on
the development lots. Trees shall be installed within
two planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lot;
3. Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount
necessary for the construction of access roads and
dwellings.
Verulam Farm
Page 2
March 21, 1991
o SP-90-120:
1. 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. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
bridge and road plans.
o SUB-90-244 ,The Rocks Preliminary Plat:
The Planning commission granted staff administrative
approval of the final plat subject to the Board of
Supervisors approval of SP-90-119 and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are
met:
a. Recreation Facilities Authority and staff approval
of easement documents to include provisions for
the protection of historic sites;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations; to include wet
ponds shown on plat which shall be designed to
accommodate a 100-year storm;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
d. Staff approval of homeowner's documents providing
for the maintenance of the open space and ponds;
Verulam Farm
Page 3
March 21, 1991
e. Watershed Management Official approval of grading
plan to ensure compliance with the proposed Water
Resource Protection Ordinance;
f. Department of ,Engineering and Watershed Management
Official approval of road design for access to
family dwellings/lots to insure adherence to best
management practices as outlined in the Watershed
Management Official's memo dated February 26,
1991.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 3. 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.
Please be advised that preliminary plat approval is valid
for six (6) months. Failure to submit a final plat to the
Department of Planning & Community Development within that
time will render the preliminary approval null and void.
In order to expedite completion of the above noted items,
please have the appropriate agency or department notify the
Department of Planning & Community Development, in writing,
that the applicable condition has been met.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
r7 /.// /7 ~,_
A/ d/~ I/. ph---
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Richard Moring
Amelia Patterson
Peter Bradshaw
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMiSSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 19, 1991
APRIL 3, 1991
SP-90-119 AND SP-90-120 THE ROCKS AND
SUB-90-244 THE ROCKS PRELIMINARY PLAT
Petition: Verulam Farm petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit, SP 90-119, for a 43 lot Rural
Preservation Development [10.2.2(28)] and SP 90-120 for a
bridge in the floodplain of Ivy Creek. The applicant is
also requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create 43
development lots totaling 133.14 acres, a preservation tract
of 382.82 acres and an open space parcel of 114.9 acres is
proposed. Property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcels 18,
18A, 18B and 23, is located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Interstate 64 and Route 637. Zone RA, Rural
Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay, in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is not within a
designated growth area.
Character of the Area:
The property under review is a mixture of pasture land 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 the top of the mountain is
rolling with moderate to critical slopes. The steeper
slopes and stream valleys are wooded. The property
parallels 1-64 for approximately 1.5 miles~ The area
proposed for the development lots parallels 1-64 for
approximately 0.6 miles and is approximately 0.5 miles deep
from 1-64. 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 a 43 lot Rural Preservation
Development. A description of the applicant's proposal is
included as Attachment E. A total of 39 development lots
are currently proposed and 4 lots/dwellings in the
preservation tract are proposed as future family division
lotS/dwellings. The average acreage of each development lot
is 3.46 acres. The preservation tract contains 383 acres. A
115 acre open space tract is also proposed which will be for
the benefit of the residents of The Rocks. The applicant is
1
.
proposing to install public roads to serve the development
lots. The applicant is requesting a special use permit for
a bridge in the floodplain of Ivy Creek in order to
construct the access road to the site.
ST~Y AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
During the initial review of the Rural Preservation
Development staff recommended denial due to: (1) concerns
for visibility of the proposed family dwellings/lots from
public roads, and (2) the potential impact on the watershed
of the access road to the family dwellings/lots. The
applicant subsequently provided additional information on
lot siting and agreed to condit ins addressing road impact on
water quality. After review of this additional information,
staff believes its concerns have been addressed and
recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to
conditions.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
None available.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan makes provision for smaller,
clustered rural residential lots as provided by the Rural
Preservation Development. "The advantages of the small lot
option are: (1) acreage is preserved for
agricultural/forestal use and is not unnecessarily wasted on
homesites; (2) the landowner may derive economic benefits
from lots and still continue agricultural/forestal
activities on open space and, (3) the landowner does not
have to develop steep or inaccessible land, but may use it
as open space, and develop small lots on more suitable
land." (1989-2010 Comprehensive Plan, page 206). The
Comprehensive Plan states that " a special use permit shall
be required for clustering more than 20 lots" (1989-2010
Comprehensive Plan page 206). This requirement allows the
County to review developments approaching Village scale.
The Comprehensive Plan states that all decisions regarding
the rural areas shall be made in the interest of four major
elements. "The four major elements are: (1) preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities; (2) water supply
protection; (3) limited service delivery to the Rural Areas;
and (4) consideration of natural, scenic and historical
resources." (1988-2010 Comprehensive Plan 203)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Ordinance provides for Rural Preservation
developments in order to provide an alternative to
traditional rural subdivision techniques. Staff has
reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of
Rural Preservation Development as well as to whether or not
2
.
the approval of a rural preservation development is more
sensitive than conventional development. This development
request requires a special use permit due to the number of
lots as well as the proposed activity within the floodplain.
This report will be divided into two sections dealing with
these requests separately.
SP-90-1l9 - Petition for 43 lot Rural Preservation
Development
The following is an analysis of the subdivision proposal for
consistency with Section 10.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
which sets forth criteria for Rural Preservation Development
review:
10.3.3.2
The rural preservation development option is intended to
encourage more effective land usage as set forth in the
comprehensive plan than can be achieved under conventional
development. To this end, application for rural
preservation development shall be reviewed for:
a. Preservation of aqricultural and forestal lands and
activities:
The applicant's proposal will result in the protection
of approximately 77% of the site due to easements on
the preservation tract and the provision of open space.
These areas represent viable agricultural and forestal
activities as evidenced by there current usage. These
areas currently receive land use value taxation.
A comparison of this project to previously approved
Rural Preservation Development is as follows:
% Preservation/
proiect Lots Open Space
The Rocks 43 77%
Quiet Woods 13 50%
Turner Mountain 7 58%
Landfall 7 89%
Beaumont 37 47%
Wrens on 30 50%
b. Water supplY protection: and/or:
The proposed preservation tract includes a significant
portion of the entire Ragged Mountain Watershed. The
entire development is located within the South Fork
Rivanna watershed. The applicant has agreed to
voluntarily comply with the regulations found in the
proposed Water Resource Protection Ordinance. The plan
also provides for significant areas of open space
3
adjacent to Ivy Creek and the road alignment has been
designed to minimize stream crossings wherever
possible. The Watershed Management Official has
provided additional comments regarding the
development's impact on the watershed (Attachment C),
and has provided comments intended to directly address
the access road to the family dwellings/lots
(Attachment D). The Watershed Management Official
states in Attachment D "Incorporation of the types of
Best Management Practices outlined in this memo and
attachments can effectively mitigate any impacts on
water quality." The applicant agrees with these
recommendations and staff will require appropriate
conditions to insure water quality protection.
c. Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources.
No official study has been prepared but it is believed
that the remains of the stone house in which Edgar
Allen Poe wrote "The Raven" are located near the top of
this property in the area included in the preservation
tract. staff will recommend that the protection of
this site be provided in the preservation easements in
the event that the location of the structure is ever
verified. This protection shall be provided for by the
standard historic easement on the Rural Preservation
Tract as may be amended by the Recreation Facilities
Authority. The layout of the proposed development
restricts all but a limited amount of activity to the
lower elevations of the site. This design will result
in a significantly lower level of visibility from I-64
and other public roads when compared to conventional
development which could result in development at much
higher elevations which would be visible from great
distances.
More specifically, in accordance with design standards of
the comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably practical
by the commission:
d. Development lots shall not encroach into prime,
important or unique aqricultural or forestal soils as
the same shall be shown on the most recent published
maps of the united state Department of Aqricultural
Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of
equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation
Service:
This item will be discussed in detail later in this
report.
4
e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of
critical slope or flood plain and shall be situated as
far as possible from public drinkinq water supplY
tributaries and public drinkinq water supply
impoundments;
Significant areas of critical slopes are present on
this site. Large portions of development lots include
these areas. Building sites have been located so as to
avoid encroachment onto critical slopes by the
dwellings or the access ways. However, the slopes and
soils located on the mountain side are more sensitive
to development and the proposed lot layout avoids these
areas. No lots, other than the open space, include any
floodplain lands. Several streams are located on this
site and are included in the development lots. The
applicant has field verified that all septic drainfield
areas are located 100 feet from any stream or wetland
area. The Open Space and Preservation Tract include
significant stream areas and the Open Space provides
for significant protection of Ivy Creek. The
preservation tract provides for the protection of a
large portion of the Ragged Mountain Watershed,
approximately 202 acres, or 16% of that watershed.
f. Development lots shall be so situated and arranqed as
to preserve historic and scenic settings deemed to be
of importance to the qeneral public and natural
resource areas whether such features are on the parcel
to be developed or adiacent to such parcel;
The potential historic value of this site has been
discussed earlier in this report. The development lots
have been located on the lower slopes of the site and
this should reduce the potential visibility from 1-64
and other public roads when compared to other methods
of development. This concentration of development may
increase visibility in the immediate area. As seen
from a distance this lot layout should reduce
visibility. However, this site will be visible from
Interstate 64 when travelling eastbound. Visibility of
the site from the westbound lane of Interstate 64 will
be reduced by topography and vegetation.
g. Development lots shall be confined to one area of the
~arcel and shall be situated so that no portion of the
rural preservation tract shall intrude between any
development lots;
Development lots are confined to one area of the site.
However, the applicant is proposing four family
dwellings/lots which would be located at the top of
Bear Den Mountain.
5
h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an
internal street in accordance with Chapter 18 of the
Code of Albemarle:
All lots have been restricted to internal roads.
section 10.5.2.1 related to issuance of a special use permit
states that:
The Board of Supervisors shall determine that such division
is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section
31.2.4.1 of this Ordinance, with reference to the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan relating to' rural areas
including the type of division proposed and specifically, as
to this section only, with reference to the following:
1. The size. shape. topoqraphY and existinq veqetation of
the property in relation to its suitability for
aqricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the
United States Department of Aqriculture Soil
Conservation Service or the Virqinia Department of
Forestry.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for aqricultural or
forestal production as evaluated by the United States
Department of Aqriculture Soil Conservation Service or
other source deemed of equivalent reliability bY the
Soil Conservation Service.
The applicant has stated that the site is comprised of
642.1 acres. There are approximately 188 acres of open
land which is currently being used for hay and pasture.
The balance of 454 acres is forest land. The proposed
rural preservation development will insure preservation
of all but 1.5% of the Class II soils found on the
site. Virtually all of the forested land is to be
included in the rural preservation tract. The majority
of the open land within the development tract is not
suitable for crop production due to slope, field size
and shape. Grazing of cattle on severe slopes has
caused serious erosion problems. Field evidence
reveals evidence of sediment and nutrient loading of
Ivy Creek and tributary streams caused by overgrazing
and destruction of stream bank vegetation by cattle.
3. The historic commercial aqricultural or forestal uses
of the property since 1950 to the extent that is
reasonably available.
The applicant has stated that the property has been a
cattle farm since before 1950.
6
4. If located in an aqricultural or forestal area. the
probable effect of the ~roposed development on the
character of the area. For the purposes of this
section. a pro~erty shall be deemed to be in an
aqricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or
more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of
such property has been in commercial aqricultural or
forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the
a~plication for s~ecial use permit. In makinq this
determination. mountain ridqes. major streams and other
physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness
of an area shall be considered.
staff has determined that 64% of the land within one
mile of this property is in agricultural or forestal
use. Therefore, this site is deemed to be in an
agricultural or forestal area. In addition another
10.3% of the land within one mile of this property is
in public ownership for the Ragged Mountain Reservoir.
Development has direct and indirect effects on
agricultural and forestal activities.
Among direct effects are: the vandalism of crops and
equipment and the destruction of livestock by children
and pets; the desire to regulate routine farm
activities by residents of the development (i.e.,
spraying of pesticides and herbicides; spreading of
lime and manure; proximity of livestock to residential
areas; commercial timbering activities) and high land
prices which make it difficult for existing farmers to
expand and new farmers to locate in the area.
Indirect effects are generally related to the
expectation of continued development in the area,
resulting in the impression that agricultural land is
in transition. Indirect effects include: reduced or
marginal production; disinvestment in equipment,
livestock and other aspects of farming requiring large
and/or long-term investment and idling of farmland.
Development in an agricultural and forestal area can
change the character of the area, not only in the
immediate vicinity but in remote areas. Increased
residential traffic on rural roads can result in
hazardous conflicts with slower moving tractors, fruit
trucks and logging trucks. New or expanded utility
corridors through farms may be required to serve new
development.
staff does not intend to imply that this development
will result in all these negative effects and offers
them as general comments only. These comments come
from the President's Commission on Agriculture. The
County has also experienced requests for leash laws,
and leaf burning ordinances in rural subdivisions.
7
5. The relationship of the pro~erty in reqard to developed
rural areas. For the purposes of this section. a
property shall be deemed to be located in a developed
rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land
within one (1) mile of the boundary of such pr9perty
was in parcels of record of five (5) acres of less on
the adoption date of this ordinance. In makinq this
determination. mountain ridqes. major streams and other
physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness
of an area shall be considered.
The development is not located within a developed rural
area as only 2.7% of the land within one mile was in
parcels of 5 acres or less on the adoption date of the
Ordinance.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to
existinq and proposed population centers. services and
employment centers. A property within areas described
below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use
described:
~ within one mile roadway distance of the urban area
boundary as described in the comprehensive plan;
This site is located approximately 4 miles from the
Urban Area.
~ Within one-half mile roadway distance of a
community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan;
This site is located approximately 6 miles from
Crozet.
~ within one-half-mile roadway distance of a village
as described in the comprehensive plan.
This site is located approximately 5 miles from the
Village of North Garden.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on
capital improvements proqramminq in reqard to increased
provision of services.
This development may generate the following school
enrollments:
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School - 22 additional
students.
Henley Middle School - 11 additional students.
Western Albemarle High School - 13 additional students.
8
The proposed Rural Preservation Development will not
generate more students than could be g~nerated by
conventional development.
8. The traffic qenerated from the proposed development
would not. in the opinion of the Virginia Department of
Transportation:
~ Occasion the need for road improvement:
~ Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable
road:
~ Increase traffic on an existinq non-tolerable
road.
The proposed Rural Preservation Development will
generate approximately 430 vehicle trips per day. This
is not greater than the number of trips which could be
realized by conventional development. The current
number of vehicle trips on this portion of Route 637 is
2713 VTPD. Route 637 is currently listed as
non-tolerable.
9. with respect to applications for special use permits
for land lyinq whollY or partiallY within the
boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking
water impoundment. the followinq additional factors
shall be considered. The applicant has provided
responses to the following:
~ The amount and quality of existinq vegetative
cover as related to filtration of sediment.
phosphorus. heavy metals. nitroqen and other
substances determined harmful to water quality for
human consumption:
The 144 acres which is proposed to be developed into
lots and roads is currently in a poor quality
vegetative cover. The 114.9 acre open space is
currently being grazed by cattle and has some areas of
severe erosion. The hay fields on this parcel are in
good condition effectively filtering sediments and
assimilating nutrients. The 382 acre rural
preservation tract is in forest which is the most
beneficial land use for water supply protection.
~ The extent to which existing veqetative cover
would be removed or disturbed durinq the
construction phase of any develo~ment:
9
The construction of roads will be the primary land
disturbing activity during the development of the site.
This activity will require the temporary disturbance of
approximately 10.5 acres of land. The road system
alignment has been designed to minimize any negative
environmental impacts.
~ The amount of impervious cover which will exist
after development:
It is estimated that approximately 0.9% of the site
will be impervious after development.
~ The proximitv of any paved (pervious or
impervious) area. structure. or drain field to any
perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment:
or during the construction phase. the proximity of
any disturbed area to any such stream or
impoundment:
Roads have been designed to minimize stream crossings.
Housing sites and drain fields have been located at
least 100 feet from any stream or wetland. Any
drainfield which appeared to be close to the 100 foot
stream or wetland setback was field verified for
compliance with all ordinance requirements. All lots
have been field checked for adequate building sites on
slopes of less than 25%.
~ The type and characteristics of soils includinq
suitability for septic fields and erodability:
Soil Service Inc. has conducted soil borings and
located suitable drainfields on each lot shown on the
preliminary subdivision plat. Soils on the steeper
slopes have the highest potential for erodibility.
These areas are not intended for, nor will they be
developed.
~ The ~ercentaqe and lenqth of all slopes subiect to
disturbance durinq construction or upon which any
structure. paved area (pervious or impervious) or
active recreational area shall exist after
development:
Of the 10.85 acres impacted during the road
construction approximately 0.3 acre, in isolated small
patches averaging 1,900 square feet each, is located on
slopes greater than 25%.
10
~ The estimated duration and timinq of the
construction ~hase of any pr090sed development and
extent to which such duration and timinq are
unpredictable:
Although no timing or phasing plan has been
established, construction shall be scheduled so that
grading operations can begin and end as soon as
possible. Sediment trapping measures shall be
installed as a first step in grading and shall be
seeded and mulched immediately following installation.
~ The degree to which original topographY or
veqetative cover has been altered in anticipation
of filing for any permit hereunder:
The only activity in anticipation of this permit to
take place on site has been soil borings for the drain
field locations.
~ The extent of which the standards of Chapter 19.1
et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met
throuqh the creation of artificial devices. which
devices will:
~ Require periodic inspection an/or
maintenance:
~ Are susceptible to failure or overflow for
run-off associated with anyone hundred year
or more intense storm.
The two wet ponds shown on the preliminary subdivision
plat and erosion and sediment controls are the only
proposed artificial devices designed to meet the
standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq. of the Code of
Albemarle. The wet ponds will be designed to
accommodate a minimum 100 year storm frequency event.
Soil erosion and sediment control practices will be
constructed and maintained to the standards and
specifications of the Virqinia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook. The minimal maintenance required
will be guaranteed by the homeowner's association to be
formed upon commencement of the project. This
development is exempt from Chapter 19.1 due to the
amount of impervious coverage. This agreement
represents voluntary compliance.
11
Summary
The applicant has requested that four dwellings/lots be
allowed on the top of Bear Den Mountain in the Preservation
Tract. These dwellings/lots are intended for future family
divisions. The access to these proposed sites involves a
road which will include two additional stream crossings.
The access road to the proposed sites is in the approximate
alignment of old roads on the property. Significant
portions of the alignment will involve new road
construction. The alignment of the road on the top of the
mountain follows an old public road. Two additional stream
crossings are necessary for the construction of the access
road. As stated previously, with appropriate conditions,
the impact of this road can be mitigated. The location of
the family dwellings/lots is the approximate location of an
old orchard and therefore additional clearing should be
limited. The applicant has agreed to limit clearing to that
necessary for the construction of dwellings and access
roads. In addition, the applicant has agreed to restrict
the building types to earth tones. The applicant has
submitted sight studies which indicate that the family
dwellings/lots will not be visible from public roads. The
family dwellings/lots range in size from 2.05 to 4.3 acres.
The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors to authorize more than one dwelling in
the Preservation Tract or more than one Preservation Tract.
The minimum size of a Preservation Tract is 40 acres. The
applicant is proposing a Preservation Tract of 382.82 acres,
which is equivalent to 9 minimum sized Preservation Tracts.
Staff notes that suitable sites for the proposed family
dwellings/lots may be found on the lower slopes were fewer
stream crossings would be required. However, staff notes
that the most probable sites would be in the area noted as
open space, as limited areas exist outside of the open space
or on the mountain top which are not in slopes of 25% or
greater. The proposed family dwellings/lots are not located
within the Ragged Mountain Watershed.
Summary of Rural Preservation Development
Staff has identified the following items which are favorable
to this request:
1. Preservation of significant agricultural areas;
2. Protection of water supply resulting from fewer stream
crossings than would occur with conventional
development, provision of open space adjacent to Ivy
Creek and the inclusion of a large portion of the
Ragged Mountain watershed in the Preservation Tract;
12
3. Concentration of development lots in areas less
sensitive to dev~~opment;
4. Development lots are located adjacent to similar sized
lots in Rosemont. The Preservation Tract is located
adjacent to similar sized properties;
5. The Open Space and Preservation Tract are located in
areas of high visibility, thereby reducing the overall
visibility of the project;
6. The Preservation Tract allows for the protection of a
potential historic site;
7. The site has good access to Crozet and Charlottesville
due to the proximity of 1-64.
Staff has identified the following items which are
unfavorable to this request:
1. Development of the family dwellings/lots will intrude
into the rural preservation tract.
2. Concentrated development will give the appearance of
village scale development.
3. Due to the scale of development it is reasonable to
assume increased demands for services and regulations
of a urban type.
The applicant has offered to plant ten (10) trees per acre,
use earth tones for new dwellings and limit clearing to that
necessary for roads and dwellings. These items will help to
reduce the overall impact of the development. Development
is of a scale that will give the appearance of a Village.
However, "by-right" development may result in a similar
appearance and be more spread out over the site. The family
dwellings/lots will require additional clearing and stream
crossings in the watershed. Other, more suitable areas at
lower elevation not requiring stream crossigns would be more
desirable for these dwellings/lots. However, with the
appropriate conditions, impact of these dwellings can be
mitigated. Much more intensive clearing for access to lots
in a conventional development is avoided with this design.
Staff opinion is that this request, on balance, provides a
favorable design alternative to conventional development,
and does comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and provisions of section 10.3.3.2. Therefore, staff
recommends approval.
13
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
choose to approve SP-90-119, staff recommends the following
conditions:
Recommended .9onditions of Approval:
1. Not more than 4 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 shall qualify as "Family Divisions";
2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on
the development lots. Trees shall be installed within
two planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the dwelling on the lot;
3. Dwellings shall be of earth tone materials and clearing
shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for
the construction of access roads and dwellings.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve SUB-90-244.
staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are
met:
a. Recreation Facilities Authority and staff approval
of easement documents to include provisions for
the protection of historic sites;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
d. Staff approval of homeowner's documents providing
for the maintenance of the open space and ponds;
e. Staff approval of final subdivision plat;
f. Watershed Management Official approval of grading
plan to ensure compliance with the proposed Water
Resource Protection Ordinance;
g. Department of Engineering and Watershed Management
Official approval of road design for access to
family dwellings/lots to insure adherence to best
management practices as outlined in the Watershed
Management Official's memo dated February 26,
1991.
14
SP-90-120
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow
for a bridge to be constructed in the floodplain of Ivy
Creek. No other access to the property is available which
does not involve the crossing of the Ivy Creek floodplain.
The applicant's proposed crossing is located in the
approximate location of the existing bridge which provides
access to the existing houses on the property. The existing
bridge structure is inadequate for a public road and
therefore must be replaced in order for a public road to be
built and accepted into the state system. The Engineering
Department has reviewed the request and recommends approval
(Attachment E). Staff opinion is that this request is
consistent with section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval of SP-90-l20 subject to the following
conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. 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. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
bridge and road plans.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Watershed Management Official Comments dated February
12, 1991
D - Watershed Management Official Comments dated February
26, 1991
E - Department of Engineering Comments
F - Applicant's Justification
15
;;
~
'N
HiU i
.. ,~. ~. -
WhiteHall ~
:) "'-, , \\ r;r.';G
-<JI81 0 ~- .\t!~
'--_ ,:..J \ Q",:-...
&.... "~\
IATTACHMENT AI
--'
MOUNT ;"IN
'C.,..:oO~
c;f- s,
",0
~..'
mans
\
,.
I
: ~
t Forminglon ~
: Co"rnry Cl"b ~
I
CharlOlte5ville
Reservoir
'''~
~ '
'.....~ .10,
.. ,
v
1691.1
~~ ~~,
'\ . ':)\' " ' ~
,':! Gcles't'lI't:..... ~1
~ '; 1 .. ' .:; r 697 I ~
.f. ,-
~....." ~!
o
;>. [7451
"\:'~.
