HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-19 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 19, 2000
Apdl 24, 2000
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to order.
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
· Mr. Rob Bell asked the Board to return the windfall from the
2000/2001 revenue adjustment to County residents.
· Mr. Tom Loach asked the Board to consider renovating the old
CrozetElementary School into an elementary school and/or
library. (Unidentified man advised the Board that all schools
are being wired for computers.)
5.1. Appropriation: Education, $6,219.10 (Form #99068).
APPROVED.
5.2. SOCA Donation for Darden Towe Park Field Renovation.
APPROVED.
5.3. ZMA-99-16. Glenmore Associates Ltd Partnership (Signs
fffi0&61). APPROVED as proffered (attachment A). (Note:
Mr. Bowerman abstained from voting on this item due to a
conflict of interest.)
5a. ZTA-00-003. Transmission Lines. ADOPTED attached
ordinance (attachment B).
6. SP-99-74. Townwood Mobile Home Park (Signs #75&76).
DEFERRED until 5/17/00.
7. ZMA-99-18. Charlottesville First Assembly of God (Sign #79).
DEFERRED until 5/3/00.
8. SP-99-75. Charlottesville First Assembly of God (Sign #78).
DEFERRED until 5/3/00.
9. ZMA-99-17. Stonegate @ Western Ridge (Sign #~5).
DEFERRED until receive executed proffers.
10. Public headng on an ordinance to amend Albemade County
Code, Chapter 3, Agdcultural and Forestal Districts:
· Section 3-207, to review and continue the Batesville A/F Distdct
for another 10 years.
· Section 3-211, to add 48.06 acs to the Chalk Mountain A/F
District properly.
· Section 3-222, to add 81.45 acs to the MoormaWs River A/F
Distdd.
· Section 3-218, to review and continue the Jacob's Run A/F
District & modify the time pedod of the distdct from 6 years to
10 years.
ADOPTED attached ordinance (attachment C).
10a. Discussion: Revenue Adjustment for FY 2000/2001.
ACCEPTED staff's recommendation to direct County Executive
to set aside (and continuously report on) the $1.2 million in a
reserve fund to be held until next Apdl, when the Board must
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present
(Ms. Humphds arrived at 7:15 p.m.)
Clerk: Laurie Bentley.
Clerk: Thank speakers for their comments.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
M. Breeden, copying apprepdate persons.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons.
Clerk: File conflict of interest statement in board
folder.
Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to County
Attomey to include in next update of the County
Code.
Clerk: Place on 5/17/00 agenda. (Do not need to
readvertise.)
PlanninQ: Reschedule public hearing and notify
adjacent property owners.
Clerk: Place on 5/3/00 consent agenda. (Do not
need to readvertise.)
Plannine: Notify adjacent property owners.
(See Agenda Item No. 7.)
PlanninG: Obtain signed proffers and advise Clerk
when to put on consent agenda.
Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to County
Attorney to include in next update of the County
Code.
BudQet Mana.aer/Countv Executive staff.'
Implement staff's recommendation.
12.
consider the tax rate for the calendar year 2001 in the FY02
budget process. The reserve funds would be used to offset the
potential budget shortfall in FY01, should the Board wish to
consider a tax rate reduction at that time for calendar year 2001
and budget year 2002.
It was also the consensus of the Board to have the County
Attorney obtain from the Attorney General an interpretation of
the law regarding issuing a credit to taxpayers.
It was also the consensus of the Board to approach the
General Assembly to request flexibility when an error is made,
and to request the authority to issue credits for the $1.2 million
this year.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board:
Mr. Davis presented a resolution (attachment D) for the Board's
review reinstating the Board's decision of 9/16/98 denying 360
Communications Company's application for SP-98-03.
ADOPTED.
Mr. Davis, acting on the direction of the Board, drafted 2 letters
regarding the Board's opposition to the western bypass. He
presented them to the Board for their review. APPROVED
both letters, one addressed to FHH and VDOT, to be signed by
Mr. Davis, and one to the Dept. of Interior, to be signed by
Mr. Martin.
County Attorney: Enter into discussions with the
Attorney General as directed.
County Attorney: Draft letter to legislators as
directed.
Clerk: Forward signed resolution to County
Attorney, file copy in Board folder.
County Attorney: Send signed letters to
addressees.
L
Attachment A
ZMA-99-16. Glenmore Associates Ltd Partnership (Si.Qns #60&61);
PROFFER FORM
Date: 4/5/00
ZMA# 79-016
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 79-34, 79-35A. 79-35.79-32, 79-28, 93-62
38 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemade County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be
applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested
rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and
(2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.
e
The development of the Property will be limited to those uses allowed by right under
Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Zoning Ordinance of AIbemade
County, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the Zoning Ordinance) as that Section is in
effect on April 16, 1997, with a residential development not to exceed 813 single family
units together with a site for a school, and a site for a fire house, either of which sites may
be used for other public use facilities, and development of a private country club and
recreational facilities including but not limited to tennis, swimming, a golf course with
related club house, and equestrian center. To be excluded from use by right or special
use permit under the Zoning Ordinance are Section 19.3.1 (2) and (3); and Section
19.3.2 (1), (3), (5), (6) and (7).
Upon the request of Albemade County, Virginia, to donate by gi~ to Albemarle County or
its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for a public school or other public
use facilities as the County may select a parcel of approximately 27.0 acres as shown on
the Application Plan for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2,
1990, together with an appropriate right of way, provided owner may require reasonable
visual screening/buffering of the 27 acres.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12, 2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
Upon the request of Albemade County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemade County or
its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for a fire department or other public
use facilities as the County may select a parcel of approximately 6.0 acres as shown on
the Application Plan for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2,
1990, together with an appropriate right of way, provided owner may require reasonable
visual screening/buffering of the six acres.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12, 2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be retumed to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
e
At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot or the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute $1000.00 to an
escrow fund to be established by Albemade County for (1) a school capital improvement
fund for use by Albemade County to either expand the capacity of Stone Robinson
Elementary School or to construct a new school on the site described in paragraph 2 of
this proffer, or (2) the costs, including any awards to the owner of the mineral rights for
the property described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, or (3) other items in the
Albemade County Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project
(Glenmore) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P. directly related to this project
(Glenmore).
These funds shall be held by the County in an interest bearing account with an annual
accounting to the owner. All interest earned on the account shall be used for the same
purposes as the original $1000.00 contribution. It is requested that Frank A. Kessler or
his family be consulted in connection with naming of any facilities for which these funds
are used.
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12, 2015, all funds in the escrow
account shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
To provide water and sewer collection, distribution and treatment facilities at the ownerr~s
expense for the residential lots in Glenmore and private club and to dedicate such
facilities to the Albemade County Service Authority and/or the Rivanna Service Authority.
These facilities are to built at no cost to the taxpayers of AIbemade County or to the
customers of the Albemade County Service Authority.
To reserve along the boundary of the Property adjacent to the Rivanna River a 100 Foot
wide green belt. No buildings shall be constructed, or erected within the green belt
without the consent of Albemade County and it shall be preserved in its natural state
except for building of pedestrian and riding trails and general beautification including but
not limited to the cleadng of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup
of the river. The owner may grant across the green belt utility easements, access
easements to the Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests of
the pdvate country club and may build riding trails or make similar use of the area.
At such time as the County of AIbemade decides to establish along the Rivanna River a
public area or park, the 100 foot wide green belt area, upon the request of Albemade
County, will be conveyed by gift and dedicated to the County, provided the uses allowed
for utilities, accesses to the river, and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed of gift and
provided further that the green belt area will continue to be counted as open space for the
purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density. The green belt may
continue to be maintained by the owner of the property, however in the absence of such
maintenance Albemade County at its option may maintain the 100 foot wide green belt.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12, 2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
(a) Road A as shown on the Application Plan of Glenmore made by Clower Associates,
Inc. dated November 2, 1990 shall be built at time of residential lot development to VDOT
standards and placed in the State Secondary System from U.S. Route 250E to Point A as
shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore.
(b) Upon request of Albemade County, Virginia, to dedicate as right-of-way for public
road purposes (i) a strip of land not to exceed sixty (60) feet in width from Point A to Point
B as shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore and (i~ an existing strip of
land of variable width owned by Glenmore Associates and known as Ashton Road, from
the terminus of Glenmore Way (SR 1054) through the entrance to the last private lot
served by this road.
(c) At the time of recordation of the final plat for Section S4, to contribute $70,000 to an
escrow fund to be established by Albemade County for master planning, road design and
construction in the Village of Rivanna.
'10.
11.
12.
13.
if the County does not request the referenced land by April 12,2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12, 2010, all funds in the escrow
account shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
(a) To construct within the existing right-of-way of U. S. Route 250E and if necessary
partially on the property currently owned by owner an ultimate entrance to serve
Glenmore. This shall be constructed at the time of initial residential lot development in
Glenmore or at a later date if approved by VDOT.
(b) To install upon the request of VDOT on U. S. Route 250E at the entrance to
Glenmore a traffic signal, provided the request from VDOT is made pdor to completion of
Glenmore which for purposes of this paragraph shall be deemed to be the day the last
residential lot is sold to a third party purchaser or April 12,2010, whichever first occurs.
(c) At the time of dosing of the sale of each residential lot henceforth or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute
$1,300 to an escrow fund established by Albemarle County for a capital improvement
fund for use by Albemade County and VDOT for (1) for public right of way improvements
on Richmond Road (SR 250) between Louisa Road (SR 22) and Glenmore Way (SR
1054), or any other transportation related improvement items in the Albemade County
Capital Improvement Program and relating to the Village of Rivanna and the Route 250E
corridor.
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12,2010, all funds in the escrow
account shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
In the event that there shall not have been substantial performance of proffers contained
in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 within ten (10) years from the date of final approval of ZMA
90-019, then the undersigned applicant agrees to waive his rights under Virginia Code
Section 15.2-2303. Substantial performance shall include (1) donation of the land
described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, if requested by Albemade County, (2)
payment of at least $150,000.00 in cash pursuant to paragraph 4 of this proffer, and (3)
construction and dedication to the appropriate authorities of the public water and sewer
facilities pursuant to paragraph 5 of this proffer.
Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan dated November 2,
1990 and last revised Apd112, 2000, and Glenmore Rezoning Application dated
September 24, 1990 and amended April 12, 2000 including textual program of
development as appreved under ZMA 99-016 and amended by prior rezoning actions.
Maintenance of private roads and private drives serving two lots will be in accord with
Section 18-7 and Section 18-36 of the CountyDs Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on
Apdl 16, 1997.
At least one deputized security officer (special police officer) shall be employed for
security purposes.
Vehicular access to Section 41 of Glenmore will be through the existing private road
network within Glenmore. Ashton Road may be used for emergency access. This proffer
does not affect Proffer 7 above.
14. These proffers are substituted in place of proffers dated February 11, 1998.
Frank A. Kessler (Sk3ned)
Signatures of All Owners
F. Charles Carmichael
Janet Martin Carmichael
or
Frank A. Kessler, General Partner
Glenmore Associates
Charles F. & Janet M. Carmichael (TMP 79-32)
Lloyd W. Howard, St. (TMP 79-28, 93-62)
David P. Bowerman
Rio'
Lindsa~ G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
o~ic~ o~ Board of Supervisors
401 Mcln~lre Road
Chariott~v~, V~r~n~a 9~-90~-4~596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Cha~es S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 24, 2000
Mr. Tom Loach
1255 Bayberry Ct.
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Loach:
Thank you for your recent comments to the Board of Supervisors on April 19, 2000, concerning
the old Crozet Elementary School. The Board appreciates you taking the time to appear and make your
views known.
CSM/lab
, Again, thank you for your comments,
Sincerely,
Charles S, Martin
Chairman
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
AGENDA DATE:
April 19, 2000
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99068, in the amount
of $6,219.10, for the Program for Seamless Transition
and to receive and disburse a donation for Western
Albemarle High School.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Mss. White, Gulati
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
Pro~jram for Seamless Transition
At its meeting on November 23, 1998, the Albemarle County School Board accepted a grant from the Virginia
Board for People with Disabilities and the Virginia Department of Education in the amount of $15, 120.00 for the
Program for Seamless Transition (POST). These funds were not fully expended in the 98-99 fiscal year and there
is a fund balance in the amount of $5,219.10. These grant funds will be used to secure the competitive
employment of nine Mildly Mentally Disabled (MIMD) high school students using three part-time job coaches to
work on specific areas of needs.
Donations - Western Albemarle High School
Western Albemarle High School received a donation from .Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Dupont in the amount of $1,000.00.
The funds will be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the
Appropriation #99068.
Board
of Supervisors approve the appropriations., totaling $6,219.10, as detailed on
OO.O72
Board of Supervisors
County of Albernarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99/00
NUMBER
99068
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
SCHOOL/PROGRAMS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS.