/)~~j"r8~8l
, ~ .. ,\\,~
~' ~,~.-
a." _
, . . . l2!2
, I
" I
/, ' I 5
I
I
: /
I Jt6J
,mZ7
, ;;
'.1
)
,:'"
~
:.\\,
\
I
:,
@EJ\
\
-,
:J
@]
@iJ
Redl
, ~.
CASTLE
ROCK
. ',~
Hear\l'i. Mtn F T
~.,
"
",<-
0"'"
,,~
'?''''
~~
s." ,_ A,~~ / n ."!
r. "..../...." I' '!'! '
<.T,. //- ....,t. '. ,I I "
. "~">t~(,,
~ ./" "'\, r-' ";,,'.
,-;.... / '- Co(t~" 'j, )....
brllJu4: '\
"-
\
,<\ ./' -.
y
./
c;)
BOAl
MOUNT AIN
<(\..:"'-.1
1i4",!
~,,,,
'lI
,-~n, ~I .',' .J
i.-, '_~.' I, .' ~~~~
~,' ~,' -''''Ha1U'''
'~'-~~I.,J
'v \'...
'J~ . "e~~'~ ,/ ~ow~11
J
\
i;
f.
,~r' ~~~.
c;,
\
699]', .
,<\>-~
-
SP-9Q-119
llie ROCKS
-
-
.....0:.1
"'"
I{)
I'-
Z
Q
.....
o
w
Cf)
\J.J
...J .
c::~\
~ 'j
~ .
\J.J /
CO '
...J \. .
~
I
---~'
.-',",
"" "
._,_.~: ''''.
: '"
~'-, )-.
\\\ ~-- /
'-;-- ~-""'.-l
.---' \ ........
I-
:2
a:
I-
:!:
c
a:
~~
..J
~
..J
W
::l
~
~
(f)
! \.
"
'--
z
o
~
o
w
Cf)
\J.J
l-
t:>
a:
I-
VI
Q
a:
w
..J
..J
~
..J
W
::l
~
~
(f)
I ""-..-
\
-\
I .~
~,--<; ; Ii, '
'.;. ~~ .. '-.
~ "
L-- ----- .
. \ \." --- ').,---. /
;. ' ,,_.~j
~. -T _ ,''\, ~ --t .
\..-' x..-j.-...... \ /. .~;
~,/ x '-.. \ ;'
- \ ~ " .-\;
1
',"
<
.
i! Ilr1i.
B
, .
rl~
II ~
.it:
(
. .
\ATIACHMENT C~
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARL01TESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841
~~wItJ]
FEB 12 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM:
~.~/ .// ~:"~7 /
J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr. .?~ v -,. /- ~_....
Watershed Management Official(/
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE:
February 12, 1991
RE:
The Rocks Preliminary Plat - McKee/Carson
Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18A, 18B and 23
The following comments are provided regarding the revised
preliminary plat for the above referenced project:
o The applicant has agreed to comply voluntarily with the
regulations found in the County's proposed Water Resource
Protection Areas Ordinance. While a final draft of this
ordinance has not yet been completed, the section pertaining to
proposed encroachment into Resource Protection Areas (RPA's)
will not likely undergo substantive revision. According to ttl0
draft ordinance, a major water quality impact assessment is
required for "any development which results in 10,000 square
feet of land disturbance or greater within RPA's and requires
modification or reduction of the landward 50 feet of the 100
foot buffer area" (Section 90 of draft). The proposed stream
crossing of Ivy Creek and entrance road appears to encroach on
more than 10,000 square feet of the Resource Protection Area.
In accordance with the draft ordinance the following items are
required for a major water quality impact assessment:
A. The requirements for a minor water quality assessment:
(1) Location of the Resource Protection Area,
including the 100 foot buffer area;
(2) Location and nature of the proposed development
into the buffer area, including: paved areas,
areas of clearing or grading, location of any
structures, drives or other impervious cover:
and sewage disposal systems or reserve
drainfield sites;
(3) Type and location of best management practices
to mitigate the proposed encroachment.
,,~
- IATTACHMENT C Ipage :
memo to Fritz: ROCKS
page 2
B. These additional items for a major assessment:
(1) Existing topography, soils and hydrology of the
site;
(2)
Estimation of pre and post-development nonpoint
source pollutant loads in runoff;
(3)
Estimation of the percent increase in impervious
surface on the site, including the type of
paving materials to be used;
(4 )
The location of drainage structures and
materials, including, but not limited to, the
size and composition of pipes and inlets;
(5) The location of any stream crossings, including
the design of the crossing and mitigative
measures to be used during and after
construction; and
(6) Evidence of all necessary local, state and
federal permits for encroachment into
floodplains, non-tidal wetlands, and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
Most of these items have already been addressed or will be
addressed in the development review process. Item A(l) could
be accomplished by using the existing 100 foot buffer shown on
the site plan, adding any non-tidal wetlands, drawing the full
100 foot buffer along both Ivy Creek and wetlands, and labeling
this area the RPA. Item A(3) has not been shown on the Site
Plan, but could be demonstrated on the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan. More detail could be provided for numbered items
1 - 6 in B above. Evidence of permits B(6) will have to be
presented at a later time.
o The cul-de-sac for Road
foot building and setback.
Runoff Control ordinance do
grading into the stream and
buffer should be avoided.
"A" is placed largely within the
While the Zoning ordinance and
not specifically prohibit this,
substantial disturbance of the
100
o A stream crossing will be required for the driveway to
access lot 25 and the driveway for lot 26 will largely be
within the 100 foot building and septic setback.
ws91-31
IATTACHMENT 01
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
OFFICE OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
40 1 MCiNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4596
(8041 296-5841
MEMORANDUM
'f~~!:":"~"~C"'1t"':'I.~~
lilH II: i;..,r'~; ~'" ;0.:1 ~.' \<;,';/1 ~-'I ~~
I Ii ~~1 \ +.",,~'~,J ~a t u ~ :,.' ,:: 1~:2 I'" II ~
I ,'7 "....'- :,,,.,,,,'r;>':;' I. '." ~
~ ~\ ~ )~; .~,':I.-.-"- -. \.f:/ ,~: _"~'l -:- i 0 ; ...
,fl., --"" -c.".' .',
1;l'1 -"; ;, !,J
(.iJ~~J ;^~_ ';..;~.;;1
'C ~, ~>.J 1391
TO:
william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM:
J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr ',./'
Watershed Management Official
PI · h / ' , ' '. "-. -
.r t..; \ t ; \; . .; ,". ~ >.... f ,~
~.. )< ~: ", ~ -:. 'h...:' ::....
~ :::: C ~\l
DATE:
February 26, 1991
RE:
The Rocks Preliminary Plat - Access Road
to Family Division Parcels
Per the meeting yesterday between the applicant, myself,
you, Wayne Cilimberg and Ron Keeler, I am forwarding the
following comments pertaining to the proposed access road into
the preservation tract.
The following represent general aspects of road
construction which should be considered in final design:
Road to Preservation Tract
o stream crossing design considerations
culverts (composition)
oblique crossing (minimize impact)
diversion of drainage
o pavement considerations
gravel vs. paved
crowned road vs. directed drainage
o drainage considerations
rip-rap lined ditch
water bars/diversions
other "natural" design
Specific decisions on how these considerations are to be
. incorporated will have to be made at the time of final road
design.
I am including excerpted pages from the following
documents:
1. Best Manaqement Practices Handbook: Hvdroloqic
MOdifications, VWCB Planning Bulletin 319,
pgs. III-9 to III-I0.
IATTACHMENT 011Page 2\
memo to Fritz: ROCKS
page 2
2. Prince william County Desiqn and Construction
Standards Manual, pgs. 7-11 to 7-14
These materials may prove useful in determining what controls
are appropriate for design of drainage for the proposed road.
The applicant is also advised to refer to the Virqinia Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook, practices 1.45 to 1.49 for
specific measures to protect the stream during construction.
Considering that the remaining portion of the preservation
tract remains limited in terms of development potential, the
amount of impervious cover created by the proposed road should
not be significant in relation to the undeveloped portion.
Incorporation of the types of best management practices
outlined in this memo and attachments can effectively mitigate
any impacts on water quality.
If you or the applicant have any questions or want
additional information, please feel free to contact me.
ws91-40
COUNTY OF ALB
IATTACHMENT EI -
, .
., '
:,' f
",..~~~!~
'J'-';:,'/
<<;.- ..~'.
.. '\ ~~ 1991
P ~.';;'i ~ \ ;' . , ;\: ::'~~ ~> j:~' ~ '~-~ i:J ;..~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM: Wayne A. Smith, Sr. , Civil Engineer II y1(~
DATE: January 29, 1991
RE: The Rocks Preliminary Plat (SDP-90-224)
THE SRC COMMENTS MADE JANUARY 10, 1991 HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS A PRELIMINARY; THE FINAL CALCS.
FOR A COMPLETE HYDROLOGIC STUDY WILL BE DONE ONLY AFTER (IF) THE
SITE PLAN IS APPROVED.
THIS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ALLOWING BUILDING IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
WAS/vlh
IATTACHMENT F, Page 11
PLANNING JUSTIFICATION AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
"THE ROCKS" RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Verulam Farm Limited Partnership (VLFP) McKee/Carson is submitting two
applications for Special Use Permits (10.5.2.1) & (30.3.5.2.1) and a preliminary plat for the
subdivision of 642.10 acres situated on the south side of SR 637 at its intersection with 164 in the
Samuel Miller District. The subject site is described on Tax Map 74 as parcels 18, 18A, 18B, and 23
and is commonly known as ''The Rocks." An analysis of the existing parcels of record indicates that
there are 46 development rights within the boundary of the parcels described above. The purpose
of these permits and plat is to allow for a rural preservation development comprised of 39 clustered
lots, a rural preservation tract of 382.82 acres and an open space tract of 114.90 acres. VFLP proposes
that 4 development rights remain with the rural preservation tract to be utilized as a family
division.
Approximately 29% of the total site is currently being used for pasture and hay production; the
balance is in woodland. There are three dwelling units located on the property which are all
accessed by one internal road. The north east boundary of the site is 1-64; to the southwest is the
"Rosemont" subdivision and the "Rock Mills" site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE
The Comprehensive Plan provides for the rural preservation development. The Plan states:
"...The advantages of the small lot option are: (1) acreage is preserved for agricultural/forestal use
and is not unnecessarily wasted on home sites; (2) the land owner may derive economic benefits
from lots and still continue agricultural/forestal activities on open space; and (3) the landowner
does not have to develop steep or inaccessible land, but may use it as open space and develop small
lots on more suitable land." The Plan states that a special use permit shall be required for
clustering more than 20 lots.
Rural Preservation Objectives
The Comprehensive Plan requires that all decisions regarding the rural areas including
special use permits be reviewed relative to the four major elements stated in the Plan. ''The
four major elements are: (1) preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; (2) water
supply protection; (3) limited service delivery to rural areas; and (4) consideration of
natural scenic and historical resources." VFLP will address each of these items which are
also found in Section 10.3.3.2 and 10.5.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
(1) Preservation of Agricultural and Forestal Lands and Activities
A comparison of the conventional development option to the proposed rural preservation
option shows that the goals and objectives of The Comprehensive Plan are more readily
achieved by the dedication of casements over 77 % of the site for the purpose of agricultural
and silvicultural uses. The rural preservation option which allows for flexibility in the
location of residential clusters on less sensitive portions of the site will, if approved,
guarantee the preservation of the most sensitive areas of the site for open space, resource
protection and recreation.
1
IATTACHMENT F, Page 21
(2) Water Supply Protection
VFLP is proposing that 382.82 acres situated on the south east side of the site be encumbered
by a perpetual easement to the Albemarle County Recreation Authority and to be known as
the rural preservation tract of this development. VFLP is proposing that 114.90 acres
adjoining 1-64 to the north and on both sides of Tvy Creek to the west be dedicated as open
space and encumbered by an casement to the homeowners association. VFLP agrees to
voluntarily comply with the regulations found in the Water Resource Protection Ordinance
currently under consideration by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. In addition to
these measures VFLP is proposing the use of other effective water quality Best Management
Practices which will meet the performance criteria for new development found in VR 173-02-
01. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. These
regulations require that, for new development, the post-development nonpoint source
pollution runoff load shall not exceed the pre-development load based upon average land
cover conditions. Please see section below titled "Proposed Best Management Practices."
Access to the development lots is, in general, to be along the existing fann road alignment.
Internal roads have been designed to minimize stream crossings.
(3) Effect of Development on Services to Rural Areas and Capital Improvement Programming
The subject property is located at the intersection of SR 637 and 1-64 and therefore has a high
level of transportation service to the urban area. SR 637 is currently tolerable and the
introduction of approximately 430 additional vehicle trips per day on to approximately 500
feet of SR 637 before moving on to 1-64 will require no additional road improvements.
The development of this site to the densities proposed may result in approximately 30
additional students in the county public school system. The subject site is currently under land
use taxation and generates $3838 per year in real estate taxes. After development, based on a
reasonable estimate of fair market value, real estate tax revenues would generate
approximately $155.000 annually.
(4) Conservation of Natural, Scenic or Historic resources
Rumor has it that the remains of the stone house in which Edgar Allen Poe wrote the
"Raven" is located on the subject property near the top of "Bear Den Mountain." The
proposed rural preservation tract includes the ruins of an old stone house which is believed to
be the remains of this historic structure, The existence of this site should be documented and
language included in the rural preservation casement which provides for its preservation in
perpetuity if appropriate. This proposal also achieves the preservation of the natural and
scenic resources of an important section of the "Ragged Mountain Range," a natural landmark
visible from many points in the county. TIle plan offers the advantage of an undisturbed
buffer a minimum of 300 feet wide along 1-64 and SR 637. Due to the topography of the site
some of the proposed lots will be visible from 1-64 and SR 637. VFLP proposes the adoption of
a landscape plan consistent with comprehensive plan recommendations of 10 planted trees per
acre on areas developed on open acreage. Additional landscaping may be necessary
dependent upon the final design statement to be a part of covenants of restrictions which will
be developed by VFLP.
c
2
(ATTACHMENT F; Page 3/
Conformity with Design Standards of the Comprehensive Plan
The rural preservation option is intended to encourage more effective land use relative to the
goals and objectives set forth in the comprehensive plan than can be achieved with
conventional development. The Comprehensive Plan states that clustered lots and open space
be developed in conformance witl- ~he following general standards.
"Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal
soils as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States
Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent
reliability by the Soil Conservation Service."
There are no Class I soils on the site. The largest contiguous grouping of Class II soils is
located within the open space tract which is to be preserved for agricultural and open space
use. Approximately 10 acres of Class II soils or 1.5% of the site are within the developed
area. The rural preservation tract is comprised of mountain land soil types with
approximately 10% being Class II. The balance of the soils is predominantly Class N - VII.
"Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or floodplain and shall be
situated as far as possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking
water impoundments."
The subdivision has been designed so that the development lots do not encroach into any major
areas of critical slopes. All housing sites have have been located to avoid critical slopes. No
development lots encroach into the 100 year flood plain. Please refer to the section on Best
Management Practices for information concerning impact on water supply tributaries.
~
"Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings
deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such
features are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel."
The development lots are clustered in one section of the property which allows for the
preservation of approximately 77% of the total site. There is no intrusion of the rural
preservation tract or open space parcel between any development lots. This plan provides for
the existing farm complex to remain within a single lot of approximately 11 acres.
All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with
Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle.
Access is restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle,
Compatibility with neighborhood 10.5.2.1
The size. shape. topo~raphy and existing ve~etation of the proverty in relation to its
suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States
DCJJartment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Vir~inia DqJartment of Forestry.
3
IATTACHMENT ~ Page 4/
The actual suitability of the soil for a~ricultural or forestal production as the same shall be
shown on the most recen~ published maps of the United States Department of A~riculture Soil
Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil
Conservation Service.
As stated above the sitn. is comprised of 642.10 acres. There are approximately 188 acres of
open land which is currently being used for pasture and hay production. The balance of 454
acres is forest land. The proposed rural preservation development will insure the
preservation of all but 1.5% of the Cass II soils found on the site. Virtually all of the forested
land is to be included in the rural preservation tract. The majority of the open land within
the development tract is not suitable for crop production due to slope, field size and shape.
Grazing of cattle on severe slopes has caused serious erosion problems. Field inspection
reveals evidence of sediment and nutrient loading of Ivy Creek and tributary streams caused
by over grazing and destruction of stream bank vegetation by cattle.
The historic commercial a~ricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950.
The subject property has been a cattle farm since before 1950.
With respect to application for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within
the boundaries of the watershed of any public drinking water impoundmen~ the following
additional factors shall be considered:
The amount and quality of existinv ve{letative cover related to filtration of sediments.
phosphorous. heavy metals. nitro~en and other substances determined harmful to water
quality for human consumption:
The 144 acres which is proposed to be developed into lots and roads is currently in a poor
quality vegetative cover. The 114.90 acre open space parcel is currently being grazed by cattle
and has some areas of severe erosion. The hay fields on this parcel are in good condition
effectively filtering sediments and assimilating nutrients. The 382 acre rural preservation
tract is in forest which is the most beneficial land use for water supply protection.
The extent to which existin!l ve5?etative cover would be removed or disturbed during the
construction phase of any development:
The construction of roads will be the primary land disturbing activity during the
development of the site. This activity will require the temporary disturbance of
approximately 10.5 acres of land. The road system alignment has been designed to minimize
any negative environmental impacts. For a more complete discussion of erosion and sediment
controls please refer to section on Best Management Practices.
The amount of impervious cover which will exist after dcvelovment:
It is estimated that approximately .9% of the site will be impervious after development.
The proximity of any vaved area. structure. or drainfield to any perennial or intermittent
stream or impoundment: or durin~ the construction phase. the proximity of any disturbed area
to any such stream or impoundment:
Roads have been designed to minimize stream crossings. Housing si tes and drain fields have
been located at least 100 feet from any stream or wetland. Any drainfield which appeared to
be close to the 100 stream or wetland setback was field verified for compliance with all
4
IATTACHMENT R Page 51
ordinance requirements. All lots have becn ficld chccked for adequatc bui1din~ sites on slopes
of lcss than 25%.
The type and characteristics of soils includin~ suitability for s~tic fields and erodibility:
Soil Services Inc. has conducted soil borings and located suitable drainfield locations on each
lot shown on the preliminary subdivision plat. Soils on the steeper slopes have the highest
potential for erodibility. These areas are not intended for, nor will they be developed.
The percenta~e and len~th of all slopes subiect to disturbance durin~ construction or upon
which any structure. paved area. or active recreational area shall exist after development,
Of the to.85 acres impacted during road construction approximately .3 acre, in isolated small
patches averaging 1900 square feet each, is located on slopes greater than 25%.
The estimated duration and timin~ of the construction phase of any proposed development
and extent to which such duration and time are unpredictable.
Although no timing or phasing plan has been established construction shall be scheduled so
that grading operations can begin and end as soon as possible. Sediment trapping measures
shall be installed as a first step in grading and shall be seeded and mulched immediately
following installation.
The de~ree to which ori~inal topo~raphy or vegetative cover have been altered in
anticil1ation of filing for any permit hereunder.
The only activity in anticipation of this permit to take place on site has been soil borings for
drain field locations.
The extent to which standards of Chal1ter 19.1 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be
met throu~h the creation of artificial devices. which devices will:
1. Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance:
2, Are susc~tible to failure to overflow for run-off associated with anyone hundred
year or more intense storm,
The two wet ponds shown on the preliminary subdivision plat and erosion and sediment
controls are the only proposed artificial devices designed to meet the standards of Chapter
19.1 et seq. of Ule Code of Albemarle, The wet ponds will be designed to accommodate a
minimum 100 year storm frcquency evcnt. Soil erosion and sedimcnt control practices will be
constructed and maintained to the standards and specifications of the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook, The minimal maintenance required will be guaranteed by the
homeowner's association to be formed upon conunencement of the project.
An analysis of thc-.'land use within one mile of the site indicates a significant amount of rural
residential land use, Within this same general land area there are several grazing farms.
The vast majority of the steepcr mountain slopes in the area are wooded and, if well
managed, have excellent potential for future silvicuItural use. The devclopment of
approximately 22% of the site to residcntial use appcars to be compatible with existing land
use in the area.
5
IATTACHMENT F; Page 61
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The potential impact of a rural development such as this, with an average lot size of 3.09 acres is
minimal. The proposed impervious site conditions, the distance that post-development runoff will
travel before discharging into Ivy Creek, and the amount of area which will discharge directly
;nto the creek, make a significant effect on the watershed unlikely. However, construction activity
and the site's increased impervious surface must be taken into consideration if the creek 's integrity
is to be preserved.
An effort has been made to identify any potential negative impact of this proposal on the
watersheds of public drinking water impoundments and to investigate alternative engineering
solutions which may reduce or alleviate any potential impact. Because of plan scale limitations, the
preliminary nature of the development plan and the fact that no detailed design has been completed
for the area's runoff, our recommendations for best management solutions to reduce pollutant loadings
must be based on rational assumptions of existing conditions in the subject site watershed.
VFLP is deeply committed to the protection of Ivy Creek, and the watershed of the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir and desires to conserve and enhance the natural areas on the site. In keeping with this
philosophy, we are proposing the use of Best Management Practices, voluntary compliance with the
proposed Water Resource Protection Ordinance and Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Practices
to ameliorate any effect of construction on the water resources of the County.
Access Road to Family Division
In an effort to mitigatec.any negative environmental impacts associated with the construction and
maintenance of the access road to the family division area VFLP proposes the following Best
Management Practices and design standards which were recommended by the Albemarle County
Watershed Management official:
1. Those recommendations contained in the Best Management Practices Handbook:
Hydrologic Modifications. YWCB Planning Bulletin 319 pgs. III-9 to III-I0.
2. Prince William County Design and Construction Standards Manual pgs. 7-11 to 7-14.
3. During construction the applicant agrees to comply with practices described in section
1.45-1.47 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
All appropriate Best Management Practiccs containcd in other sections of this text will be during
the construction of and for future maintenance of this access road.
6
IATTACHMENT F; P~ge 71
PROPOSED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Through the course of pur preliminary planning, we have explored several methods to minimize the
effects of construction on Ivy Creek. These are discussed below; reference is made to the
Commonwealth of Virginia's Best Mana~cmcnt Practices Mana~ement Handbook. and the
Commonwealth of Virginia's Best Mana~ement Urban Practices Handbook.
Control measures which will be implemented include:
Pollution Source Controls to improve runoff quality by reducing generation of runoff contaminants.
Measures which will be adopted include the use of vegetative controls and nonpoint source pollution
control on construction sites.
Vegetative Controls
Vegetative controls provide a natural reduction of nonpoint source pollution by utilizing the
natural capacity of plant materials to intercept and absorb runoff-related pollutants and aid
in the interception and infiltration of runoff. Vegetation provides a natural means of
controlling pollution and runoff by intercepting rainfall, filtering runoff, improving
infiltration and reducing soil erosion.
The use of vegetation as a pollution source control can be accomplished by the retention of
existing natural vegetation and the establishment of new vegetation. Retaining and
protecting as much of the existing woodland as possible, especially in stream valleys and
along steep slopes, can provide improved water quality downstream.
The establishment of new vegetation will be part of a sound and sensitive landscape design
and planning effort for the entire site as well as for each individual lot. A landscape
architect will supervise the selection of existing vegetation to be maintained and the
establishment of new vegetation. Strict landscape design covenants will be in place for both
the road and easements, as well as for individual lots.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control on Construction Sites
Construction activities could create sources of potential pollutants which could affect runoff
quality during the time construction activities are undertaken. The following measures can be
used to minimize this nonpoint source pollution:
· Erosion and Sediment Controls
Soil erosion and sediment control measures can reduce construction-related contaminants.
Appropriate soil erosion and sediment control practices will be implemented to protect
graded slopes and drainage ways, trap sediment, reduce off-site sediment runoff and stabilize
newly graded areas.
All sediment control practices will be constructed and maintained according to the
standards and specifications of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
Measures to be implemented include structural practices, management strategies,
temporary stabilization, and permanent stabilization methods.
Structural Practices will include a temporary construction entrance, silt fences, temporary
sediment traps, outlet protection devices, rip rap, and check dams where necessary.
7
IATTACHMENT F; Page al.
With respect to management strategies, construction shall be scheduled so that grading
operations can begin and end as quickly as possible. Sediment trapping measures shall be
installed as a first step in grading and shall be seeded and mulched immediately following
installation. Temporary seeding and mulching is to be done in accordance with Std. and
Specs. 1.65 and 1.75 of the 1980 Vir~nia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Areas
which are not to be disturbed shall be clearly marked by flags, signs, etc.
Temporary stabilization shall apply to all areas which must be temporarily seeded in
accordance with General Criteria No.1 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook.
Permanent stabilization will apply to all areas disturbed by construction immediately
following finished grading. Seeding of all disturbed areas, including liming, mulching
and fertilizing, shall be done in accordance with E&S Std. and Spec. 1.66 of the 1980
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
A final soil erosion and sediment control plan, along with a narrative will be submitted
at the time of final plan review.
· Equipment Maintenance and Repair
Maintenance and repair of construction machinery and equipment shall be confined to
specifically designated areas on the site. These areas shall be located in areas where oils,
gasoline, grease, and other potential pollutants cannot be washed into receiving streams or
other sensitive areas.
· Waste Collection and Disposal
Provisions for the collection and disposal of waste material on the site shall include the
location of waste containers for collection in areas where potential pollutants cannot be
washed into receiving streams. Waste disposal shall ultimately be carried out in accordance
with local and state health and safety regulations.
· Washing Areas
The washing of vehicles such as cement trucks and other construction equipment shall be
performed in areas where the runoff will spread out and evaporate or infiltrate directly into
the ground. Special areas should be designated for this use and have gravel or rock bases to
minimize mud generation.
· Storage of Construction Materials
If there are any potential water pollutants to be used on the construction site (such as
chemicals, cements, solvents, etc.), these will be stored in designated areas where they will
not cause runoff'pollution and where they will be prevented from leaching into the ground
through the use of plastic mats or oUler measures of this type.
· Sanitary Facilities
Adequate sanitary facilities for workers shall be provided in accordance with applicable
health regulations.
8
IATTACHMENT F, Page 91
· Dust Control
Dust control during construction will be accomplished by watering rather than by the
application of chemicals.
Runoff controls to modulate volume and rate of discharge of runoff from the site.
The methods selected to provide runoff control are generally dependent upon site topography, site
plan configuration, amount of impervious surfaces, water quality goals and other factors. Due to the
limited amount of proposed impervious area, runoff control measures will not be required at 'The
Rocks". However, the developer will utilize of impoundments and grassed waterways to moderate
the rate of discharge of runoff from the site, as well as to enhance and compliment the natural
setting of the property.
Grassed Waterways
Grassed waterways utilize the natural capacity of grassed surfaces to reduce runoff
velocities, enhance infiltration and remove runoff contaminants. This practice is most
applicable in low density developments where the percentage of impervious cover is
relatively small. The choice of rural sections for the road system in lieu of urban sections
makes this practice an integral part of the proposed road system since the roadside ditches
are in effect grassed waterways which provide a non-erodible channel lining which
decreases flow velocity.
Impoundments
Where topography allows, wet ponds will be built which will provide stormwater retention
and downstream water quality improvement. TIle applicability of this practice is directly
dependent upon the availability of an adequate site for the impoundment. The existing
topography of the site lends itself very easily to this application. The location of potential
ponds is shown on the preliminary plan. Provision of tile ponds will improve downstream
water quality by allowing soil, sediment and other particles to settle out. Channel erosion
and sediment pollution can be expected to decrease with the reduction of runoff rates, and
chemical transformation can occur while the water is retained in the pond, thereby increasing
its quality.
Nutrient Loading Calculations
VFLP has completed a preliminary analysis of pre-development and post-development nutrient
loading levels based on the keystone pollutant phosphorous. This analysis is based on the
methodology described in the Local Assistance Manual published by the Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Board. The following calculations are based on certain assumptions concerning the
average amount of impervious surface area in the general vicinity of the site.u
9
-' .
IATTACHMENT F, Page 101
(The following calculation procedure was taken from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Manual.)
(1) Compile post- development site-specific data and determine site imperviousness (Isite).
A
Ia structures
Ia parking lot
Ia roadway
Total Ia
=
144.380 acres
2.703 acres
0.000 acres
4.337 acres
6.037 acres
=
=
=
=
Isite = (total Ia/ A) x 100
=
5% expressed as whole number
Note: Ia represents the actual amount of impervious area.
(2) Determine the average land cover conditions (Iwatershed).
(3) Set constants.
Pj =.9 (rainfall correction factor)
P = 43 (annual rainfall)
Cpost = 1.08
(4) Calculate the pre-development load (Lpre).
Lpre = P x Pj x [0.05 + (0.009 x Iwatershed)] x Cpre x A x 2.72/12
= 43 x .9 x [0.05 +(0.009 x 2)] x 1.08 xl44.38 x 2.72/12
= 92.98 pounds per year
(5) Calculate the post-development load (Lpost).
Lpost = P x Pj x [0.05 + (0,009 x Isite)] x Cpost x A x 2.72/12
= 43 x .9 x [0.05 + (0.009 x 5)] x 1.08 x 144.38 x 2,72/12
= 129.90 pounds per year
(6) Calculate the pollutant removal requirement (RR).
RR = Lpost - Lpre
= 129.90 - 92.98
= 36.92 pounds per year
10
. . l .
IATTACHMENT FllPage 11\
To determine the overall BMP efficiency required (%RR) when selecting BMP options:
%RR =RR / Lpost x 100
= (36.92 / 129.90) x 100
= 28.4 %
Based on a 28.4 % increase in phosphorous loading after development we are recommending wet
pond design 5 described in the Local Assistance Manual. This design achieves an average total
phosphorous removal efficiency of 35%. The construction of these wet ponds should create post
development nutrient loading conditions equal to or better than pre-development conditions.
CONCLUSION
We trust that the suggestions expressed herein will assist County staff during the preliminary
subdivision plan review. The developer intends to create a development which compliments the
surrounding area and which is sensitive to the existing natural conditions of the terrain. We
believe that the application of Best Management Practices, Soil Erosion Control Measures, and
sound engineering and landscape design can bring about a development which is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan.
11
(it -'i'()
., :2.L
/) i 7(,', L_(-:
/ t: i .
q/:;;j~ 3.2..1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
March 6, 1991
Garrett & Eleanor Thomas
Rt. 2, Box 273
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP-91-02 Garrett & Eleanor Thomas
Dear Mr. Thomas:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 5, 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. Existing lumber, logs, chips or timber storage shall
not be located closer than 25 feet to any side lot line
nor closer than 75 feet to Route 673. Any new
construction, to include proposed pole barn, or storage
areas shall not be located closer than 100 feet to any
lot line. Trees and vegetation within these setbacks
shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties
and uses, provided that during the last three months of
operation such trees may be removed;
2. Where materials are stored less than one hundred (100)
feet from a lot line a six (6) foot high privacy fence
shall be installed;
3. The use shall be limited to one saw which shall be
located not closer than six hundred (600) feet to any
dwelling on other properties in the area and not closer
than 100 feet to any lot line;
4. No sawing or operation of other processing machinery
shall occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No
loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall occur
between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
Thomas
Page 2
March 6, 1991
5. Submittal of a certified engineer's report to the
County Engineer verifying compliance with the noise
provisions of Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. Not more than one employee, other than the applicant;
7. Upgrading of the entrance in compliance with the
comments of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 3, 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/A{/ Il ~-,..
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Richad Moring
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 5, 1991
APRIL 3, 1991
SP-91-02 GARRET & ELEANOR THOMAS
Petition: Garrett & Eleanor Thomas petitions the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a permanent
sawmill [10.2.2(14) on 5.3 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 31C, is located on
the west side of Route 673 approximately 0.2 miles south of
Route 672 near Montfair in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is not located in a designated growth
area.
Character of the Area: The property is developed with a
single family residence. Approximately six dwellings are
visible to the west of this site. The site under review is
mostly wooded. Uncut and cut timber are being stored on the
site at this time.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant currently operates a temporary sawmill on this
site. Both cut and uncut wood are stored on site. The area
adjacent and to the west of the existing house is used to
store wood while uncut wood occupies the area between the
state road and the house. The applicant operates a 25 hp.
band saw which is on a trailer. The applicant is proposing
to construct a pole barn between the house and the existing
well in which the sawing operation will be placed. The
current operation is exposed to the weather. One employee,
other than the applicant, is proposed.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 and 5.1.15 of
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to
conditions.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: None available.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is located in the Rural Areas
of the County. This type of use is considered to be a "bona
fide" agricultural/forestal use and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (page 203).
1
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant is currently operating a temporary sawmill on
the site at time time. No permit is required or has been
issued for the current operation. No formal complaint has
been filed with the County. However, the Zoning Department
has received one call of concern. The caller did not lodge
a complaint or identify themselves. The current sawmill
operations do not meet the minimum setbacks required by
Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment C).
Those areas which would meet the required 100 foot setback
found in Section 5.1.15(a) are shown in Attachment D. The
location of the saw in relation to other dwellings does not
meet the requirements of Section 5.1.15(b).
Section 5.1 states in part. "In review of any use by special
use permit, the Commission and Board of Supervisors may vary
or waive any provision of this section as deemed appropriate
in a particular case." The saw is on a trailer and is very
mobile and staff recommends that it be relocated so as to
comply with the provisions of Section 5.1.15(b). Staff
opinion is that the saw should also meet the 100 foot
setback for structures referenced 5.1.15(a). Staff has been
able to find one precedent, SP-82-09 Augusta Lumber, to
allow reduced setbacks for other items listed in 5.1.15(a).
The reduced setback in SP-82-09 was allowed due to the
existing sawmill use on site. Staff has reviewed the
current request in a similar manner and recommends that the
existing storage areas for both cut and uncut wood be
allowed in areas closer than 100 feet to adjacent
properties. However, no storage shall be permitted closer
than 25 feet to adjacent properties or 75 feet from the
state road. This setback is equal to the side and front
building setback for the RA, Rural Areas district. In order
to address the concerns of an adjacent property owner, the
applicant has agreed to construct a six foot high privacy
fence adjacent to other lots where material is stored less
than 100 feet from those lots.
Access to this site is by Route 673 which carries 62 vehicle
trips per day along this section. Route 673 is listed as
non-tolerable. However, issuance of this permit should not
result in a significant traffic increase over current levels
due to the existence of a temporary sawmill on-site. Staff
notes that a majority of the traffic to the site will be by
truck. The existing entrance to the site does not have the
minimum required sight distance (Attachment E). However,
adequate sight distance can be obtained. Staff recommends
that sight distance be obtained.
No Engineering information has been submitted to ensure
compliance with the noise limitation requirements of Section
4.14. Staff recommends that a certified engineer's report
be submitted to the County Engineer to verify compliance
with the noise limitations of Section 4.14.
2
Staff opinion is that this use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the following reasons:
1. The sawmill is currently operating on-site and this
permit would have no direct effect on the level of
activity;
2. The use is consistent with the other uses in the Rural
Areas District;
3. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the
following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Existing lumber, logs, chips or timber storage shall
not be located closer than 25 feet to any side lot line
nor closer than 75 feet to Route 673. Any new
construction, to include proposed pole barn, or storage
areas shall not be located closer than 100 feet to any
lot line. Trees and vegetation within these setbacks
shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties
and uses, provided that during the last three months of
operation such trees may be removed;
2. Where materials are stored less than one hundred (100)
feet from a lot line a six (6) foot high privacy fence
shall be installed;
3. The use shall be limited to one saw which shall be
located not closer than six hundred (600) feet to any
dwelling on other properties in the area and not closer
than 100 feet to any lot line;
4. No sawing or operation of other processing machinery
shall occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No
loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall occur
between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
5. Submittal of a certified engineer's report to the
County Engineer verifying compliance with the noise
provisions of Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. Not more than one employee, other than the applicant;
3
7. Upgrading of the entrance in compliance with the
comments of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Location Map
B - Tax map
C - Section 5.15 of the Zoning Ordinance
D - Plat Indicating 1000 Foot Setback
E - Virignia Department of Transportation comments
4
I~'
IATTACHMENT AI
~ r>-'i''f...
LITTLE FLAT
-.J --I ~
~ I
0 i ~
~ I
~ j
.I I
! UJ
<J
.)... Z
UJ
~' l.l.
J..... ",0" \---.,,) -
~ '\
L UJ
Ci Cl:
~. \ '; .::J
'-
/ '"
C harlattesvi II€
Reservoir
.
'1
.-
I
';~
@EJ
0'<-'"
Q;.,?-C'
~.
':;}?s.
5
'?-'?-'<,\..
,,,:>
--
SP-91-02
GARRETT & ELEANOR THOMAS
-
Mill
c:}
.-j,
" \.... .
ALBEMARLE: COUNTY
14
IATTACHMENT 81
~1
SEE Z7-a
SEE
25-27
56
13 .
GARRETT & ELEANOR THOMAS
-
SCALE IN fEn
... '1M .-
"'""
WHITE HALL DISTRICT
SECTION 26
5.1.15
IATTACHMENT C:
1. Any rea~dual post-construction settlement will
not affect the appearance or structural integ-
rity, of the }Jroposed improvement; .
2. The nature and extent of corrosion-producing
properties, the generation and escape of
combustible gases and potential fire hazards,
of the constituent material, considering its
state of decomposition, has been provided for
adequately and will not create an unsafe or
hazardous condition in or around any of said
proposed improvements;
3. There shall be an annual inspection of each
landfill by the county engineer who shall report
his findings to the board of supervisors. In
making such report, the county engineer may
request information from any appropriate
governmental agency he deems necessary. Every
landfill shall be subject to such additional
regulations as may be required by the board of
supervisors including type of debris and
materials to be deposited and soil compaction ".
adequate to support ultimate use of the property.
SAWMILL, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT (SEE ALSO SECTION 5.1.23)
a. No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips
or timber shall be located closer than one hundred
(100) feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation
within the one hundred (100) foot setback shall be
maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and
uses, provided that during the last three months
of operation such trees may be removed;
b. No saw, planer, chipper, conveyor, chute or other
like machinery shall be located closer than six
hundred (600) feet to any dwelling on other
property in the area;
c. No sawing, planing, chipping or operation of other
processing machinery shall occur between 7:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/wood
products shall occur between 12:00 midnight and
7 :00 a.m.;
d. All timbering and milling operations, including
reforestation/restoration and disposal of snags,
sawdust and other debris" shall be conducted in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code and the
regulations of the Virginia Division of Forestry;
e. All such operations shall be subject to the noise
limitation requirements of section 4.14.
-65-
~/ IS TO Ci::RTIFY THAT 0 .. ..J VJ... Y . \ \ 1 ~i
}J.-j~NlN ON THIS PLAT AND 2 TITLE UNES f.'ND WALLS
f
,
\~
~
~
. ~ ry :'
lY~~'C()
"'1/ '\j-
~ ~j
iIv" '-I '<;)
'v~
IATTACHMENT D
pJ//'I1
~:"l.",
:.:~
. . .
. . . .
~.:.:.:.~.
p.........~
~.......
~~:::~.,( '2)
I . . . . . . . .',
~~(4:*:::..
G.4({l-TT S~~;M~~~~f7;;dM.45
P~.:.4t~~:::!::-;;a. ,
~......-;
.......
. . . . . . .
f. . . . . 8-;
. . . . . .
. . \a . . .
............,
. ...81
.... .
.... .
. . . .
.... ...
~
'y-;~
-='> 0
.o<S"--V
o.-y ",
:...:5' <> ~
~ ~:.. <'J-
<<p.. < .> -C>
c- ~,-:o . ~
~It/ ~-"'" -{-..I -s:::.o
"'r
3-
..
...----~
~-
':;.
~
'-"
';$
'.::l~
~"""
. '"
'" ..,.,
....;)~
"'-<.
~J" :;:"
N~
.N -<
,
~~
""
~
'^
,
Pf/Yj/OL 5(),.f'IEY OF
PA R{EL B(2}
t't'/'IT4/;'//NG ').3/4 AC,
~or:;TEO /Jill WE,T jlPc Rrr. t7)'
NE-AK f)oyLtJVfLLE:
IjL3c-MIJI:LE (":It/NT'!/ V/~(J/N' /.(j
<r'>
Il'
t'- '
"'~
~~
':<
.}:'
..,.'
\-:
:,,:
:;.,:
>d ...... 30().O' "~.
;:rr! __ ,174 1.1;),
. ,'1.... " '1F-.'O~ k U-rv U ./
"f.... ~./ 1711 fl-
p~1 ^ ()
51 AfE-
...
XlJRT M. GLOECKNER
ENGINEER , $U1lVt'jO!l , lJIHO I'VoNNER
CHAItLCrrr"-SY1L1..f, VlRGIlllA
SCALE:
/'f-:;!hJ (
o,o.n:: .JV':': /tJ~
Fl tLD BOOK ,( () r E:-)
FlLE NO,
c
JATTACHMENT E/
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
February 12, 1991
Special Use Permits
& Rezonings
March 1991
'1\'3 ~I~' ,,~ ......., ~
, !i '.'t .. ., ~~" .. ".~1. 0; '~-''''
,;'J'~F"':!' :') "I":':~":..'\?'~W
.... "',:1 (.......,~..J...~' ....~.. . ~ .." ~. l "',.....111
.'$:" .: '. \ ".""'( 1....-, J i, .... , ""j
J' ~1" j "'~ii' '>;;,. t,~".:,.';2 \ ~ it ! ~ I ~
~1~ ~p~ '.;il ',"'''' ~~
. . '4. . ~
~~~ "'-~'::'}I
., /.
2.;,) 1991
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Mr. Keeler:
...... 1\
f-Lr:.NNING DIVISION
The following are our comments:
1. SP-91-02 Garrett & Eleanor Thomas, Route 673 - This section of Route 673 is
currently non-tolerable. This request would result in an increase in truck traffic
using Route 673 and the other roads in this area. There are bridges on Route 810 to
both the North and South that have posted weight limits. The lowest legal weight
limit in each direction is 17 tons. The existing entrance to this property only has
I
180 feet of sight distance in each direction. To obtain the minimum 300 feet of
sight distance would require grading of banks and removal of trees in each
direction. Route 673 is a narrow (10') gravel road and the intersection of Routes
673 and 672 is triangular shaped. The existing entrance should have the radii
improved to accommodate the larger vehicles that would serve a sawmill.
2. SP-91-03 The Gardens Partnership, Route 29 N. - It is difficult to determine
whether or not there would be an increase in traffic from this request in comparison
with uses allowed under the C1 zoning. Alignment 10 for the By-Pass shows a
connection through this development as the realigned entrance road for Yoodbrook
Subdivision. Existing Route 1417 would be closed off at Route 29 due to the new
interchange.
Yours truly,
~.a.~
J. A. Echols
Ass't. Resident Engineer
JAE/ldw
129/9/_
1( /oto3.1S-
"',- "'---' ~--- ._". '.-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
c~ j:~)
MEMORANDUM
r t.~l :" ~ ' ...., t'
l( I ; 1 ':, ~ J.
" .
: J I.-
I' '-' ) i ".
I IV.t'ti~ 2,5 ~(\t~l
. I; \ \
I I I ~.
jj lJ LJ:~~:~;'~! . ..~..
":" '
I
. ~ i it
; 1'1:
! !:
I! !
,I I. - . ,.. I
.".j..O...,......,...."
DATE:
~bemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Developmentl!~
F{l-'):'" F: ~"J
( . ~I ~:.
C;,,1;_. ::.:i"','"
:"..~ ~- ,I :.\ (;
TO:
FROM:
March 22, 1991
RE:
SP-89-07 - Winfried Adler
The applicant has requested a six-month extension of this special use
permit approved on April 5, 1989 to allow computer consulting, sales and
service to be located in an existing single family residence at the
intersection of Rio Road and Hillsdale Drive. Since the original
approval, Mr. Adler has been in the process of obtaining the necessary
easements for access, sight distance and sewer connections. These items
have been resolved and the final site plan is scheduled to be signed on
April 4, 1991.
Staff can identify no change in circumstances since the original review
of the special use permit and therefore recommends approval of the
extension request.
WC/blb
cc: SP-89-07 File
Adwell Infosystems Site Plan File
Winfried Adler
Gary Summers
Amelia Patterson
(QJ
.( r.'l
....,. I
../
r0\1
i i 1 !
,....t L,...J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
40 1 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4596
FROM:
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Planning & Community Development
Lettie E. Neher. Clerk ~~
March 15, 1991
MEMO TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SP-89-07, Winifried Adler
I have been contacted by James Canup requesting an extension of six
months on the above noted permit for a computer consulting, sales &
service business in an existing single-family residence located on
the west side of Rio Road between Hillsdale & Old Brook Roads. The
original permit was issued on April 5, 1989. Since the advertise-
ment for the Board's meeting of April 3 had to go to the Progress
today, I have included this as an item to be heard on that date.
Mr. Canup indicated that Rich Tarbell felt the extension might not
be necessary, and if it is not, the ad can be pulled. Unless I
hear to the contrary, this will be on the Board's agenda for April
3, and a staff report will be necessary.
lenj
cc:
Robert Brandenburger
Richard Tarbell .;~b/ ~ t/'/#J79/
George R. St. John
~~ tl1\'-R
\;\11,101 hrri... I~u...t ...'\ .\......w'j:III.:->_ i"'
illl\ ~l'\llh \L.iu ~ln't'1
'I) 1\", II,
lri,b"',:\l,'r. \ ir:Jilli;1 :!::!:n'~
\j,'lrll .{::.~.:~:U";
~IH ~~~~:;.~(dfl
l'II:":IIIi,,'r...
"", II , I" \ , I r ~ .
1'1.111111"1" ,\
I ,:II,d-1 ,'Ill'
\ r.}\I!' ...1.
March 7, 1991
FILE Copy
Mr. Richard G. Tarbell
planner
County Of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
RE: ADWEL INFO SYSTEMS OFFICE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP-89-07
PHR&A #5967 -10
Dear Mr. Tarbell:
We are hereby requesting a six month extension on the approval
of the above referenced special use permit. preparation of
the final site plan has been delayed due to problems
associated wtth obtaining the easements required by the
Albemarle County Service Authority.
We expect that six months will be sufficient time to complete
the final site development plan process with the County.
Thank you for your assistance with placing this on the agenda
for the next scheduled meeting of the Alberroarle County Board
of Supervisors. .
If you have any questions regarding this request, please do
not hesitate to call.
Cordially,
PATTON, HARRIS, RUST AND ASSOCIATES
a professional corporation
William J. Tabor, P.E.
Director of Engineering
John D. Hash
Engineer
JDH/slp
Ilfn.,.."
V:oirfH. \',\
Ilri.I~..\.a"'r. \ \
1,"I..I'llI~. \'\
I:..,.J.,\ ilk \111
\ tr~lllP 1I",...It. \ \
GOO
d31tWI , Ef/t:l'8dHd
n:n
16/pV\Z0
~ W" ~~~~M~
March 14, 1991
Richard E. Tarbell
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22901-4596
RE: 1380 Rio Road Sewer Easement
Dear Mr Tarbell,
My name is Jim Canup, Winfried Adler and I will be handling the
construction affairs for Adwel Infosystems. I am writing this
letter to update you on the current easement situation regarding
the property located at 1380 Rio Road. Albemarle County Service
Authority has agreed to begin construction on the sewer hook-up
from the neighboring property in a timely manner. The owner of the
property, Mr. Weinstein, has agreed to grant Mr. Adler the sewer
easement via the Service Authority, I am enclosing a copy of the
letter sent to Mr. Weinstein from the Albemarle County Service
Authority, The conditions outlined in the letter are being executed
at this time.