CODE
1 3136 61102
1 3136 61102
1 2302 61101
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
138100 PT Wages-Teacher $4,819.10
210000 FICA $400.00
601300 Inst/Rec Supplies $1,000.00
TOTAL $6,219.10
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 3136 24000 240325PoSTGrant $5,219.10
2 2000 18100 181109Donation $1,000.00
TOTAL $6,219.10
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
APRIL 10, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AppropriatiOn - SOCA Donation - Darden Towe Park
Field Renovation
AGENDA DATE:
April 19, 2000
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSAL/REQ U EST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99070 for an $18,000
donation to improve the quality of playing surfaces at
Darden Towe Park.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. Gulati and Mr. Mullaney
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
IN FORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On January 24, 2000 SOCA sent a proposal to the City and County Parks and Recreation Departments to invest
funds for an immediate upgrade of two multipurpose fields at Darden Towe Park. The proposal was to convert the
fields to championship quality bermuda grass fields with the work beginning by May 1, 2000 with the hope that the
fields could be ready for play by September 2000. In addition, SOCA proposed to provide financial assistance to
cover the increased cost for the maintenance of the bermuda grass fields. In return for this investment the original
SOCA proposal requested exclusive year round use of the two upgraded fields.
City and County staff could not support the original SOCA proposal for several reasons. The two primary reasons
were the issue of exclusive use of fields in a public park and the immediate and long term impact on current and
future park users. The two organizations impacted the most were the Seminole Lacrosse League and the Middle
School Lacrosse Program. The Seminole Lacrosse League would be displaced from the park during the
construction period and beyond if exclusive or even priodty use was granted to SOCA for the two fields. The
Middle School Lacrosse Program already had the fields reserved for a major tournament scheduled for the park
in June, That tournament would have to be moved if more than one field was renovated.
After several meetings and many hours of discussion SOCA and City/County staff have agreed on a field
renovation proposal. The key elements of that proposal are as follows:
· SOCA will donate up to $18,000 for improvements to field #2 and a small undeveloped adjacent space.
· The County will supervise the construction that will begin on or about May 1 and must begin by May 15 to take
advantage of the donation by SOCA.
· All maintenance of the improved fields will be the responsibility of the City and County.
· The City and County will make every effort within current budget constraints to improve the quality of field ~4 for
the fall of 2000 using existing grass types.
· The Lacrosse programs will not be displaced from the park during construction.
· SOCA makes this donation trusting that County staff will be fair in the allocation of field use when field #2 is
brought back into service.
On April 7, 2000 the Towe Park Committee met and reviewed the proposal presented by SOCA and
recommended by City and County staff. The Towe Park Committee unanimously recommends that the City and
County accept this donation from SOCA. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA TITLE:
April 19, 2000
Page 2 of 2
Appropriation - SOCA Donation - Darden Towe Park Field Renovation
In the interest of time County staff will proceed immediately on the project using existing CIP funding for athletic
field development with the recommendation that the donation from SOCA be appropriated back to that code. It
should be noted that if the bermuda grass fields turn out to be a supedor playing surface, it is the intent of City and
County staff to convert one field per season as funding allows at Towe Park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99070 for an $18,000 donation by SOCA to the Darden Towe Park.
00.073
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99/00
NUMBER
99O70
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DONATION FROM SOCA FOR BERMUDA GRASS ON PLAYING FIELDS.
EXPENDITURE
,CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9010 71000 950044FIELD IMPROVEMENTS $18,000.00
TOTAL $18,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9010 18100 181109DONATION $18,000.00
TOTAL $18,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: PARKS &RECREATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
APRIL 11, 2000
SOCCER
ORGANIZATION CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE
370 Greenbrier Drive, Suite B · Charlottesville,Virginia 22901
Phone 804-975-5025 Fax 804-975-2619
April 3, 2000 ·
Pat Mullaney
Director
Abemarle County Parks & Recreation Department
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Darden Towe Park Field Renovation Donation Proposal.
Dear Pat,
The following is a brief summary of our meeting of Wednesday, March 29 and the resulting
proposal for a field renovation donation to improve the playing fields at Darden Towe Park.
Meeting summary
1. Because the proposed project cost is less than $30,000, there will be a simple bid
gathering and award process. This process will be administered by the County staff.
The timeline of beginning construction on May 1 and completing planting by June 1
can be preserved.
2. There is reluctance by both the County and City staff to renovate more than one field
at a time due to concerns over displacement of current users of Park facilities.
3. LAX FEST is willing and able to operate its tournament on June 10-11 of this year
with one field taken out of service for renovation and therefore unavailable for use
during the tournament.
4. SOCA emphasized the importance of completing.planting by June 1 in order to
maximize the possibility of playing on the renovated field in the fall of 2000. All
parties agree that the condition of the turf will determine when play can begin.
5. City and County staff members clearly stated that they could not provide any
assurance to SOCA that current use patterns would remain unaltered once the
improved field is brought back into service.
Proposal
1.
2.
3.
4.
SOCA will donate up to $18,000 to Albemarle County for the expressed purpose of
improving the quality of the playing surfaces at Darden Towe Park.
Improvements will be made on field #2 and the adjoining, small (approximately 75
yards x 30yards), currently undeveloped, field space.
Additions will be made to the existing irrigation system to fill the void between fields
# 1. and #2, and to irrigate the additional space described above.
The renovations to field #2 will include: removing existing turf, fine grading with
advanced techniques to provide a smooth surface, planting of Bermuda grass sprigs,
9.
10.
11.
and application of appropriate nutrients and herbicides required to initially establish
the turf.
Project construction and supervision will be provided by the County staff.
The donation by SOCA is made with the intent that construction will begin on or
about May 1, 2000. If construction has not begun by May 15, 2000, the donated
funds will revert to SOCA.
The County staff will make every reasonable effort in early August 2000 to improve
the condition of field #4 and to attempt to provide a high quality playing surface for
fall of 2000 use. Repairs will be made using existing grass types.
All maintenance on all fields will be the responsibility of the County staff.
After the start of construction, BMSLL will be reassigned to field #3 on Sundays.
SOCA will adjust any scheduled activities to accommodate this change.
After the start of construction, SOCA will re-assign activities from field #2 to other
playing fields.
SOCA makes this donation trusting that the County staff will be fair in the allocation
of field use on field #2 when it is brought back into service.
Respectfully yours,
Gar~ Owens
Chair, Field Development Committee
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT
TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
For Officers and Employees of
Local Governmere [Section 2.1-639.14(E)]
1. Name: David P. Bowerman
2. Title: Rio District Supervisor
3. Agency: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
4. Transaction: ZMA-99-16 Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership
5. Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction:
Personal interest in a contract with the applicant.
6. I declare that:
I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this
fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years.
Dated:
April 19, 2000
~gna e
April 19, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Don Franco
The Kessler Group
P O Box 5207
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE:
ZMA-99-16 Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership
Tax Map 79, Parcels 34, 35A, 35, 28, and Tax Map 93, Parcel 62
Dear Mr. Franco:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on April 12, 2000, deferred the above-noted petition to
its April 19, 2000 meeting. This item was deferred in order to allow for the submittal of signed proffers.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
t/~Z~f Planrang &~velopment
~ Ella Carey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer 7
(Amendment # 1"3'
PROFFFR FORM
79-34, 79-35A, 79-35
79-32, 79-28, 93-62
Date: 4/5/00 ZMA # 79-016 Tax Map Parcel(s) #
RA
38 Acresto be rezonedfrom to
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or
its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
requested.
The development of the Property will be limited to those uses allowed by right under Section 19.3.1
(1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia (hereinafcer
referred to as the Zoning Ordinance) as that Section is in effect on April 16, 1997, with a residential
development not to exceed 813 single.family units together with a site for a school, and a site for a fire
house, either of which sites may be used for other public use facilities, and development of a private
country club and recreational facilities including but not limited to tennis, swimming, a golf course with
related club house, and equestrian center. To be excluded from use by right or special use permit under
the Zoning Ordinance are Section 19.3.1 (2) and (3); and Section 19.3.2.(1), (3), (5), (6) and (7).
4
Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemarle County or ks designee,
subject to items of record affecting title, for a public school or other public use facilities as the County
may select a parcel of approximately 27.0 acres as shown on the Application Plan for Glenmore made
by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990, together with an appropriate right of way,
provided owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the 27 acres.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12, 2010 or the parcel is no longer
necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or ks
designee.
Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemarle County or its designee,
subject to items of record affecting title, for a fire department or other public use facilities as the
County may select a parcel of approximately 6.0 acres as shown on the Application Plan for Glenmore
made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990, together with an appropriate right of way,
provided owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the six acres.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12, 2010 or the parcel is no longer
necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its
designee.
At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute $1000.00 to an escrow fund to be established
by Albemarle County for ( 1 ) a school capital improvemere fund for use by Albemarle County to either
expand the capacity of Stone Robinson Elementary School or to construct a new school on the site
described in paragraph 2 of this proffer, or (2) the costs, including any awards to the owner of the
mineral rights for the property described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, or (3) other items in the
Albemarle County Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project (Glenmore) or to other
items not normally included in C.I.P. directly related to this project (Glenmore).
These funds shah be held by the County in an interest beating account with an annual accounting to the
owner. All interest earned on the account shall be used for the same purposes as the original $1000.00
contribution. It is requested that Frank A. Kessler or his family be consulted in connection with naming
of any facilities for which these funds are used.
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12, 2015, aH funds in the escrow account shah
be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
To provide water and sewer collection, distribution and treatment facilities at the owner's expense for
the residential lots in Glenmore and private club and to dedicate such facilities to the Albemarle County
Service Authority and/or the Rivanna Service Authority. These facilities are to be built at no cost to
the taxpayers of Albemarle County or to the customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
To reserve along the boundary of the Property adjacent to the Rivanna River a 100 Foot wide green
belt. No buildings shall be constructed, or erected within the green belt without the consent of
Albemarle County and it shall be preserved in its natural state except for building of pedestrian and
riding trails and general beautification including but not limited to the clearing of underbrush, removal
of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the river. The owner may grant across the green belt utility
easements, access easements to the Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests
of the private country club and may build riding trails or make similar uses of the area.
At such time as the County of Albemarle decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or
park, the 100 foot wide green belt area, upon the request of Albemarle County, will be conveyed by
gift and dedicated to the County, provided the uses allowed for utilities, accesses to the river, and
riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed of gift and provided further that the green belt area will
continue to be counted a s open space for the purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required
density. The green belt may continue to be maintained by the owner of the property, however in the
absence of such maintenance Albemarle County at its option may maintain the 100 foot wide green
belt.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12, 2010 or the parcel is no longer
necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its
designee.
(a) Road A as shown on the Application Plan of Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated
November 2, 1990 shall be built at time of residential lot development to VDOT standards and placed
in the State Secondary System from U.S. Route 250E to Point A as shown on the aforesaid
Application Plan of Glenmore.
(b) Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to dedicate as right-of-way for public road purposes
(i) a strip of land not to exceed sixty (60) feet in width from Point A to Point B as shown on the
aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore and (ii) an existing strip of land of variable width owned by
Glenmore Associates and known as Ashton Road, from the terminus of Glenmore Way (SR 1054)
through the entrance to the last private lot served by this road.
(c) At the time ofrecordation of the final plat for Section S4, to contribute $70,000 to an escrow fund
to be established by Albemarle County for master planning, road design and construction in the Village
ofRivanna.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12, 2010 or the parcel is no longer
necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its
designee.
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12, 2010, all funds in the escrow account shah
be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
(a) To construct within the existing right-of-way of U. S. Route 250E and if necessary partially on the
property currently owned by owner an ultimate entrance to serve Glenmore. This shall be constructed
at the time of initial residential lot development in Glenmore or at a later date if approved by VDOT.
Co) To install upon the request of VDOT on U. S. Route 250E at the entrance to Glenmore a traffic
signal, provided the request from VDOT is made prior to completion of Glenmore which for purposes
of this paragraph shall be deemed to be the day the last residential lot is sold to a third party purchaser
or April 12, 2010, whichever first occurs.
(c) At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot henceforth or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute $1,300 to an escrow fund
established by Albemarle County for a capital improvement fund for use by Albemarle County and
VDOT for (1) public right of way improvements on Richmond Road (SR 250) between Louisa Road
(SR 22) and Glenmore Way (SR 1054), or any other transportation related improvement items in the
Albemarle Cotmty Capital Improvement Program and relating to the Village of Rivanna and the Route
250E corridor.