Also, please find enclosed a copy of a letter that Gary Summers
with P.H.R. & A. has sent to the Planning Dept. requesting a six
(6) month extension on our Special Use Permit. I would appreciate
any assistance that you can offer in assuring our firm this
extension. I am also going to coordinate with Bobby Shaw to
determine what else must be done to secure the E/S permit so that
we may begin construction on the property before the April 6th
deadline.
If you have any further questions or need more information, please
call Winfried or myself at 978-4400. Thank you for your continuing
support.
dSinCerel(r (J
. Q~~,", . \ (L'--~f
ames C. Canup
JCC/dm
cc: Winfried Adler
Rio Road, Charlottesville, Va. 22901
(804) 978-4400
P.O. Box 7423
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
133 N. Wayne Ave., Waynesboro, Va. 22980
(703) 943,1000
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SFRVICE AUTHORITY
P.O. BOX 1009 401 MciNTIRE RD CI"IAr<LOlllSVILLt. VA 22902 (804) 296-5810
March 11, 1991
Mr. Marcus Weinstein
P. O. Box .31335
Richmond, Virginia 23294
Re: Squire Hills Apartments
Dear Mr. Weinstein:
Th~nk you for calling me last Friday to discuss the sewer
easement your neighbor needs across Squire Hills Apartments to
reach the sani~ary sewer line. You agreed to grant the sewer
easement to Winfried Adler for $2,000 with the condition that
the construction be performed in a timely manner by Albemarle
County Service Authority work forces. Please be assured that
the Albemarle County Service Authority will perform the work
in a timely manner, will restore the disturbed area in a
proper fashion, and will correct any settlement in the trench
for two years following the installation of the sewer line.
I have instructed Mr. Adler to have his attorney present
me with the original of the deed along with a check for
$2,000. I will forward the deed to you for prompt execution
and once I receive the deed back from you I will send you the
$2,000.
We discussed whether the signature of the lender would be
required on this deed. This is a question your attorney may
need to consider. As a general rule, when the Service Author-
ity acquires an easement we do not require a signature by the
lender unless the easement has a significant effect on the
property or unless significant compensation is involved.
Neither seems to be the case here.
I appreciate your frank comments and do understand your
position in this matter. I believe the terms we agreed to are
in everyone's best interest. If I have incorrectly stated or
failed to address any of the terms we agreed to on Friday
please let me know.
Ve2U1Y ~
~W~
J. . Brent
Ex cutive Director
JWB:kst
cc: ~Winfried Adler
Ralph E. Main, Jr.
Paul H. Davenport
James M. Bowling, IV
9,1. v3/3 S6
(,....""'\
t: ('J \\
ft ~ \ ~ .. ;; ~
~ )
, ~
\ ~ :'
"'''',,",,",.....,.....,. ,
.f
, I
\y
iJ:
\,
.j
Edward H Bain. Jr
Samuel Miller
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901A596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 979,1281
AprilS, 1991
Charlotte Y Humphns
,Jilck Jouett
David P Bowerman
Charlollesville
Walter F. PerkinS
White Hall
F. R (Rick) Bowie
Rivanna
Peter T. Way
Scottsville
Mr. Robert L. Laslie
Vice President - Supplements
Municipal Code Corporation
1700 Capital Circle, S.W.
P. O. Box 2235
Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Dear Mr. Laslie:
Enclosed is a copy of an ordinance amending the -Code of
Albemarle Chapter 19.1, Water and Sewers, in Sections 19.1-1
through 19.1-3. Please include these in the next issue of the
supplement.
If there are questions, please contact me.
~Yi />9~
Lettie E. N~~~rk
Board of Supervisors
LEN:ewc
Enclosure
cc: George Williams
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 19.1,
ARTICLE 1 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Article 1 of Chapter 19.1 of the Albemarle
County Code, Sections 19.1-1 through 19.1-3 are hereby amended
and re-enacted as follows:
Part I. PREAMBLE
Section 1. Purpose.
This ordinance sets forth uniform requirements for direct
and indirect discharges into the wastewater collection and
treatment systems of the Albemarle County Service Authority
("ACSA") and Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority ("RWSA"); enable the
ACSA and RWSA to comply with all applicable State and Federal
laws; and provide for the protection of the sewerage systems and
their respective receiving streams.
Section 2.
Scope.
This ordinance provides for controlling the quantity,
character and rate of discharge of sewage into the ACSA's and
RWSA's sewerage systems and the issuance of Industrial Waste
Discharge Permits and shall apply to all discharges, direct or
indirect, into any part of the sewerage system of the ACSA and
RWSA.
Section 3.
Authority.
This ordinance is authorized and required by Section 5.6 of
the agreement dated June 12, 1973 by and between the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County Service Authority, Board of
County Supervisors of Albemarle County and Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority, paragraph 15.1 - 1250, Code of Virginia and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Section 4.
Definitions.
Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the
fOllowing words, phrases, and abbreviations used in these
Regulations shall be defined as follows:
a. APPROVING AUTHORITY - The Executive Director of the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority jointly with the Executive Director of
the Albemarle County Service Authority as appropriate, or their
duly authorized representative.
b. ACSA - Albemarle County Service Authority.
1
c. BOARD - The Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority or the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County
Service Authority as appropriate.
d. B.O.D. (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) - The laboratory
determination of the quantity of oxygen by weight, expressed in
parts per million, utilized in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter under standard laboratory conditions in five (5)
days at 20 degrees C. The laboratory determination shall be in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
e. C. O. D. (Chemi ca I Oxygen Demand) The labora tory
determination of the oxygen equivalent expressed in parts per
million of that portion of the organic matter that is susceptible
to oxidation by the standard dichromate reflux method. The
laboratory determination shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part
136.
f. CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS - Industry-specific
pollutant discharge standards promulgated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
g. DOMESTIC SEWAGE - Waterborne wastes normally discharging
from the sanitary conveniences of dwellings (including apartments
houses and hotels), office buildings, factories and institutions,
free from storm surface water and industrial wastes.
h. INDUSTRIAL WASTES - All waterborne solids, liquids or
gaseous wastes resulting from any industrial, manufacturing,
trade, business or food processing operation or process, or from
the development of any natural resource, exclusive of domestic
sewage.
i. INTERFERENCE - A discharge which, alone or in conjunction
with other discharges, inhibits or disrupts the sewerage system,
its treatment processes, or sludge disposal, and is a cause of
violation of the receiving sewage treatment plant's discharge
permit.
j. PARTS PER MILLION - A weight to weight ratio.
k. PASS THROUGH POLLUTANT - Any pollutant which is unaffected
by the normal sewage treatment processes that could impair water
quality in the receiving stream or cause a violation of the
receiving sewage treatment plant's discharge permit.
1. PERSON - Any individual, association, partnership,
corporation, municipality, State, Federal agency, or any agent or
employee thereof.
m. PERMIT - An Industrial Waste discharge Permit issued
pursuant to this Ordinance.
2
n. pH - The logari thm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the
hydrogen ion concentration.
o. POINT OF DISCHARGE - The point at which waste is discharged
to the publicly owned sewerage system.
p. POLLUTANT - Any man-made or man-induced material that alters
the physical, chemical, biological or radiological integrity of
water.
q. PUBLIC SEWER - Either sanitary or storm sewer in which all
owners of abutting properties shall have equal rights and is
controlled by public authority.
r. RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL OR ISOTOPE - Any material containing
chemical elements that spontaneously change their atomic
structure by emitting any particles or rays.
s. RWSA - Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
t. SANITARY SEWER - A sewer which carries sewage and to which
storm, surface and ground waters are not intentionally admitted.
u. SEPTIC TANK WASTES - Sewage from domestic septic tank
treatment systems.
v. SEWAGE - A combination of water-carried wastes from
res ide n t i aI, co mm e r cia 1, ins tit uti 0 n a I and i n d u s t ria I
establishments, together with such ground, surface and storm
waters as may be present.
w. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT - Any arrangement of devices and
structures used for treating sewage.
x. SEWER - A pipe or condui t used to collect and carry away
sewage or storm water run-off from the generating source to
sewage treatment plants or receiving streams.
y. SEWERAGE - The system of sewers and appurtenances for the
collection, transportation, pumping and treatment of sewage.
z. SHALL AND MAY - "Shall" wherever used in this Ordinance will
be interpreted in its mandatory sense; "may" is permissive.
aa. SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER - Any industrial discharger who:
1. is subject to categorical standards;
2. discharges a non-domestic wastestream of 25,000 gallons
per day or more;
3. contributes 5% or greater to the hydraulic or organic
load of the receiving plant; or
3
4. has a reasonable potential to affect the plant
performance, pass through of pollutants, contaminate
sludge, or endanger collection/treatment workers.
bb. SLUG - Any discharge which in concentration of any pollutant
or in quantity of flow will cause a violation of the prohibited
waste discharges in Part II, Section 1. of this Ordinance.
cc. SURCHARGE - The addi tional charge for treating sewage
containing concentrations of BOD and/or suspended solids in
excess of 240 parts per million.
dd. SUSPENDED SOLIDS - Solids that either float on the surface
of, or are in suspension in water, sewage, or other liquids, and
which are removable by laboratory filtering. Quantitative
determination of suspended solids shall be made in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 136.
ee. TOXIC SUBSTANCES - Any substance whether gaseous, liquid or
solid, of such character or in such quantity that when discharged
to the sanitary sewer will interfere with any sewage treatment
process, cause a hazard to any portion of the sewerage system,
constitute a hazard to any living organism, a hazard in the
stream or watercourse receiving the effluent from the sewage
treatment plant, or interfere with sludge disposal.
ff. TRADE SECRETS - Any formula, plan, pattern, process, tool,
mechanism, material, compound, procedure, production data, or
compilation of information which is not patented, which is known
only to certain individuals within a commercial concern who are
using it to fabricate or produce a compound, an article of trade,
or a service having commercial value and which gives its users an
opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who
do not know or use it.
Part II. DISCHA.RGE REQUIREMENTS
Section I. Prohibited Waste Discharges.
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into any
portion of the sewerage system, directly or indirectly, any
pollutant or wastewater which will interfere with the operation
or performance of the collection system or sewage treatment
plant; constitute a hazard to human life or health, interfere
with or impede the disposal of treatment by-products such as
scums and sludges; pass through the treatment system so as to
violate any local, State or Federal stream standard; or create a
public nuisance. Discharges of the fOllowing are expressly
prohibited:
4
a. Any waste having a temperature greater than 150 degrees F at
the point of discharge or of such temperature and quantity to
cause the sewage treatment plant influent temperature to exceed
104 degrees F.
b. Any water or waste containing more than 100 parts per
million of fat, oil, or grease, as determined by procedure 5520
B. Partition Gravimetric Method of the 17th Edition of "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," published
jointly by APHA-AWWA and WPCF. An analytic value of greater than
100 parts per million shall require further testing utilizing
procedure 5520 F. Hydrocarbons, and compliance will be
determined based on the two test results.
c. Any petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or
products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause
interference or pass through.
d. Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha or other hydrocarbon solvents
or oils, or other flammable or explosive liquids, solids or gases
with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees F.
e. Any waters or wastes having a stabilized pH lower than 6.0
or higher than 9.0 or having properties capable of causing damage
to structures and equipment of the sanitary sewerage system.
f. Any noxious or malodorous gas or substance capable of
creating a public nuisance, or any substance or compound, which,
when introduced into a reducing environment such as might exist
in the sewer system, might cause the evolution of a malodorous
gas and thereby create a public nuisance.
g. Any discharge of pollutants which result in the presence of
toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity that may cause acute
worker health and safety problems.
h. Any trucked or hauled wastes except as provided for in Part
II, Section 4. of this Ordinance.
i. Any waters or wastes having objectionable color which is not
removable by the existing sewage treatment plant processes.
j. Any waters or wastes containing BOD, COD, or suspended
solids of such character and quantity that unusual attention or
expense is required in the handling of such materials in the
sewerage system.
k. Any stormwater, surface water, ground water, roof run-off,
subsurface drainage, uncontaminated cooling water, or unpolluted
industrial process waters.
5
1. Any wastes containing any radioactive materials or isotopes
of such halflife or concentration as may exceed any limits
established by applicable State or Federal regulations.
m. Any water added for the purpose of diluting wastes which
would otherwise exceed applicable maximum concentration limits
set for any pOllutant at the point of discharge, but which would
accumulate to undesirable quantities in the collection and/or
treatment systems.
n. Any wastes containing concentrations of phenols, arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury,
nickel, silver, zinc or other substances in excess of
concentrations which may be adopted by the Board.
o. Any slug discharges.
p. Any wastes requiring the introduction of a quantity of
chlorine or any other compound beyond the range normally required
for sewage treatment purposes.
q. Any solid or viscous substances capable of causing
obstruction to flow in sewers or interference with proper
operation of the sewage treatment facilities.
r. Any lime sludges resulting from the pretreatment and/or
removal of metals.
Section 2.
Construction and Interpretation.
The omission of any particular waste from the standards
outlined hereinabove does not imply that discharge of such waste
to the sanitary sewer system will be permitted. Any liquid waste
of peculiar character and volume, or of toxic or unusual nature
shall be subject to review by the Approving Authority and
standards deemed applicable established by the Approving
Authority. The requirements set forth hereinabove are generally
applicable but are not absolutely fixed. Such requirements may
be made more restrictive and more stringent by the Board if a
survey of the sanitary sewer system and/or analyses of sewage
treatment plant operating data, or standards set by the Virginia
State Water Control Board for receiving streams indicate that
such action is necessary for the protection of the sewerage
system. Such requirements may be made more liberal only by
Resolution of the Board, duly adopted, and based upon
satisfactory evidence and proof that the discharge of a
particular waste having concentration of particular substance,
compound, or element in excess of those outlined hereinabove has
no adverse effect on the sewerage system, sludge disposal, or the
quality of the receiving stream. No such Resolution may allow
6
contravention of any State or Federal regulation or standard.
Section 3. Notification of Violation.
Dischargers shall notify the ACSA and RWSA immediately by
telephone or in person upon discharging wastes in violation of
this Ordinance accidentally or otherwise. Such notification
shall be followed within five (5) days of the day of occurrence
by a detailed written statement to the ACSA and RWSA describing
the causes of the discharge and the measures being taken to
prevent future occurrences. Dischargers are required to take all
reasonable counter-measures to stop the discharge and to
neutralize its effect, if possible.
Section 4. Acceptance of Off-Site Wastes and Septic Tank Wastes.
Wastes from sites not served by the public sewerage system
may be considered for disposal on a case by case basis. Any
person requesting such disposal shall first obtain a Letter of
Acceptance from the Approving Authority by submitting the
appropriate information contained in Part III Section 2.a.-1. of
this Ordinance. A separate request must be made for each
discharge unless it can be demonstrated that the wastes are
routinely produced and such quality that individual consideration
can be waived. The Letter of Acceptance issued to haulers of
septic tank wastes shall be in the form of a Permit subject to
all the provisions of Part III, Industrial Waste Discharge
Permits. The conditions of the Letter of Acceptance may include,
but need not be limited to the following:
a. Maximum permissible composite concentration of wastewater
constituents;
b. Limits on rate and time of discharge or requirements for
flow regulation;
c. Requirements for inspection and sampling;
d. Requirements for recording, maintaining and reporting
information concerning the origin of each tank truck load and
identification of contributor{s) r
e. Prohibition of discharge of certain wastewater constituents;
f. Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Approving
Authority to insure compliance with this Ordinance.
Part III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE PERMITS
Section 1. Permits Required.
Any person desiring to discharge industrial wastes into the
7
public sanitary sewer system shall notify the Approving Authority
of the nature and characteristics of their proposed wastewater
discharge prior to commencing said discharge. The Approving
Authority may, upon receiving notice of a proposed discharge,
require application for a Permit. It shall be unlawful for any
significant industrial user to discharge any industrial wastes,
either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system
without first obtaining a Permit.
Section 2. Permit Applications.
Any person notified by the Approving Authority of the
requirement to apply for a Permit shall complete and file with
the Approving Authority the fOllowing information as appropriate:
a. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant and contact
person, and the name and current mailing address of the owner of
the premises from which industrial wastes are intended to be
discharged;
b. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of both the
industry as a whole and any processes for which Federal
categorical pretreatment standards have been promulgated;
c. Wastewater constituents and characteristics including any
pollutants in the discharge which are limited by any Federal,
State, or local standards. Sampling and analysis will be
undertaken in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136;
d. Time and duration of the discharge;
e. Daily maximum, daily average, and monthly average wastewater
flow rates, including daily, monthly, and seasonal variations, if
any;
f. Description of activities, facilities, a~Plant processes on
the premises, including a list of all raw materials and chemicals
used at the facility which are or could accidentally or
intentionally be discharged to the sewerage system;
g. The site plans, floor plans and mechanical and plumbing
plans and details to show all sewers, floor drains, and
appurtenances by size, location and elevation;
h. Each product produced by type, amount, process or processes
and rate of production;
i. Type and amount of raw materials processed (average and
maximum per day);
j. Number and type of employees, hours of operation, and
proposed or actual hours of operation of the pretreatment system;
8
k. Whether additional operation and maintenance (O&M) and/or
additional pretreatment is required for the user to meet all
applicable Federal, State, and local standards. If additional
pretreatment and/or O&M will be required to meet the standards,
then the industrial user shall indicate the shortest time
schedule necessary to accomplish installation or adoption of such
additional treatment and/or O&M. The completion date in this
schedule shall not be longer that the compliance date established
for the applicable pretreatment standard. The following
conditions apply to this schedule:
1. The schedule shall contain progress increments in the
form of dates for the commencement and completion of
major events leading to the construction and operation
of additional pretreatment required for the user to
meet the applicable pretreatment standards (such events
include hiring an engineer, completing preliminary
plans, completing final plans, executing contracts for
major components, commencing construction, completing
construction, beginning operation, and conducting
routine operation). No increment referred to above
shall exceed nine (9) months, nor shall the total
compliance period exceed eighteen (18) months;
2. No later than fourteen (14) days following each date in
the schedule and the final date for compliance, the
user shall submit a progress report to the Approving
Authority including, as a minimum, whether or not it
complied with the increment of progress, the reason for
any delay, and if appropriate, the steps being taken by
the user to return to the established schedule. In no
event shall more than nine (9) months elapse between
such progress reports to the Approving Authority; and
1. Any other information as may be deemed necessary to evaluate
the Permit application.
All applications must contain the following certification
statement and be signed in accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 403.12(1).
"I certify under penal ty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the
information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information,
9
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for
knowing violations."
Section 3. Processing and Issuance of Permits.
The Approving Authority will evaluate the Permit application
and determine the need for issuing a Permit. If a Permit is
required, a draft Permit may be issued within sixty (60) days
after all data required by this Ordinance has been furnished to
and accepted by the Approving Authority. The applicant shall
then be allowed a thirty (30) day comment period. Upon the
expiration of the comment period, or upon the expiration of
ninety (90) days from the date the data has been furnished and
accepted, the Approving Authority shall issue or deny a Permit.
A Permit may contain appropriate restrictions. Issuance of a
Permit shall not relieve the discharger from complying with all
applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances promulgated by other
governmental authority, nor shall the issuance of a Permit be
construed as a representation by the Approving Authority that the
discharge permitted therein complies with such laws, regulations
and ordinances. No Permit is transferable.
Section 4. Denial of a Permit.
Should the waste from an applicant's operations be deemed to
be inadmissible into the sanitary sewer system because of
objectionable character as defined by this Ordinance, or because
of flow characteristics incompatible with the best use of the
receiving sewer, the Approving Authority will not approve the
discharge of such waste into the sanitary sewer system until such
person has employed, at his own expense, methods and processes of
pretreatment as will render the waste admissible to the sanitary
sewer system in accordance with this Ordinance. The Approving
Authority will not specify, suggest, or recommend equipment,
structures, or arrangements comprising the pretreatment
processes. The methods and procedures of the pretreatment to be
employed shall be reviewed and approved with the same procedure
as stipulated for Permit applications. Approval of discharge of
industrial wastes by any person will be given only on the basis
of performance of pretreatment processes, if pretreatment should
be required.
Section 5. Permit Conditions.
Permits shall include such conditions as are reasonably
deemed necessary by the Approving Authority to prevent pass
through or interference, protect the quality of the stream
receiving the sewage treatment plant's effluent, protect worker
health and safety, facilitate sludge management and disposal, and
protect against damage to the sewerage system. Permits may
contain, bt need not be limited to, the following:
:/
10
a. Limits on the average and/or maximum rate of discharge, time
of discharge, and/or requirements for flow regulation and
equalization;
b. Limits on the average and/or maximum concentration, mass, or
other measure of identified wastewater constituents or
properties;
c. Requirements for the installation of pretreatment technology
or construction of appropriate containment devices designed to
reduce, eliminate, or prevent the introduction of pollutants into
the sewerage system;
d. Development and implementation of spill control plans or
other special conditions including additional management
practices necessary to adequately prevent accidental,
unanticipated, or routine discharges;
e. Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection
and sampling facilities;
f. Specifications for monitoring programs which may include
sampling locations, frequency of sampling, number, types, and
standards for tests, and reporting schedules;
g. Compliance schedules;
h. Requirements for submission of technical reports or
discharge reports;
i. Requirements for recordkeeping relating to wastewater
discharges and access thereto;
j. Requirements for notification of any new wastewater
constituents or of any substantial change in the volume or
character of the wastewater being introduced into the sewerage
system;
k. Requirements for the notification of any change in the
manufacturing and/or pretreatment process used by the discharger;
I. Requirements for notification of excessive, accidental, or
slug discharges; and
m. Other conditions as deemed appropriate to ensure compliance
with this Ordinance and state and federal laws, rules and
regulations.
Section 6. Duration of Permits.
Permits shall be issued for a period of time not to exceed
three (3) years. An expired Permit will continue to be effective
11
and enforceable until the Permi t is reissued if the failure to
reissue the Permit, prior to expiration of the previous Permit,
is not due to any act or failure to act on the part of the
industrial user.
Section 7. Modification of Permits.
The terms and conditions of any Permit may be subject to
modification and change by the Approving Authority during the
life of the Permit to accommodate changed conditions and as
local, State and Federal laws, rules and regulations are modified
or amended or as new National Categorical Pretreatment Standards
are promulgated. Permit holders shall be informed of any
proposed changes in their respective Permits at least sixty (60)
days prior to the effective date of change, and shall be allowed
a comment period relating to any of the proposed changes in their
Permits within the first thirty (30) days after issuance of such
proposed changes by the Approving Authority. The Approving
Authority shall allow a discharger a reasonable period of time to
comply with any changes in the Permi t required by the Approving
Authority unless otherwise required by emergency or governmental
regulations. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to preclude
the Approving Authority from taking immediate action to
temporarily modify a Permit when there is imminent risk of injury
to the sewerage system or to the health and welfare of the public
or to the environment.
Section 8. Separate Permits Required.
A separate Permit shall be required for each wastewater
connection discharging, directly or indirectly, into the sewerage
system. For each discharger having multiple connections at a
single plant or facility, a single Permit will be required which
may set forth specific effluent limitations and conditions for
discharge from each separate connection.
Section 9. Confidential Information.
Information and data on a discharger obtained from reports,
questionnaires, Permit applications, Permits and monitoring
programs and from inspections shall be available to the public or
other governmental agency without restriction unless the
discharger specifically requests and is able to demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Approving Authority that the release of
such information would divulge information, processes or methods
of production entitled to protection as trade secrets of the
discharger. The physical and chemical characteristics of a
discharger's wastewater will, however, not be recognized as
confidential information or as a trade secret.
12
Section 10. Non-Transferability.
Permits are issued to a specific user for a specific
operation and are not assignable to another user or location.
a. In the event of any change in ownership of facilities from
which the discharge is permitted, the permittee shall notify the
succeeding owner of this Permit by letter with a copy forwarded
to the Approving Authority. The succeeding owner must apply for
a new Permit within thirty (30) days of assuming ownership and
comply with the terms of this Permit until a new Permit is
issued.
b. ~ny anticipated facility expansion, production increases, or
process modifications which will result in new, different or
increased discharges of pollutants must be reported to the
Authority.
1) If any changes will not violate the discharge
limitations specified in this Permit, the Permit may be modified
to specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited.
2) If such changes violate the discharge limitations
specified in this Permit, this Permit will become void and a new
Permit application must be submitted.
Part IV. ADMINISTRATION
Section 1. Administration
Except as otherwise provided herein, the Executive Directors
of the ACSA and RWSA shall administer, implement and enforce the
provisions of this Ordinance. Any power granted or duties
imposed upon the executive Directors may be delegated by the
Executive Directors to persons in the employ of the ACSA and
RWSA.
Section 2. Monitoring
a. The volume or quantity of industrial waste discharged by any
person into the sanitary sewer system shall be measured by one or
more of the following methods:
1) If the volume of water used by any person in his
industrial or process operations is substantially the same as the
volume purchased from the municipal waterworks system, then the
volume of water purchased should be considered to be the volume
of waste discharged.
2) If a substantial portion of the water purchased from
the Albcmarl-e County ~pnT;("e Al.lthority is used for purposes that
do not require the discharge of such used water to the sanitary
/le>/1-
13
sewer system, such person shall, at his own expense, either:
a) install a meter(s) of design approved by the
Approving Authority on the water supply line(s) to his industrial
and/or process operations or,
b) install a meter (s) of design approved by the
Approving Authority on the waste line(s) from his industrial
and/or process operations.
The volume of water or waste flow, respectively, as measured
through said meters shall be considered to be the volume of waste
discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
3) If any person proposing to discharge industrial wastes
into the sanitary sewer system does not secure his entire water .
supply requirements from the Alben'CLIle County Service AuthoIit:~./I-
such person shall, at his own expense, install a meter(s) of
design approved by the Approving Authority on the waste line (s)
from his industrial and/or process operations. The volume of
waste flow, as measured through said meter(s) shall be considered
to be the volume of waste discharged to the sanitary sewer
system.
b. Samples to determine the character and concentration of
industrial wastes discharged into the sanitary sewer system for
purposes of determining compliance with this Ordinance and
calculating surcharges, shall be collected by Authority personnel
as may be deemed necessary by the Approving Authority. The
methods used to determine the character and concentration of the
industrial wastes shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
Industries wishing to include samples other than those
regularly scheduled may request the Approving Authority to do so.
Costs incidental to sampling and analyzing of wastes for purposes
of determining compliance with this Ordinances, or that are
applicable to surcharges shall be paid for by those persons
discharging wastes into the sanitary sewers.
c. A Permit holder may be required to construct, at his own
expense, a control manhol e on the was te 1 ine (s) f rom hi s
industrial and/or process operations for the purpose of
facilitating observations, measurements, and sampling of the
industr ial was tes discharged from such person's establ ishment.
The control manhole shall be constructed in a suitable and
satisfactory location downstream from any pretreatment
facilities, holding tanks, or other approved works, and ahead of
the point of discharge of such waste into the sanitary sewer
system. The design of the control manhole shall be in accordance
with the requirements of the Approving Authority. The control
manhole shall be maintained by such person so as to be safe,
accessible, and in proper operating condition at all times.
14
d. Properly identified Approving Authority personnel shall be
allowed access at all reasonable times for purposes of inspection
and sampling and shall have the right to inspect and copy
records.
Section 3. Costs
a. A surcharge for treating wastes with BOD and/or suspended
solids concentrations greater than 240 parts per million may be
rendered. This surcharge shall be imposed as herein provided in
addition to any existing sewer service charges and to any sewer
charge imposed after the adoption of this Ordinance. The
surcharge shall include:
1) A charge covering the cost incurred by the RWSA in
treating the wastes in the sewage treatment plants; and
2) A charge covering the cost incurred by the RWSA in
sampling and analyzing the discharge.
b. The surcharge, as set forth in Paragraph a. of this Section,
shall be shown separately on the regular bill rendered to the
proper persons each month by the Albemarle County Servic~
Authority. The dischargers shall pay in accordance with
practices existing for paYment of sewer charges.
A-c..-f/f"-
c. The Albemarle County Service Authority shall remit to the
RWSA each month that part of the surcharge attributable to the
increased operating and maintenance costs incurred by the RWSA in
treating the waste.
d. The RWSA shall review, at least annually, the basis for
determining charges and shall adjust the unit treatment costs to
reflect increases or decreases in wastewater treatment costs
based upon the RWSA's adopted annual budget.
e. Charges for the disposal of off-site and septic tank wastes
as provided for in Part II Section 4 will be paid by the
Permittee directly to the RWSA in accordance with the current
schedule and conditions contained in the Letter of Acceptance.
Acceptance of domestic septic tank wastes is further subj ect to
the advance purchase and render upon delivery for discharge, of a
coupon to the operator on duty.
Part V. VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
Section 1. Suspension of Permits.
a. The Approving Authority may suspend a Permit for a period
not to exceed sixty (60) days when suspension is necessary in
order to stop a discharge which, in the judgement of the
15
Authority presents an imminent hazard to the public health,
safety or welfare, to the local environment, or to any portion of
the sewerage system.
b. Any discharger notified of a suspension of his Permit shall
immediately cease diSCharge of all industrial wastewater into the
sewerage system. In the event of a failure of a discharger to
comply vOluntarily with the Suspension order, the Authority shall
take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure compliance.
The Permit may be reinstated upon such terms and conditions as
may be required if a reinspection by Authority personnel reveals
that the effluent is again in compliance with terms and
conditions of the Permit.
Section 2. Revocation of Permits.
Permits may be revoked for just cause including but not
limited to:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of the Permit or of any
part of this Ordinance or any other government regulations or
diSCharge prohibitions.
b. Obtaining a Permit by misrepresentation.
c. Failure to disclose fully relevant facts or to report
significant changes in wastewater volume, constituents or
characteristics.
d. False statement or data in any required monitoring report.
e. Refusal of reasonable access to the discharger's premises
for the purpose of inspection or monitoring.
f. Failure to pay any and all costs as outlined in Section 4.
hereinbelow or Part IV Sections 2.b. and 3.a. preceding.
Section 3. Consequences of Revocation.
Before any further diSCharge of industrial wastewater may be
made by a diSCharger whose Permit has been revoked, the
diSCharger must apply for, and be granted, a reinstatement of the
terminated Permit, or a new Permit, as the Approving Authority
may require, and pay all delinquent fees, charges and costs
occasioned by the violation.
Section 4. Criminal/Civil Liability.
Any person who willfUlly or negligently violates any
provision of this Ordinance may be subject to criminal penalties
or a fine of up to $1000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment
16
. .
for up to twelve months, or by both fine and imprisonment.
Further, any person who violates any provision of this
Ordinance or any condition or limitation of a Permit, or plan
approval related thereto, shall be financially responsible and
liable to the ACSA and RWSA, in addition to normal service
charges and surcharges, for all costs incurred by the ACSA and
RWSA associated with the violation of this Ordinance, including,
but not limited to the following:
a. Cost of mileage and labor incurred in detecting and
correcting the violation.
b. Laboratory analysis costs associated with detecting and
correcting the violation.
c. Additional treatment costs caused by the violation or
associated with detecting and correcting the violation.
d. Costs of any additional equipment acquired or expended by
the ACSA and RWSA for detecting or correcting the violation.
e. Repair and/or replacement of any part of the sewage system
damaged by the violation.
f. Any liability, damages, fines or penalties incurred by the
ACSA and RWSA as a result of the violation.
g. Other costs as are associated with the detecting and
correcting of the violation.
Part VI. SEVERABILITY
If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this
Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such hOlding shall not affect
any other section, clause, provision, or portion of this
Ordinance.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County at a regular meeting held on April 3,
1991.
17
!'; "r' -1~J:.9 ',9 ( ...
- ) __ ql~!?]lL~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
:",C;~j !\j
(~. ;,/1 ,I
MEMORANDUM
rtfl/Ff:.:J """"i~:' :'::-;
ilj,~ \i~ ~-!!r
" '\; j 1 i
i 1'; (~I ,;'.:; E'J 1.~J,91 ~; ! I I
I' , , il i II
,i \ (',"', . / I! II
I " ' I . "". ............,_ "1'1 I
J I ; j ..:~~::.; ~'. ~'~' ! - , ': ;! . t""~T .: j :
i3 C; /\ :.) ro'; '(:~~;_...'<.~l ;-;_'") ,~.J t'-:::~ L:~,.J
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors dr:---
County Executive~/
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
March 28, 1991
RE: Proposed Sewerage User Regulation
Attached are responses from Messrs. Brent, Williams and St.
John regarding questions raised during discussion of the proposed
sewerage user regulations.
As indicated earlier, the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle
County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority have adopted these regulations and staff recommends
your adoption as well.
Should you have any questions concerning these attachments,
please feel free to contact Messrs. Jones or Brandenburger.
RWTJr/gs
91-59
Attachments
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY
P. O. BOX 1009
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER
AUTHORITY
P. O. BOX 18
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
March 28, 1991
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Bob:
This information is prepared in response to questions raised relative
to the Sewerage User Regulations.
The discharge of all rad~oactive
ord~nance; however, we would not
reasons:
1.
ma terial could
recommend doing
be prohibi ted by
so for several
2.
the presence of natural background radiation in some
wastewater,
the expense in terms of monitoring and oversight relative to
the expected benefits in the community, and
confl ict wi th Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
provisions that allows licensees to release regulated amount
of radioactive materials.
3.
NRC currently lists 10 licensees in the Charlottesville area. Each
licensee is regulated by provisions in Title 10 Part 20 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Standards for Protection Against Radiation. In
order to enact a more stringent local limit, the adopting jurisdiction
would have to bear the burden of proof that a more stringent limit is
needed to protect the local environment. The Authorities have no
technical basis to suggest a lower local limit based on impact to the
sewerage system, worker health, plant operation or residuals disposal
or receiving stream water quality, which are the specific areas covered
by the User Rules and Regulations. We will be happy to share
additional details of this matter if requested.
The wording in the first paragraph of page 8 should remain in the
permissive sense (may) with respect to the issuance of permits because
only those dischargers who meet the definition of significant
industrial users are permitted. Otherwise, every non-domestic
discharge would require permitting.
The sewerage user regulations which have been adopted by the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority, Albemarle County Service Authority, and the
City of Charlottesville contain no provision for public notice of the
application for, nor expiration of a discharge permit. There is no
Federal or State requirement or prohibition of such a notice.
The discharge from the Blue Ridge Hospital has been surveyed. It was
was not required. \
~~-~~-J!(
George w~ I ams ~
Execu e Director
Qwc:::n
deter .oed t~a~permit
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138
March 19, 1991
JAMES M. BOWLING, IV GEORGE R. ST.JOHN
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Re: Board Actions of March 13, 1991
Dear Bob:
Under separate letter I have sent you a copy of revised
false alarm ordinance, which was Item No. 13a on the captioned
list of Board actions.
As to Agenda Item No.8, I was asked to determine whether
the County can impose requirements beyond the State Code with
respect to discharge of waste into the public sewer system.
The question was broken down into four categories:
1. Can the County prohibit waste discharges which the
State and the Federal EPA do not prohibit?
2. Can the County require permits which these agencies do
not require?
3. Can the County Change the duration of permits?
4. Can the County restrict or prohibit discharges from the
Blue Ridge Hospital, which are allowed under the State and
Federal regulations?
These questions cannot be answered with a yes or no; neither
can they be answered in a vacuum of factual surroundings.
In other words, I cannot answer these questions until I know
exactly what restrictive provisions you have in mind, and what
the factual basis for these restrictions is. I would like to
discuss this at a Supervisors meeting after first discussing it
with you.
Sincerely yours, J '2---."
-'! If ,,1 ",/
l~- -"" _"7 1/ (I //
'~je'" iV; (/ ... -
George R.CSt. Joqh
County Attorney
GRStJ/tlh
cc: Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
");,,. ., ""
1.I!~,r:l'n:l",1 <" Pr . -1 (/ cl' J
.. .........' ~.;/ I:,-.;Jfrl" / {" .
f:;:::'r: ::: ::\ ji:i1L~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
March 7, 1991
County Code Amendment - RWSA Sewerage User Rules and
Regulations
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) recently
amended its Sewerage User Rules and Regulations as required by
EPA and the State Water Control Board. Section 5.6 of the
"four-party" agreement between the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County Service
Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority of June 12, 1973
authorizes the provision of these regulations. The regulations
are designed to control the quality, character and rate of
discharge sewage into the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's
sewerage system and the issuance of Industrial Waste Discharge
Permits. Prior to this date, these regulations were not required
to be part of the localities ordinances/code.
The County Attorney's office and the Albemarle County
Service Authority have reviewed these regulations and a copy is
available in the Clerk's Office for your information and review.
Staff recommends that you adopt a resolution of intent to amend
Chapter 19.1 Water and Sewers by adding these regulations to the
Albemarle County Code. The State Water Control Board has
requested that adoption of these regulations be completed as soon
as possible. Staff is therefore requesting that you set a public
hearing on this matter for April 3, 1991.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact me.
RWTJr/gs
91-23
cc: J. William Brent
George W. Williams
,..
,. * ' ...~ t ;i ';
; 1":
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138
~ >')0
jJt6)\ ~-I
i"i ! i
JAMES M. BOWLING, IV
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
February 28, 1991
GEORGE R. ST.JOHN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Re: Ordinance Adopting Sewage Disposal Regulations of
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle
County Service Authority
Dear Bob:
Enclosed please find a proposed ordinance in the above
matter. The ordinance essentially is verbatim to the regulations
adopted by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, with necessary
changes as to detail.
I ask that Mr. Williams and Mr. Brent forward to you any
comments they may have on the ordinance. If you want changes,
please let me know. If not, I will rely upon your office to put
the ordinance on an appropriate agenda for the Board of
Supervisors' consideration.
Very /fflY yours,
{l'
Jame . Bowling, IV
Depu . County Attorney
JMB/tlh
Enclosure
cc: Mr. George Williams
Mr. J. W. Brent
'"do
~
0'"
~
~.
00
::r
~.
t:j
(J'q
I-:z:j
ro
ro
fh
00 ~O
\:y CD a
0..
t:l~
~~
~ ~
~::s
a~
~~
CD
Ul
Ul
o
~.
<
ro
t:j
PC
t:j
p..
ro
~
~
v ::q
~P'
c.ot:j
ri
~. qg H
~ '. ::r
~ ~ ro
ro 00 ~
,..-.... ro
00 v 0'"
'-"~~
p.. t-l n
P' CD ro
~ -d ~
p..~~
'"O~
~ ~
ro P'
~ ~
S' ~
oro
O::r~
-.~S-
~n
g.::r
~ro
00 p..
$. t:j
~O
coO:
" n
S~
~ P'
0;9. 00
v S.~
~ P' ~
c.oV 0'"
12 ~ ~
.-p.._P-"'
-I
o
. .
o
m
:D
-I
-
-n
-
o
>
-I
-
o
z
o
-n
"tJ
C
m
r-
-
o
~
t'"l ~
O~tIl
~~t.:z:.j
ttj~tJ
~~~
HOO~
~~~
ttj~~
" H ~
~OO
~~O
Oo~
~t5~
~
r-O(/)OJ~'~~3::O""ff03 8lil~ :f"'~:flll :f~lll 5'g,0'~3 a-:OO:O~Q.3 5!':
~,~~'<S',?,g~~ 2;1. }f.~~ s:Ii~~g::ag.iaa-~ ~.,~~.. S !~~ ~ii~~~
m"t Ill-QQ. (11 p> lll- '. . .Ill :roeS 3'0 ~ 1ll-ocnq3 ~ - - ~ III iil' .lll = "llllll c..=.
' <~'~~~3'<o~ti'5!'05' "~!!:=.y;~~~m.l~~:f05:0OJ,:-.I:,:,-g~g,g,f:t ~
~"'~"';r.' :":fiife;g~ CT.lll~~,l'; ~~lll ~ 0. 5'~ Q.!;! a g~iif~~gg5(/)" o.l~
:;-<g,;;; 0 ",;Po 0 :>.::>. :To. !il''t). -g'Q:a:!,!_'t!.::> >- o.a;_.~ "-3~,,~::>"i'~g,.l'l o~ clo ~ ~..
~2, -""2:(11CO~.,,0503itglll-.Q.cilg~_~ ,~"'O~g't):T' 'Rji.- "'0
Q'" ~:f~ n'8rg.~..;.go8:&JIl... "a1;Q~5 :oS~,3,~j'.:.. (') ".fQ.~m ~s.~"f~z
"' -(1) g ~.o."'gSl)~ iD2.-G: ~'<~0,iDn5.(D&._.Jllo""" s(Q-scojOtl)O
~ ~5!' ~~~~::"&>~.;. ~'>:2"'~ch~~~~i"2,~.~..~~6~~i'~g:S"g,~'0i' .i~g
tT ~ CD' II> 3: c: J~ as 'lll ~ a !if u i;$~:il,S.~ ~~I' ':S~:'1.' ;) IE 0;) of In
~ a ?~':< ~~.::>g>'(')5'a.'.S'~ ~iig,!'<;2;ii'if~6 .,,. ~&>f~=>-:
III "'o~::> 'R:-{e''t)ci...CD 311>~ .n.... .~!I"cCD..S _.
~o" ~ ::>0 5:~Q::!,,=l'llD...Pl O'~'2.~S'~ig'lil 0'''' 8.,1i,~:J-g.... rf. _
., r;o>.... .~. · " ~- ,>:".. "? ,a!, r~"" "'20
~
9/ ~~t?:3,,7~
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies as follows:
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the 3rd day of April, 1991,
at the time and place established by such Board for its regular
meetings at its preceding annual meeting in accordance with
section 15.1-536 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, at
which the following members were present and absent:
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, Frederick R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
the following resolution, having been the subject of a public
hearing held on this date after newspaper publication of notice
thereof in accordance with Sections 15.1-171.1 and 15.1-186 of
the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, held at the time and
place set out in such notice, was adopted by a majority of all
members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the ayes
and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown
below:
MEMBER
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
David P. Bowerman
Frederick R. Bowie
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Walter F. Perkins
Peter T. Way
VOTE
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SCHOOL
BONDS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $19,070,000 TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Albemarle County School Board has advised the Board
of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
"County"), of the necessity to undertake capital projects for
public schools. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable
to do so and to borrow money for such purpose and issue the
County's general obligation bonds therefor.
li
2. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act, there
are hereby authorized to be issued school bonds of the County in
the maximum amount of $19,070,000 to provide funds, together with
other available funds, to finance capital projects for public
schools. The bonds shall be sold to the Virginia Public School
Authority, a state agency prescribed by the General Assembly
pursuant to Article VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution.
3. Pursuant to section 15.1-186 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended, the Board hereby estimates that the average
rate of interest to be borne by the bonds is 7.5% per year and
the amount of interest charges required to repay and retire the
bonds is $18,658,000. In making this estimate the Board has
assumed a 20-year debt retirement schedule providing for
approximately equal annual principal payments.
4. The bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature at such
time or times not exceeding 40 years from their date, bear
interest at such rate or rates not to exceed the maximum rate of
9% at the time the bonds are sold, be in such denominations and
form, be executed in such manner and be sold at such time or
times and in such manner as the Board may hereafter provide by
appropriate resolution or resolutions.
5. The bonds shall be general obligations of the County
for the payment of principal of and interest on which its full
faith and credit shall be irrevocably pledged.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held the 3rd day of
April, 1991, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the
matters referred to in such extract.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the BO~J~_ of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this~ day of
April, 1991.
(SEAL) ~-~~
C erk, Board f Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia
-2-
'.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (the
"Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), hereby
certifies as follows:
1. A regular meeting of the Board was held on April 3,
1991, at the time and place established by such Board for its
regular meetings at its preceding annual meeting in accordance
with section 15.1-536 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amend-
ed, at which the following members were present and absent:
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, Frederick R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
2. A resolution entitled "Resolution Providing for the
Issuance of $3,000,000 School Bonds, Series of 1991A, of
Albemarle County, Virginia, Heretofore Authorized, To Be Sold To
the Virginia Public School Authority, and Setting Forth the Form
and Details Thereof" was adopted by a majority of all members of
the Board by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded
in the minutes of the meeting as shown below:
MEMBER
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
David P. Bowerman
Frederick R. Bowie
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Walter F. Perkins
Peter T. Way
VOTE
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
3. Attached hereto is a true, correct and complete copy of
such resolution as adopted at such meeting.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this ?Y~ day of
April, 1991.
( SEAL)
c~tte~
Albemarle County, Virginia
"
'1\
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000
SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES OF 1991A, OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED, TO BE SOLD TO THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY, AND SETTING FORTH THE
FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted April 3, 1991, the Board of
Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
"County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to
issue its general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of
$19,070,000 to finance capital projects for school purposes, none
of which bonds have been issued and sold; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority, a state
agency prescribed by the General Assembly of Virginia pursuant to
Article VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution of Virginia (the
"VPSA"), has offered to purchase the County's $3,000,000 school
bonds pursuant to a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of April 5, 1991
(the "Bond Sale Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the
County has determined that it is necessary and expedient to
borrow an aggregate amount not to exceed $3,000,000 and to issue
its general obligation school bonds for the financing of certain
capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing after due notice,
on April 3, 1991, on the issuance of the Bonds, as defined below,
in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15.1-171.1 and
15.1-504, Code of virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia
Code");
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. Issuance of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board has
determined previously that it is advisable to contract a debt and
issue and sell general obligation bonds in the maximum aggregate
amount of $3,000,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing
certain capital projects for public school purposes. The Board
hereby provides for the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the
form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of Bonds. It is determined to be in the best
interest of the County to accept the offer of the VPSA to
purchase the Bonds, and to sell the Bonds to the VPSA at par upon
the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman
1,
of the Board and the County Administrator or either of them, are
hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Sale Agreement
in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting,
which is hereby approved, and deliver it to the VPSA.
3. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in
registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereofi shall be dated the date of their issuance and deliverYi
shall be designated "School Bonds, Series of 1991Ai" shall bear
interest payable semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 (each
an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning December 15, 1991, at the
rate or rates, and shall mature on December 15 in the years (each
a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts, established in
accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution.
Interest on each Bond shall be payable (a) from its date, if
it is authenticated prior to December 15, 1991, or (b) otherwise
from the June 15 or December 15 that is, or immediately precedes,
the date on which it is authenticated (unless payment of interest
thereon is in default, in which case such Bond shall bear
interest from the date to which interest has been paid) .
Principal and premium, if any, shall be payable, subject to the
provisions of section 6, to the registered owners upon surrender
of the Bonds as they become due at the principal corporate trust
office of Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, the Registrar.
Subject to the provisions of section 6, interest shall be payable
by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their
addresses as they appear on registration books kept by the
Registrar on the first day of the month of the interest payment
date. Principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable
in lawful money of the united States of America.