Ifthe County does not use the established fund by April 12, 2010, all funds in the escrow account shall
be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
In the event that them shall not have been substantial performance of proffers contained in paragraphs
2, 3, 4 and 5 within ten (I0) years ~om the date of final approval of ZMA 90-019, then the
undersigned applicant agrees to waive his rights under Virginia Code Section 15.2-2303.. Substantial
performance shall include (t) donation ofthe land described in paragraphs 2 and 3 ofthis proffer, '_ff
requested by Albemarle County, (2) payment of at least $150,000.00 in cash pursuant to paragraph 4
of this pro ffer, and (3) construction and dedication to the appropriate authorities of the public water
and sewer facilities pursuant to paragraph 5 of this proffer.
10. Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan dated November 2, 1990 and last
revised April 12, 2000, and Glenmore Rezoning Application dated September 24, 1990 and amended
April 12, 2000 including textual program of development as approved under ZMA 99-016 and
amended by prior rezoning actions.
11. Maintenance of private roads and private drives serving two lots will be in accord with Section 18-7
and Section 18-36 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on April 16, 1997.
12. At least one deputized security officer (special police officer) shall be employed for security purposes.
13. Vehicular access to Section 41 of Glenmore will be through the existing private road network within
Glenmore. Ashton Road may be used for emergency access. This proffer does not affect Proffer 7
above.
~ a Th~ ,,,,xff',~re ar~..qnkqtit. uted in place. of vroffers dated February 11, 1998.
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
GLENMORE ASSOCIATES
FRANK A. KESSLER, GENERAL
PFjgted Names of All Owners
' HARLES CARMICHAEL
J~'NET MARTIN CARMICHAEL"'
(TMP 79-32)
LLO-YD,,-~ HOWARD SR.'
(TMP 79-28, 93-62)
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
pARTNE4fi6/00
Date
4/6/00
4/6/00
PROFFORM.WpO
Rev, December 1994
From:
Subject:
Date:
County Attorney e~//
Laufle Bentley, CMC, Senior Deputy C1
Board Meeting of April 19, 2000
April 24, 2000
l've attached copies of the following two ordinances adopted by the Board at its
April 19, 2000 meeting, and which should be included in the next update of the County Code:
· An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia
· An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of
Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia.
In addition, I've attached a resolution resolving that the Board's decision of
September 16, 1998 denying SP-98-03, the site plan waiver, and the modification of Zoning
Ordinance 4.10.3.1, is reinstated.
Thank you.
Enclosures: 3
ORDINANCE NO. 00-IS(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1. Definitions.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article L General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions.
Transmission line, gas or oil: The term "gas or oil transmission line" means a pipeline
that conveys gas or oil for the primary purpose of supplying gas or oil to a system, rather
than distributing gas or oil to customers. Pipelines owned and operated by the City of
Charlottesville extending from the Columbia Gas Transmission System at the Buck
Mountain Gate Station to the City of Charlottesville's Route 29 Substation are gas
transmission lines. (Added 4-19-00)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
6_ to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on April 19, 2000.
A,..ye
Mr. Bowerman x
Mr. Dorrier .x
Ms. Humphris x
Mr. Martin x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
Clerk, Board of County ~rvisors
March 10, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Sam Craig
Highlands West, L.P.
P O Box 6156
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: ZMA-99-017 Stonegate @ Western Ridge; Tax Map 56E, Section 1, Parcel A
Dear Mr. Craig:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 7, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject*to the attached proffers.
Please be advised that'the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on April 19, 2000. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
EKE/jcf
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Bob Ball
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
o
I0.
May I1,1998
ATTACHMENT~
County of Albemarle commits to establish and maintain a public area, park or pathway,
and assumes responsibility for maintenance thereof, the greenbelt area, upon request of
Albemarle County, will be dedicated by owlmr of its successors to the County, subject to
the right oruse for pedestrian trails by residents living on the property and subject to the
right to cross the greenbelt. for vehicular access and underground utilities and easements
by owner or its successors.
Development within the Western Ridge development will be limited to a maximum of 277
single-family attached and detached dwelling units on the property. The attached and
detached units ,,,,'ill be located approxi~nately in the areas shown on the Plan. The number
oftmils permitted in the area of Tax Map 56E, Block I, Parcel A shall be limited to a
maximum of 199 units.
Internal roads on the property ,,viii be located approximately as shown on the Plan.
Additional internal roads will be located pursuant to normal subdivision review.
Owner will plant at such time "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector"is built, or'
before, two rows of,.vhite pine trees 15 Feet oneenter (flour feet to five ~eet tail)along the
east side of(he "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector" 1 I0 foot "right-of-way,"
which is contiguous with single-family attached or detached as is sho~vn on the Plan.
Tile reservation set forth in paragraph one above and the possibility that a four lane road
~vill be constructed within the Reserved Area shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivision
covenants and restrictions and on the subdivision plat for all lots adjacent to the Reserved
Area,
Owner ,,rill deveZop the property to accommodate a ininimum of 230 units, when
combined vviLh any units included in tile exisLi~lg Western Ridge subdivisiot~..
The setbacks ,.viD~in the area shown as Phase 2 on a pfan titled "Vv'es~ern Ridge" prepared
by Muncaster Engineering and Iast revised 2/[3/98 shall be:
Front: 20 feet except that the front yard may be reduced to I0 feet for attached
garages lbr a maxill~um lineal distance of 28 feet. provided thr.; thcrc
cpcnizlgz ~ccpt For garage doors D~ a::)' exterior wall oft}'~ exclozed structure
paraHe~ to the s~r~ between 20 feet zr:d !9 Feet from the ~-cnt lot
Side: I0 Feet except that the side yard may be reduced to zero (0) Feet on one side
i~ accord with the following provisions:
AII such Structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be
coi~structed in accordm~ce with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code;
PAGE 3
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
MARCH 7, 2000
APRIL 19, 2000
ZMA 99-017 Amendment to Proffers: Stonegate at Western Ridge PRD
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to modify a setback proffer for the
Stonegate section (phase 2) of Western Ridge PRD which was approved by the Board of
Supervisors in May of 1998. The proposed change is shown in the attached proffers
(Attachment A).
Petition for Rezoning: This request is to amend proffers for Stonegate at Western Ridge
PRD Planned Residential District to allow modification of the front setback. The properties,
described as a portion of Tax Map 56E Parcel 1A and Parcels 03-001 through 018 are located
in the White Hall Magisterial District on Stonegate Way at the intersection of Park Ridge
Drive and Lake Tree Lane. The area comprised in this rezoning is 28.25 acres; 4.23 acres are
platted already. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density
and is recommended for 3 - 6 units per acre in the Crozet Community~
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the property is a residential subdivision with
nearby commercial uses and railroad track. All owners of houses already constructed in this
subdivision are applicants in this rezoning.
Zoning and Subdivision History: The Westem Ridge development was rezoned from RA,
R-l, and LI to R-4 Residential in 1995. The original zoning to R-4 was in accordance witha
conceptual plan and proffers. In 1998, the applicant requested and the Board of Supervisors
approved the rezoning of a portion of the development to PRD with a new plan and a change
of the proffers as they related to setbacks. This request is for the 14.5 acre portion of land
which was zoned PRD in 1998. The first subdivision in this section was approved on
January 12, 1999.
Specifics on the Proposal: The proposal for the 14.5 acre part of the PRD would change the
language regarding setbacks for garages. Right now, the front yard requirement is 20 feet,
except that an attached garage could be set 10 feet closer to the street as long as there are no
openings in the garage but the garage door. The applicant is requesting that the restriction on
openings be removed so that a "courtyard" type driveway could be accommodated. An
illustration of this type of arrangement isshown in Attachment D.
Applicant's Justification for the Request: On his application, the applicant stated, "This
zoning map amendment is the result of an apparent oversight by all parties regarding Western
Ridge Phase 2 proffers. Proffer number 10a specifies that front building setbacks may be
reduced to 10 feet for attached garages provided that there are no openings in the front wall.
This language was apparently copied from a proffer in another subdivision where, for
aesthetic reasons of that particular subdivision, no openings were desired. Allowing
openings will enhance the aesthetics of Stonegate, so it is requested that this language be
changed to accommodate this. '(See the original proffer attached. The revision requested is
to simply strike through a portion of the sentence as shown.)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the changes
to the proffer.
Comprehensive Plan: The ComprehendiVe Plan shows this area to be neighborhood
density. The Land Use Plan suggests that building orientation in the Development Areas
should be to public streets. Parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of
buildings. This change in front yard requirements would allow for garages to be less
prominent from the public sweet and give the appearance that the garage is more a part of the
house and less a part of a parking area.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district -- The purpose and intent of the Planned Residential Development is to
· encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on
the surrounding area in land development
· promote economical and efficient land use
· provide an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical
development, and creative design
· provide flexibility and a variety of development oppommities for residential purposes
· use open space for recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, provide
buffering between dissimilar uses and preserve agricultural activity
The proposed change would allow for harmonious physical development and creative design
in keeping with the PRD purpose and intent.
Public need and justification for the change -- While the request fulfills a private request
for a better aesthetic, the Comprehensive Plan does speak to the need for the orientation of
buildings to be to the street with less prominent parking.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services --No impact is anticipated on public
facilities and services.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - No impact is anticipated
on any natural, cultural, and historic resources in Crozet.
SUMMARY ·
Staff has identified the following factors. which are favorable to this request:
1. The change would allow for less prominent parking in a compact development in Crozet.
Staff has identified no factors which are unfavorable to this request:
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the proffers submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Page 2 of proffers with Western Ridge Phase 2
B --TaxParcel Map
C - Location Map
D - Illustration of "courtyard"
I0.
WESTElaN RIDGE PHASE 2 PROI FERS
May !1, 1998
ATTACHMENT.
County of Albemarle commits to establish and maintain a public area, park or pathway,
and assumes responsibility for maintenance thereof, the greenbelt area, upon request of
Albemarle County, will be dedicated by owner of its successors to the County, subject to
the right of use for pedestrian trails by residents living on the property and subject to the
right to cross the greenbelt for vehicular access and underground utilities and easements
by owner or its successors.
Development within the Western Ridge development will be limited to a maximum of 277
single-family attached and detached dwelling units on the property. The attached and
detached units will be located approximately in the areas shown on the Plan. The number
of units permitted in the area of Tax Map 56E, Block 1, Parcel A shall be limited to a
maximum of 199 units.
h~ternal roads on 'the property will be located approximately as shown on the Plan.
Additional internal roads will be located pursuant to normal subdivision review·
Owner will plant at such time "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250Connector" is built, or'
before, two rows of white pine trees 15 Feet on' center (four feet to five feet tall) along the
east side of the "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector" 110 foot "right-of-way,"
which is contiguous with single-family attached or detached as is shown on the Plan.
The reservation set forth in paragraph one above and the possibility that a four lane road
will be constructed within the Reserved Area shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivision
covenants and restrictions and on the subdivision plat for all lots adjacent to the Reserved
Area,
Owner will develop the property to accommodate a minimum of 230 units, when
combined with any units included in the existing Western Ridg. e subdivision..
The Setbacks within the area shown as Phase 2 on a plan titled "Western Ridge" prepared
by Muncaster Engineering and last revised 2/13/98 shall be:
Front; 20 feet except that the front yard may be reduced to I0 feet for attached
garages lbr a maximum lineal distance of 28 feet, provided tl:at there shall bc no-
openings c:cccpt for gin:age doors in any cxteri.or wall of the enclosed structure
parallel to the ztreet b~tween 20 fcct and 10 fcct from the front let line.
Side: 'l 0 feet except that the side yard may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side
in accord with the foIIo~ving provisions:
All such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be
constructed in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code;
PAGE 3
ATTACHMENT B
ALBEMARLE
40
COUNTY
.9
13
14
27
1982
2~A
66
57
83
ZMA-99-17 Stoneffate (i~ Western Ridfie
,\
99A
e?
69
930
100
26
'26D
2~5C
PAGE 4
rio,.
.
25AI
Illl
113
SECTION, 56 ::';!
· ATTACHMENT C
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
O~-
-tO
_J
a,
PAGE 5
5
A TTACitMENT D
PAGE6
OR n ANCan NO. O0-3(D
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE H, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural andForestal Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained by.
amending Section 3-207, Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 3-211, Chalk
Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 3 -218, Jacob' s Run Agricultural and
Forestal District, and Section 3-222, Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District, as
follows:
ARTICLE H. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DMSION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-207 Batesviile Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 70, parcel 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 23C1,
24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3A (part), 4J, 17,
17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This district, created on May 2, 1990 for
not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to May
2, 2010.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
Sec. 3-211 Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 97, parcels 21, 21A, 21B, 22; tax map 98, parcels
11, 12, 13, 14; tax map 99, parcel 30. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more
than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6,
2009.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(r); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
Sec. 3-218 Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestai District.
The district known as the "Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax map 31, parcels 8, 16, 16B, 23
(part), 23D (part), 44C, 45, 45B, 45C. This district, created on January 6, 1988 for not more than
6 years, since amended to continue for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19,
2000, shall next be reviewed prior to January 6, 2010.
· (3-2294; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(i); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Moorman's Pdver Agricultural and Forestal District" consists
of the following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28,
parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 11, 12, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 30, 30A, 30B
32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C,
7B, 8, 8B, BE, 81t, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67,
67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 701-1, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 73B, 74A, 76,
77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1, 80, 84; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A,
1BE; tax map 41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9E, 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 67, 67B,
68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 8, 8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1,
37F, 371, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43, 43A, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map
43, parcels 1, 1B, 2, 2A, 3, 3A,, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18C, 18E4, 18F,
18G, 18I, 191, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 21A, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A, 25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 30B,
30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, 33D, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45A, 45C, 45D, 58; tax map 44,
parcels 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 31A, 31A1,
31D, 31F, 31G, 32G, 32G1; tax map 59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This district,
created on December 17, 1986 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on December 21,
1994, shall be next reviewed prior to December 21, 2004.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4),
5-12-99; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
6 to 0 as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on April 19, 2000.
a~"~'~{fCounty;~"'/~apeC~s
Mr. Bowerman
Ms..Dorrier x
Mr. Humphris x
Mr. Martin x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
Aye Nay
X
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
March 24, 2000
ADAMS, MICHAEL S OR DONNA G
ANDREWS, WILLIAM LESTER SELF OR MARJORIE HARE
CARTER, LEONARD J
GARCIA, FREDRICK L OR KATHLEEN R
GIBBS, BRUCE BERNARD OR DEBORAH
HAUPT, RICHARD A
HRABE, RICHARD ANTON & MARGARET DOWNS
HUDDY, DANIEL J OR. ELLEN R
JAHRSDOERFER, ROBERT A OR CAROL
KENNEDY, MILDRED V GOOLSBY
LOONEY, WILLIAM B & ELIZABETH
POLLOCK, JASON K
RICH, DONALD A OR VICTORIA T
ROBB, EDGAR S & GRETCHEN ANN HOFFMAN
ROTHENBERGER, JAY A & SARA D
RYDER, FRANK G REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT, ETAL
SCHNEIDERMAN, RICHARD S OR KATHLEEN A
SKALAK, THOMAS C OR SUSAN C
SPANGLER, DIANE G
RE: Review of Batesville AgriCultural/Forestai District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21, 2000, unanimously
recommended continuing the Batesville District with the withdrawal of the 50.12 acre parcel to allow the
10 acre subdivision. The time period would be ten years.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on
April 19, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second FloOr, County Office Building. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning & Community Development
BOARD OF SUPERV!SQR2.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
40 l M¢Intire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
March 24, 2000\
Barodofsky, Saul Y or Ananda C Cronin
Brown, Robert S or Dorothy
Jones, Rayford S or Carol B
Mehring Family Limited Partnership
Mehring, Peter R & Leslie M
Mehring, Walter H III & Paula
Addition to the Chalk Mountain AgriculturaUForestal District
Tax Map 98, Parcel 11
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the addition of 48.06 acres to the Chalk Mountain
Agricultural/Forestal District.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision
on April 19, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building.
Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218
Charlottesvii le, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 o 4012
March 24, 2000\
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LISTED ON PRECEEDING PAGES
Addition to the Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District
Tax Map 41, Parcels 8, 8B, 8C and 8D
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the addition of 81.45 acres to the Moorman's River
Agricultural/Forestal District.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision
on April 19, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building.
Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Chief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Owner Name
List
(Moorman's
River)
Owner Name
2350 OWENSVILLE ROAD LL. C.
ABBOTT, WILLIAM J
ABBOTT, WILLIAM J OR DIANA B
ABELL BROTHERS
ABELL, THAD S II OR DENISE M
B M C LAND TRUST; MACRUDER DENT JR
BAUER, CAROL C & CAROL C BAUER AS
BAUER, CAROL C & CAROL C BAUER AS
BAX'FER, ELLIEWOOD KEITH
BERGIN, THOMAS F & MARY WASHINGTON
BERGIN, THOMAS F & MARY WASHINGTON
BIDSALL, JOHN H III
BIRDSALL, JOHN H III OR
BIRDSALL, JOHN H III OR
BIRDSALL, JOHN H III OR
BIRDSALL, JOHN H III OR
BIRDSALL, JOHN H III OR
BIRDSALL, JOHN HllI OR MARY
BIRDSALL JOHN H III OR MARY
BIRDSALL JOHN H 1II OR MARY
BIRDSALL, JOHN H III OR MARY SCOTT
BIRDSALL, JOHN H III OR MARY SCOTT
BIRDSALL JOHN H III OR MARY SCOTT
BIRDSALL, JOHN H OR
BRONFMAN, EDGAR
BRONFMAN, EDGAR M
BRONFMAN, EDGAR M
Tuesday, January 18, 2000 Page I of 8
Owner Name
BRONFMAN, EDGAR M
BRONFMAN, EDGAR M
BRONFMAN, EDGAR M
BRONFMAN, EDGAR M
BRONFMAN, EDGARM
BRUCE, KENNETH W OR WANDA D
BRUMDER, AMY OR SCOTT NUNNALLY
BURN, HARRY III& JEAN R
BURN, HARRY III& JEAN R
BURN, HARRY III& JEAN R
BURN, HARRY III& JEAN R
BURN, HARRY III& JEAN R
BURN, HARRY III& JEAN R
BURN, HARRY III& JEAN R
BURN, HARRY III OR JEAN R
BURN, HARRY ILl OR JEAN R.
BURN, HARRY III OR JEANNE R
BURN, HARRY, IIl& JEAN R
BUTTRICK, CHARLOTTE D
BUTTRICK, CHARLOTTE D
BUXTON, WILLIAM D JR OR MICHELE F
CANNON, JONATHAN Z OR ALICE P
CARRINGTON, EDWARD C JR TRUST
CATLIN, AVERY
CHAPIN, PETER OR DIANE S
CISTERCIAN NUNS OF THE STRICT
CISTERCIAN NUNS OF THE STRICT
CISTERCIAN NUNS OF THE STRICT
CISTERCIAN NUNS OF THE STRICT
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Tuesday, January 18, 2000 Page 2 of 8
Owner Name
CLARK, AGNES C
CLARKE, JILL ALEXANDRA
COWEN, CLAUDINE
CRADDOCK, ANN B OR ALBERT P ALBANO
CRADDOCK, ELLEN G
DAVIS, HORACE W ESTATE
DAVIS, JASPER P JR
DENT, MAGRUDER III OR PAMELA STORY
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DENT, ROSEMARY R
DERRICO, CYNTHIA D
DI VALMARANA, FRANCESCO A OR
D1 VALMARANA, FRANCESCO A OR
DUDINSKY, JOHN OR JANE
DUDINSKY, JOHN OR JANE
EASTER, PETER
EASTER, PETER
ECKSTEIN, JOHN R OR JOLIND B
EDGERTON, WILLIAM A
EDGERTON, WILLIAM A OR LIZA TODD
EICHER, JOHN MARSHALL, ,IR OR
ERGENBRIGHT, RICHARD T OR BEVERLY S
· FAULCONER, JEANNE MARIE
Tuesday, January 18, 2000 Page 3 of 8
Owner Name
FENNELL, GLORIA G LIFE ESTATE
FENWICK, JANE M OR JOHN DUDINSKY JR
FOSS, EDWARD G OR MARTHA O
FOX RIDGE FARMS HOLDINGS LLC
FOXFIELD RACING ASSOCIATION INC
FOXFIELD RACING ASSOCIATION INC.
FRAME, DOUGLAS M TRUSTEE OF THE
FRAME, DOUGLAS M TRUSTEE OF THE
GARLAND, JOHN V OR SALLY M
GASTON, DEVEN DAY
GOULD, THEODORE B OR HELEN M
GILAHAM, MARY WASHINGTON
GROSSMAN, EARL M
GROSSMAN, EARL M
HAMILTON, ALISON PHILLIPS ESTATE,
HAMILTON, HOWARD L
HAMMOND, WILLIAM R OR CYNTHIA A
HARRIS, ROBERT H JR, BETTY H
HARRIS, ROBERT H JR, BETTY H BARKER
HOFFMAN, HOLLY B
HOFFMAN, HOLLY B
HOFFMAN, HOLLY B
HORSESHOE FARM INC
HORSESHOE FARM INC
HUDSON, FREDERICK W OR BETTY B
HUNT LAND TRUST, FORBES R
HUNTING RIDGE LAND TRUST 1; FORBES
HUNTING RIDGE LAND TRUST It FORBES
HUNTING RIDGE LAND TRUST I1 FORBES
JAHRSDOERFER, NATALIE A
Tuesday, January 18, 2000 Page 4 of 8
Owner Name
JAHRSDOERFER, NATALIE A
JOHNSON, MARGARET E
KELLY, EDWARD JIII OR CARITA D
KRAMER, CHRISTOPHER M
KULP, CHARLES A OR MARTHA ANNE
KYGER, DAVID L OR PATRICE D
LEE, FRANCES J
LEXA, ROBERT C OR AMY E CHENOWETH
LICATA, PETER J
LICATA, PETER J
LLEWELLYN, BARBARA GRANT TRUSTEE
LLEWELLYN, BARBARA GRANT TRUSTEE
LORENZONI, ELAINE R
LORENZONI, MARK M OR CYNTHIA
LOWER, WILLIAM M OR ELIZABETH E
MACDOUGALL, NElL A & WINIFRED S
MACDOUGALL, NElL A OR WINIFRED S
MCCONNELL, LOUISE M
MCCONNELL, LOUISE M
MCCONNELL, LOUISE M.
MCCONNELL, LOUISE M.
MCCONNELL, MICHELE D OR CRISTINE L
MCMURDO, NANCY THOMAS
MCMURDO, NANCY THOMAS
MCMURDO, NANCY THOMAS
MCMURDO, NANCY THOMAS
MCMURDO, NANCY THOMAS
MCMURRAY, W B GIO OR MAYA VAN DYCK
MCNEELY, C W Ill
MCNEELY, C WILSON 11I OR GARTER F
Tuesday, January 18, 2000 Page 5 of 8
Owner Name
MCNEELY, C.W. III
MCNEELY, CHARLES WILSON IV
MELLON, ANTHEA
MELLON, DEFOREST JR OR KAREN G
NELSON, ROBERT B OR SUSANNE W
NICOLL, MARION MCINTOSH VERE
NICOLL, MARION MCINTOSH VERE
NORELLI, ALFRED A & MARY
OAKENCROFT LAND CORPORATION
OAKENCROFT LAND CORPORATION
PALMER, GEORGE C [I
PALMER, GEORGE C iI
PALMER, GEORGE C II &
PALMER, GEORGE C II &
PARUTA LAND TRUST;
PARUTA LAND TRUST;
PARUTA LAND TRUST;
PETERS, FRANKLIN W REVOCABLE
PHILLIPS, LUISE
PHILLIPS, LUISE
ROCKY CREEK LAND TRUST, FORBES R
ROGAN, FELICIA WARBURG TRUSTEE FOR
ROGAN, FELICIA WARBURG TRUSTEE FOR
ROSS, JAMES S OR RUTH H
RUBIN, LARA ROSS & MAIA AYERS RUBIN
RUBIN, LARA ROSS, MAiA AYERS RUBIN
RUSSELL, GERTRUDE P
RUSSELL, GERTRUDE P
RUSSELL, GERTRUDE P
SAMUELS, JOSEPH T JR OR CONSTANCE
Tuesday, January 18, 2000
Page 6 of 8
Owner Name
SAMUELS, JOSEPH T JR OR CONSTANCE
SAiVIUELS, JOSEPH T JR OR CONSTANCE
SAMUEL.S, JOSEPH T JR OR CONSTANCE
SA.MUELS, JOSEPH T JR OR CONSTANCE
SARAH P HENDLE. Y TRUST, SARAH P
SHERMAN, WILLIAM H OR NICOLE M
SLEZAK, DAVID OR
SMITH, GEORGE F OR ERLYNE H
SMITH, STOCKTON N OR SALLIES
SMITH, STOCKTON N OR SALLIES
SOUDER, SUSAN DENT
SUMMERS, PAUL D JR
SUMMERS, PAUL D JR
SUMMERS, PAUL D JR & JILL
SUMMERS, PAUL D JR OR JILL F
SUTER, CARY G & ANNA DEANE
SWIFT, PdCHARD P OR TERI A
THE FARM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
THIMBLE FARM LAND TRUST I; AVERY
THIMBLE FARM LAND TRUST II, AVERY
THIMBLE FARM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
THIMBLE FARM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
THIMBLE FARM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
THIMBLE FARM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
THOMPSON ROAD LAND TRUST;
TREVILLIAN, WILLIAM B JR &
VALMARANA, FRANCESCO A DI OR
VIA, HAROLD A JR OR ANN M
VIA, HAROLD A JR OR ANN M
VIA, HAROLD A JR OR ANN MAY
Tuesday, January 18, 2000 Page 7 of 8
Owner Name
WARD, PAUL WRIGHT
WELBORN, JOHN L OR AUDRIANNE L' '
WELLS, LESLIE D & REGINA W WELLS
WELLS, SAMUEL B & ROBERTA M
WELLS, SAMUEL L
WEST, OLIN OR KATHERINE KANE
WEST, OLIN OR KATHERINE KANE
WHITCHER, HESTER H
WHITLEY, JOSEPH V & CAROLE E
WHITLEY, JOSEPH V & CAROLE E
WH[TLEY, JOSEPH V & CAROLE E
WILLOWBROOK LAND TRUST; JOHN W
WILLOWBROOK LAND TRUST; JOHN W
WINDSOCK LAND TRUST; FORBES R
WOOD, BERTA F EXECUTOR & FIDELITY
WOODARD, ROBERT M OR LEE L
Tuesday, January 18, 2000 ' Page 8 of 8
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
March 24, 200'0
AYES, BRENDA JEAN C/O BRENDA SPROUSE
AYRES, LINWOOD W OR PAMELA P
CHISHOLM, MARY JANE TRUSTEE HEYWARD, JAMES H
HUCKLE, JOHN J & JACQUELINE N
LORD, J STEPHEN
MALLEK, LEO OR ANN H
SAN, D C TRUSTEE OF THE D C SAN REVOCABLE TRUST
SPROUSE, BRENDA A & LINWOOD W AYRES
YALDEN-THOMSON, BARBARA
RE: Review of Jacob's Run AgriculturaFForestal District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to notify you, as a property owner in the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District, that the
Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21, 2000, unanimously recommended
to the Board of Supervisors that the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District be continued, and further
recommended that the time period for the district be modified from 6 years to 10 years.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on
April 19, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building.