4. Award of Bonds: Interest Rates. The County
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to award the
Bonds to the VPSA at a price of par and at an interest rate or
rates established by the VPSA, provided that no such interest
rate or rates shall be more than one-tenth of one percent (1/10
of 1%) over the annual rate to be paid by the VPSA for the
corresponding maturity of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the
"VPSA Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the
Bonds, and provided further, that no interest rate on the Bonds
shall exceed nine percent (9%) per year. Principal of the Bonds
shall be payable in installments in years and amounts as set
forth on Exhibit Ai provided, however, that the County
Administrator is hereby authorized to award the Bonds to the VPSA
in accordance with a principal payment schedule different from
that set forth in Exhibit A as the VPSA may propose, provided
that such schedule shall include for annual payments in the years
1991 through 2011, inclusive. The execution and delivery of the
Bonds as described in section 8 hereof shall conclusively
evidence the same as having been approved and authorized by this
Resolution.
5. Form of Bonds When Owned bv VPSA. For as long as the
~
VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in
the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. Upon 20 days' written
notice from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense,
Bonds in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 or any
integral multiple, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the
temporary typewritten Bond. Such Bonds in marketable form shall
be in substantially the form of Exhibit B hereto, with such
changes as shall be necessary or appropriate for the Bonds to be
in marketable form, as are not inconsistent with the terms of
this Resolution and as may be approved by the County officials
executing such Bonds.
6. payment to VPSA: pavinq Aqent and Registrar.
a. For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of
the Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available
funds to the VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia,
time) on the applicable Interest Payment Date and principal
Payment Date, or, if such date is not a business day for virginta
banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before
11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the business day next
preceding such Payment Date; and
b. All overdue payments of principal, and interest to
the extent permitted by law, shall bear interest at the
applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
c. Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as
Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bond (the "Registrar").
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The principal installments
of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before December
15, 2000, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by
the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15,
2000, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities. The principal installments of the Bonds held
by the VPSA coming due after December 15, 2000, and the
definitive Bonds that mature after December 15, 2000, are subject
to prepayment or redemption at the County's option prior to their
stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after
December 15, 2000, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption
prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments to be
prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set
forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment
or redemption:
December 15, 2000 to December 14, 2001, inclusive
December 15, 2001 to December 14, 2002, inclusive
December 15, 2002 to December 14, 2003, inclusive
December 15, 2003 and thereafter
103%
102
101
100
3
t.
Provided, however, that while the VPSA is the registered
owner of the Bonds or of the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds
may be exchanged, the County shall not call the principal
installments of the Bonds for prepayment or call the definitive
Bonds for which the Bonds may be exchanged for redemption, prior
to their stated maturities as described above without first
obtaining the prior written consent of the VPSA. Notice of any
such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Registrar to
the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety nor
less than thirty days before the date fixed for prepayment or
redemption. Notice of prepayment (but not the requirement that
the VPSA give its prior written consent to prepayment or
redemption) may be waived by the owner of a Bond to be prepaid.
8. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be signed by the
manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of
the Board, shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile
signature of the Clerk of the Board and the Board's seal shall be
affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided,
however, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, no ~q~g
shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual
signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Registrar
and the date of authentication noted thereon.
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the timely
payment of the principal of and the interest on the Bonds
provided for by this Resolution as the same shall become due, the
full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably
pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be
outstanding, unless other funds are lawfully available and
appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the Board shall
levy and collect in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax
upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal
of and the interest on the Bonds as such principal and interest
shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to
rate and amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to
be levied in the County.
10. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the Board is
hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this
Resolution to be presented to the County School Board. The Bonds
authorized hereby shall not be issued by the County until the
County School Board shall have adopted an appropriate resolution
consenting to the issuance of the Bonds.
4
'.
11. state Non-Arbitraqe Proqram; Proceeds Aqreement. In
accordance with the requirements of the VPSA, the Board hereby
determines that it is in the County's best interests to
participate in the state Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with
the Bonds, and hereby authorizes and directs the County Treasurer
to take such action as shall be necessary or desirable therefor.
The appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect
to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and
among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA
Bonds, the VPSA, Public Financial Management, Inc., as investment
manager, and Central Fidelity Bank, as depository; provided,
however, that such proceeds shall be invested in such manner that
none of the Bonds will be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of
section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
including regulations applicable to the Bonds (the "Code"). The
Proceeds Agreement shall be in such form as shall be approved by
the County's bond counsel.
12. Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The County hereby
covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action tne-
taking or omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage
bonds" within the meaning of Code section 148, or otherwise cause
interest on the Bonds to be includable in the gross income for
federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof
under existing law. without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the County shall comply with any provision of law that
may require the County at any time to rebate to the united states
any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross
proceeds of the Bonds. The County shall pay any such required
rebate from its general funds.
13. Use of Proceeds certificate. The appropriate officers
and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to
execute a Use of Proceeds certificate or certificates setting
forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the
Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order
to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations
relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the
Bonds or on the VPSA Bonds. The Board on behalf of the County,
covenants that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the
Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of
Proceeds certificate and other certificates and that the County
shall comply with the other covenants and representations
contained therein. Furthermore, the Board on behalf of the
County covenants that the County shall comply with the provisions
of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds
will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax
purposes. Such Certificates may also provide for any elections
such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the
united states for purposes of complying with the provisions of
5
. .
Code section 148.
14. Restrictions on Private Use. The County covenants that
it will not permit the gross proceeds of the Bonds to be used in
any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds
being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other
than a governmental unit, as provided in Code Section 141(b),
(b) 5% or more of such proceeds being used with respect to any
"output facility" (other than a facility for the furnishing of
water), within the meaning of Code Section l41(b) (4), or (c) 5%
or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to
make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental
unit, as provided in Code section l41(c); provided, however, that
if the County receives an opinion of bond counsel to the County
with respect to the Bonds, and bond counsel to the VPSA with
respect to the VPSA Bonds, that compliance with any such
restriction is not required to prevent interest on the bonds of
both issues from being includable in the gross income for federal
income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under
existing law, the County need not comply with such restriction.
15. No Sale of Bonds of Same Issue. The County covenants
that it will not, without the Authority's consent, sell or
deliver any general obligation bonds which are part of the same
common plan of financing (and paid for from the same source of
funds) as the Bonds between the dates that are 31 days prior to
the date of sale of the VPSA Bonds and 31 days after the Closing
Date.
16. Filinq of Resolution: publication of Notice. The
appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this
Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County and,
within ten days thereafter, to cause to be published once in a
newspaper having general circulation in the County a notice
setting forth (a) in brief and general terms the purposes for
which the Bonds are to be issued and (b) the amount of the Bonds.
17. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all
officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby
authorized to take such action as they or anyone of them may
consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance
and sale of the Bonds, and any such action previously taken is
hereby ratified and confirmed.
18. ReDeal of Resolutions in Conflict. All resolutions or
parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
19. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately.
6
"
EXHIBIT A
principal Repayment Schedule
Year Amount Year Amount
1991 $ 55,000 2001 $140,000
1992 60,000 2002 150,000
1993 65,000 2003 165,000
1994 75,000 2004 180,000
1995 80,000 2005 195,000
1996 90,000 2006 215,000
1997 95,000 2007 235,000
1998 105,000 2008 260,000
1999 115,000 2009 285,000
2000 125,000 2010 310,000
7
'.
EXHIBIT B
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1
$3,000,000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
School Bond, Series of 1991A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value
received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay
to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of
NINETEEN MILLION SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,000,000), in annual
installments on December 15 of the years (each a "Principal
Payment Date"), together with interest on the unpaid installments
at the annual rates set forth below from the date of this Bond
until payment of the principal sum hereof, such interest to be
payable commencing on December 15, 1991, and semi-annually
thereafter on June 15 and December 15 of each year (each an
"Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal Payment
Date, a "Payment Date"), as follows:
Year of Principal Interest Year of Principal Interest
Maturitv Amount Rate Maturity Amount Rate
1991 $ 55,000 % 2001 $140,000 ~
0
1992 60,000 2002 150,000
1993 65,000 2003 165,000
1994 75,000 2004 180,000
1995 80,000 2005 195,000
1996 90,000 2006 215,000
1997 95,000 2007 235,000
1998 105,000 2008 260,000
1999 115,000 2009 285,000
2000 125,000 2010 310,000
sUbject to prepayment as hereinafter provided. Both principal of
and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the
united states of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia,
as Bond Registrar, shall make all payments of principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the
presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School
Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m.
(Richmond, virginia, time) on the applicable Payment Date. If a
B-1
Payment Date is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth
of virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment
of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall
be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m.
(Richmond, Virginia, time) on the business day next preceding the
scheduled Payment Date. Upon receipt by the registered owner of
this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and
interest, written acknowledgement of the receipt thereof shall be
given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be
fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of
the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be
surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of principal of and interest on this
Bond.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with
and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including the Public Finance Act, Chapter 5, Title
15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and resolutions dU~1
adopted by the County's Board of Supervisors and the School Board
of the County to provide funds, together with other available
funds, to finance capital projects for public schools.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the principal
corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for an equal
aggregate. principal amount of bonds in definitive form having
maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the
maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of
principal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in fully registered
form in the denomination of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof.
This Bond is registered in the name of Virginia Public
School Authority on books of the County kept by the Bond
Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the
registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an
assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such
assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar
shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove
provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such
registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named
in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or
before December 15, 2000, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2000,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due
B-2
.
after December 15, 2000, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature after December 15, 2000, are
subject to prepayment or redemption at the County's option prior
to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or
after December 15, 2000, upon payment of the prepayment or
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal
installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds
to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date
set for prepayment or redemption:
December 15, 2000 to December 14, 2001, inclusive
December 15, 2001 to December 14, 2002, inclusive
December 15, 2002 to December 14, 2003, inclusive
December 15, 2003 and thereafter
103%
102
101
100
Provided, however, that while the Virginia Public School
Authority is the registered owner of this Bond or of the
definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged, the County
shall not call the principal installments of this Bond for
prepayment, or call the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may
be exchanged for redemption prior to their stated maturities-as-
described above without first obtaining the prior written consent
of the Virginia Public School Authority. Notice of any such
prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Registrar to the
registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and
not less than thirty (30) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption. Notice of prepayment (but not the
requirement that the Virginia Public School Authority give its
prior written consent to prepayment or redemption) may be waived
by the owner of the Bond to be prepaid or redeemed.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have
happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and
manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other
indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit
prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The resolution adopted by the Board of supervisors
authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.1-
210 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, requires, that
there shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon all
taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall
become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate and
amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to
be levied in the county.
B-3
. '
-.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be signed by its
Chairman, to be countersigned by its Clerk, its seal to be
affixed hereto, and this Bond to be dated May , 1991.
COUNTERSIGNED:
(SEAL)
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County,
virginia
Chairman, Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle
County, virginia
B-4
. '
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and
transfers unto
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE,
OF ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF
ASSIGNEE:
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
attorney to
exchange said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this
Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive
bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power
of substitution in the premises.
Date:
Registered Owner
Signature Guaranteed:
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by a member firm of
the New York Stock Exchange or
a commercial bank or trust
company.)
(NOT1CE: The signature above
must correspond with the name
of the Registered Owner as it
appears on the front of this
Bond in every particular,
without alteration or change.)
B-5
..."" .
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
BOND SALE AGREEMENT
dated as of April 5, 1991
Name of Jurisdiction:
(the "Local Unit")
Albemarle County
Sale Date: Not earlier
than April 30, 1991 nor later than
May 2, 1991.
Principal Amount:
$3,000,000
Closing Date: On or about May
23, 1991.
Amortization Period:
20 Years
*********************************************************************************
1. The Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") hereby offers to purchase your
general obligation School Bonds in the Principal Amount set forth above from the
proceeds of VPSA's bonds, the sale of which is scheduled to take place on the
Sale Date.
2. You represent that on or before the Sale Date, your local governing body will
have duly authorized the issuance of your bonds by adopting the resolution in the
form attached hereto as Appendix B (the "local resolution") and that your bonds
will be in the form set forth in the local resolution. Any changes that you or your
counsel wish to make to the form of the local resolution and/or your bonds must
be approved by VPSA prior to adoption of the local resolution by your local
governing body.
3. VPSA's commitment to purchase your bonds is contingent upon VPSA's receipt
on the Closing Date, of (a) a certified copy of the local resolution, (b) approving
legal opinions from your bond counsel in form satisfactory to VPSA as to (i) the
validity and exclusion from gross income for federal and Virginia income tax
purposes of the interest on your bonds, (ii) the conformity of the terms and
provisions of your bonds to the requirements of this Bond Sale Agreement
including the exhibits hereto, and (iii) the due authorization, execution and
delivery of this Bond Sale Agreement and the Proceeds Agreement (defined
below) and the enforceability of the Proceeds Agreement, (c) an executed
agreement, among VPSA, you and the other local units simultaneously selling
their bonds to VPSA, Central Fidelity and Public Financial Management, Inc. (the
depository and investment manager, respectively for SNAP), providing for the
custody, investment and disbursement of the proceeds of your bonds and the
other general obligation school bonds, and the payment by you and the other
local units of the allocable, associated costs of compliance with the Internal
.. '"
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and any costs incurred in connection with
your participation in the State Non-Arbitrage Program (the "Proceeds
Agreement"), (d) an executed copy of the Use of Proceeds Certificate in the form
attached hereto as Appendix C, (e) a transcript of the other customary documents
not listed above, and (f) the proceeds of VPSA's bonds.
4. This Bond Sale Agreement shall take effect on April 5, 1991.
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTIIORITY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
By:
Authorized VPSA Representative
By:, -;{ut&{[(~/ I! ,P dittL~
Name: Frederick R. Bowie
Title: Chairman, Board of Supervisors
(For information only; not part of the Bond Sale Agreement.)
Please have the presiding officer, or other specifically designated agent, of your governing
body execute 2 copies of this Bond Sale Agreement and return them no later than close of
business on April 5, 1991, to Joe Niggel, Debt Manager, Virginia Public School Authority,
P.O. Box 6-H, Richmond, Virginia 23215. If your governing body or bond counsel requires
more than one originally signed Bond Sale Agreement, please send the appropriate number;
all but one will be returned at closing.
.~ {,:'; ..
.,.,..,.~-
"'qL,-td~~
,
t
[-'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
C.:C)ljf'~'T'y' ~~)F'- /\;_,C!~.,:\/ ,:,1 J
, ,_ i~
MEMORANDUM
1'--, .---.., ".....~ .--. ,'--' ~--_. ~-_.'" ~...-~
l,r-i! j r.;,~J.,::::;:.:,.L~i :,. . '."' i
I " ~ t ('
I,; ..,. I . I
I \ , ! J:
l...~.' {"[;'~ '"_ '.
I -t VIM ;:19"1 '; I;;
'1.\ . i\ ,;,.,' l"'; ..ii; I,..
j ! \ t \ '. v_ . . 1 I
l' .. / I ! i
i i \~ !~':.:,T':, '~". .J' 1:'-TI~_:1 ;~IJ
[.) ('j ..\ 1-;' ~-: :'.'~~: .':: :,,: -
. I'
.,,' '.',
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors
County Executive %
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
March 28, 1991
RE: VPSA Bond Issue
Attached is a memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden,
Director of Finance regarding our bond issue requests totalling
$19,070,000.
Following public hearing, staff recommends your adoption of
the attached resolutions for the stand-alone issue to be started
in July, 1991 with actual bond issuance in September, 1991 and
the $3,000,000 VPSA bond issue.
Mr. Breeden will be present at your hearing on April 3, but
should you have questions regarding this matter prior to that,
please do not hesitate to contact him.
RWTJr/gs
91-60
Attachment
\
... ~",. ...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5855
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance ~
DATE:
March 28, 1991
RE:
V.P.S.A. Bond Issue
As directed by Guy Agnor, by memo, in December 1990 this
office has proceeded to take the necessary steps required for
issuance of the V.P.S.A. Bonds. The Capital Improvement Budget
anticipated the issuance of $18,769,625 in V.P.S.A. Bonds for the
following projects:
Agnor-Hurt Elementary
V.L. Murray Elementary
Burley Middle School
Albemarle High School
Hollymead-Library/Roof
Woodbrook - HVAC
$ 8,251,000
3,135,845
366,000
6,143,140
705,640
168,000
$ 18,769,625
This amount was increased to $19,070,000 based on revised
projections for the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School resulting from
land acquisition and road construction. Recent bids received for
construction may result in a lesser amount of bonds being issued.
However, at this point it is too late to change the amounts
advertised and already scheduled for public hearings.
Application was made to V.P.S.A. in the amount of
$19,070,000 requesting that approximately 1/2 be issued in the
Spring of 1991 and the balance in their Fall issue. Due to the
large number of applications and the limits on total bonds issued
by V.P.S.A., Albemarle County was approved for issuance of only
$3,000,000 in the Spring of 1991. Due to the schedule of our
projects and cash flow projections, V.P.S.A. has tentatively
agreed to a "Stand-Alone Issue" for the balance of our request.
4 A.."'",
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
March 28, 1991
Page Two
The Stand-Alone Issue process is very similar to the
issuance of General Obligation Bonds except no referendum is
required since the County's bonds are still being sold to
V.P.S.A. These bonds would be backed by the full faith and
credit of Albemarle County, not V.P.S.A., and therefore is not
subject to V.P.S.A. debt limits. This seems to be preferred by
V.P.S.A. on large issues since it allows them greater flexibility
in meeting the needs of smaller issuers. The County will incur
the total cost of issuance projected to range from $90,000 to
$100,000. This amount would be recovered over the life of the
bonds since they would not be subject to the 1/10th of 1% service
charge normally added on by V.P.S.A. In addition, it is very
possible that Albemarle County's AAl bond rating may result in a
lower interest rate since V.P.S.A.'s bond rating is AA. This
process will begin in approximately July 1991 with the issuance
of the actual bonds in late September 1991.
Actions required by the Board of Supervisors at their April
3, 1991 meeting are as follows:
1. Approval of a resolution authorizing the
issuance of up to $19,070,000 in V.P.S.A.
Bonds. This resolution and public hearing
would cover both the current $3,000,000
issue and the planned Stand-Alone Issue.
Actual bonds issued may be less than this
amount but may not exceed it.
2. Approval of a resolution to authorize the
actual issuance of bonds in the amount of
$3,000,000 to V.P.S.A.
In addition to the Board action there are a number of
requirements for the Clerk, County Attorney, and School Board.
These actions are summarized in the attached letter from Hunton &
Williams, Bond Counsel, and detailed in their Schedule of
V.P.S.A. Events. This office will coordinate the completion of
these requirements.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need
additional information.
MAB/bs
Attachment
cc: Ray B. Jones
John English
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
oo~~re"nq~ lID
MAR 2 7 1991
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA
KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
707 EAST MAIN STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
P. O. Box 1535
DEPT. tJ~~~NCS.ROLlNA
RXCHMOND, VXROXN:IA 23219
TELEPHONE (804) 788-8200
FACSIMILE (804) 788-8218
WASHINGTON, D. C.
FILE:
26222. 12
(804) 788-83
DIRECT DIAL:
March 26, 1991
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Melvin A. Breeden
Director of Finance
Albemarle County
Department of Finance
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Albemarle County, Virginia
$3,000,000 School Bond, series of 1991A
Dear Melvin:
Enclosed please find the following documents in connection
with the above-referenced financing by the County:
(1) Bond Resolutions. This resolution is scheduled to be
adopted on April 3. Please have all five copies of the
resolution signed and sealed after it has been adopted.
Please note that page B-4 is an Exhibit and therefore
should not be executed.
(2) Court Order. This Court Order must be filed with the
circuit Court as soon as possible after the resolution
has been adopted, but in no event later than April 22.
(3) Public Notice. Please advertise this in a local
newspaper of general circulation within ten days of the
filing of the Court Order.
(4) School Board Resolutions. By copy of this letter, I am
forwarding to Dr. John English five original School
Board Resolutions to be signed and sealed after
adoption of the School Board Resolution on April 8.
... t
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
Mr. Melvin A. Breeden
March 26, 1991
Page 2
(5) Schedule of VPSA Events. This schedule provides a
guideline for you to follow in the two months prior to
closing.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please do
not hesitate to call me or my paralegal, Karen Shea, at (804)
788-8431.
Sincerely,
~,~~
. U
Mary Jo Whl.te
383/6442
Enclosure
,r
Albemarle county, virginia
$3,000,000 School Bond, Series of 1991A
Schedule of Events
Board of Supervisors Meeting Dates:
First and third Wednesday
of each month
School Board Meeting Date:
Second Monday of each
month
Events
Date
H&W circulates preliminary documents
Completed
Preliminary documents include the Notice
of Public Hearing, Preliminary
Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of
the Bond, General Questionnaire and Use
of Proceeds Questionnaire.
H&W circulates draft Bond Resolution
providing for the Issuance of the Bonds for
review by County and VPSA and draft school
board resolution
Completed
Resolution provides for the details of
the Bond issue. School Board resolution
consents to issuance of bond.
County returns questionnaires to H&W
Completed
County publishes notice of public hearing on
Bond issue
Completed
County establishes publication schedule;
first publication must be at least 14
days prior to hearing date, second
publication must follow first by at
least one full week and public hearing
must follow second publication by at
least one full week.
Comments due on draft Bond Resolution
Completed
H&W sends out Bond Resolution in final form,
along with court order and notice of adoption
of Bond Resolution for newspaper publication
Completed
sending documents out on this date
should get them to you in time for
....
Events
inclusion in Board packages. Final form
of Bond Resolution will reflect changes
suggested or required by the County or
VPSA.
Board adopts Bond Resolution
County attorney files court order filing
resolution
Required by Virginia Code ~ 15.1-199.
Signing deadline is April 22 because the
Code provides for a 3D-day waiting
period after signing for closing. See
virginia Code ~ 15.1-212.
county publishes notice of adoption of Bond
Resolution
Required by Virginia Code ~ 15.1-199.
Must be published within 10 days after
order is entered.
H&W circulates School Board Resolution
Bonds are exempt from the general
referendum requirement if sold to VPSA
with the "consent" of the School Board,
under the Virginia Constitution and
Virginia Code ~ 15.1-185. School Board
consent comes through this resolution,
which must be adopted after Board adopts
the Bond Resolution.
county returns Bond Sale Agreement to VPSA
VPSA will send you this contract, which
provides for the sale of your Bond to
VPSA. The Bond Resolution will
authorize its execution and delivery to
VPSA.
School Board adopts Resolution
-2-
Date
April 3
As soon as
possible after
April 3
meeting; Judge
must sign
order by April
22
within 10 days
after order is
signed by
Judge
March 26
April 5
April 8
".
Events
This will be the resolution circulated
March 26.
H&W circulates draft closing certificates for
review by County and VPSA
There will be eight or nine different
certificates for signature by various
County and School Board officials.
These certificates will document
compliance with federal tax laws,
Virginia laws and VPSA requirements.
They will be based on information
contained in the questionnaires.
VPSA Bond Sale
VPSA sells its bonds to provide funds to
purchase your Bond. VPSA charges you
interest at rates which are greater by
1/10th of 1% in each year than the rates
VPSA gets on its bonds.
H&W sends out resolution ratifying bond issue
size and interest rates in final form
This resolution provides for the Board's
final approval of the bond issue size
and interest rates offered by VPSA.
Comments due on draft closing certificates
H&W sends out closing certificates to County
for execution
The final versions of these certificates
will reflect changes suggested or
required by the County or VPSA.
Board adopts resolution ratifying interest
rates
This will be the resolution circulated
May 2.
-3-
Date
April 23
April 30 -
May 2
May 2
May 3
May 9
May 15
Events
County obtains signatures on closing
certificates
County returns executed closing certificates
to H&W
These need to be returned in advance of
closing so they can be reviewed and any
necessary corrections made comfortably
in advance of closing.
pre-closing
Representatives of VPSA and its bond
counsel will independently review
documents related to your Bond for
compliance with federal tax laws,
Virginia laws and VPSA requirements.
Closing
Your Bond is delivered to VPSA, and your
proceeds are made available for your
use.