Please contact me, in writing, by April 10 if you have any comments or concerns regarding modifying the
time period of the district from 6years to lOyears. Please note that if written objection to the change in
time period is not received by the above-noted date, staff will assume that you are in agreement to this
change.
Sincerely,
Chief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
April 1, 2000
David Benish
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
410 Mclntire Rd, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Benish,
I would like to withdraw from the Jacob's Run district. From the first letter that I received
to the most recent, it appears that most people have also withdrawn. Also, I don't see
any of my neighbors names copied on the list. I am new to the area and have tried to
find out more about what it means to be in the district, but have been unsuccessful.
Regardless, I don't think I care to be tied to a "district" for an extended period of time
(6 - 10 years). Especially since I am unclear as to the implications. I assume it all .has
something to do with limiting development in the area. I am very much in support of
keeping the area rural. That is specifically. why I purchased property here. But being
tied to a "district" doesn't seem to be necessary for me to express my support on this
issue. Therefore, please remove me from participating in the Jacob's Run district.
Thank-you,
D. C. San (D. C. San Revocable Trust)
5286 Markwood Rd.
Earlysville, VA 22936'
(804) 982-0155
RECEIVED
APR 0 4 2000
PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT
April l0,2000
Dan and Ellen Huddy
P. O. Box 123
Batesville, VA 22924
County of Albemarle
Department of planning
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902 - 4596
Attn: David Benish
RE: Parcel #08500-00-00-003B0 / 38.15 acres.
Dear Mr. Benish;
We are contacting you in regards to the Batesville Agriculmral/Forestal District, of which
our property has been a part for the past ten years. It is our decision to withdraw our
property from this district before your review date of May 2, 2000: please do not
include us in the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District for the additional ten years.
If any questions, please call us: 456-8283.
Sincerely,
EllenHuddy
Dan Huddy
RECEIVED
pLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Draft: 04/12/00
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
' BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained by
amending Section 3-207, Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 3-211, Chalk
Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 3-218, Jacob's Run Agricultural and
Forestal District, and Section 3-222, Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District, as
follows:
ARTICLE H. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-207 Batesvi!ie Agricultural and Forestai District.
The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 70, parcels40;, 40A (9mt); tax map 71, parcels 23A,
23C, 23C1, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3A
(part), ~ 4I, 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This district, created on
May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000, shall next be
reviewed prior to May 2, 2000 2010.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 3-211 Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 97, parcels 21, 21A, 21B, 22; tax map 98, parcels
11, 12, 13, 14; tax map 99, parcel 30. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more
than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6,
2009.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(r); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99)
See. 3-218 Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 18, parera ,10, ,10F; tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax
map 20, parcel 7A; tax map 31, parcels 8, 16, 16B, 23 (part), 23D (part), 44C, 45 (-pro)-, 45B,
45C. This district, created on January 6, 1988 for not more than 6 years, and last reviewed on
March 2, 199'1, shall next bc reviewed prior to March 2, 2000 ,since amended to continue for not
Draft: 04/12/00
more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19. 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to January
6. 2010.
(3-2-94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(i); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestai District.
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" consists
of the following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28,
parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 11, 12, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 30, 30A, 30B
32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C,
7B, 8, 8B, BE, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67,
67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 70H, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 73B, 74A, 76,
77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1, 80, 84; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A,
1BE; tax map 41, parcels 8. 8B. 8C. 8D. 9E, 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 67, 67B,
68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 8, 8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1,
37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43, 43A, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map
43, parcels 1, 1B, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18C, 18EA, 18F,
18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 21A, 23A, 23D, 24, 15A, 25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 30B,
30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, 33D, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45A, 45C, 45D, 58; tax map 44,,
parcels 1, 2, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31~ 31A, 31A1,
31D, 31F, 31G, 32G, 32G1; tax map 59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This district,
created on December 17, 1986 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on December 21,
1994, shall be next reviewed prior to December 21, 2004.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4),
5-12-99)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
__ to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Dorrier
Mr. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
2
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
David Benish
March 21, 20000
April 19, 2000
REVIEW OF THE BATESVILLE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
REVIEW OF THE JACOB'S RUN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
ADDITION TO MOORMAN'S RIVER AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
ADDITION TO,CHALK MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Procedure: In conducting a review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of the local Advisory
Committee and the Planning Commission in order to determine whether to terminate, modify, or continue the
district.
The Board may stipulate conditions to continue the district and may establish a period before the next review of
the district, which may be different from the conditions or period established when the district was created. Any
such different conditions or period must be described in a notice to landowners in the district, and published in a
newspaper at least two weeks prior to adoption of the ordinance continuing the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board of Supervisors, the district shall continue as originally
constituted, with the same conditions and period before the next review (10 years) as were established when the
district was created.
When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner' s discretion by filing a
written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate
the district.
Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to encourage the
development and improvement of the Commonwealth' s agricuitural/forestal lands for the production of food and
other agricultural and foresial products..." and "to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued
natural and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection,
wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes."
Factors to Consider:
The following factors must be considered by the Advisory Committee and at any public hearing when a proposed
district is being considered:
The agricultural and forestal significance of land within the district and in areas adjacent thereto;
The presence of any significant agricultural lands or significant forestal lands within the district and in
areas adjacent thereto that are not now in active agricultural of forestal production;
The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district and in areas
adjacent thereto;
4. Local development patterns and needs;
5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations;
6. The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district for agricultural and forestal uses; and
7. Any other matters which may be relevant.
Effects of a District:
The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting farmlands and forest;
environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open space, and wildlife habitat; and scenic and
historic resources.
The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and restrictions on public
utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local nuisance laws) to protect the
agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the landowner agrees not to develop the property to a
"more intensive use" during the specified number of years the district is in effect.
*Since Albemarle County currently permits all four categories of use value assessment, a district
designation may not provide any additional real estate tax deductions. Land in a district is
protected from special utility assessments or taxes.
The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use planning decisions,
administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district shall take into
account the existence of such district and the purposes of this chapter." The district may have no effect
on adjacent development by right, but could restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit
which are determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must now be
shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the district are
making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future,- and that they
would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent property owners may be
encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
2
REVIEW OF THE BATESVILLE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Batesville District was created on May 2, .1990 for a time period often years.
Location: The Batesville District is generally located to the west of and south of Batesville on State Routes 635,
636, 637,and 692.
Acreage: The original acreage for the Batesville District contains 915.93 acres in 23 parcels. One property owner
is requesting withdrawing from the District. Ms. Mildred Kennedy is withdrawing a parcel consisting of 50.12
acres (tax map 70, parcel 40). The reason for withdrawal is so she can subdivide the property for a relative. The
new parcel would be less than21 acres and it would not qualify as a family division: With' this withdrawal there
will be a total of 865.81 acres in the District.
Time Period: The time period for the District is ten years, which was established when the District was Created.
The review date is May 2, 2000.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed district is being used for forestry, pasture, hay, and
horticulture.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value assessment program is a good indicator
of the actual use of the property. The vast majority of acreage within the Batesville District is used for forestry
and agriculture (618 acres in forestry; 103 acres in agriculture; 9 acres in horticultural use, with the withdrawal).
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There are fourteen dwellings in the District, or one dwelling per 58
acres. There are at least four historic homes, all dating from the nineteenth century. The Batesville National
Register Historic District is located adjacent to this District.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: The District includes large rural properties as well as smaller acreages,
some of which are in the Batesville village. Batesville is located within the South Fork Rivanna reservoir
watershed.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Batesville District is located within the Rural Area of the
Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area is Crozet, approximately 3
miles distant. Because Batesville is located within the South Fork Rivanna reservoir watershed, it is not
designated as a Development Area.
A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the
four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal
activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A strategy is, "Actively promote
and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts...." (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets
Chapter)
The Open Space Plan shows this area designated as important farmlands and forests.
Environmental Benefits: This District lies within the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir watershed.
Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground
and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space.
Staff Recommendation: This area is rich in agricultural, foresial, and open space resources. Staff recommends
continuation of the Batesville District for a ten year time period.
Agricultural/Forestal Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommended continuing the Batesville
District with the withdrawal of the 50.12 acre parcel to allow the 10 acre subdivision. The time period would be
ten years.
REVIEW OF THE JACOB'S RUN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District was created on January 6, 1988 for a time period of four years.
The District was reviewed in 1994, with the time period changed to six years. One parcel of 107.73 acres was
withdrawn from 'the District in April of 1996.
Location: The Jacob's Run District consists of a core area located on both sides of Route 743
Acreage: The Jacob's Run District contains 1,017.256.
Time Period: The time period for the district is six years, which was established when the District was last
reviewed in 1994. The review date is May 2, 2000.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the district is being used for hay, pasture, and forest,
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value assessment program is a good indicator
of the actual use of the property. Of the 1,017 acres in the District, 748 acres are in the use value program (192
not in the program). Approximately 417 acres are enrolled in agriculture and 331 acres in forestry. Thirty-seven
· acres are non-qualifying.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry.: The are 13 dwellings in the Jacob's Run District.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: The area surrounding the Jacob,s Run District contains a combination of
farms and residential development. Many subdivisions in the area were developed prior to the adoption of the RA
zoning district. Other areas, notably the Earlysville Forest subdivision, were developed within the area formerly
designation as the Earlysville Village Development Area.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Jacob's Run District is located within the Rural Area of the
Comprehensive Plan and all land in the district are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area is
Hollymead, a distance of approximately one mile to the east. The Earlysville Village was deleted from the 1996
Land Use Plan. This area is now shown as Rural Area in the Land Use Plan.
A ComprehensiVe Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the
four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal
activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A strategy is, "Actively promote
and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts .... "(Natural Resources and Cultural Assets
Chapter)
The Open Space Plan shows this area designated as important farmlands and forests.
Environmental Benefits: Properties within this District lie within either the South Fork Rivanna River
watersupply watershed or the Chris Greene Lake watershed, which is a back-up water supply. Conservation of
this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface
water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space.
Staff Recommendation: This area is rich in open space resources. Staff recommends continuation of the Jacob's
Run District for a six year time period.
Agricultural/Forestal Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommended continuing the Jacob's Run
District, extending the time period to ten years.
ADDITION TO MOORMAN'S RIVER DISTRICT:
The Moorman's River Distrietwas created on December 17, 1986. Additions occurred on September 7, 1988,
January 4, 1989, May 2, 1990, and April 14, 1993. This District was reviewed and on December 21, 1994, and
continued for ten years. Additions also occurred on April 12, 1995, August 9, 1995, and May 12, 1999.
Location: The Moorman's River District is located in the vicinity of White Hall, Owensville, Millingon and Free
Union. This proposed addition is located approximately one mile south of White Hall, on the west side of
Brown' s Gap Turnpike (Route 680).
Acreage: The Moorman's River District contains 10,732.102 acres in 215 parcels. The proposed addition
contains 81.45 acres in four parcels.
Time Period: The proposed time period for the addition is the same time period established when the District was
reviewed, or ten years from December 21, 1994.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed addition is cropland and forest.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value assessment program is a good indicator
of the actual use of the property. A total of 80.45 acres are enrolled in the use value program, 60 acres under
agriculture and 20.45 under forestry, with the remaining acre for a dwelling.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There is one dwelling on the parcel.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: The Moorman's River area has many large farms as well as scattered
dwellings
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Moorman's River District and the proposed addition are
located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest
Development Area to this proposed addition is Crozet, located just over one mile south of the property.
A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the
four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and foresial
activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A strategy is, "Actively promote
and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts...." (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets
Chapter)
The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands and forests.
Environmental Benefits: The proposed addition lies in the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir watershed (and
drains to the Beaver Creek reservoir). Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the
County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the historic
landscape, and open space.
Staff Recommendation:. Staff recommends approval of the addition to the Moorman's River District as proposed.
AgriculturaFForestal Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommended approval of the addition to
Moorman's River for the ten year time period of the District (review date December 21, 2004).
ADDITION TO CHALK MOUNTAIN DISTRICT:
Location: The Chalk Mountain District is generally. located west of Monacan Trail Road (Route 29 South) south
of Sutherland Road (Route 697), near North Garden, and east of Hungrytown Road (State Route 698). Part oft he
District is located east of Monacan Trail Road (Route 29 South), off Rabbit Valley Roadl (State Route 767).
Acreage: The Chalk Mountain District contains 1,238.145 acres in 8 parcels. The proposed addition contains
48.06 acres in one parcel (tax map 98, parcel 11). .
Time Period: The time period for the District is ten years, which was established when the District was created.
The review date is September 6, 2009.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed addition is being used for forestry.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value taxation program is a good indication of
the actual use of the property. Forty-seven (47) acres of the 48-acre parcel is in the use value program (forestry).
The remaining acre is for a dwelling.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There is one dwelling on the property.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: The area surrounding the Chalk Mountain District is very rural with
scattered dwellings. The area east of Route 29 is adjacent to some smaller parcels in the vicinity of Crossroads.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Chalk Mountain District is located within the Rural Area of
the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Areas are Crozet and the
Urban Area, both approximately 8 miles distant.
A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the
four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal
activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A strategy is, "Actively promote
and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts...." (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets
Chapter) ,
The Open Space Plan shows this area designated as important farmlands and forests. The District includes Chalk
Mountain and Mill Mountain, which are designated for protection above the 1000-foot contour; and Cook
Mountain designated above the 900-foot contour. The South Fork Hardware River, a major stream valley,
originates in this District. Route 29 South is a designated Entrance Corridor.
Environmental Benefits: This District lies within the Hardware River watershed. Conservation of this area
maintains the environmental integrityof the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
wildlife habitat, critical slopes, and open space.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the addition to the Carter's Bridge District as proposed.
Agricultural/Forestal Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommended approval of the addition to
the Chalk Mountain District for the ten year time period of the District (review date September 6,
20009). '
6
Agricuitural/Forestal District Advisory Committee Minutes
February 28, 2000
The AgriculturaFForestal Districts Advisory Committee met on Monday, February 28, 2000, at
7:30 p.m., Department of planning & Community Development Conference Room. Those
members attending were Joe Jones, Bruce Hogue, David vanRoijen, Rosemary Dent, Sherry
Buttrick, Jacquelyn Huckle, and Walter F. Perkins. Staff members present were David B.
Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development, Gordon Yager, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Bruce Woodzell, County Assessor.
A quorum was established and the meeting called to order.
Addition to Chalk Mountain AgriculturaFForestal District - Located west of Monacan Trail
Road (Rt. 29S), south of Sutherland Road (Rt. 697), near North Garden, and east of Hungrytown
Road (St. Rt. 698), Part of the district is located east of Monacan Trail Road (Rt. 29S), off
Rabbit Valley Road (St. Rt. 767).
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the time period for this district is ten years.
Most of the property is being used for forestry. Forty-seven acres is in the use value program for
forestry. Soil information on the two additions was provided.
Mr. Yager noted that the property is located on Rt. 295 and is mostly forestland.
Mr. vanRoijen ascertained that adjacent landowners were notified of this proposed addition and
the opportunity for them to join the District at this time.
Mr. Hogue moved for approval of the addition to the Chalk Mountain District for a ten year time
period. The review date would be September 6, 2009.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Addition to Moorman's River A~riculturalfForestal District - Located in the vicinity of
White Hall, Owensville, Millington and Free Union. The proposed addition is located
approximately one mile south of White Hall, on the west side of Brown's Gap Turnpike (Rt.
680).
Mr. Yager noted that the property is located on the west side of Rt. 680. As far as agricultural is
concerned, this is a farm has been used extensively for crop, hay and pasture. This property
would be a good addition to the district.
Ms. Buttrick ascertained that only the 81.45 acre addition is being reviewed at this time, not the
entire district.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the proposed addition is for 8 i .45 acres. The
proposed time period for the district is ten years. The review date would be December 2004.
Ms. Buttrick moved for approval of the addition to Moorman's River for a ten year time period.
The review date would be December, 2004. He pointed out that there is one dwelling on site.
This area is shown in the Open Space Plan as having important farmlands and forests.
Mr. vanRoijen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously:
Review of the Batesvi!!e A~riculturaFForestal District - Located to the west of and south of
Batesville on State Routes 635,636, 637, and 692.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the original acreage for the Batesville District is
915.93 acres in 23 parcels. One property owner, Ms. Mildred Kennedy, is requesting to
withdraw a parcel consisting of 50.12 acres. The reason for the withdrawal is so she can
subdivide the property for a relative. The intended subdivision would be less than 21 acres and
would not qualify as a family division. With the withdrawal there will be a total of 865.81 acres
in the District. The time period for this district is ten years. The review date is May 2, 2000.
There are 14 dwellings in the district, or one dwelling per 58 acres.
Mr. vanRoijen asked if the entire parcel needs to be withdrawn from the district.
Ms. Kennedy replied that she would like to withdraw ten acres, which would be given to her
nephew.
Mr. vanRoijen suggested that the 50.12 acre parcel be removed from the district, which would
allow for the subdivision of the ten acre parcel. Once this has been done, both Ms~ Kennedy and
her nephew could rejoin the district.
Ms. Pugh stated that it was 'her understanding that once you withdrawn from the district you
could not rejoin, noting that she had a two acre parcel.
Ms. Buttrick stated that there is a minimum parcel size for land use assessment, but not for
agricultural/forestal property.
Ms. Kennedy stated that she would like to subdivide this property as soon as possible and would
like to rejoin the district for the next ten year review period. '
Mr. Benish ascertained that the property has not been surveyed.
Ms. Kennedy stated that here surveyor stated that surveying the property could be done within a
reasonable time period.
Mr. Benish suggested that the committee accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of the
50.12 acre parcel. He noted that staff will work with the applicant regarding rejoining the
district.
Mr. vanRoijen asked if the entire parcel had to be withdrawn, questioning whether part of a
parcel could be .withdrawn.
Ms. Butttick stated that for the purpose of making the division, it would probably be easier to
remove the entire parcel and then rejoin the district once the division is made.
Mr. Benish noted that the subdivision can not occur while the property is in an
agricultural/forestal district. He stated that he did not feel there was enough time to submit a
subdivision plat prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Jones asked if there were any guidelines regarding the acceptance of small acreages,
pointing out that Ms. Pugh would like to put her 2 acre parcel back into the district.
Mr. vanRoijen stated that he felt Ms. Pugh could add her 2 acre parcel back into the district.
Ms. Buttrick moved for continuance of the District with the withdrawal of the 50.12 acre parcel
to allow the 10 acre subdivision. Once the subdivision is complete the property would be added
back into the district. The time period would be ten years. The review date would be May 2,
2000.
Mr. Hogue seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Review of Jacob's Run A~ricultural/Forestal District - Located on both sides of Rt. 743 and
contains 1,017.256 acres.
Mr. vanRoijen questioned the four year review period.
Mr. Benish noted that the time period for the district is now six years. He pointed out that a
request has been received from John Divine requesting the withdrawal of Tax Map 18, Parcel 40.
The property is in the southwest comer of the intersection of Rt. 664 and Rt. 665. Planning
Department files indicates that this property has already been withdrawn. Susan Coughlin
requested a withdrawal in 1996. There is no documentation that this property was ever been
withdrawn.
Mr. vanRoijen asked if this could be withdrawn administratively by staff.
Ms. Buttrick stated that during the review process you can withdrawn by right. In the case of a
death, staff could administratively withdraw the property.
Mr. Benish stated that a death is one of the primary basis for withdrawal from a district, but
pointed out that he felt this had to be approved by this Committee.
Ms. Huckle asked if this property was under the land use program.
Mr. Woodzell replied that this property does not qualify for the land use program.
Mr. Benish noted that there is a property owner that appears to be interested in joining the
district. This would be three parcels and approximately 57 acres. He noted that there was some
concern on the part of the property owner regarding the ability of renting a dwelling to a family
member.
Mr. vanRoijen noted that the concept of an agricultural/forestal district is for the landowners as
well as a planing tool for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He pointed
out that a ten year review period would be beneficial in that the area would be subject to less
change.
Mr. Benish pointed out that extending the review period to ten years would have to be agreed to
by all property owners within the district.
Ms. Malleck asked if extending the time period would have to be agreed to by adjoining property
owners as well.
Mr. Benish stated that adjoining property owners did not have time to agree. The property
owners within the District could be notified of the time period extension, from 6 years to 10
years, and if there is not objection this could be presented to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Jones suggested that the withdrawal request from Mr. Divine could be handled
administratively.
Mr. Benish noted that final action has to be taken by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Jones moved for continuation of the Jacob's Run District, extending the time period to ten
years.
Mr. vanRoijen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0 with Ms. Huckle abstaining.
Miscellaneous:
Mr. Jones asked if guidelines could be provided explaining the difference between commercial
versus non-commercial.
Iw Methodist Church. CFW "Tree Ton" Cellular Tower - Mr. Benish stated that the Board
in their decision approving the Ivy Methodist CFW tower, stated that in certain circumstances
there may be some uses that would be advantageous to supporting agriculture and forest lands. It
would generate supplemental income to property owners and that the tower location had no
significant impact to the district. The Board instructed staff to consider working with this
Committee in providing standards that would provide a basis for determining appropriate types
of uses for agricultural/forestal districts.
Panorama Cell Tower Pronosal - Mr. Benish noted that more information needs to be
provided and forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals for review of the setbacks. He noted
that the tower will not be lit, it is a wooden pole and is 10-20 feet above the tree line.
Mr. Jones asked if this use would enhance the district. Again, he suggested that guidelines be
provided.
Mr. vanRoijen stated that this use does not encourage agricultural uses.
Mr. Benish stated that this would be a high priority and would be part of the rural area discussion
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Huckle questioned why this was being presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Benish noted that a waiver of the setback requirements is being requested.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Recorded and transcribed by Janice C. Farrar, Department of Planning & Community
Development Assistant
T'
[-.
0
0 ccj ~
,,, y---,,,_.__
")AT-'SVILL-- INSERT
S~CTION 95~
/,.,
I
SECTION 84 ....................................
S.4mMUEL MILLER 01STRfCT
)
/
-/
'; / ,
SECTION
~,-
./
./
Jacob's Run Ag/For District \
!
· /
'\
..
TMP
41-8
41 o8B
41-8C
41 o8D
Total
REQUESTED ADDITION TO MOORMAN'S RIVER DISTRICT
TOTAL
ACREAGE AG FOR
9,91 9.91 0
40.7 30.61 10.09
22,36 11 10.36
8.48 8.48 0
USE VALUE ACREAGE
HORT NQ
0
0
0
0
Owner Dwellings
0 William Looney 0
0 William Looney 0
I William Looney 1
0 William Looney 0
81.45 60 20.45
0 I 1
35
34
31STRICT
WHITE HALL DfST,q
..%
!
680
,o ot,5'
Z
Z
0
Z
Z
U.~
n-
LU
Z
0
"~Ooo
On,',
I.-U
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
One-Time June Tax Collection Options
AGENDA DATE:
April 19, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Options on the use and/or return of the June one-time split
billing collection.
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, White, Davis, Breeden
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Based on the June collection of revenue for calendar year 2000 and the potential $1.2 million in one-time revenue the County
would receive in FY2000, staff has prepared suggestions for the usage and/or a future tax rate adjustment for the one-time
June revenue collection.