Date: 03/25/91
-4-
Date
May 10 -
May 16
Not later than
May 17
May 22
May 23
.~
~;::$D,At:J//IJA/ -# I
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies as follows:
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the 3rd day of April, 1991,
at the time and place established by such Board for its regular
meetings at its preceding annual meeting in accordance with
section 15.1-536 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, at
which the following members were present and absent:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
the following resolution, having been the subject of a public
hearing held on this date after newspaper publication of notice
thereof in accordance with Sections 15.1-171.1 and 15.1-186 of
the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, held at the time and
place set out in such notice, was adopted by a majority of all
members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the ayes
and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown
below:
MEMBER
VOTE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SCHOOL
BONDS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $19,070,000 TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Albemarle County School Board has advised the Board
of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
"County"), of the necessity to undertake capital projects for
public schools. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable
to do so and to borrow money for such purpose and issue the
County's general obligation bonds therefor.
\
~
2. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act, there
are hereby authorized to be issued school bonds of the County in
the maximum amount of $19,070,000 to provide funds, together with
other available funds, to finance capital projects for public
schools. The bonds shall be sold to the Virginia Public School
Authority, a state agency prescribed by the General Assembly
pursuant to Article VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution.
3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-186 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended, the Board hereby estimates that the average
rate of interest to be borne by the bonds is 7.5% per year and
the amount of interest charges required to repay and retire the
bonds is $18,658,000. In making this estimate the Board has
assumed a 20-year debt retirement schedule providing for
approximately equal annual principal payments.
4. The bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature at such
time or times not exceeding 40 years from their date, bear
interest at such rate or rates not to exceed the maximum rate of
9% at the time the bonds are sold, be in such denominations and
form, be executed in such manner and be sold at such time or
times and in such manner as the Board may hereafter provide by
appropriate resolution or resolutions.
5. The bonds shall be general obligations of the County
for the payment of principal of and interest on which its full
faith and credit shall be irrevocably pledged.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held the 3rd day of
April, 1991, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the
matters referred to in such extract.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this day of
April, 1991. ----
(SEAL)
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia
-2-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On Wednesday, the 3rd day of April, 1991, the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, will hold a public
hearing on a proposed resolution entitled "Resolution Authorizing
the Issuance and Sale of School Bonds of Albemarle County,
Virginia, in the Maximum Amount of $19,070,000, to the Virginia
Public School Authority." The public hearing will be conducted
at 7:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
The estimated average rate of interest on the bonds is 7.5%
per year. The estimated amount of interest charges that will be
necessary to repay and retire the bonds is $ 18,658,000.
A copy of the full text of the resolution is on file in the
office of the County Executive.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia
~~o~v7/.,..J ...:#;:2...
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (the
"Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), hereby
certifies as follows:
1. A regular meeting of the Board was held on April 3,
1991, at the time and place established by such Board for its
regular meetings at its preceding annual meeting in accordance
with section 15.1-536 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amend-
ed, at which the following members were present and absent:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
2. A resolution entitled "Resolution Providing for the
Issuance of $3,000,000 School Bonds, Series of 1991A, of
Albemarle County, Virginia, Heretofore Authorized, To Be Sold To
the Virginia Public School Authority, and Setting Forth the Form
and Details Thereof" was adopted by a majority of all members of
the Board by a roll call vote, the ayes and nays being recorded
in the minutes of the meeting as shown below:
MEMBER
VOTE
3. Attached hereto is a true, correct and complete copy of
such resolution as adopted at such meeting.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this ____ day of
April, 1991.
( SEAL)
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000
SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES OF 1991A, OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED, TO BE SOLD TO THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY, AND SETTING FORTH THE
FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted April 3, 1991, the Board of
Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
"County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to
issue its general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of
$19,070,000 to finance capital projects for school purposes, none
of which bonds have been issued and sold; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority, a state -----
agency prescribed by the General Assembly of Virginia pursuant to
Article VII, section 10(b) of the Constitution of virginia (the
"VPSA"), has offered to purchase the County's $3,000,000 school
bonds pursuant to a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of April 5, 1991
(the "Bond Sale Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the
County has determined that it is necessary and expedient to
borrow an aggregate amount not to exceed $3,000,000 and to issue
its general obligation school bonds for the financing of certain
capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing after due notice,
on April 3, 1991, on the issuance of the Bonds, as defined below,
in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15.1-171.1 and
15.1-504, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia
Code") ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. Issuance of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board has
determined previously that it is advisable to contract a debt and
issue and sell general obligation bonds in the maximum aggregate
amount of $3,000,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing
certain capital projects for public school purposes. The Board
hereby provides for the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the
form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of Bonds. It is determined to be in the best
interest of the County to accept the offer of the VPSA to
purchase the Bonds, and to sell the Bonds to the VPSA at par upon
the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman
of the Board and the County Administrator or either of them, are
hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Sale Agreement
in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting,
which is hereby approved, and deliver it to the VPSA.
3. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in
registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereofi shall be dated the date of their issuance and deliverYi
shall be designated "School Bonds, Series of 1991Ai" shall bear
interest payable semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 (each
an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning December 15, 1991, at the
rate or rates, and shall mature on December 15 in the years (each
a "principal Payment Date") and in the amounts, established in
accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution.
Interest on each Bond shall be payable (a) from its date, if
it is authenticated prior to December 15, 1991, or (b) otherwise
from the June 15 or December 15 that is, or immediately precedes,
the date on which it is authenticated (unless payment of interest
thereon is in default, in which case such Bond shall bear
interest from the date to which interest has been paid).
Principal and premium, if any, shall be payable, subject to the
provisions of section 6, to the registered owners upon surrender
of the Bonds as they become due at the principal corporate trust
office of Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, the Registrar.
Subject to the provisions of Section 6, interest shall be payable
by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their
addresses as they appear on registration books kept by the
Registrar on the first day of the month of the interest payment
date. principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable
in lawful money of the United States of America.
4. Award of Bonds: Interest Rates. The County
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to award the
Bonds to the VPSA at a price of par and at an interest rate or
rates established by the VPSA, provided that no such interest
rate or rates shall be more than one-tenth of one percent (1/10
of 1%) over the annual rate to be paid by the VPSA for the
corresponding maturity of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the
"VPSA Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the
Bonds, and provided further, that no interest rate on the Bonds
shall exceed nine percent (9%) per year. Principal of the Bonds
shall be payable in installments in years and amounts as set
forth on Exhibit Ai provided, however, that the County
Administrator is hereby authorized to award the Bonds to the VPSA
in accordance with a principal payment schedule different from
that set forth in Exhibit A as the VPSA may propose, provided
that such schedule shall include for annual payments in the years
1991 through 2011, inclusive. The execution and delivery of the
Bonds as described in section 8 hereof shall conclusively
evidence the same as having been approved and authorized by this
Resolution.
5. Form of Bonds When Owned by VPSA. For as long as the
VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in
the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. Upon 20 days' written
notice from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense,
Bonds in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 or any
integral multiple, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the
temporary typewritten Bond. Such Bonds in marketable form shall
be in substantially the form of Exhibit B hereto, with such
changes as shall be necessary or appropriate for the Bonds to be
in marketable form, as are not inconsistent with the terms of
this Resolution and as may be approved by the County officials
executing such Bonds.
6. Payment to VPSA: pavina Aaent and Reaistrar.
a. For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of
the Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available
funds to the VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia,
time) on the applicable Interest Payment Date and Principal
Payment Date, or, if such date is not a business day for virgin1a
banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before
11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the business day next
preceding such Payment Date; and
b. All overdue payments of principal, and interest to
the extent permitted by law, shall bear interest at the
applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
c. Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as
Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bond (the "Registrar").
7. prepayment or Redemption. The principal installments
of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before December
lS, 2000, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by
the 'IPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15,
'2000, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities. The principal installments of the Bonds held
by the VPSA coming due after December ~5, 2000, and the
definitive Bonds that mature after December 15, 2000, are subject
to prepayment or redemption at the County's option prior to their
stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after
December 15, 2000, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption
prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments to be
prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set
forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment
or redemption:
December 15, 2000 to December 14, 2001, inclusive
December 15, 2001 to December 14, 2002, inclusive
December 15, 2002 to December 14, 2003, inclusive
December 15, 2003 and thereafter
103%
102
101
100
3
Provided, however, that while the VPSA is the registered
owner of the Bonds or of the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds
may be exchanged, the County shall not call the principal
installments of the Bonds for prepayment or call the definitive
Bonds for which the Bonds may be exchanged for redemption, prior
to their stated maturities as described above without first
obtaining the prior written consent of the VPSA. Notice of any
such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Registrar to
the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety nor
less than thirty days before the date fixed for prepayment or
redemption. Notice of prepayment (but not the requirement that
the VPSA give its prior written consent to prepayment or
redemption) may be waived by the owner of a Bond to be prepaid.
8. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be signed by the
manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of
the Board, shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile
signature of the Clerk of the Board and the Board's seal shall be
affixed thereto or a facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided,
however, that if both of such signatures are facsimiles, no bond
shall be valid until it has been authenticated by the manual----
signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Registrar
and the date of authentication noted thereon.
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the timely
payment of the principal of and the interest on the Bonds
provided for by this Resolution as the same shall become due, the
full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably
pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be
outstanding, unless other funds are lawfully available and
appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the Board shall
levy and collect in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax
upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal
of and the interest on the Bonds as such principal and interest
shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to
rate and amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to
be levied in the County.
10. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the Board is
hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this
Resolution to be presented to the County School Board. The Bonds
authorized hereby shall not be issued by the County until the
County School Board shall have adopted an appropriate resolution
consenting to the issuance of the Bonds.
4
11. state Non-Arbitraae proaram: Proceeds Aareement. In
accordance with the requirements of the VPSA, the Board hereby
determines that it is in the County's best interests to
participate in the state Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with
the Bonds, and hereby authorizes and directs the County Treasurer
to take such action as shall be necessary or desirable therefor.
The appropriate officers of the County are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect
to the deposit and investment. of proceeds of the Bonds by and
among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA
Bonds, the VPSA, Public Financial Management, Inc., as investment
manager, and Central Fidelity Bank, as depository; provided,
however, that such proceeds shall be invested in such manner that
none of the Bonds will be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of
section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
including regulations applicable to the Bonds (the "Code"). The
Proceeds Agreement shall be in such form as shall be approved by
the County's bond counsel.
12. Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The County hereby
covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action elie-
taking or omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage
bonds" within the meaning of Code Section 148, or otherwise cause
interest on the Bonds to be includable in the gross income for
federal income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof
under existing law. without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the County shall comply with any provision of law that
may require the County at any time to rebate to the United states
any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the gross
proceeds of the Bonds. The County shall pay any such required
rebate from its general funds.
13. Use of Proceeds certificate. The appropriate officers
and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to
execute a Use of Proceeds Certificate or Certificates setting
forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the
Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order
to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations
relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the
Bonds or on the VPSA Bonds. The Board on behalf of the County,
covenants that the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the
Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of
Proceeds certificate and other certificates and that the County
shall comply with the other covenants and representations
contained therein. Furthermore, the Board on behalf of the
County covenants that the County shall comply with the provisions
of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds
will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax
purposes. Such certificates may also provide for any elections
such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the
United States for purposes of complying with the provisions of
5
Code section 148.
14. Restrictions on Private Use. The County covenants that
it will not permit the gross proceeds of the Bonds to be used in
any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds
being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other
than a governmental unit, as provided in Code section 141(b),
(b) 5% or more of such proceeds being used with respect to any
"output facility" (other than a facility for the furnishing of
water), within the meaning of Code section 141(b) (4), or (c) 5%
or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to
make or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental
unit, as provided, in Code Section 141(c); provided, however, that
if the County receives an opinion of bond counsel to the County
with respect to the Bonds, and bond counsel to the VPSA with
respect to the VPSA Bonds, that compliance with any such
restriction is not required to prevent interest on the bonds of
both issues from being includable in the gross income for federal
income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under
existing law, the County need not comply with such restriction.
15. No Sale of Bonds of Same Issue. The County covenants
that it will not, without the Authority's consent, sell or
deliver any general obligation bonds which are part of the same
common plan of financing (and paid for from the same source of
funds) as the Bonds between the dates that are 31 days prior to
the date of sale of the VPSA Bonds and 31 days after the Closing
Date.
16. Filinq of Resolution: pUblication of Notice. The
appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this
Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County and,
within ten days thereafter, to cause to be published once in a
newspaper having general circulation in the County a notice
setting forth (a) in brief and general terms the purposes for
which the Bonds are to be issued and (b) the amount of the Bonds.
17. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all
officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby
authorized to take such action as they or anyone of them may
consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance
and sale of the Bonds, and any such action previously taken is
hereby ratified and confirmed.
18. Repeal of Resolutions in Conflict. All resolutions or
parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
19. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately.
6
EXHIBIT A
principal Repayment Schedule
Year Amount Year Amount
1991 $ 55,000 2001 $140,000
1992 60,000 2002 150,000
1993 65,000 2003 165,000
1994 75,000 2004 180,000
1995 80,000 2005 195,000
1996 90,000 2006 215,000
1997 95,000 2007 235,000
1998 105,000 2008 260,000
1999 115,000 2009 285,000
2000 125,000 2010 .310,000
7
EXHIBIT B
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1
$3,000,000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
School Bond, Series of 1991A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value
received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay
to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of
NINETEEN MILLION SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,000,000), in annual
installments on December 15 of the years (each a "Principal
Payment Date"), together with interest on the unpaid installments
at the annual rates set forth below from the date of this Bond
until payment of the principal sum hereof, such interest to be
payable commencing on December 15, 1991, and semi-annually
thereafter on June 15 and December 15 of each year (each an ----
"Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal Payment
Date, a "Payment Date"), as follows:
Year of principal Interest Year of Principal Interest
Maturity Amount Rate Maturity Amount Rate
1991 $ 55,000 % 2001 $140,000 ~
0
1992 60,000 2002 150,000
1993 65,000 2003 165,000
1994 75,000 2004 180,000
1995 80,000 2005 195,000
1996 90,000 2006 215,000
1997 95,000 2007 235,000
1998 105,000 2008 260,000
1999 115,000 2009 285,000
2000 125,000 2010 310,000
subject to prepayment as hereinafter provided. Both principal of
and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the
united states of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, Crestar Bank, Richmond, virginia,
as Bond Registrar, shall make all payments of principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the
presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School
Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m.
(Richmond, Virginia, time) on the applicable Payment Date. If a
B-1
Payment Date is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth
of virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment
of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall
be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m.
(Richmond, virginia, time) on the business day next preceding the
scheduled payment Date. Upon receipt by the registered owner of
this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and
interest, written acknowledgement of the receipt thereof shall be
given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be
fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of
the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond ~hall be
surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of principal of and interest on this
Bond.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with
and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including the Public Finance Act, Chapter 5, Title
15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and resolutions du~y
adopted by the County's Board of Supervisors and the School Board
of the County to provide funds, together with other available
funds, to finance capital projects for public schools.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the principal
corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for an equal
aggregate principal amount of bonds in definitive form having
maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the
maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of
principal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in fully registered
form in the denomination of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof.
This Bond is registered in the name of Virginia Public
School Authority on books of the County kept by the Bond
Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the
registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an
assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such
assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar
shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove
provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such
registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named
in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or
before December 15, 2000, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2000,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The principal installments of this Bond corning due
B-2
after December 15, 2000, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature after December 15, 2000, are
subject to prepayment or redemption at the County's option prior
to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or
after December 15, 2000, upon payment of the prepayment or
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal
installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds
to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date
set for prepayment or redemption:
December 15, 2000 to December 14, 2001, inclusive
December 15, 2001 to December 14, 2002, inclusive
December 15, 2002 to December 14, 2003, inclusive
December 15, 2003 and thereafter
103%
102
101
100
Provided, however, that while the Virginia Public School
Authority is the registered owner of this Bond or of the
definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged, the County
shall not call the principal installments of this Bond for
prepayment, or call the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may
be exchanged for redemption prior to their stated maturities-as-
described above without first obtaining the prior written consent
of the Virginia Public school Authority. Notice of any such
prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Registrar to the
registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and
not less than thirty (30) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption. Notice of prepayment (but not the
requirement that the Virginia Public School Authority give its
prior written consent to prepayment or redemption) may be waived
by the owner of the Bond to be prepaid or redeemed.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have
happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and
manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other
indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit
prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The resolution adopted by the Board of supervisors
authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.1-
210 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, requires, that
there shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon all
taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall
become due which tax shall be without ~imitation as to rate and
amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to
be levied in the County.
B-3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, virginia, has caused this Bond to be signed by its
Chairman, to be countersigned by its Clerk, its seal to be
affixed hereto, and this Bond to be dated May __, 1991.
COUNTERSIGNED:
(SEAL)
Chairman, Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County,
virginia
B-4
. ,
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and
transfers unto
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE,
OF ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF
ASSIGNEE:
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
attorney to
exchange said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this
Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive
bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power
of substitution in the premises.
Date:
Registered Owner
signature Guaranteed:
(NOTICE: The signature above
must correspond with the name
of the Registered Owner as it
appears on the front of this
Bond in every particular,
without alteration or change.)
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by a member firm of
the New York stock Exchange or
a commercial bank or trust
company.}
B-5
~4f
~~J~
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF
THE ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000
SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES OF 1991A,
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Q R ~ ~ R
There having .been presented to the Court a certified copy of
a resolution entitled "Resolution Providing for the Issuance of
$3,000,000 School Bonds, Series of 1991A, of Albemarle County,
Virginia, Heretofore Authorized, To Be Sold to the Virginia
Public School Authority, and Setting Forth the Form and Details
Thereof," adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, on April 3, 1991, it is hereby
ORDERED that the certified copy of
attached to the sketch of this order,
filed as required by Section 15.1-199
1950, as amended.
such resolution, which is
be and the same is hereby
of the Code of Virginia of
ENTER:
, 1991
Judge
I ask for this:
County Attorney
..
PUBLIC NOTICE
On the 3rd day of April, 1991, the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, adopted a resolution entitled
"Resolution Providing for the Issuance of $3,000,000 School
Bonds, Series of 1991A, of Albemarle County, virginia, Heretofore
Authorized, To Be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority,
and setting Forth the Form and Details Thereof."
The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for financing
capital projects for public schools, and the amount of the bonds
is $3,000,000.
By order of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors,
Albemarle County, Virginia
;;::~d)
~
~fic,u
/U e-- J'? ;;- #'~
/ljVMf;.~ C'/.Qe-tSa
~/< / ~ ~ /J?f/ "ve-e4'
&4: e::>}- dg.
8y
A/~~
..
.7-J.-~ / #e.k~'
/ e.- .$ &:J L t/ T/~ -J
At a regular meeting of the County School Board of Albemarle
county, virginia, held on the 8th day of April, 1991, at the time
and place established by such Board for its regular meetings, at
which the following members were present and absent:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
the following resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The financing of capital projects for public schools by
contracting a debt in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 issuing
School Bonds, Series of 1991A, of Albemarle County, Virginia,
therefor and selling the same to the Virginia Public ~chool
Authority, as proposed by a resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, on April 3, 1991, is
hereby consented to in all respects. The School Board hereby
joins in the Board of Supervisor's request for the Virginia
Public School Authority to provide financing, for such capital
projects. The Board of Supervisors is requested to take all
necessary action to consummate the sale of such bonds. A
certified copy of such resolution of the Board of Supervisors
shall be filed with the minutes of this meeting.
2. The Clerk of this Board is hereby authorized and
directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be
~
"\~"
.
~
delivered forthwith to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the County School Board of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a
regular meeting of the School Board held on the 8th day of April,
1991, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the
matters referred to in such extract.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the County School Board
of Albemarle County, Virginia, this ____ day of April, 1991.
(SEAL)
Clerk, County School Board of
Albemarle County,
virginia
-2-
,#, ,
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUlliORITY
BOND SALE AGREEMENT
dated as of April 5, 1991
Name of Jurisdiction:
(the "Local Unit")
Albemarle County
Sale Date: Not earlier
than April 30, 1991 nor later than
May 2, 1991.
Principal Amount:
$3,000,000
Closing Date: On or about May
23, 1991.
Amortization Period:
20 Years
*********************************************************************************
1. The Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") hereby offers to purchase your
general obligation School Bonds in the Principal Amount set forth above from the
proceeds of VPSA's bonds, the sale of which is scheduled to take place on the
Sale Date.
2. You represent that on or before the Sale Date, your local governing body will
have duly authorized the issuance of your bonds by adopting the resolution in the
form attached hereto as Appendix B (the "local resolution") and that your bonds
will be in the form set forth in the local resolution. Any changes that you or your
counsel wish to make to the form of the local resolution and/or your bonds must
be approved by VPSA prior to adoption of the local resolution by your local
governing body.
3. VPSA's commitment to purchase your bonds is contingent upon VPSA's receipt
on the Closing Date, of (a) a certified copy of the local resolution, (b) approving
legal opinions from your bond counsel in form satisfactory to VPSA as to (i) the
validity and exclusion from gross income for federal and Virginia income tax
purposes of the interest on your bonds, (ii) the conformity of the terms and
provisions of your bonds to the requirements of this Bond Sale Agreement
including the exhibits hereto, and (iii) the due authorization, execution and
delivery of this Bond Sale Agreement and the Proceeds Agreement (defined
below) and the enforceability of the Proceeds Agreement, (c) an executed
agreement, among VPSA, you and the other local units simultaneously selling
their bonds to VPSA, Central Fidelity and Public Financial Management, Inc. (the
depository and investment manager, respect.ively for SNAP), providing for the
custody, investment and disbursement of the proceeds of your bonds and the
other general obligation school bonds, and the payment by you and the other
local units of the allocable, associated costs of compliance with the Internal
," ~
....
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and any costs incurred in connection with
your participation in the State Non-Arbitrage Program (the "Proceeds
Agreement"), (d) an executed copy of the Use of Proceeds Certificate in the form
attached hereto as Appendix C, (e) a transcript of the other customary documents
not listed above, and (1) the proceeds of VPSA's bonds.
4. This Bond Sale Agreement shall take effect on April 5, 1991.
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
...
By:
Authorized VPSA Representative
By:
Name:
Title:
(For information only; not part of the Bond Sale Agreement.)
Please have the presiding officer, or other specifically designated agent, of your governing
body execute 2 copies of this Bond Sale Agreement and return them no later than close of
business on April 5, 1991, to Joe Niggel, Debt Manager, Virginia Public School Authority,
P.O. Box 6-H, Richmond, Virginia 23215. If your governing body or bond counsel requires
more than one originally signed Bond Sale Agreement, please send the appropriate number;
all but one will be returned at closing.
"
r ~
.,-",., f'."-,o,.,."\.
JlWlPV
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMO TO: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerw
DATE: May 1, 1991
SUBJECT: VPSA Bond Issue
Attached is the original "Certification of publication" for notice
of adoption of bond resolution as required by H&W.
len/
Attachment
..
~
~
"'d
s::
C'"
.......
I-' .
en
=:r'
I-' .
~
()'q
"%j
ct)
ct)
~
U\00 ~ ~
(t)o..
t:l ....
M-
~~
~p:l
.,,~
'1 p:l
OO'Q
~(t)
(t) '1
00
00
(')(")
:::0)>
"':;0
20
~r-
$:5:
)>)>
.~~
C>-(
111m
:0;:0
o
I-' .
-<
ct)
~
c:
-~
0...
ct)
~
~
::q
I--\P)
co~
0...