DISCUSSION:
Staff was asked to determine if a refund of the one-time split billing collection of $1.2 million dollars could be made to the
taxpayers this year. Unfortunately there is no authority in the State Code to refund money to taxpayers, nor is there any
authority to adjust the calendar year tax rate that was set at the April 12th meeting. Originally, we thought that the tax rate
could be adjusted for the second half of the year, i.e. the December collection, but a1996 State Code amendment prohibits
changing the tax rate within a tax year once the land book has been finalized and implemented.
The only option available to the Board to effect a return of the $1.2 million to the taxpayers would be to propose a $0.01 cent
tax reduction when setting the tax rate next April for calendar year 2001 on which the FY02 budget is based. This reduction
to refund one-time money, however, would have an ongoing effect on the budget and reduce available funds to address future
capital needs unless the tax increase was restored in the following year. If the $0.02 tax increase intended to fund a capital
reserve fund is reduced by $0.01 on a continuing basis, the borrowing capacity for future bonded capital projects would be
reduced from $20 million to approximately $10 million.
If the Board determines that returning the one-time monies was the best option, then the tax rate could be set for one year
at $ 0.75, which would reduce the annual tax burden on taxpayers by $1 ~2 million dollars, based on calendar year 2000
assessment values. However, due to the same split billing process that created the $1.2 million dollar windfall in FY00, a
reduction of the calendar year 2001 tax rate would also reduce the June 2001 collection by approximately $645,000. Since
the calendar year 2001 tax rate impacts the FY01 June collection due to split billing, the County would incur a projected
shortfall for FY01. However, the one-time revenue collection from this June's tax billing could be held in reserve to offset that
shortfall.
Plans to Use the $1.2 Million One-Time Revenue Collection for Capital Needs:
Staff had intended to use the one-time June revenue collection to address the capital needs facing the County, although
specific projects had not been identified pending the upcoming analysis and recommendations from the financial consultants
for our long-term capital financing plan. As you know, the County adopted the FY01-FY05 Capital Improvement Plan with
$24 million dollars in unfunded projects, $14.8 million for the school division and $8.7 million for general government. The $1.2
million could be used to address some of those needs either through one-time payments or by paying off principal and reducing
the debt service on either school or general government projects. By avoiding the need to borrow funds, the County would
save approximately $900,000 in interest 'payments over a twenty-year bond period by using the $1.2 million dollars for one-time
funding.
As you also know, the County is currently looking at the possibility of purchasing three different potential school sites and the
$1.2 million one-time revenues could be used to purchase land for one of the future school sites. Funds requested by the
School Board to landbank land for a Southern Elementary School are not funded in the FY01-FY05 CIP.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA TITLE:
One-Time June Tax Collection Options
April 19, 2000
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
This information is provided for the Board's discussion and consideration. Staffs recommendation is to direct the County
Executive to set aside the $1.2 million in a reserve fund to be held until next April when the Board must consider the tax rate
for the calendar year 2001 in the FY02 budget process. The reserve funds would be used to offset the potential budget shortfall
in FY01 should the Board wish to consider a tax rate reduction at that time for calendar year 2001 and budget year 2002.
00.078
To: em ers, Board of Supervisors ~ C~ """'
Date: April 14, 2000
November 3, 1999
· November 18 (A), 1999
January 5, 2000
February 2, 2000
February 9, 2000
February 16, 2000
Mr. Martin
- Ms. Thomas
pages 16 (Item # 14a) - end - Ms. Humphris
pages 18 (Item #9) - end - Ms. Thomas
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
/ewc
RESOLUTION
Wltl~,REAS, on September 16, 1998, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the
"Board") exercised its legislative authority and denied 360 Communications Company' s ("360
Communications") application for a special use permit C'SP 98-03") to erect a one-hundred foot
tower on the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain, and denied 360 Communications' request for a site
plan waive~ and a modification of Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.-1 (the "Board's decision"); and
WItEREAS, 360 Communications brought an action in the United States District Court
alleging that the Board's decision violated the Telecommunications Act; and
Wlt'EREAS, on May 19, 1999, the United States District Court adjudged that the
Board's decision violated the Telecommunications Act and ordered that the Board grant SP 98-
03 and all other necessary approvals within 45 days of May 19, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Board complied with the United States District Court' s order, under
protest, in a Resolution adopted June 16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court and held that the Board's
decision did not violate the Telecommunications Act.
NOW, TItEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Board's court-ordered approval of
SP 98-03, the site plan waiver and modification of Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 on June 16,
1999 is revoked.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board's decision of September 16, 1998
denying SP 98-03, the site plan waiver, and the modification of Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1, is
reinstated.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 6 to 0, as
recorded below, at a meeting held on April 19, 200~ ...... ~
Boa;d of County Supervis s
Aye Nay ~
Mr. Bowerman x
Mr. Dorrier x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Humphris x
Mr. Martin x
Ms. Thomas x
David R Bowerman
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Sc~ttsville
' Charlotte Y. Humphris
,lac~ Jouett
COUNTY OF AI_BEMA~I F-
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntim Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
April 19, 2000
Mr. Willie R. Taylor, Director
Office of'Environmental Policy and Compliance
Department of the Interior .
Main Street Building, MS 2340
1849 C Street,. N.W..
Washington, D.C. 20240
Charles S. Mar'dn
Walter E Perkins
White Haft
SaJl!~ H. Thomas.
Re: · RL 29 Bypass Section 460 Evaluation of Albemarle County School Complex
Dear Mr'. Taylor:
Thank you for your response to Mr. Roberio Fonseca-Marfinez dated June 13, 2000
regarding the 4(f) Evaluation for the Albemarle County School Complex, Route 29 Bypass,
Albemarle County, Virginia.. We appreciate your position that the Department of Interior will
continue to oppose this project until there is a written agreement between the County and the
Federal Highway 'Department CFHWA") addressing project altematives, impacts and mitigation
to the Sch6ol Complex.
Contrary to the response you received from Mr. Sundra of the Federal Highway
Administration, dated March 7, 2000, there has been no attempt to address the many issues
raised by the County regarding the project. We take issue with many of the statements set forth
in the letter. However, most significantly there has been no effort by FHWA officials to meet
with County officials regarding the project since November, 1998.
Enclosed is a copy of an affidavit of the County Executive addressing misstatements of
facts by FHWA officials and a letter of the County Attorney providing the County's initial
response to the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. We would appreciate your continued support of
the County's efforts to address the many concerns that continue to exist in regard to this project.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
Enclosures
Printed on recycled paper
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T~E
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division
THE PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL,
et al.
UNITED STATES DEPAKTMENT OF
)
)
)
) Civil No. 98-0004-C
)
)
TRANSPORTATION, et al. )
DECLARATIONOF ROBERT W~ TUCKER, JR.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
'Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; declares and says under penalty of perjury as follows:
I am the County Executive of Albemarle County, Virginia. I have held this
position since January, 1991.
2. As County Executive I am the chief administrative officer of the County.
3. . The presence of the trails and County schools impacted by the Route 29,
Charlottesville Bypass Project and their use as'pUblic recreational faci/ities has been an Open and
obvious fact. Such would have been easily identified by the Virginia Department of ~
Transportation (VDOT) if it had properly conducted· an environmental assessment and had
performed a field observation of the County' school properties.
4. A letter dated October 20, 1998 from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) directed to David Benish was received by the Department of PIanning and Community
Development on October 23, 1998. The letter requested mapping of the trails located behind
Jack Jouett Middle School. The County did not possess such mapping. On November 17, 1998
Mr. Benish met with the VDOT project consultant and provided him all available information
that was 'requested.
5. On February 22, 1999, Charles Martin, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors,
Richard Huff, Deputy County Executive, and Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development each received a letter from VDOT dated February 18, 1999 and a copy
of the Section 4(I) Evaluatiojl for the trails located at Jack Jouett ,Middle School. The letter
requested that written COmmentS regarding the Section 4(1) Evaluatitn be provided within a'45-
day review period specified in the letter to expire "on or about April 19, 1999." The County
Attorney provided a detailed cotrdinated response'on behalf of the county on April 16, 1999. If
the Section 4(1) Evaluation was completed on November 17, 1998 as declared by Mr. Fonseca-
Martinez in his swom declaration dated February I 0, 2000, it was inexplicably delayed in being
forwarded to the Co.unty until February 18, 1999, at which time the County made a timely review ·
and provided timely commentS. Copies of the February 18, 1999 VDOT correspondence are
attached-as Attachments A, B and C.
6. Since' the ApM:~I'6, 1999 filing of County commentS'oh"ixi' section 4(f)
Evaluation, neither FHWA nor VDOT officials have met or reque~ed to men with County
officials to discuss' project alternatives to address impactS and mitigation measures regarding
Section 4(f) resources relating to the County school properties recognized to be Section 4(f)
resources 'for purposes of the Ronte 29, Charlottesville Bypass Project. There has been no
request or attempt by either FHWA or VDOT officials to reach awriiten agreement with the
County concerning project a/tematives as requested by the United States Department of the
Interior in its response to the FHW'A's request for commentS on the revised Section 4(0
Evaluation. The County has not been given any oppommity to respond to any revised Section
4(f) Evaluation.
I, Robert W: Tucker, Jr., Albemarle County Executive, declare under penalty ofperjur~ and
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this da
Y
of March, 2000.
DAVID R. GEHR
cozvj: o Tz--z of WRQmIA'
EPARTMENT OF TRAN,~PORTATION -
14ol EA~BRQAD ~TRJEET
mC~NOND, 2321g-lg3g
February' 18, 1999
Tm~ at Ja~ Jouett M~ddle. School.
Sect/on 4{f) Evaluation
Federal No: NH-037(130}.
State No. 6029-002-F22,PEI01
Albema~e County, V~iginia '
Attachment A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
02-22-g gA10:39 RCVD
EARL T. ROBB
!~ONMENTALA~
· ~r, Chades Marfin
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
,Albemade County
401 Mclntfre Road ·
Charlottesville, V~rginia 22902
Dear Mr,
· Enclosed for your review and 'comment is a copy of th~ Section 4(f) Evaluation .for a trail located at JaCk
Jodett Middie Scholl in Albemade Cou. nty, The Route 29 Bypass under the current design would use a portion of this
'~i1: The presence of this trail was only recently brought to the attention of the Federal Highway Administration .
(FHWA) .and the Virginia Department of Transportation 0/DOt') after years of c~or~inafion and environmental and
design work, When the location
Section 4(f) to the trail and asked VDOT to coordinate with the Albemade County to determine its significance as a
recreational resource. Based on the results of this coordination, FHWA concluded that the trail, represented a
Section 4(f).msource.
Your t~mely and expeditious review of this Section 4(f) Evaluation is respecfiveJy requested. Please provide
us with any comments that you might have within the 45-day review C}effod, which wirl expire, on or about Apn'~
1999, If you have any questions, please contact Mr. J. Mark WR'tkofski at (804) 371-6887.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
By: .
Fad T. Robb
Environmental Administrator
· J, Mark Wittkofski '
Environmental Planner'
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
A~Cachmen~ B
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COM. MO ALTH of VIRC INIA I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-I 939
February 18; 1999
EARL 'r. ROBB
ENVIRONMEHTALADMINISTRATOR
Route 29 Bypass
Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School
Section 4(0 EvaluatiOn
Federal No. NH-037(130)
State No. 6029-002-F22,PEf01
'Albemafie County, Virginia
Mr. Richard Huff
Deputy CoUnty Executive'
Albemarle County
401`· Mctntire Road
Charlottesville, Virgin!a 22902
RFCE!vED
FEB 2 4 1999
PARKS & REC: DEPT.'
Dear Mr. Hu~ -
EnclOsed for your review and comment is a copy of the Section 4¢)'Evaluation for a ~il-located at Jack
JOuett Middle Scholl in Albemarle County. The Route 29 Bypass under fie Current design would use a pod/on of this
tin/!. 'The presence of this trail was only recentJy brought to the attention of the Federal Highway Administration..
(FHWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation O/DOT) after years of coordination. and environmental and
design work. When the location of the trail was brought to our attention, the FHWA reviewed 'the applicabil/ty of
Section 4d) to the trail and asked VDOT to coordinate with the Albemade County to determine its significance as .a .
recreational' resource.. Based on the results of this coordination, .FHWA concluded- that the trail represented a '
Section 4(f) resource. .,
Your t/mety and expeditious review of this Sect/on 4(0 Evaluation is respect/vety requested. Please provide
us with any comments that you might have within the a,5-day review'period, which will expire, on or about April 19,
1999. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. J. Mark Wi~ofski at (804) 371-6867.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
By:
Ead T. Robb
Environmental Administrator
J. Mark Wit~of'ski
Environmental Planner
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of V]TR QIN'IA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-1939
February 18, 1999
Route 29 Bypass
Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School
. Section 4¢) Evaluation ,
Federal No. NH-037(130)
State No. 6029-002-F22,PE101
Albemade County, Virginia
Attachmen= C
EARL T. ROBB
ENVIRONMENTALADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of P.!.ann/ng & Community Development
Albemarle Cbunty
401 Mctntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr, Ciliaberg;
Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the Section 4(0 Evaluation for a trail located at Jack
Jouett Middle Scholl in Albemade County. The Route 29 Bypass under the current design would use a portion of this
trail. :The presence of this trail was only recently brought to the attention of tfie Federal Highway; Administration
(FHWA) and the Virginia Department of TranspOrtation C/DOT} after years of coordination and environmental and
design work. When the location 'of the trail was' brought to our attention, the FHWA reviewed' the applicability of
Section 4'(f) to the tail and asked VDOT to coordinate with the Albemafie County to determine its significance as a
recreational resoume. Based on the results of this coordination, FHWA conclude~ that the trail represented a
Sectfort 4¢) resoume.
: Your timely and expeditious review of this Section 4(0 Evaluation is respectively requested. Please provide
us with any comments that you might have within the 45-day review pedod, which will expire, on or about Apdl 19,
1999. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. J. Mark Wittkofski .at (804) 371-6867.
Sincerely,
Encfosure
RECEIVED
Planning Dept.
WE K~I::::P VIRGINIA' MOVING
Ea~ T. Robb
Environmental Administrator
J. Mark Wittkofski
Environmental Planner
"LRJNTY OF ALBEMARL
l~r,' --r~ t'~ ?f-t ~
A ~ ~ N'E y 'S 0 F F/~J
lARRY W. DA~lS
cou'brrY A"R'ORNEY
PHONE (804) 972-4067
FAX (804) 972-4068
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
401 Mclnfire Road
Char|ottesvi]le, Virginia 22902-4596
DEPUTYCOUNTYATTORNEY
GREG KAMPTNER
KIMBERLY E. WOLOD
ASSISTANT COUNTY A'I'FORNS'S
Aprillg, 2000
Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Virginia Division
P.O. Box 10249
400 North 8th Street, Room 750
Richmond, VA 23240-0249
J. Mark Wittkofski
Environmental Planner
Virginia Department of Transportation.
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219-1939
Re: Section 4(I3 Evaluation for the Route 29 Bypass; Albemarle County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Fonseca-Martinez and Mr. Wittkofski:.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has received the Final Section 4(f)
Evaluation (the "Evaluation") for the Route 29 Bypass in Albemarle 'County and is extremely
disappointed with its analysis and findings. Because the Evaluation process has been nothing
more than aproforma exercise to support the Commonwealth Transportation Board's prior
selection of Alternative 10, the Board is not surprised that the Evaluation reaches the
predetermined result that Alternative 10 is the only prudent and feasible alternative under
Section 4(0. Although the Board will submit a more detailed response in the coming weeks, it
desires now to express its position that the Evaluation violates 49 U.S.C. § 303 and 23 C.F.R. §
771.135.
The Board regrets that the Evaluation failed to consider a range of meaningful
alternatives to Alternative 10. Instead, the Evaluation continues to rely on the alternatives
considered and rejected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, even though its analysis
and recommendation of Alternative 10 were based on the mistaken premise that Alternative 10
did not affect Section 4(f) property. In order for the Evaluation to be' meaningful and satisfy the
Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator
J. Mark Wittkofski
April 19, 2000
Page 2
rigorous requirements of Section 4(19, it was incumbent for a reasonable range of new
alternatives to be considered and evaluated. Otherwise, the Secretary is precluded from
engaging in a me .aningful and lawful exercise of his authority under Sections 4(19(1) and 4(f)(2).
· The Board is disturbed with the bias permeating the Evaluation in favor of Altemative
10. Most obviously, the actual and constructive use of the COunty School properties, and the
environmental impacts, costs and community disruption, arising from an alignment over
Altemative 10 is greatly minimized or ignored. (Evaluation, 41 ·-42) In contrast, the
enviromental impacts, costs and community disruption caused by other altematives are
discussed and form the basis for rejecting these alternatives. (Evaluation, 41-61) Indeed, other
alternatives having Section 4(19 property are rejected because of the constructive use of the
property, even though School Complex will be both actually and constmctively used. A fair,
reasoned analysis that recognizes that preserving Section 4(19 property is the paramount
consideration, is missing from the EValuation. Instead, the altematives are evaluated as though
they are all on equal footing. Given the biased manner in which the relevant facts have been
presented in the 'Evaluation, the Secretary was prevented from basing his decision on a
consideration of the relevant factors.
. The Board is also displeased that the Evaluation repeatedly blames County officials for
not identifying Section 4(19 property early in the process .- presumably because they failed to
expressly say "SeCtion 4(19."(See, e.g., Evaluation, 4) It is obvious that the purported
"discoVery" of the Section 4(19 property in 1998 has been problematic for VDOT, particularly
since the FEIS was appmved in 1993, the Commonwealth Transportation Board selected
Alternative 10 in 1995 (the Commonwealth Transportation Board selected Alternative 10as the
last phase of a three-phase project in 1990), and the Commonwealth Transportation Board
approved the major design features for Alternative 10 in 1997. The-requirements of Section 4(19
are not lessened or excused because Section 4(f) property was "discovered" within Altemative
10 after these other actions were taken. In fact, County officials began warning VDOT and its
environmental consultants as early as 1989 that proposed alternatives would impact school
property, pose environmental and safety concems, and take recreational areas from school sites.
(See, e.g. ,.Evaluation, Appendix B, letters from N. Andrew Overstreet, Albemarle County
School Division Superintendent, to VDOT and Sverdmp Corporation, dated July 5, 1989; letteF
from F.R. Bowie, Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, to John C. Milliken,
Commonwealth Transportation Board, dated December 18, 1991 .) In fact, VDOT's own staff
warned that impacts from Alternative 10 to County school properties would require Section 4(19
evaluation. (Letter from Loretta Cummings, Environmental Specialist, VDOT, to Earl Robb,
Environmental Engineer, VDOT, dated July 7, 1993; letter from Loretta Cummings,
Environmental Specialist, VDOT, to Patsy Napier, Project Manager, VDOT, dated November
16, 1994)
Yet, despite these early warnings that the Altemative 10 alignment was either taking or in
very close proximity to several Albemarle County Schools, and the very obvious fact that these
schools' playgrounds, ball fields and other features would either be actually or constmctively
Roberto 'Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator
J. Mark Wittkofski
April 19, 2000
' Page 3
used, the specter of Section 4(f) was not raised by VDOT until 1998. The failure t0identify
these properties as Section 4(f) property lies with VDOT and its consultants. They failed to
comply with their mandate to approach County officials in a timely manner to ascertain whether
the Route 29 Bypass alignments would impact possible Section 4(f) property and to exchange
meaningtiff information related to social, economic and environmental issues with the County at
the inception of the project. (See, 23 C.F.R. § 771.11 l(a), (h)(2); 23 C.F.R. § 771.135).
Finally, the Evaluation states that 65% percent of the final design has been completed and
80% 0fthe necessary fight-of-way has been acquired for Alternative 10. (Evaluation, 10)
Regrettably, this statement alone confirms the Board's fear that this Evaluation has been nothing
more than apost hoc rationalization for the selection of Altemative 10 ten years ago.
Sincerely,
Davis
County Attorney
CO.'
Cynthia Will~erson, National' Park Service
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Albemarle County Executive
Deborah Murray, Southem Environmental Law Center
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
April 11,2000
Kurt Gloeckner
2246 Ivy Road, Suite 5
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE:SP-99-74 Townwood Mobile Home Park; Tax Map 61, Parcel 8
Dear Mr. Gloeckner:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Approval for the addition of 25 units and the internal relocation of the existing units within
Townwood Mobile Home Park. If the owner satisfies the issues identified by the
Engineering Department (2/22/00 memo, Attachment J) and Planning Department
(including the location/design of recreational facilities and the relocation of lot 16) to the
satisfaction the Agent and County Engineer, then up to seven additional lots shall be
allowed (for a total of up to 32).
Modify Section 31.2.4.4 to allow development improvements to commence within two years
of special use permit approval. This development project shall be completed within two
years from commencement of improvements from such date. The phases and sub-phases
are outlined in the following chronological timeline:
1. Phase 1:
a,
Installation of necessary supporting infrastructure, which must include:
1. Installation of new water lines for domestic consumption;
2. Installation of the new water lines for fire safety (including two new
fire hydrants);
3. Installation of the new stormwater system; and,
4. Widening of the internal road.
Construction of the First 13 Lots (Lots 7, 9, 10, and 11 through 20) as
depicted on the application plan. No existing trailers are to be retocated
during Phase 1.
Installation of a park and recreation area more suitable for adults and/or
older children instead of a tot lot located in the rear of the site. The
do
applicant shall also provide a flat, grassed central open space in a
location to be determined with the review of the site plan.
Installation of Phase 1 landscaping, which includes compliance with the
tree preservation area located within the rear fifty-foot buffer. Street trees
a minimum of 50 feet apart as typically called for in the ordinance shall be
added along with screening along Rio Road. All trees should be a
minimum of 2" caliper. These additions are minimums and should not in
any way limit landscape treatment that the ARB might impose. If any
subsequent phases present a threat to landscaping shown in Phase 1, the
applicant can bond accordingly the landscaping that may need to be
established during other phases.
Phase 2:
Installation of a second entrance onto Greenbrier Drive that is in accord
with the application plan. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted
for the 14 unit until the second entrance is constructed.
Installation of a screening fence that must be entirely on the Townwood
Mobile Home Park property and must span the length of all developed lots
adjacent to Greenbrier Drive.
Installation of a screening fence that is entirely on the Townwood Mobile
Home Park property and must span the length of all developed lots along
the Four Seasons PUD property line.
Construction of Lots 6, 31, and 23 through 27, as it will not involve
realignment of any existing units.
Realignment of the existing units along Greenbrier Drive and within the
center of the Park's internal loop road to accommodate construction of
Lots 1 through 6 and Lot 8.
Construction of Lots 1 through 6 and Lot 8.
Installation of the second tot lot, fronting Rio Road West.
Installation of the final surfacing to the internal loop road.
Installation of Phase 2 landscaping. Landscaping shall include plantings
at the new second entrance and the new travelway, with major street trees
every 50 feet on both sides along this internal travelway, and street trees
approaching Greenbrier Drive. If any subsequent phases present a threat
to landscaping shown in Phase 2, the applicant can bond accordingly the
landscaping that may need to be established during other phases.
3. Phase 3:
Realignment of the remaining units that are located along the Four
Seasons PUD side of the subject parcel.
Construction of Lots 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, and 32.
Installation of all remaining landscaping.
No trees are to be removed within the rear fifty-foot buffer.
The applicant shall install a street light at the new second entrance onto Greenbrier
Drive.
Planning Commission Modifications of:
1. Section 5. 3.3. 1 to allow for the reduction in the 4,5000 square-feet area and
required 45-foot width for the 71 existing and realigned units.
2. Section 5.3.4. 1 as noted in Section 5.3.7.2.
3. Section 5.3.4.3 to allow for a reduction to 30 feet distant to two dumpsters for five
units. A screening fence must be installed around both dumpsters.
4. Section 5.3.4.4 to allow for the reduction of the 30-foot minimum distance
between the existing and realigned 71 units. Issuance of the Modification is
subject to Fire Official approval 2of the Final Site Plan.
10.
Section 5.3.5. 1 to allow for a reduction of the 50-foot setback for 12 existing and
realigned homes along Greenbrier Drive, but now less than 3 feet between the
homes and the property line.
Section 5.3.5.2 to allow twenty-one existing and realigned homes, along the Four
Seasons PUD property line, a reduction of the 50 foot setback as follows:
Between Rio Road and new lot 28,
a. Seven homes to 3 feet;
b. Two homes to 13 feet; and,
c. One home to 30 feet.
Between new Lot 21 and the bioretention pond,
a. · Eleven homes to 15 feet.
Section 5.3.5.3 to allow for 7 homes, of the existing and realigned 71 homes, a
reduction of the 15-foot setback to 5 feet from the internal private street.
Section 5.3.5.4 to waive the requirements for lot lines of the 71 existing and
realigned homes. Sheds and other storage structures may be constructed to a
common wall.
Sections 5.3.6 and 5.3.6. 1 to allow for a waiver of application plan requirements,
conditioned that the County approve both preliminary and final site plans before
any construction activity is permitted. Site plan approval will not be granted
unless adequate parking and outdoor living areas are provided on each existing,
realigned, and/or proposed lot.
Section 5.3. 7.2 to waive the requirements for all markers for the new, existing,
and realigned lots, conditioned that each mobile home be numbered and posted
accordingly to the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual
for E911 purposes.
Section 5.3.8. l to waive the required six recreational vehicle parking spaces in
the common area.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on April 19, 2000. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.'
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Bob Ball
Amelia McCulley
Steve AIIshouse
3