D~
--e:
rn
Q)
..0
tj
P)
~
o
I-+')
00. ~ H
en ct) =:r'
s:: en ct)
ct) en ~
00 : ct)
'-' C'"
0...P)~
s- g g
o...~g
"O~
P) c-t-
I "0 =:r'
-Lcop)
~ c-t-
I-' . c-t-
~ =:r'
Oct)
=:r'P)
--~s:
o n
c-t-=:r'
c-t-ct)
- ct) 0...
.J~. ~
.......0
roo:
~ n
$~
as p)
~. en
1-'. "0
1--\ p) s::
co'" C'"
p) ........
1)~ 00.
o...=:r'
___p)ct)
"0 0...
"0 I-' .
ct) ~
p) :
~ ~
ct) =:r'
o...ct)
S'tj
c-t-P)
=:r'~
ct)~
"'d
'"1
o
I
:l>c:i",ii> 10-0 ~Oll>lQ."fO(jjO"'''II> ~ OJ, 0-
rba. -~ in> 5.2.g g cng~_a; ~g ~~
~ool~ 0:"C [.. II> j;i'::> 0 oo:~ <II a. .' ,
~a.o O<llc"<II_<II<<_o--~ Of
<II~<IIb liio.;.Tl-i";uo.- b:::>C"O<110 "1
a~_o~nE5~5~~~.~oc~g-m~ c
<II 00 oa'o;:::>" <1110 =ora <00_:::>:::> C/l",U]
~P-"~s~~~,~nm5'~Wg~~~~o C
z~I'a~~a~~C/l<ll~~~s~<<II- _oj
~ . ~"';TOC/l' o"e-'<:l>C<IIZ
a; - _ C/l a-g ""f,l1';'6 2.ifO 2. <II ~cQ,o;'''C al 00 t.
~~ .sO" ::Too.~-~-_:::>o=..O-i
_ _. ':"J-::: 0----".- _CD -""""f/) ...-..... c;;c:-
0<0 Q)-n go" 06'>0 ~:n.?l (ft~fii.:l 0
~~~ g"~~ grOf~&~~~II>a~g<<m
~P;'Qa~~. '3~CD,ii'_~.Y'~cg.>:",G' -
(II 01 0 sn en lD::! <>lD en. :1':Sc=g.
, _:_~ Cii'~~'6 a-:::" 7"cr ii"~2.g &. cP CD
-- ~ 0
m 0
~ ::JJ ~
-I
-
"TI
- t""
0 Om~
U )> ~ffi~
-I ~~tj
-
0
~ Z ~cn~
0 ~~S;
t;:rj~"'d
"TI '" H ~
"'C ~OO
c: ~~O
m OO~
r- ~E;~
-
0
)> t\:)
-I t\:)
CO
- 0
0 m
Z
\
~I
}-::-~. :J: 31'21 1J~
" ~
!'.'-; , ,
"1.;'-- '
1 {, (j ~ zeis:;,q )
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
COU NT Y OF /~, I:n:I'v'i\ PLf'
...l..l.. Ir-\.\ L
~ p':.J r:eJJ111l.)~ rl1
~\~, MAR 29 1991 ) I, I
! \ 1',.,- . I t' ~
I I .
--,' Io...~ .J .f ....... I .J
r.\ _, _~..J \...-.-
c:\(/,AJ~D OF Sl IPEh'Vi~'~()
Plannlng and '.>
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Community Development
Richard E. Tarbell, Planner ~~
March 28, 1991
ZMA-90-18 J. S. and Frances Barnett
This is an addendum to your memorandum to the Board of
Supervisors of March 14, 1991 for this site plan to inform
you the ARB approved this applicant's request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness on March 25, 1991 and the
Planning Commission approved the site plan amendment on
March 26, 1991.
During the ARB review of this item they considered the
proposed fence and required it to be stained a dark color
and to have the proposed bar wire deleted from the top of
it. The Board also recommended the addition of ten
deciduous street (oak, ash or maple) at 1~" caliper to
replace the proffered double row of street shrubs which were
to be planted five on center and staggered along the site's
frontage on Route 742. The applicant was agreeable to this
replacement, but was also made aware, along with the ARB,
that it would require the Board of Supervisors consent to
delete the proffered shrubs. Should the Board of
Supervisors choose not to accept the ten trees as a
substitution for the shrubs, the applicant may rely on the
original proffered landscape plan of street shrubs only
along Rt. 742.
RET/jcw
"Y/;/V +.
q/. D3;;J.o C S. 20)
D jlri h vtl ~j S.-j.t' q f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
\-- ~! f,r . .
~} ~ /\ .,.;3 C' ~-/ /:: ,i~' L:_
r-~)~ {';.::: l~~'~ f'~ ~~ \". r';'t'-~" .,-,,-...
1,1),)---...----..--L.,,:~L;J.lI.... . ~ ,I
,~l - -~t ! ;:1
'I, '. " "
~,( \ MAR i q 1991 \ Iii I
, :: i ~. ... )( J II
)., I ,'!-, , 'I
J u ~,;~'~;-i: ; ,,-;"1 T"1T'''r( III j
Fi ;}\ I': :i:": .'. ':',;";.: 'I\' I': ;::;~~ ;~~ ;~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community DevelopmenttltU~
TO:
DATE:
March 14, 1991
RE:
Consent Agenda - ZMA-90-18 J. S. and Frances Barnett
On November 28, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved this petition
to rezone the property at the intersection of Route 742 and Route 1101
(Tax Map 77, Parcel 8A) from LI, Light Industry to HC, Highway
Commercial with proffers limiting the use of this site and providing
landscaping. Due to recommendations made by the Virginia Department
of Transportation the applicant has revised the proffered landscape
plan to provide a sight distance easement and right-of-way dedication
along Route 1101. The original proffer stated, "We also proffer to
install rows of pine trees four to six feet in height adjacent to Route
1101. The trees shall be spaced ten feet on center in two rows and the
rows will be evenly staggered".
The Edgecomb's site plan proposes this landscaping to be replaced by a
six-foot wooden fence with azaleas planted in front of it. Staff
opinion is this substitution meets the intent of the proffer to screen
the northern parking area. With the Board's concurrence, staff will
proceed under that interpretation.
It should be noted that the proffer was proposed by the applicant to
address potential concerns of the adjacent property owner to the north.
Staff has received a letter from that property owner stating their
approval of the proposed substitution.
VWC/blb
,
~ AStec PartnershIp
,.., t 500 AVON sTREET FXrO
CHARLoTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
(804) 295.72.00
"'larch 1/.., 1':391
Mr. Gary Edgecomb
E::d gec(Hnb Melt c:'r~~
Hc,ut~ EbO [:a~~t
Charlott~sville, VA 22901
Re~ Ct18.Y'l99 tc;. BitE? Pla't"l fc.\'" New Site Nf.;>xt t.;:. ~~~S3tec C(;l'nttin"
Dear Mr. Edg~COMh:
I u~d8rstand that you wish to replace the prQPQs~d trae buff~r
on the border n~ ynur site (which fQcem ASt~c C~~t8r) with a solid
board fencE? of the vertical lap configuration with Azaleas p18~ted
i~, 'l'r'OYlt ,:d: thE'] fl;:~nce.
Thi~~ vii 11 t1aV{~
app8~ran~8s with a
havE= 1'10 C.bjl:i1ctic;.n
m~intainQd in good
which would 1~5smn
the effect of more immediate iMproveme~t of the
lesg desirable appe~ranCR for thQ long terM. I
t (;I your pr,:.po::...sc.\ 1 so 1 OY't!;! f.\~1 t hei1 f"H"IC~f.~ i ~>
r~PQir. P~rhapG you could ~el~~t e pai~t color
the iMpact of the fen~e at this location.
~:l i l'"lcerl:~ 1 Y','
:t:d~
Gf,;nrl(~l'-a 1 f..:'c:n-t l"E.lr
A-r+Vt
r
I< 6 ~ -rav--- V dk-
...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
40 1 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
M E M 0 RAN DUM
FROM:
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk ~'--/
April 5, 1991 )/J
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Appropriation - Funding for Agnor-Hurt Elementary School
Construction
At its meeting on April 3, 1991, the Board of Supervisors
approved the appropriation of $5,081,000 to fund construction of
the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. Attached is the signed appropri-
ation form reflecting this action.
LEN:ec
Attachment
cc: Ray B. Jones
John J. English
FISCAL YEAR
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
..,
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
90/91
NUMBER
900028
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND
YES
NO X
CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR AGNOR-HURT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1900060215312300
1900060215312365
1900060215580000
1900060215800200
1900060215800605
1900060215800670
1900060215800750
1900060215999999
PROF. SERVICES-ARCH. & ENG.
CIP COORDINATOR
MISC EXPENSES
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
UTILITIES
LAND ACQUISITION
CONTINGENCY
$322,884.00 .
40,352.00
7,500.00
220,000.00
3,086,000.00
40,000.00
1,153,394.00
210,870.00
TOTAL
$5,081,000.00
2900041000410500
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
LOAN PROCEEDS
$5,081,000.00
************************************************************************
TOTAL
$5,081,000.00
APPROVALS:
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
~~~~
v
c?-~t - j/
f!'-- s~ 9/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Finance
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5855
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
/
MEMORANDUM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
TO: Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive
FROM: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance ~
DATE: March 26, 1991
RE: CIP Appropriation - Agnor Hurt Elementary
Per your request attached is the appropriation form for the
remaining funding of this project. Funding for this project has
been as follows:
FY 1989/90
FY 1990/91
FY 1990/91
Planning
Construction
Current Request
$
135,000
1,600,000
5.081. 000
$ 6,816,000
Please contact me if you need any additional information.
MAB/bs
Attachment
cc: John English
Tracy Holt
Jo Higgins
Distributed to PDjrd: l' 2(//1 /
Agcndt It&m IJo. 1/,(1103-77
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Robert w.
, " I
l~.~ 'y' () F /\ :... E: E. ,/\ F' t. t
rT~~~ r.~:~.J (::.~:~~J r~,:'.:l f-~ f1 ;7 t"~] r-::~
I: i! k..'-.._.__....,......JL..,J~ i r! I
Ii t>~ MAR 28 1991 \) t ! J l
i \, J II j
; !! \ \~" ."'," ../ I I
County Board of su~: ,'\;-!~:,['-,TjJT[c: lljJ
Tucker, Jr. M I " ,. "," l,;; " el'
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle
March 26, 1991
Appropriation for Agnor-Hurt Elementary School
Attached is the Project Budget for the Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School in the amount of $6,816,000 which does not include Berkmar
Drive improvements. Funding for this school is included in the
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bond issue along with
funding for Berkmar Drive ($950,000) and Recreational Facilities
($35,000).
The School Board received some very favorable bids which
were approximately $1.50 per square foot under the recently
completed Cale Elementary School. This low bid allows the
project to absorb the original underestimate on land purchase
costs and still be within the amount approved in the Capital
Improvement Program budget.
Since there was a prior appropriation in the amount of
$1,735,000 for this project, you are being asked to approve an
additional $5,081,000. The additional appropriation for Berkmar
Drive will be requested later after acquisition of right-of-way
and design approval are complete and more accurate cost figures
are available. Please see attached appropriation form for
further details.
RBJ/RWTJr/gs
91-55
Attachment
cc: Melvin A.Breeden
John J. English
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AGNOR-HURT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PROJECT BUDGET
ARCITECT & ENGINEERING FEES
PRELIMINARY REVIEW (1989-90)
DESIGN CONTRACT
REIMBURSABLES
EXTRA EXPENSE - SITE SURVEY
$5,302.00
$432,000.00
$5,000.00
$15,582.00
LAND ACQUISITION
LAND PURCHASE
LAND SURVEY
LAND APPRAISAL
ADDITIONAL RIGHT -OF-WAYS
$1.125,030.00
$17,894.00
$7,470.00
$3.000.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
UTILITIES
FURNISHINGS
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 4.5%
SUPERVISION & ADMINISTRATION
$457,884.00
$1,153,394.00
$7.500.00
$40.000.00
$220,000.00
$4,686,000.00
$210.870.00
$40,352.00
PROJECT TOTAL
$6,816,000.00
FUNDING
VARIANCE
15-Mar-91
$6,816,000.00
$0.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296 -5841
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human
Resources II. )
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk ~
April 5, 1991
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Governor's Early Retirement Program
At its meeting on April 3, 1991, the Board of Supervisors
adopted the attached resolution approving the Governor's Early
Retirement Program.
LEN:ec
Attachment
"
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Early Retirement Program
Be it resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby
elect to provide the Early Retirement Program approved by the 1991 Session of
the General Assembly and the Governor to its eligible employees.
Be it also resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors agrees to
accept all liability for any current or future additional employer
contributions and any increases in current or future employer contribution
rates resulting from its election to provide the benefits of the Program to
its employees.
Be it further resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors elects
to allow its eligible employees to apply for benefits under the Program from
April 1, 1991, through June 30, 1991.
Now, therefore, Frederick R. Bowie , Chairman of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, and Lettie E. Neher , Clerk of the Board, are hereby
authorized and directed in the name of the Board to execute any required
contract in order that said eligible employees of the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors may participate in the Early Retirement Program as provided for
in the Code of Virginia. In execution of any contract which may be required,
the seal of the Albemarle County shall be affixed and attested by the Clerk,
and said officers of the Board are authorized and directed to pay over to the
Treasurer of Virginia from time to time such sums as are due to be paid by the
Board for this purpose.
CERTIFICATE
I, Lettie E. Neher , Clerk of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors, certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution passed at a lawfully organized meeting of the Board held at
Charlottesville, Virginia at 7:00 o'clock on April 3, 1991
(date). Given under my hand and seal of the County of Albemarle
this 5th day of April ,19 91
~-P~
/ . ) .0_ ~~L
. Clerk .
Distrj!gi!c~l k: '"'"~~" ..2'61,Q I..
q(.410~?f
COlJNTY OF ALBEMARLE
" ',...' i; J :,,;
MEMORANDUM
i :-"] Ii",
!' I. I .. "....
i Lj'. ." ~'\ '1;;
! . \ Mt\R 29 19::Jl li! Ii
i, ~ \ i ~ r , I
j j \ j 1"~..-:...t.-..._. 'l''''''~'~'"-'' _"00 .,,,/ ~ ! j
u U :,;.~::.: ~ '- ,'\ f ~~ " [j q I ! 1/
t-"j'" !" _, '..........,J '-,....I l..J L.:..::i L'..::.....
1-'; 1"- ,.>r i ,"~ (""" ')
,._1 '._" "." I; t " '. n- :; ,~. r; ,11 .'1(-', ') :::{~
l._ ...... {~ I,} I.... '.__....
TO: Albemarle County Board
FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
of Supervisors ~
County Executiv~
DATE: March 28, 1991
RE: Proposal To Adopt Governor Wilder's Early Retirement
Program
Governor Wilder's one-time early retirement program for State
employees was approved by the General Assembly. The program can be
adopted by Local Governments and School Divisions in VRS but all
cost will be borne by the locality through an increase in their
contribution rate starting in July, 1992.
The basic features of the program are to allow retirement on
full benefits, (no reduction for early retirement) by giving eligi-
ble personnel an additional five years of service credit and lower-
ing the minimum age to 50. Thus a person can retire at 50 years of
age and 25 years of VRS service instead of 55 years of age and 30
years of service. This criteria must be met as of September 1,
1991. In addition to the lifetime benefit, a $100/month stipend is
paid until age 62. Applications must be submitted between April 1
and June 30, 1991 with retirement occurring on either July 1st,
August 1st, September 1st or October 1st.
There are eight County government persons eligible. If all
eight retired, the annual maximum cost increase would be $35,827.
There is a net annual savings of $26,854 to the County as replace-
ment staff would be hired at a lower entry salary. The actual
savings would be even greater because this program would be in lieu
of the benefits paid under the County's Voluntary Early Retirement
Program (VERIP). Retirees would still receive the one-time retire-
ment payment of $200 per year for every year of service with the
County. Attachment A outlines the costs/savings and Attachment B
provides further details of the program.
The staff recommendation is to adopt the program for local
Government with the April 1 - June 30 eligibility window.
RWTJr/bat
91-1.29
Attachments (2)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
GOVERNOR WILDER'S RETIREMENT PROPOSAL
Number of Employees Eligible: 8
Potential Maximum Annual Increase in
VRS Contributions:
Amount Necessary to Save Per Person to
Break-even:
Net Annual Cost/Savings:
$ 35,827
4,500
26,854
Analysis -
Eligible employee annual VRS salaries: $ 259,916
Replacement employees annual VRS salaries
if hired as "C" step:
Salary savings
plus FICA savings
plus VRS life/retirement savings
Annual Salary Savings:
Less Program Costs:
206,474
$ 53,443
4,088
5,151
$ 62,681
- 35,827
Net Annual Savings:
$ 26,854
RWT91-1.29
ATTACHMENT A
EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL BOARDS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
MARCH 5, 1991
1. How will the Governor's proposed early retirement program
affect local governments and school boards?
Local governments and school boards will be allowed to provide
the same incentives as those provided to State employees on a
local option basis.
2. Will there be additional retirement costs associated with the
program and who will be responsible for those costs?
The additional costs associated with the early retirement plan
will be reflected as an increase in the employer contribution.
Local governments and school boards will be charged with the
higher retirement costs as individual employers if the program is
adopted locally. The individual employer is responsible for
paying the increased retirement costs.
3. How will VRS charge the employer for the additional costs?
The employer contribution rate for the entity will be increased
to recover the additional costs over the funding period for the
employer. The additional costs for local governments will be
reflected as an increased employer contribution rate.
4. What savings can be realized by local governments or school
boards to offset the increases in retirement costs?
The savings to be realized are associated with the reduction in
salary and benefits of employees who retire. If all eligible
County government employees retire and replacements are hired at
the "c" step, the County will have an annual net savings of
$26,854 per year.
5. Does the governing body of the local government make the
decision for both the locality and the school board?
No. For retirement purposes, the local school board is the
employer of teachers and nonprofessional school board employees
and is the decision making body with respect to providing the
early retirement option for its employees.
6. Can local governments and school boards have a different
window than that provided for State employees (June 1, 1991
through September 1, 1991)?
Local governments and school boards may elect to provide an
earlier window of April 1 through June 30 in lieu of the window
provided for State employees and the April 1 - June 30 window is
recommended.
(Over)
ATTACHMENT B
7. Can local governments and school boards offer different early
retirement incentives or eligibility requirements than those
provided for State employees?
No.
8. Are the early retirement incentives available to local law
enforcement officers and firefighters who currently are provided
benefits equivalent to State Police officers?
No.
9. Are the early retirement benefits available to Constitutional
Officers and their employees and, if so, who bears the cost?
For retirement purposes, Constitutional Officers and their
employees are treated as local government employees and all costs
associated with their retirement benefits are the responsibility
of the local government. If a local government elects the early
retirement program, then the Constitutional Officers of that
locality are eligible and any additional cost will be borne by
the localit~ Sheriffs are not eligible for the benefits.
RWT91-1.29
- 2 -
.
;...,.
/) .""0 (; (
"It {..-I.! I
fA ' . 'C' ., ,'"
-r I, () :>( ~',,) 'I
STATEMENT OF
F. R. (RICK) BOWIE, CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD
PRE-ALLOCATION HEARING ON
INTERSTATE AND PRIMARY SYSTEMS
CULPEPER DISTRICT
APRIL 11, 1991
GOOD MORNING, I'M RICK BOWIE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY. WE APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS THIS MORNING ABOUT
OUR PRIMARY ROAD NEEDS, BUT FIRST I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE
SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR BOARD WHO HAVE JOINED ME HERE TODAY.
(INTRODUCTION)
TO BEGIN WITH, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLACES ITS HIGHEST
PRIORITY ON UNDERTAKING THOSE CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA
TRANSPORTATION STUDY (CATS) PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR THE
PRIMARY PROGRAM. WE ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE 1991 SCHEDULE FOR
WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTING FREE BRIDGE AND U.S. ROUTE 250
EAST TO ITS INTERCHANGE WITH INTERSTATE 64. THIS IS A
VITALLY NEEDED IMPROVEMENT FOR ONE OF OUR MOST DEFICIENT
ARTERIALS, AND WE HOPE IT CONTINUES ON ITS CURRENT
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE ROUTE 29
CORRIDOR STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. WE ARE
EQUALLY ANXIOUS TO SEE THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 29 NORTH FROM
y'
THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TO THE SOUTH FORK
RIVANNA RIVER TAKE PLACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THIS PROJECT
SHOULD INCLUDE INTERCHANGES AT HYDRAULIC, GREENBRIER AND RIO
ROADS AS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN THE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR
STUDY. WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY FROM THE
ROUTE 250 BYPASS TO ROUTE 29 NORTH BE EVALUATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT AS A PRIMARY ROAD. AS THE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR
STUDY INDICATES, THIS ROAD IS ESSENTIAL TO REDUCING TRAFFIC
ON ROUTE 29 NORTH.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE OFFER FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THESE ARE ADDRESSED MORE DEFINITIVELY IN A
REPORT WE WILL LEAVE WITH YOUR STAFF:
o WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE WIDENING OF U.S. ROUTE 250
WEST FROM EMMET STREET TO ROUTE 637 IN IVY.
o THE BOARD AGAIN RECOMMENDS THAT A ROADWAY ANALYSIS BE
CONDUCTED FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 250 EAST FROM
ITS INTERCHANGE AT INTERSTATE 64 EASTWARD TO THE
FLUVANNA COUNTY LINE. PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO THAT SEGMENT FROM THE INTERSTATE TO THE
RIVANNA VILLAGE.
o CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF CLOSING CROSSOVERS ALONG U.S.
29 NORTH AS RECOMMENDED IN A VDOT STUDY ADOPTED BY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY 10, 1979 AND REAFFIRMED BY
THE BOARD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1989.
',4
o CONTINUED EFFORT IN FINALIZING THE FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR ROUTE 20 SOUTH IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE GENERAL ALIGNMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS ROADWAY.
o AS RECOMMENDED IN THE FUNCTIONAL PLANS DEVELOPED FOR
ROUTE 240, IMPROVE THE ALIGNMENT OF ROUTE 240 FROM
ROUTE 250 NORTHWARD TO ROUTE 810, INCLUDING
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CSX RAILROAD UNDERPASS.
o DEVELOP FUNCTIONAL PLANS FOR ROUTE 20 NORTH WHICH
SHOULD IDENTIFY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT ADDRESS SITE
DISTANCE AND CURVATURE DEFICIENCIES.
o THE COUNTY CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
INTERCHANGE ON INTERSTATE 64 AT AVON STREET (ROUTE
742).
WE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND IF QUESTIONS
ARISE, OR IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED REGARDING OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME OR
MEMBER OF OUR COUNTY STAFF.
r,:'-'
,
... ;'".--0-'
0<... J~-:"
-"'I '1- - I
.-']'{kl'c,?
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901-4596
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Board of Supervisors J~
Lettie E. Neher, ClerkJi~
FROM:
DATE:
March 29, 1991
SUBJECT:
Reading List for March 20, 1991
February 6, 1991 - c?i!lgea 12 23 (#8) Mr. 'oaTn-
Pages 23 (#8) - 35 - Mr. Way
February 13, 1991 - ~'r-.....--y;.r--rJr6-r-~--Mr'S;-Humphris
p.ages 14 (#16 )_- 27 - Mr. BowermgJL
p~ 28 - End - ML.--Bowie
February 20, 1991 - Pages 1 - 10 (#8) - Mr. Bain
~IJP!=: 10 (#2) End - Mr. 'Way
Marsh 6, 1991 - All
Mr. Perkins
LEN:ec
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mr. Bowerman
MEETING DATE: April 3, 1991
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi-
sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1
requires a certification by the
Supervisors that such executive
conformity with Virginia law;
of the Code of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of
meeting was conducted in
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of
each member's knowledge, ( i) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia
law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
/-J1( fA- LJ (w
Deputy Clerk, Albemar
of supervf
\.
County Board
ors